Renowned documentary photographer Tomas van Houtryve entered North Korea by posing as a businessman looking to open a chocolate factory. Despite 24-hour surveillance by North Korean minders, he took arresting photographs of Pyongyang and its people—images rarely captured and even more rarely distributed in the West. They show stark glimmers of everyday life in the world’s last gulag.
Go, here, to FP's web site to view the photos. A rare insight indeed!
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Obama: 100 days......and counting!
"Nobody feels like hanging out tinsel to mark Barack Obama's first 100 days – least of all the President himself. After the cheering crowds in Grant Park and the choked-up crowds on Inauguration Day went home, he has been left with a depression, a slew of wars, and an unravelling climate. Mario Cuomo, the former mayor of New York, said politicians "campaign in poetry, but govern in prose" – and Obama has had to hit the prose hard. So now George W Bush has been dispatched to torture only the English language, has change come to America?"
So begins a piece "To be the new FDR he must stick to his ideal" by Johann Hari in The Independent.
Hari undertakes an analysis of the pluses and minuses of Obama's 100 days in office. It's not all the hype might suggest.
As Hari says:
"Yet somehow, no-drama-Obama remains impressively Zen and sweatless in the middle of this whirlwind. Should we have "faith" he will do the right thing? Absolutely not. You should pick the best leader available, and then pressure him or her like hell. Obama is dramatically better than Bush – but he will ultimately only be as good as the pressure put on him by ordinary people. FDR came to power as a budget-balancing centrist, until the American people forced him to the left, and to greatness. One hundred days in, are they ready to press Obama to act on his own best instincts? He ain't Franklin Delano Obama yet."
So begins a piece "To be the new FDR he must stick to his ideal" by Johann Hari in The Independent.
Hari undertakes an analysis of the pluses and minuses of Obama's 100 days in office. It's not all the hype might suggest.
As Hari says:
"Yet somehow, no-drama-Obama remains impressively Zen and sweatless in the middle of this whirlwind. Should we have "faith" he will do the right thing? Absolutely not. You should pick the best leader available, and then pressure him or her like hell. Obama is dramatically better than Bush – but he will ultimately only be as good as the pressure put on him by ordinary people. FDR came to power as a budget-balancing centrist, until the American people forced him to the left, and to greatness. One hundred days in, are they ready to press Obama to act on his own best instincts? He ain't Franklin Delano Obama yet."
Waterboarding the Rule of Law
Steve Weissman writing in "Waterboarding the Rule of Law" on truthout.org:
"Asked what he thought of Western civilization, the nonviolent Mahatma Gandhi famously replied, "I think it would be a good idea." Unless millions of Americans now demand better, we can say the same of "the rule of law." What a good idea it would have been, but - like the tooth fairy - it will not exist, not when competing priorities get in the way. The balancing - and trimming - is well on its way.
Should a special prosecutor hold Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld accountable for violating the law against torture when they specifically authorized waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions and sexual humiliation of detainees? "No one is above the law," President Obama repeatedly tells us. But, prosecuting Bush & Co. would tear the country apart, the Republican chorus chimes in. And it would create a precedent for prosecuting future presidents whose policies we might not like, just as in a banana republic."
Thumbs down to Obama
Ever-increasingly, one is seeing disenchantment creeping in with the new US president Obama. Yes, he was touted as almost being the Messiah when elected - something quite unrealistic and unattainable given the myriad of problems confronting the United States - but he allowed the hype surrounding his campaign to almost put him on a pedestal.
Chris Hedges, writing on truthdig.com in "Obama Has Missed His Moment":
"Barack Obama has squandered his presidency. He had a fleeting moment to challenge the casino capitalism and financial recklessness of our economic and political elite. He could have orchestrated a state socialism that would have provided a safety net for tens of millions of Americans faced with dislocation and misery. The sums he has doled out to Wall Street could have been used to force companies to keep workers on the job or create new banks to open up credit. But he lacked the foresight and the courage to challenge entrenched power. And now we are headed down one of two frightening roads—massive deflation or hyperinflation. Neither will be pleasant."
Not quite in the same vein as Hedges, but reflecting a questioning where the Administration is going is this op-ed piece "Workers Walk the Plank" by Bob Herbert in the NY Times:
"I’m sure everyone is thrilled to know that the high rollers on Wall Street are bouncing back. With profits on the rebound, the big shots at the biggest institutions are on track, as The Times reported Sunday, to make as much money this year as they were hauling in before the mega-recession began.
The growing legions of the unemployed can be forgiven for not shouting hallelujah. It’s a little like watching the drunken driver who plowed into your family car and caused untold havoc and heartache, suddenly pulling up one morning, no worse for the wear, in a sparkling new vehicle.
The folks who led the nation to this financial abyss are the ones being made whole on the taxpayers’ dime. We can look after them, all right. But we can’t seem to get credit flowing in any normal way again; we can’t stanch the terrible flow of home foreclosures; and we’re not doing nearly enough to address the most critical need of all: putting people back to work.
While Wall Street is breaking out the Champagne yet again, the rest of the economy is beyond terrible, and will be for the foreseeable future."
Chris Hedges, writing on truthdig.com in "Obama Has Missed His Moment":
"Barack Obama has squandered his presidency. He had a fleeting moment to challenge the casino capitalism and financial recklessness of our economic and political elite. He could have orchestrated a state socialism that would have provided a safety net for tens of millions of Americans faced with dislocation and misery. The sums he has doled out to Wall Street could have been used to force companies to keep workers on the job or create new banks to open up credit. But he lacked the foresight and the courage to challenge entrenched power. And now we are headed down one of two frightening roads—massive deflation or hyperinflation. Neither will be pleasant."
Not quite in the same vein as Hedges, but reflecting a questioning where the Administration is going is this op-ed piece "Workers Walk the Plank" by Bob Herbert in the NY Times:
"I’m sure everyone is thrilled to know that the high rollers on Wall Street are bouncing back. With profits on the rebound, the big shots at the biggest institutions are on track, as The Times reported Sunday, to make as much money this year as they were hauling in before the mega-recession began.
The growing legions of the unemployed can be forgiven for not shouting hallelujah. It’s a little like watching the drunken driver who plowed into your family car and caused untold havoc and heartache, suddenly pulling up one morning, no worse for the wear, in a sparkling new vehicle.
The folks who led the nation to this financial abyss are the ones being made whole on the taxpayers’ dime. We can look after them, all right. But we can’t seem to get credit flowing in any normal way again; we can’t stanch the terrible flow of home foreclosures; and we’re not doing nearly enough to address the most critical need of all: putting people back to work.
While Wall Street is breaking out the Champagne yet again, the rest of the economy is beyond terrible, and will be for the foreseeable future."
Do you live in a liveable, lively or boring city?
There are surveys, of one sort or another, of almost anything. Their utility and value must be questioned.
One of the latest surveys, just in, is a rating of the most liveable cities in the world. The Independent in a piece "Clean, safe and a little bit dull... the world's most liveable cities" not only lists the so-called top liveable cities - look out for surprising results - but reflects on the criteria in making the assessment:
"The songbook of the world's most likeable cities needs an urgent rewrite. "We will always have Dusseldorf"; "I love Zurich in the springtime"; "Tulips from Vancouver"; "Maybe it's because I'm a Frankfurter that I love Frankfurt so". In a survey of the world's most liveable towns, published yesterday, European cities dominate but not the European cities that you might imagine. Paris comes only 33rd, between Adelaide and Brisbane. London comes 38th, jointly with Yokohama.
The city with the highest quality of urban living in the world, according to the survey, is Vienna, followed by Zurich and Geneva. Auckland and Vancouver come joint fourth. All of these cities have a reputation – perhaps undeserved – for crashing dullness. Cities with romantic, glitzy reputations, from New York (49th) to Rome (55th), fare badly.
The Worldwide Quality of Living Survey is, arguably, more suburban than urban. The league table of 215 cities reflects the criteria set by Mercer, an American management consultancy which specialises in advising companies on the relocation of executives. Political stability, security, air pollution, schools, supermarkets, environment and transport rank highly. Cutting-edge culture, architecture and excitement count for relatively little."
Continue reading, here, to see where your city rates.......
One of the latest surveys, just in, is a rating of the most liveable cities in the world. The Independent in a piece "Clean, safe and a little bit dull... the world's most liveable cities" not only lists the so-called top liveable cities - look out for surprising results - but reflects on the criteria in making the assessment:
"The songbook of the world's most likeable cities needs an urgent rewrite. "We will always have Dusseldorf"; "I love Zurich in the springtime"; "Tulips from Vancouver"; "Maybe it's because I'm a Frankfurter that I love Frankfurt so". In a survey of the world's most liveable towns, published yesterday, European cities dominate but not the European cities that you might imagine. Paris comes only 33rd, between Adelaide and Brisbane. London comes 38th, jointly with Yokohama.
The city with the highest quality of urban living in the world, according to the survey, is Vienna, followed by Zurich and Geneva. Auckland and Vancouver come joint fourth. All of these cities have a reputation – perhaps undeserved – for crashing dullness. Cities with romantic, glitzy reputations, from New York (49th) to Rome (55th), fare badly.
The Worldwide Quality of Living Survey is, arguably, more suburban than urban. The league table of 215 cities reflects the criteria set by Mercer, an American management consultancy which specialises in advising companies on the relocation of executives. Political stability, security, air pollution, schools, supermarkets, environment and transport rank highly. Cutting-edge culture, architecture and excitement count for relatively little."
Continue reading, here, to see where your city rates.......
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Israel's Gitmo: Visiting Daddy in Prison - A Palestinian Ordeal
Israel touts itself, and its supporters claim, it to be a democracy - with all that entails. Due process, equal rights for all, etc. etc.
Well, notwithstanding all the "noise", Israel's actions, certainly in many material respects, are not those of a country which applies the rule of law and due process.
Time reports in "Visiting Daddy in Prison: A Palestinian Ordeal" on just one case of a Palestinian - in breach of the Geneva Convention for an occupying power - imprisoned in an Israeli jail for 2 years now and not having been charged with any offence. He is one of over 10,000 prisoners!
"Spending time with her dad requires that six-year-old Jinan undertake a bizarre and arduous odyssey. Usually, she travels alone, but last Monday, the Palestinian girl with the rosebud smile and bouncing energy was accompanied by her younger sisters, Dania, 4, and Noor, 2, on the journey to the Israeli prison that holds her father.
At home in the beleaguered West Bank town of Qalqilya, as her mother dressed her before dawn in an almond-green blouse and jeans, Jinan asks the same question she always does: "Mommy, why does Daddy have to sleep on the Israeli side?" And her mother, Salam Nazal, comforts her by saying: "Because that's where the best Palestinian men go to sleep, and your father is one of them." The town, which has elected a Hamas mayor, is known as a center of Palestinian militancy, and Israeli security forces conduct raids there on average five times a week. (See photographs of conflict in the Middle East)
Salam Nazal cannot accompany her daughters because she is an on Israeli security watch list, although she has never learned why. Her immediate family lives in Jordan, so she must put the girls on a bus bound for Chattah-Gilboa prison inside Israel and hope that one of the many Palestinian women on board will help Jinan wrangle her sisters. "I'm so worried about having them go without me," says Salam, as she hoists her girls onto the bus, organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross (I.C.R.C.) "But what can I do? This is their only chance to see their father."
Well, notwithstanding all the "noise", Israel's actions, certainly in many material respects, are not those of a country which applies the rule of law and due process.
Time reports in "Visiting Daddy in Prison: A Palestinian Ordeal" on just one case of a Palestinian - in breach of the Geneva Convention for an occupying power - imprisoned in an Israeli jail for 2 years now and not having been charged with any offence. He is one of over 10,000 prisoners!
"Spending time with her dad requires that six-year-old Jinan undertake a bizarre and arduous odyssey. Usually, she travels alone, but last Monday, the Palestinian girl with the rosebud smile and bouncing energy was accompanied by her younger sisters, Dania, 4, and Noor, 2, on the journey to the Israeli prison that holds her father.
At home in the beleaguered West Bank town of Qalqilya, as her mother dressed her before dawn in an almond-green blouse and jeans, Jinan asks the same question she always does: "Mommy, why does Daddy have to sleep on the Israeli side?" And her mother, Salam Nazal, comforts her by saying: "Because that's where the best Palestinian men go to sleep, and your father is one of them." The town, which has elected a Hamas mayor, is known as a center of Palestinian militancy, and Israeli security forces conduct raids there on average five times a week. (See photographs of conflict in the Middle East)
Salam Nazal cannot accompany her daughters because she is an on Israeli security watch list, although she has never learned why. Her immediate family lives in Jordan, so she must put the girls on a bus bound for Chattah-Gilboa prison inside Israel and hope that one of the many Palestinian women on board will help Jinan wrangle her sisters. "I'm so worried about having them go without me," says Salam, as she hoists her girls onto the bus, organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross (I.C.R.C.) "But what can I do? This is their only chance to see their father."
And you wonder why they take the position they do?
Can one blame the Palestinians when they say they will only negotiate with the Israelis on certian terms - given the background of Israel's actions as detailed by The Washington Post in a piece "Israel built, planned 9,000 homes on war-won land":
"Since capturing the West Bank and east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast War, Israel has built homes for about 470,000 Israelis there, including some 190,000 who moved to east Jerusalem.
From January 2006 to January 2009, roughly the period of the Olmert government, Israel built some 5,100 homes in West Bank settlements and issued bids for another 500 housing units there, said Hagit Ofran of Peace Now. Another 560 structures, including stone houses and mobile homes, were erected in dozens of unauthorized settlement outposts, Ofran said.
In the Palestinian-claimed areas of Jerusalem, the Olmert government issued bids for 2,400 homes for Israelis, she said. About one-third of the city's 750,000 residents are Palestinians.
In the latest project for Israelis, construction has begun on 62 apartments, in three buildings of up to eight stories, in the Palestinian neighborhood of Zawahra in east Jerusalem, Seidemann said Monday."
As Palestinian PM Abbas has, more than fairly, said:
"Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas insisted Monday that a settlement freeze is a prerequisite for resuming peace talks with Israel. Abbas' year of negotiations with Olmert ended inconclusively.
Abbas also rejected Israeli demands that Palestinians not only recognize the state of Israel _ as Abbas and others have _ but recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
"Name yourself, it's not my business," he said. "All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimeter more, not one centimeter less. Anything else, I don't accept."
"Since capturing the West Bank and east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast War, Israel has built homes for about 470,000 Israelis there, including some 190,000 who moved to east Jerusalem.
From January 2006 to January 2009, roughly the period of the Olmert government, Israel built some 5,100 homes in West Bank settlements and issued bids for another 500 housing units there, said Hagit Ofran of Peace Now. Another 560 structures, including stone houses and mobile homes, were erected in dozens of unauthorized settlement outposts, Ofran said.
In the Palestinian-claimed areas of Jerusalem, the Olmert government issued bids for 2,400 homes for Israelis, she said. About one-third of the city's 750,000 residents are Palestinians.
In the latest project for Israelis, construction has begun on 62 apartments, in three buildings of up to eight stories, in the Palestinian neighborhood of Zawahra in east Jerusalem, Seidemann said Monday."
As Palestinian PM Abbas has, more than fairly, said:
"Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas insisted Monday that a settlement freeze is a prerequisite for resuming peace talks with Israel. Abbas' year of negotiations with Olmert ended inconclusively.
Abbas also rejected Israeli demands that Palestinians not only recognize the state of Israel _ as Abbas and others have _ but recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
"Name yourself, it's not my business," he said. "All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimeter more, not one centimeter less. Anything else, I don't accept."
Silence over Sri Lanka
Geoffrey Alderman, writing in Comment is Free in The Guardian, asks why do those in the international community who expressed outrage over Gaza stay silent while Tamils die?
It's a very pertinent and relevant question as the devastation and bloodshed in Sri Lanka continues. Some of the answers lie in Alderman's piece.
"In Sri Lanka a bloody conflict is reaching its bloody conclusion. Some 30 years ago, the Tamil population that inhabits the north and east of the island began an insurrection against the government, establishing for this purpose an organisation known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The ultimate aim of the Tamil Tigers was to establish an independent Tamil state, thus partitioning the island. The means chosen to bring this about was to create terror and mayhem throughout the island, and, if necessary, beyond it. Not content with common-or-garden political assassinations and random murders, the Tamil Tigers pioneered the use of the suicide bomb and the suicide belt. Banned and proscribed as a terrorist organisation by more than 30 countries, including the US and the European Union, the Tigers are said to have been responsible for more suicide attacks than Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida combined.
Now the endgame is in sight. Using methods pioneered by the British army in its successful campaign against the Boer insurgency more than a century ago, the Sri Lankan army has systematically removed civilians from the war zone while simultaneously refusing to heed international calls for a ceasefire because of the inevitable loss of civilian lives in coastal strips that remain under Tiger control. War crimes have undoubtedly been committed by the Tigers. They may well have been committed also by the Sri Lankan military.
Yes, this bloody conflict is reaching its bloody conclusion. So where, I ask myself, is the international outrage against the government of Sri Lanka? Why haven't we heard calls from, say, the Arab League for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire on the island and for Sri Lankan forces to leave Tamil areas? Why did President Ahmadinejad not condemn Sri Lanka from the Geneva podium that he occupied so shamelessly last week? Why, in this country, have we not heard calls for an economic boycott of Sri Lanka? Why have the offices of travel agencies offering package holidays to Sri Lanka not been picketed? Why has the Royal Court theatre not promoted a play highlighting the plight of the Tamil population? Why has the Lib-Dem leader, Nick Clegg, not demanded an immediate cessation of British arms shipments to Sri Lanka, and the EU not suspended all economic cooperation with the country? Why has Gordon Brown's international development secretary, Douglas Alexander, not announced that British taxpayers' money is to be used to fund a scheme to highlight Sri Lankan human rights abuses in Tamil areas and that the UK government will give legal assistance in Sri Lanka to individuals and institutions challenging (to quote a brochure recently issued by Alexander's department) "military policies that violate human rights"?"
It's a very pertinent and relevant question as the devastation and bloodshed in Sri Lanka continues. Some of the answers lie in Alderman's piece.
"In Sri Lanka a bloody conflict is reaching its bloody conclusion. Some 30 years ago, the Tamil population that inhabits the north and east of the island began an insurrection against the government, establishing for this purpose an organisation known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The ultimate aim of the Tamil Tigers was to establish an independent Tamil state, thus partitioning the island. The means chosen to bring this about was to create terror and mayhem throughout the island, and, if necessary, beyond it. Not content with common-or-garden political assassinations and random murders, the Tamil Tigers pioneered the use of the suicide bomb and the suicide belt. Banned and proscribed as a terrorist organisation by more than 30 countries, including the US and the European Union, the Tigers are said to have been responsible for more suicide attacks than Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida combined.
Now the endgame is in sight. Using methods pioneered by the British army in its successful campaign against the Boer insurgency more than a century ago, the Sri Lankan army has systematically removed civilians from the war zone while simultaneously refusing to heed international calls for a ceasefire because of the inevitable loss of civilian lives in coastal strips that remain under Tiger control. War crimes have undoubtedly been committed by the Tigers. They may well have been committed also by the Sri Lankan military.
Yes, this bloody conflict is reaching its bloody conclusion. So where, I ask myself, is the international outrage against the government of Sri Lanka? Why haven't we heard calls from, say, the Arab League for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire on the island and for Sri Lankan forces to leave Tamil areas? Why did President Ahmadinejad not condemn Sri Lanka from the Geneva podium that he occupied so shamelessly last week? Why, in this country, have we not heard calls for an economic boycott of Sri Lanka? Why have the offices of travel agencies offering package holidays to Sri Lanka not been picketed? Why has the Royal Court theatre not promoted a play highlighting the plight of the Tamil population? Why has the Lib-Dem leader, Nick Clegg, not demanded an immediate cessation of British arms shipments to Sri Lanka, and the EU not suspended all economic cooperation with the country? Why has Gordon Brown's international development secretary, Douglas Alexander, not announced that British taxpayers' money is to be used to fund a scheme to highlight Sri Lankan human rights abuses in Tamil areas and that the UK government will give legal assistance in Sri Lanka to individuals and institutions challenging (to quote a brochure recently issued by Alexander's department) "military policies that violate human rights"?"
Has the Sun-King's WSJ lost its Soul?
In a piece in The Nation, Scott Sherman suggests that Rupert Murdoch hasn't taken a wrecking-ball to the Wall Street Journal since acquiring it. However....
"But the Journal has changed in very significant ways. Quite a few Journal watchers--including many people who left the paper but continue to care deeply about it--are reading it with disquiet and unease. They see a newspaper whose coverage of the financial crisis, while impressive in many respects, lacks analytical rigor; a newspaper that is running shorter articles; a newspaper whose copy-editing standards have declined; and a newspaper that is abandoning a rich tradition of long-form narrative journalism.
One picks up the Journal these days with relief and sadness--relief that the newspaper is not an amalgamation of the Murdoch-owned New York Post, Fox News and The Weekly Standard; and sadness that reporters who once wrote finely textured, emotionally affecting feature stories on a universe of subjects now produce, in too many cases, ordinary news stories. "Scoops" and "news" are the new Murdochian mantras, and reporters are generally expected to spend two or three weeks on a piece, not two or three months. Long-form journalism, says one reporter, is "less cherished, less savored" by the new regime led by Murdoch's handpicked editor in chief, Robert Thomson, former editor of Murdoch's Times of London. (Thomson declined to be interviewed for this article.)
"For decades the DNA of the Journal was this double helix: incredibly strong business reporting and incredibly strong narrative/analytical writing," says Joshua Prager, a long-form reporter who recently left the newspaper after almost thirteen years. "But now they've ripped one of the strands out of it: narrative writing is all but gone. As a result, the Wall Street Journal has lost its soul.""
Read the piece in full here.
"But the Journal has changed in very significant ways. Quite a few Journal watchers--including many people who left the paper but continue to care deeply about it--are reading it with disquiet and unease. They see a newspaper whose coverage of the financial crisis, while impressive in many respects, lacks analytical rigor; a newspaper that is running shorter articles; a newspaper whose copy-editing standards have declined; and a newspaper that is abandoning a rich tradition of long-form narrative journalism.
One picks up the Journal these days with relief and sadness--relief that the newspaper is not an amalgamation of the Murdoch-owned New York Post, Fox News and The Weekly Standard; and sadness that reporters who once wrote finely textured, emotionally affecting feature stories on a universe of subjects now produce, in too many cases, ordinary news stories. "Scoops" and "news" are the new Murdochian mantras, and reporters are generally expected to spend two or three weeks on a piece, not two or three months. Long-form journalism, says one reporter, is "less cherished, less savored" by the new regime led by Murdoch's handpicked editor in chief, Robert Thomson, former editor of Murdoch's Times of London. (Thomson declined to be interviewed for this article.)
"For decades the DNA of the Journal was this double helix: incredibly strong business reporting and incredibly strong narrative/analytical writing," says Joshua Prager, a long-form reporter who recently left the newspaper after almost thirteen years. "But now they've ripped one of the strands out of it: narrative writing is all but gone. As a result, the Wall Street Journal has lost its soul.""
Read the piece in full here.
Money for Nothing
"On July 15, 2007, The New York Times published an article with the headline “The Richest of the Rich, Proud of a New Gilded Age.” The most prominently featured of the “new titans” was Sanford Weill, the former chairman of Citigroup, who insisted that he and his peers in the financial sector had earned their immense wealth through their contributions to society.
Soon after that article was printed, the financial edifice Mr. Weill took credit for helping to build collapsed, inflicting immense collateral damage in the process. Even if we manage to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression, the world economy will take years to recover from this crisis.
All of which explains why we should be disturbed by an article in Sunday’s Times reporting that pay at investment banks, after dipping last year, is soaring again — right back up to 2007 levels.
Why is this disturbing? Let me count the ways....."
Who is writing this? None other than Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner for economics, in his regular op-ed piece, on this occasion with the headline "Money for Nothing" in the NY Times. Read the things which disturb Krugman here.......but here is a sample:
"First, there’s no longer any reason to believe that the wizards of Wall Street actually contribute anything positive to society, let alone enough to justify those humongous paychecks."
Soon after that article was printed, the financial edifice Mr. Weill took credit for helping to build collapsed, inflicting immense collateral damage in the process. Even if we manage to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression, the world economy will take years to recover from this crisis.
All of which explains why we should be disturbed by an article in Sunday’s Times reporting that pay at investment banks, after dipping last year, is soaring again — right back up to 2007 levels.
Why is this disturbing? Let me count the ways....."
Who is writing this? None other than Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner for economics, in his regular op-ed piece, on this occasion with the headline "Money for Nothing" in the NY Times. Read the things which disturb Krugman here.......but here is a sample:
"First, there’s no longer any reason to believe that the wizards of Wall Street actually contribute anything positive to society, let alone enough to justify those humongous paychecks."
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Clinton’s Mideast Pirouette
Roger Cohen is at it again!
In his latest op-ed piece in The NY Times "Clinton’s Mideast Pirouette" he writes:
"The sparring between the United States and Israel has begun, and that’s a good thing. Israel’s interests are not served by an uncritical American administration. The Jewish state emerged less secure and less loved from Washington’s post-9/11 Israel-can-do-no-wrong policy.
The criticism of the center-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has come from an unlikely source: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She’s transitioned with aplomb from the calculation of her interests that she made as a senator from New York to a cool assessment of U.S. interests. These do not always coincide with Israel’s.
I hear that Clinton was shocked by what she saw on her visit last month to the West Bank. This is not surprising. The transition from Israel’s first-world hustle-bustle to the donkeys, carts and idle people beyond the separation wall is brutal. If Clinton cares about one thing, it’s human suffering."
Continue reading here.
What is "interesting" is whether these continuing pieces reflect, even in part, the thinking of the Obama Administration. Who's to know? The Times' pieces of late certainly reflect a position in relation to Israel not previously seen.
As coincidence as it the LA Times has a piece today "Obama move alarms Israel supporters":
"The Obama administration, already on treacherous political ground because of its outreach to traditional adversaries such as Iran and Cuba, has opened the door a crack to engagement with the militant group Hamas.
The Palestinian group is designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization and under law may not receive federal aid.
But the administration has asked Congress for minor changes in U.S. law that would permit aid to continue flowing to Palestinians in the event Hamas-backed officials become part of a unified Palestinian government."
In his latest op-ed piece in The NY Times "Clinton’s Mideast Pirouette" he writes:
"The sparring between the United States and Israel has begun, and that’s a good thing. Israel’s interests are not served by an uncritical American administration. The Jewish state emerged less secure and less loved from Washington’s post-9/11 Israel-can-do-no-wrong policy.
The criticism of the center-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has come from an unlikely source: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She’s transitioned with aplomb from the calculation of her interests that she made as a senator from New York to a cool assessment of U.S. interests. These do not always coincide with Israel’s.
I hear that Clinton was shocked by what she saw on her visit last month to the West Bank. This is not surprising. The transition from Israel’s first-world hustle-bustle to the donkeys, carts and idle people beyond the separation wall is brutal. If Clinton cares about one thing, it’s human suffering."
Continue reading here.
What is "interesting" is whether these continuing pieces reflect, even in part, the thinking of the Obama Administration. Who's to know? The Times' pieces of late certainly reflect a position in relation to Israel not previously seen.
As coincidence as it the LA Times has a piece today "Obama move alarms Israel supporters":
"The Obama administration, already on treacherous political ground because of its outreach to traditional adversaries such as Iran and Cuba, has opened the door a crack to engagement with the militant group Hamas.
The Palestinian group is designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization and under law may not receive federal aid.
But the administration has asked Congress for minor changes in U.S. law that would permit aid to continue flowing to Palestinians in the event Hamas-backed officials become part of a unified Palestinian government."
Torture? It probably killed more Americans than 9/11
In the light of the uproar about the released Memos dealing with the CIA's torture of prisoners - and where the buck stops for sanctioning it - a piece in The Independent by Patrick Cockburn [winner of the 2009 Orwell Prize for journalism] raises a few critical questions and issues:
"The use of torture by the US has proved so counter-productive that it may have led to the death of as many US soldiers as civilians killed in 9/11, says the leader of a crack US interrogation team in Iraq.
"The reason why foreign fighters joined al-Qa'ida in Iraq was overwhelmingly because of abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and not Islamic ideology," says Major Matthew Alexander, who personally conducted 300 interrogations of prisoners in Iraq. It was the team led by Major Alexander [a named assumed for security reasons] that obtained the information that led to the US military being able to locate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qa'ida in Iraq. Zarqawi was then killed by bombs dropped by two US aircraft on the farm where he was hiding outside Baghdad on 7 June 2006. Major Alexander said that he learnt where Zarqawi was during a six-hour interrogation of a prisoner with whom he established relations of trust.
Major Alexander's attitude to torture by the US is a combination of moral outrage and professional contempt. "It plays into the hands of al-Qa'ida in Iraq because it shows us up as hypocrites when we talk about human rights," he says. An eloquent and highly intelligent man with experience as a criminal investigator within the US military, he says that torture is ineffective, as well as counter-productive. "People will only tell you the minimum to make the pain stop," he says. "They might tell you the location of a house used by insurgents but not that it is booby-trapped."
"The use of torture by the US has proved so counter-productive that it may have led to the death of as many US soldiers as civilians killed in 9/11, says the leader of a crack US interrogation team in Iraq.
"The reason why foreign fighters joined al-Qa'ida in Iraq was overwhelmingly because of abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and not Islamic ideology," says Major Matthew Alexander, who personally conducted 300 interrogations of prisoners in Iraq. It was the team led by Major Alexander [a named assumed for security reasons] that obtained the information that led to the US military being able to locate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qa'ida in Iraq. Zarqawi was then killed by bombs dropped by two US aircraft on the farm where he was hiding outside Baghdad on 7 June 2006. Major Alexander said that he learnt where Zarqawi was during a six-hour interrogation of a prisoner with whom he established relations of trust.
Major Alexander's attitude to torture by the US is a combination of moral outrage and professional contempt. "It plays into the hands of al-Qa'ida in Iraq because it shows us up as hypocrites when we talk about human rights," he says. An eloquent and highly intelligent man with experience as a criminal investigator within the US military, he says that torture is ineffective, as well as counter-productive. "People will only tell you the minimum to make the pain stop," he says. "They might tell you the location of a house used by insurgents but not that it is booby-trapped."
Gaza, remember
One could almost say that Gideon Levy, who writes for Haaretz, is Israel's conscience.
In his latest column, "Gaza, remember?" he says:
"Gaza is besieged. There are no building materials. Israel and the world are setting conditions, the Palestinians are incapable of forming a unity government, as is needed, the money and concrete are nowhere to be seen and the Abu-Aun family continues to live in a tent. Even the $900 million promised by the United States is stuck in the cash register. It's doubtful whether it will ever be taken out. America's word.
It's exactly three months since the much-talked-about war, and Gaza is once again forgotten. Israel has never taken an interest in the welfare of its victims. Now the world has forgotten, too. Two weeks with hardly a Qassam rocket has taken Gaza completely off the agenda. If the Gazans don't hurry up and resume firing, nobody will take an interest in their welfare again. Although not new, this is an especially grievous and saddening message liable to spark the next cycle of violence. And then it will be certain they won't get aid because they will be shooting."
Meanwhile, AFP reports:
"The Israeli army's investigation into its recent war in Gaza "lacks credibility" and is no substitute for an independent probe, London-based rights organisation Amnesty International said Thursday."
And:
"A major charge against the Israeli military concerned its use of white phosphorous shells, which are allowed under international law for use on open battlefields to create a smokescreen for troops, but prohibited in densely populated areas.
The army said it had acted in accordance with international humanitarian law, but Amnesty said its assurances "could not be further from the truth."
"Amnesty International researchers on the ground found hundreds of white phosphorus-impregnated felt wedges in residential areas all over Gaza, still smouldering weeks after they had been fired," it said.
It added: "The Israeli army must provide specific, detailed information about why targets were chosen and the means and methods of attack used in order to assess their conclusion that the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) complied fully with international humanitarian law."
In his latest column, "Gaza, remember?" he says:
"Gaza is besieged. There are no building materials. Israel and the world are setting conditions, the Palestinians are incapable of forming a unity government, as is needed, the money and concrete are nowhere to be seen and the Abu-Aun family continues to live in a tent. Even the $900 million promised by the United States is stuck in the cash register. It's doubtful whether it will ever be taken out. America's word.
It's exactly three months since the much-talked-about war, and Gaza is once again forgotten. Israel has never taken an interest in the welfare of its victims. Now the world has forgotten, too. Two weeks with hardly a Qassam rocket has taken Gaza completely off the agenda. If the Gazans don't hurry up and resume firing, nobody will take an interest in their welfare again. Although not new, this is an especially grievous and saddening message liable to spark the next cycle of violence. And then it will be certain they won't get aid because they will be shooting."
Meanwhile, AFP reports:
"The Israeli army's investigation into its recent war in Gaza "lacks credibility" and is no substitute for an independent probe, London-based rights organisation Amnesty International said Thursday."
And:
"A major charge against the Israeli military concerned its use of white phosphorous shells, which are allowed under international law for use on open battlefields to create a smokescreen for troops, but prohibited in densely populated areas.
The army said it had acted in accordance with international humanitarian law, but Amnesty said its assurances "could not be further from the truth."
"Amnesty International researchers on the ground found hundreds of white phosphorus-impregnated felt wedges in residential areas all over Gaza, still smouldering weeks after they had been fired," it said.
It added: "The Israeli army must provide specific, detailed information about why targets were chosen and the means and methods of attack used in order to assess their conclusion that the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) complied fully with international humanitarian law."
Monday, April 27, 2009
It's Torture....and to be Investigated!
It is astounding that Obama, a lawyer and one-time law lecturer, and his "team" at the White House, thought that having released those now infamous Memos about torture that that was the end of the matter - let see that some sort of investigation had to be undertaken. Just to "move on" simply wasn't an option!
In "Time to Come Clean" Nicholas D Kristof writing in the NY Times says:
"President Obama worries that the commission will be a distraction, but the truth is the opposite. Revelations will continue to trickle out — including a new hoard of photos of abuses scheduled to be released by May 28 — creating a constant roar of charges and counter-charges. Liberals will jab Mr. Obama from the left, and Dick Cheney from the right, until the president resembles St. Sebastian (the human pincushion). Mr. Obama won’t be able to escape torture.
“He’s trying to get it off the news cycle, and that’s not going to happen,” said Elisa Massimino, chief executive of Human Rights First. “You can’t say you’re going to follow the evidence and then not look for any.”
Morton Halperin of the Open Society Institute, a leader in the coalition supporting a commission, said: “He’s better off saying, ‘there’ll be a commission report, and I’ll deal with it when it’s over.’ It’s a much more credible way to get it off the table.”"
Kristof cites 3 reasons for an investigation - here.
Frank Rich writing his weekly op-ed piece "The Banality of Bush White House Evil" in the NY Times is spot on when he says:
"Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to “protect” us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from “another 9/11,” torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The lying about Iraq remains the original sin from which flows much of the Bush White House’s illegality.
Levin suggests — and I agree — that as additional fact-finding plays out, it’s time for the Justice Department to enlist a panel of two or three apolitical outsiders, perhaps retired federal judges, “to review the mass of material” we already have. The fundamental truth is there, as it long has been. The panel can recommend a legal path that will insure accountability for this wholesale betrayal of American values.
President Obama can talk all he wants about not looking back, but this grotesque past is bigger than even he is. It won’t vanish into a memory hole any more than Andersonville, World War II internment camps or My Lai. The White House, Congress and politicians of both parties should get out of the way. We don’t need another commission. We don’t need any Capitol Hill witch hunts. What we must have are fair trials that at long last uphold and reclaim our nation’s commitment to the rule of law."
In "Time to Come Clean" Nicholas D Kristof writing in the NY Times says:
"President Obama worries that the commission will be a distraction, but the truth is the opposite. Revelations will continue to trickle out — including a new hoard of photos of abuses scheduled to be released by May 28 — creating a constant roar of charges and counter-charges. Liberals will jab Mr. Obama from the left, and Dick Cheney from the right, until the president resembles St. Sebastian (the human pincushion). Mr. Obama won’t be able to escape torture.
“He’s trying to get it off the news cycle, and that’s not going to happen,” said Elisa Massimino, chief executive of Human Rights First. “You can’t say you’re going to follow the evidence and then not look for any.”
Morton Halperin of the Open Society Institute, a leader in the coalition supporting a commission, said: “He’s better off saying, ‘there’ll be a commission report, and I’ll deal with it when it’s over.’ It’s a much more credible way to get it off the table.”"
Kristof cites 3 reasons for an investigation - here.
Frank Rich writing his weekly op-ed piece "The Banality of Bush White House Evil" in the NY Times is spot on when he says:
"Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to “protect” us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from “another 9/11,” torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The lying about Iraq remains the original sin from which flows much of the Bush White House’s illegality.
Levin suggests — and I agree — that as additional fact-finding plays out, it’s time for the Justice Department to enlist a panel of two or three apolitical outsiders, perhaps retired federal judges, “to review the mass of material” we already have. The fundamental truth is there, as it long has been. The panel can recommend a legal path that will insure accountability for this wholesale betrayal of American values.
President Obama can talk all he wants about not looking back, but this grotesque past is bigger than even he is. It won’t vanish into a memory hole any more than Andersonville, World War II internment camps or My Lai. The White House, Congress and politicians of both parties should get out of the way. We don’t need another commission. We don’t need any Capitol Hill witch hunts. What we must have are fair trials that at long last uphold and reclaim our nation’s commitment to the rule of law."
A Tibetan Blogger, Always Under Close Watch, Struggles for Visibility
The NY Times reports:
"WOESER, a Tibetan poet and blogger whose every word is of great interest to the Chinese authorities, described the nightmare that jolted her awake shortly before a reporter arrived for what some might describe as a foolhardy interview."
And:
"Her books are banned here, and the blog she has kept since 2005 is currently blocked. Still, with foreign media banned from much of the Tibetan plateau, Ms. Woeser’s blog, “Invisible Tibet,” has become one of the few reliable news outlets for those able to circumvent what is cynically referred to as The Great Firewall."
Read the complete piece about this remarkable woman here.
"WOESER, a Tibetan poet and blogger whose every word is of great interest to the Chinese authorities, described the nightmare that jolted her awake shortly before a reporter arrived for what some might describe as a foolhardy interview."
And:
"Her books are banned here, and the blog she has kept since 2005 is currently blocked. Still, with foreign media banned from much of the Tibetan plateau, Ms. Woeser’s blog, “Invisible Tibet,” has become one of the few reliable news outlets for those able to circumvent what is cynically referred to as The Great Firewall."
Read the complete piece about this remarkable woman here.
Dershowitz spews racism, bigotry and bile.....
“The worst two hours of my life.”
"That’s what a Palestinian friend from the West Bank said after what was at times a hateful, nasty 2-hour long harangue by Anne Bayefsky, Jon Voight, Elie Wiesel, Alan Dershowitz, Natan Sharansky and Shelby Steele. “I just listened to 2 hours of demonization of Palestinians and Muslims fueled by racism and hate,” said my clearly shaken friend.
I already posted some choice quotes by Jon-the-new-Holocaust-Voight. The tour de force of the session, ostensibly on anti-semitism but really promoting anti-Arab/Palestinian/Muslim hate, was Alan Dershowitz. (Although conservative African American scholar Shelby Steele, who gets plenty of applause from a room filled with white people, reaches a whole new depth in his theory about the end of white supremacy and the deep shame of people of color regarding their own inadequacies.)
Dershowitz is the schoolyard bully all grown-up, very smart and even angrier. Watching him, you feel like he might explode. Like all good demagogues, he knows how to whip up an audience at the most nasty applause lines. I admit it. I’m scared of him.
In the age of Obama and Iraq war exhaustion, the War on Terror clearly no longer provides the right wing Israel lobby with the umph it needs to delegitimize Palestinian claims for justice or, frankly, simple human decency. Here, Dershowitz launches a new frame. Netanyahu et al have been pushing the Hitler/Ahmedinejad comparison for some time now. But this is the first time I’ve heard such a sweeping condemnation of Palestinians (with a few exceptions of course, because Dersh “doesn’t like to generalize”) as Nazis.
From MuzzleWatch at Durban II.
"That’s what a Palestinian friend from the West Bank said after what was at times a hateful, nasty 2-hour long harangue by Anne Bayefsky, Jon Voight, Elie Wiesel, Alan Dershowitz, Natan Sharansky and Shelby Steele. “I just listened to 2 hours of demonization of Palestinians and Muslims fueled by racism and hate,” said my clearly shaken friend.
I already posted some choice quotes by Jon-the-new-Holocaust-Voight. The tour de force of the session, ostensibly on anti-semitism but really promoting anti-Arab/Palestinian/Muslim hate, was Alan Dershowitz. (Although conservative African American scholar Shelby Steele, who gets plenty of applause from a room filled with white people, reaches a whole new depth in his theory about the end of white supremacy and the deep shame of people of color regarding their own inadequacies.)
Dershowitz is the schoolyard bully all grown-up, very smart and even angrier. Watching him, you feel like he might explode. Like all good demagogues, he knows how to whip up an audience at the most nasty applause lines. I admit it. I’m scared of him.
In the age of Obama and Iraq war exhaustion, the War on Terror clearly no longer provides the right wing Israel lobby with the umph it needs to delegitimize Palestinian claims for justice or, frankly, simple human decency. Here, Dershowitz launches a new frame. Netanyahu et al have been pushing the Hitler/Ahmedinejad comparison for some time now. But this is the first time I’ve heard such a sweeping condemnation of Palestinians (with a few exceptions of course, because Dersh “doesn’t like to generalize”) as Nazis.
From MuzzleWatch at Durban II.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Durban II Postscript
What some might now regard as some sort of infamous Conference - the Durban II Conference in Geneva - has just concluded.
A postscript is called for....
Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in her concluding Statement [see here] amongst other things says:
"The final document of this conference – the Conference product, if you like – also says the Holocaust must never be forgotten and deplores anti-Semitism along with Islamophobia and all forms of racism, xenophobia, racial discrimination and related intolerance. But already the propaganda machine is starting to wind up to term this conference a failure, a “hate fest and all the rest of it.” This is extraordinary. Yet no one has really written up the true story of this Conference – a strange rough and tumble affair full of smoke and mirrors, I must admit, yet very definitely a success story, with plenty of good will as well as plenty of bad will of the type I have described just now.
I want to say at this point particularly to you that the Geneva press corps has been terrific during the later stages of this process. You have seen through the propaganda, you have read the DDPA and the Review Conference’s outcome document, and you have reported accurately, fairly and professionally. So on behalf of my entire office, I would like to extend you a very warm thank you for that. I believe you have played an exceptionally important role. I know that some of you have had to argue with editors who, like so many others, have succumbed to the mythology.
But because of this campaign that was so determined to kill the conference, some countries decided to boycott it, although a few days earlier, they had actually agreed on what is now the final text. I consider this bizarre. You agree the text on Friday evening, and walk out on Sunday. I think, it was unfortunate that a few states disengaged from the process. Although almost all of them had agreed this text, they are not part of the consensus that adopted it. I do hope they will come back into the process now. They can still add their names to the list of 182 states that have adopted the outcome document. And by the way, Iran is part of that consensus. When the final call came, Iran did not oppose the text."
Meanwhile, this from Realistpeace:
"Virtually everything that emerged from the Durban II conference in Geneva was overwhelmed by the vile words of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. Though some intrepid folks, like the amazing Cecilie Surasky of Muzzlewatch, tried to get the word out about everything that was going on at the conference, most of the attention remained on the issue of Israel and ignored everything else being discussed.
But Alan Dershowitz did his best to see to it that Ahmedinejad was not the only demagogue with a spotlight on him.
Dershowitz decided to give a history lesson, purporting to “prove” that the entire Palestinian national movement, from its inception, has always aimed not for Palestinian independence and self-determination but rather at the destruction of the Jews.
That Dershowitz has an audience at all is a sad comment. He has no expertise in Israeli history and politics, in the Middle East (in any discipline), or in any field related to politics. His books (yeah, I held my nose and read them) reflect this lack of knowledge and depth. But because he is well-known for other things and is rude and bombastic, he has an audience."
And over at The Guardian in Comment is Free Seumus Milne in "What credibility is there in Geneva's all-white boycott?"says:
"What do the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Italy and Israel have in common? They are all either European or European-settler states. And they all decided to boycott this week's UN conference against racism in Geneva – even before Monday's incendiary speech by the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which triggered a further white-flight walkout by representatives of another 23 European states.
In international forums, it's almost unprecedented to have such an undiluted racial divide of whites-versus-the-rest. And for that to happen in a global meeting called to combat racial hatred doesn't exactly augur well for future international understanding at a time when the worst economic crisis since the war is ramping up racism and xenophobia across the world."
And finally, Adrian Hamilton in The Independent in "Walking out on Ahmadinejad was just plain childish":
"Isn't it time western diplomats just grew up and stopped these infantile games over President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? All that this play-acting over boycotting of conferences because of his presence and walking out because of his words achieves is to flatter his ego, boost his poll ratings at home and play into the hands of an Israel that is desperate to prove Iran the gravest threat to its existence.
True, Iran's President is not the world's most endearing character. Some of the things he says are certainly contentious. But he is far from the most offensive leader on the block at the moment. With Silvio Berlusconi sounding off about women and sex, and Nicolas Sarkozy sounding off about everything from the quality of his fellow leaders to the unsuitability of Muslims to join the civilised nations, and a Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, giving his views on gays, Europe could claim its fair share of premiers who should not be allowed out in public.
Read Ahmadinejad's address at the UN conference on racism in Geneva this week and there is little to surprise and a certain amount to be agreed with. His accusations against the imperial powers for what they did with colonial rule and the business of slavery is pretty much part of the school curriculum now. His anger at the way the economic crisis originated in the West but has hit worst the innocent of the developing world would find a ready echo (and did) among most of the delegates."
A postscript is called for....
Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in her concluding Statement [see here] amongst other things says:
"The final document of this conference – the Conference product, if you like – also says the Holocaust must never be forgotten and deplores anti-Semitism along with Islamophobia and all forms of racism, xenophobia, racial discrimination and related intolerance. But already the propaganda machine is starting to wind up to term this conference a failure, a “hate fest and all the rest of it.” This is extraordinary. Yet no one has really written up the true story of this Conference – a strange rough and tumble affair full of smoke and mirrors, I must admit, yet very definitely a success story, with plenty of good will as well as plenty of bad will of the type I have described just now.
I want to say at this point particularly to you that the Geneva press corps has been terrific during the later stages of this process. You have seen through the propaganda, you have read the DDPA and the Review Conference’s outcome document, and you have reported accurately, fairly and professionally. So on behalf of my entire office, I would like to extend you a very warm thank you for that. I believe you have played an exceptionally important role. I know that some of you have had to argue with editors who, like so many others, have succumbed to the mythology.
But because of this campaign that was so determined to kill the conference, some countries decided to boycott it, although a few days earlier, they had actually agreed on what is now the final text. I consider this bizarre. You agree the text on Friday evening, and walk out on Sunday. I think, it was unfortunate that a few states disengaged from the process. Although almost all of them had agreed this text, they are not part of the consensus that adopted it. I do hope they will come back into the process now. They can still add their names to the list of 182 states that have adopted the outcome document. And by the way, Iran is part of that consensus. When the final call came, Iran did not oppose the text."
Meanwhile, this from Realistpeace:
"Virtually everything that emerged from the Durban II conference in Geneva was overwhelmed by the vile words of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. Though some intrepid folks, like the amazing Cecilie Surasky of Muzzlewatch, tried to get the word out about everything that was going on at the conference, most of the attention remained on the issue of Israel and ignored everything else being discussed.
But Alan Dershowitz did his best to see to it that Ahmedinejad was not the only demagogue with a spotlight on him.
Dershowitz decided to give a history lesson, purporting to “prove” that the entire Palestinian national movement, from its inception, has always aimed not for Palestinian independence and self-determination but rather at the destruction of the Jews.
That Dershowitz has an audience at all is a sad comment. He has no expertise in Israeli history and politics, in the Middle East (in any discipline), or in any field related to politics. His books (yeah, I held my nose and read them) reflect this lack of knowledge and depth. But because he is well-known for other things and is rude and bombastic, he has an audience."
And over at The Guardian in Comment is Free Seumus Milne in "What credibility is there in Geneva's all-white boycott?"says:
"What do the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Italy and Israel have in common? They are all either European or European-settler states. And they all decided to boycott this week's UN conference against racism in Geneva – even before Monday's incendiary speech by the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which triggered a further white-flight walkout by representatives of another 23 European states.
In international forums, it's almost unprecedented to have such an undiluted racial divide of whites-versus-the-rest. And for that to happen in a global meeting called to combat racial hatred doesn't exactly augur well for future international understanding at a time when the worst economic crisis since the war is ramping up racism and xenophobia across the world."
And finally, Adrian Hamilton in The Independent in "Walking out on Ahmadinejad was just plain childish":
"Isn't it time western diplomats just grew up and stopped these infantile games over President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? All that this play-acting over boycotting of conferences because of his presence and walking out because of his words achieves is to flatter his ego, boost his poll ratings at home and play into the hands of an Israel that is desperate to prove Iran the gravest threat to its existence.
True, Iran's President is not the world's most endearing character. Some of the things he says are certainly contentious. But he is far from the most offensive leader on the block at the moment. With Silvio Berlusconi sounding off about women and sex, and Nicolas Sarkozy sounding off about everything from the quality of his fellow leaders to the unsuitability of Muslims to join the civilised nations, and a Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, giving his views on gays, Europe could claim its fair share of premiers who should not be allowed out in public.
Read Ahmadinejad's address at the UN conference on racism in Geneva this week and there is little to surprise and a certain amount to be agreed with. His accusations against the imperial powers for what they did with colonial rule and the business of slavery is pretty much part of the school curriculum now. His anger at the way the economic crisis originated in the West but has hit worst the innocent of the developing world would find a ready echo (and did) among most of the delegates."
Robert Fisk's World: Everyone wants to be an author, but no one is reading books
It's the weekend and perhaps timely to curl about with a good book.....
Veteran writer and journalist and commentator Robert Fisk - in his latest piece in TheIndependent - wonders whether our dependency on computers is destroying our ability to ‘deep read’:
"I blame technology. The internet, email – neither of which I use – and the accursed laptop. I curse the laptop for two reasons. Firstly because I use it. Secondly because it encourages hopeless authorship. It's not that everyone with a laptop thinks they can write a book. The problem is that everyone with a laptop does write a book."
Continue reading here.
Veteran writer and journalist and commentator Robert Fisk - in his latest piece in TheIndependent - wonders whether our dependency on computers is destroying our ability to ‘deep read’:
"I blame technology. The internet, email – neither of which I use – and the accursed laptop. I curse the laptop for two reasons. Firstly because I use it. Secondly because it encourages hopeless authorship. It's not that everyone with a laptop thinks they can write a book. The problem is that everyone with a laptop does write a book."
Continue reading here.
So, how well was the Iraq war reported?
Just as the last 2 days have seen over 140 people killed in suicide bombings in Iraq, Patrick Cockburn, one of the few journalists to actually report for The Independent from Iraq over all the years, ponders on how well the war was actually reported:
"Journalists are departing from Iraq. In Baghdad US newspapers and television are slimming down or closing their bureaux. The British media always had a slighter presence but there is less and less coverage of the war. This might be justified by saying there is no war to cover, but Iraq is still the scene of a horrendous amount of violence with suicide bombers killing at least 144 civilians in the past two days.
The main reason for reduced foreign interest in Iraq is that the US is pulling out by the end of 2011 and its forces will have left the centre of Iraqi cities by the end of this June. US military casualties are a fraction of what they once were. British troops will soon finally depart from Basra.
Iraq is still one of the most dangerous places in the world but security is vastly improved compared with 2006, when at the height of the Shia-Sunni civil war some 3,000 people were being killed every month."
And:
"The worst coverage of the Iraq war was probably at the beginning and at the end of the conflict. At the beginning there was the uncritical acceptance that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. In the last two years Washington had equal success in selling the "surge", the limited reinforcement of US troops employing more aggressive tactics, as turning the tide in favour of the US. A danger now is that this myth will take on a life of its own leading to similar methods being employed in Afghanistan and the far right in the US blaming President Obama for withdrawing from Iraq just as victory was being won."
"Journalists are departing from Iraq. In Baghdad US newspapers and television are slimming down or closing their bureaux. The British media always had a slighter presence but there is less and less coverage of the war. This might be justified by saying there is no war to cover, but Iraq is still the scene of a horrendous amount of violence with suicide bombers killing at least 144 civilians in the past two days.
The main reason for reduced foreign interest in Iraq is that the US is pulling out by the end of 2011 and its forces will have left the centre of Iraqi cities by the end of this June. US military casualties are a fraction of what they once were. British troops will soon finally depart from Basra.
Iraq is still one of the most dangerous places in the world but security is vastly improved compared with 2006, when at the height of the Shia-Sunni civil war some 3,000 people were being killed every month."
And:
"The worst coverage of the Iraq war was probably at the beginning and at the end of the conflict. At the beginning there was the uncritical acceptance that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. In the last two years Washington had equal success in selling the "surge", the limited reinforcement of US troops employing more aggressive tactics, as turning the tide in favour of the US. A danger now is that this myth will take on a life of its own leading to similar methods being employed in Afghanistan and the far right in the US blaming President Obama for withdrawing from Iraq just as victory was being won."
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Branding evil
We have heard it before........Israel on a PR drive to boost its image post its bloody onslaught into Gaza a few months ago.
Seems like it didn't work. Reuters reports in "Israel strives to re-brand image":
"When people have a better understanding of who we are, then they understand our actions in Gaza better," said Ido Aharoni of the foreign ministry, who heads the Brand Israel project."
As if evil, and war, and everything which goes with it, is a matter of branding or calls for a PR exercise!
Sri Lanka, in the midst of its bloody war with its Tamils, is following Israel down the same path.
Ken Silverstein, in Harper's Magazine, in "Washington Lobbyists Cash In On War in Sri Lanka" writes:
"Predictably, Washington lobbyists are making out quite well from the war. In January, the firm of Patton Boggs was retained by the Embassy of Sri Lanka, with “a fixed fee of $35,000 per month, payable quarterly in advance,” according to the contract. Democratic lobbyist Tommy Boggs is helping run the account, which calls on Patton Boggs to “provide guidance and counsel to the Embassy of Sri Lanka regarding its relations with the Executive and Legislative Branches of the U.S. Government.” In other words, to sanitize the government’s conduct of the war and make it look good with the Obama administration.
After producing a “white paper” on Sri Lanka and the ongoing civil war, Patton Boggs organized a series of official meetings for its client. In late-March, the Sri Lankan ambassador to the U.S., Jaliya Wickramasuriya, met separately with Senator Richard Lugar. He briefed him on the conflict, stressing “the care taken to protect displaced civilians,” according to an Embassy press release.
Despite Patton Boggs’ best efforts, the government’s PR offensive has fallen flat. “I think that the Sri Lankan government knows that the entire world is very disappointed that in its efforts to end what it sees as 25 years of conflict, it is causing such untold suffering,” Secretary of State Clinton said Wednesday."
Seems like it didn't work. Reuters reports in "Israel strives to re-brand image":
"When people have a better understanding of who we are, then they understand our actions in Gaza better," said Ido Aharoni of the foreign ministry, who heads the Brand Israel project."
As if evil, and war, and everything which goes with it, is a matter of branding or calls for a PR exercise!
Sri Lanka, in the midst of its bloody war with its Tamils, is following Israel down the same path.
Ken Silverstein, in Harper's Magazine, in "Washington Lobbyists Cash In On War in Sri Lanka" writes:
"Predictably, Washington lobbyists are making out quite well from the war. In January, the firm of Patton Boggs was retained by the Embassy of Sri Lanka, with “a fixed fee of $35,000 per month, payable quarterly in advance,” according to the contract. Democratic lobbyist Tommy Boggs is helping run the account, which calls on Patton Boggs to “provide guidance and counsel to the Embassy of Sri Lanka regarding its relations with the Executive and Legislative Branches of the U.S. Government.” In other words, to sanitize the government’s conduct of the war and make it look good with the Obama administration.
After producing a “white paper” on Sri Lanka and the ongoing civil war, Patton Boggs organized a series of official meetings for its client. In late-March, the Sri Lankan ambassador to the U.S., Jaliya Wickramasuriya, met separately with Senator Richard Lugar. He briefed him on the conflict, stressing “the care taken to protect displaced civilians,” according to an Embassy press release.
Despite Patton Boggs’ best efforts, the government’s PR offensive has fallen flat. “I think that the Sri Lankan government knows that the entire world is very disappointed that in its efforts to end what it sees as 25 years of conflict, it is causing such untold suffering,” Secretary of State Clinton said Wednesday."
Sri Lanka a problem for us all
With the news out of Sri Lanka getting worse by the day - for example, see a Washington Post piece "UN says nearly 6,500 civilians killed in Sri Lanka" here] Joseph Traub a director of policy at the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, writing an op-ed piece in The Age "Sri Lanka a problem for us all" [reproduced from the Washington Post] says:
"When we think of mass atrocities, we think of regimes, or their proxies, massacring defenceless citizens, as in Rwanda or Darfur. The situation in Sri Lanka is more complicated, morally and legally: this is a situation of armed conflict in which both parties are acting in ways that pose a grave risk to innocent civilians. The rebels answer to no one and the Sri Lankan Government has been able to operate with virtual impunity because it is fighting "terrorists". Even Western states that usually condemn violations of international law have given the situation a wide berth.
But states engaged in combat do not have the right to perpetrate atrocities; nor does the cruelty of opponents absolve states of their responsibility to protect citizens. And there is no one better equipped than the US to recognise the cynicism behind the language of the war on terror, which allows states to do as they wish in the name of defeating supreme evil."
And:
"There is widespread agreement about what must be done: the LTTE must allow civilians who wish to leave to do so; the Government must agree to observe a more extensive cease-fire, guarantee the safety of those civilians and treat them according to international standards governing internally displaced peoples. The Tigers might refuse to release civilians, whom they view as the only thing standing between themselves and annihilation. But the army must not use this as a pretext to resume hostilities: the rebels no longer represent a threat to the state.
The time for behind-the-scenes diplomacy has passed. The UN Security Council must take up the issue and remind both sides that there will be consequences, in the form of prosecutions for crimes against humanity. The council should also demand that the Government grant humanitarian groups and the media access to the conflict zone, send a special envoy to the region, and consider imposing sanctions. Ultimately, it must help bring about a durable political solution to the fighting. In 2005, the world accepted the obligation to protect civilians at risk of atrocities. The moment has come to redeem that pledge."
"When we think of mass atrocities, we think of regimes, or their proxies, massacring defenceless citizens, as in Rwanda or Darfur. The situation in Sri Lanka is more complicated, morally and legally: this is a situation of armed conflict in which both parties are acting in ways that pose a grave risk to innocent civilians. The rebels answer to no one and the Sri Lankan Government has been able to operate with virtual impunity because it is fighting "terrorists". Even Western states that usually condemn violations of international law have given the situation a wide berth.
But states engaged in combat do not have the right to perpetrate atrocities; nor does the cruelty of opponents absolve states of their responsibility to protect citizens. And there is no one better equipped than the US to recognise the cynicism behind the language of the war on terror, which allows states to do as they wish in the name of defeating supreme evil."
And:
"There is widespread agreement about what must be done: the LTTE must allow civilians who wish to leave to do so; the Government must agree to observe a more extensive cease-fire, guarantee the safety of those civilians and treat them according to international standards governing internally displaced peoples. The Tigers might refuse to release civilians, whom they view as the only thing standing between themselves and annihilation. But the army must not use this as a pretext to resume hostilities: the rebels no longer represent a threat to the state.
The time for behind-the-scenes diplomacy has passed. The UN Security Council must take up the issue and remind both sides that there will be consequences, in the form of prosecutions for crimes against humanity. The council should also demand that the Government grant humanitarian groups and the media access to the conflict zone, send a special envoy to the region, and consider imposing sanctions. Ultimately, it must help bring about a durable political solution to the fighting. In 2005, the world accepted the obligation to protect civilians at risk of atrocities. The moment has come to redeem that pledge."
Rice, Cheney OK'd CIA use of waterboarding
Pleasingly, responsibility, or at least the ok for, waterboarding torture is reaching up into the upper echelons of the Bush White House.
CNN reports that a Senate finding implicates both Condi Rice and VP Cheney:
"Top Bush administration officials gave the CIA approval to use waterboarding, a controversial interrogation technique, as early as 2002, a Senate intelligence report shows.
On July 17, 2002, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who later became secretary of state, said the CIA could proceed with "alternative interrogation methods," including waterboarding, when questioning suspected al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah.
The decision was contingent on the Justice Department's determining the method's legality. A week later, Attorney General John Ashcroft had determined the "proposed interrogation techniques were lawful," the report said."
Meanwhile, Obama, rightly, faces increasing pressure to pursue the torturers. Just one small example is well known Amy Goodman in her piece "Torturers Should be Punished" writing in truthdig.com:
"For years, people have felt they have been hitting their heads against walls (some suffered this literally, as the memos detail). On Election Day, it looked like that wall had become a door. But that door is open only a crack. Whether it is kicked open or slammed shut is not up to the president. Though he may occupy the most powerful office on Earth, there is a force more powerful: committed people demanding change. We need a universal standard of justice. Torturers should be punished."
See also Eugene Robinson - the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Prize for commentary - in "Torture Is a Crime, and Crimes Demand Prosecution" also on truthdig.com
"The many roads of inquiry into the Bush administration’s abusive “interrogation techniques” all lead to one stubborn, inconvenient fact: Torture is not just immoral, but also illegal. This means that once we learn the whole truth, the law will oblige us to act on it.
Understandably, the Obama administration wants to avoid getting bogged down in a long, wrenching legal drama that almost certainly would be partisan and divisive. But I’m not sure it’s possible to skirt the criminal implications of what we already know, let alone what we might find out in a full-scale “truth commission” investigation with access to all relevant witnesses and documents.
On the moral question, the administration has been straightforward and righteous. One of President Obama’s first acts was to declare that the United States will no longer practice waterboarding or other abusive interrogation methods, saying that such depredations are inimical to our nation’s values and traditions. Attorney General Eric Holder stated at his confirmation hearings that “waterboarding is torture.” This refreshing and admirable clarity stands in stark contrast to the fog of legalistic sophistry in which the Bush administration cloaked its secret prisons.
On the legal question, though, the Obama team has been far less definitive. This is what Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, told his staff about the interrogation abuses in a memo last week: “I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”
CNN reports that a Senate finding implicates both Condi Rice and VP Cheney:
"Top Bush administration officials gave the CIA approval to use waterboarding, a controversial interrogation technique, as early as 2002, a Senate intelligence report shows.
On July 17, 2002, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who later became secretary of state, said the CIA could proceed with "alternative interrogation methods," including waterboarding, when questioning suspected al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah.
The decision was contingent on the Justice Department's determining the method's legality. A week later, Attorney General John Ashcroft had determined the "proposed interrogation techniques were lawful," the report said."
Meanwhile, Obama, rightly, faces increasing pressure to pursue the torturers. Just one small example is well known Amy Goodman in her piece "Torturers Should be Punished" writing in truthdig.com:
"For years, people have felt they have been hitting their heads against walls (some suffered this literally, as the memos detail). On Election Day, it looked like that wall had become a door. But that door is open only a crack. Whether it is kicked open or slammed shut is not up to the president. Though he may occupy the most powerful office on Earth, there is a force more powerful: committed people demanding change. We need a universal standard of justice. Torturers should be punished."
See also Eugene Robinson - the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Prize for commentary - in "Torture Is a Crime, and Crimes Demand Prosecution" also on truthdig.com
"The many roads of inquiry into the Bush administration’s abusive “interrogation techniques” all lead to one stubborn, inconvenient fact: Torture is not just immoral, but also illegal. This means that once we learn the whole truth, the law will oblige us to act on it.
Understandably, the Obama administration wants to avoid getting bogged down in a long, wrenching legal drama that almost certainly would be partisan and divisive. But I’m not sure it’s possible to skirt the criminal implications of what we already know, let alone what we might find out in a full-scale “truth commission” investigation with access to all relevant witnesses and documents.
On the moral question, the administration has been straightforward and righteous. One of President Obama’s first acts was to declare that the United States will no longer practice waterboarding or other abusive interrogation methods, saying that such depredations are inimical to our nation’s values and traditions. Attorney General Eric Holder stated at his confirmation hearings that “waterboarding is torture.” This refreshing and admirable clarity stands in stark contrast to the fog of legalistic sophistry in which the Bush administration cloaked its secret prisons.
On the legal question, though, the Obama team has been far less definitive. This is what Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, told his staff about the interrogation abuses in a memo last week: “I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”
Friday, April 24, 2009
Investigate yourself....and come up trumps!
Whoever heard of an investigation of yourself, in particular where there are serious allegations against you, which can be anything other than tainted?
Well, the good ol' Israeli IDF did just that. It investigated the allegations of misfeasance during the Gaza War. And, surprise, surprise, the IDF came up trumps! Not one blemish or infraction.
Not on! says Israeli Human Rights Group B'Tselem. In its latest bulletin it reports:
"On the 22.4.08, the Israeli Military made public the conclusions of five internal investigations held by teams headed by officers, who “were not a direct part of the chain of command, and who were appointed by the chief of staff to investigate several issues in regards to which questions were raised during the fighting." The military did not publish the investigations themselves .
The chief conclusion of the investigations is that “the “IDF acted in accordance with the principles of international law, while keeping a high professional and moral standard; all of this, against an enemy that was deliberately engaging in terror activities against Israeli civilians." However, “the investigations shed light on a very small number of mistakes and incidents in which intelligence or operational mistakes occurred during the fighting."
But, as B'Tselem says:
"Immediately following the publication of the conclusions, Minister of Defence, Ehud Barak stated that “the IDF is one of the most moral armies in the world”. He made an identical statement soon after the end of the operation. Similar statements, regarding the morality of the Israeli military and regarding the responsibility of Hamas for any harm to civilians, were made by Israeli officials throughout the operation and its aftermath, and it raises the suspicion that the investigations were chiefly aimed at proving these statements rather than ascertaining the truth.
No agency, including the military, can investigate itself under such complex circumstances, and the fact that the investigative teams were headed by officers who “were not a direct part of the chain of command” does not change this fact. Additionally, the military framework raises additional problems, as these officers are part of the military’s chain of command and know those responsible for the operation personally. Clearly, only in exceptional circumstances, that appear not to have existed here, could such officers conclude that other officers, at times higher ranking than themselves, acted in violation of the law.
Additionally, the military does not have the ability to collect evidence inside Gaza and interview Palestinian witnesses who were harmed by the military’s conduct. Therefore, the investigations were primarily based on military documents and interviews with soldiers. Investigations based on such partial information cannot reach an understanding of the truth".
Well, the good ol' Israeli IDF did just that. It investigated the allegations of misfeasance during the Gaza War. And, surprise, surprise, the IDF came up trumps! Not one blemish or infraction.
Not on! says Israeli Human Rights Group B'Tselem. In its latest bulletin it reports:
"On the 22.4.08, the Israeli Military made public the conclusions of five internal investigations held by teams headed by officers, who “were not a direct part of the chain of command, and who were appointed by the chief of staff to investigate several issues in regards to which questions were raised during the fighting." The military did not publish the investigations themselves .
The chief conclusion of the investigations is that “the “IDF acted in accordance with the principles of international law, while keeping a high professional and moral standard; all of this, against an enemy that was deliberately engaging in terror activities against Israeli civilians." However, “the investigations shed light on a very small number of mistakes and incidents in which intelligence or operational mistakes occurred during the fighting."
But, as B'Tselem says:
"Immediately following the publication of the conclusions, Minister of Defence, Ehud Barak stated that “the IDF is one of the most moral armies in the world”. He made an identical statement soon after the end of the operation. Similar statements, regarding the morality of the Israeli military and regarding the responsibility of Hamas for any harm to civilians, were made by Israeli officials throughout the operation and its aftermath, and it raises the suspicion that the investigations were chiefly aimed at proving these statements rather than ascertaining the truth.
No agency, including the military, can investigate itself under such complex circumstances, and the fact that the investigative teams were headed by officers who “were not a direct part of the chain of command” does not change this fact. Additionally, the military framework raises additional problems, as these officers are part of the military’s chain of command and know those responsible for the operation personally. Clearly, only in exceptional circumstances, that appear not to have existed here, could such officers conclude that other officers, at times higher ranking than themselves, acted in violation of the law.
Additionally, the military does not have the ability to collect evidence inside Gaza and interview Palestinian witnesses who were harmed by the military’s conduct. Therefore, the investigations were primarily based on military documents and interviews with soldiers. Investigations based on such partial information cannot reach an understanding of the truth".
Nobel Laureate Accuses Israel of 'Ethnic Cleansing'
In the very week that the Israelis - as also some other Governments - loudly throw around all sorts of epithets about the Iranian President and his appearance at Durban II in Geneva - principally that he is racist - what could be more ironical than this from Agence Press France [reprinted on CommonDreams]:
"Nobel peace laureate Mairead Maguire on Tuesday accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing" policies in annexed east Jerusalem, where the municipality plans to tear down almost 90 Arab homes.
Nobel peace laureate Mairead Maguire speaks during a press conference in the Silwan neighborhood of east Jerusalem. Maguire on Tuesday accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing" policies in annexed east Jerusalem, where the municipality plans to tear down almost 90 Arab homes. (AFP)"I believe the Israeli government is carrying out a policy of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians here in east Jerusalem," said Maguire, who won the 1976 Nobel prize for her efforts at reaching a peaceful solution to the violence in Northern Ireland.
"I believe the Israeli government policies are against international law, against human rights, against the dignity of the Palestinian people," she said at a news conference.
It was held in a protest tent erected by residents of east Jerusalem's Silwan neighbourhood where 88 Arab homes are under demolition orders.
The Israeli authorities say the houses were built or extended without the necessary construction permits. Palestinians say the planned demolitions aim at forcing them out of east Jerusalem.
If the demolition orders are carried out 1,500 people would be left homeless in one of the largest forced evictions since Israel occupied mostly Arab east Jerusalem in the 1967 war and later annexed it.
Israel considers Jerusalem to be its eternal and undivided capital, while Palestinians want to make east Jerusalem the capital of their future state.
The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem says that since 2004 the Israeli authorities have torn down more than 400 homes in east Jerusalem."
Meanwhile, the Israelis just carry one cocking their noses at the world and the US in particular. The Independent reports in "Israel defies US and destroys Palestinian home":
"Brushing aside international criticism, Israel demolished a Palestinian house in East Jerusalem in the latest in a series of actions that critics say is racheting up tensions in the city, harming chances for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
"Nobel peace laureate Mairead Maguire on Tuesday accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing" policies in annexed east Jerusalem, where the municipality plans to tear down almost 90 Arab homes.
Nobel peace laureate Mairead Maguire speaks during a press conference in the Silwan neighborhood of east Jerusalem. Maguire on Tuesday accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing" policies in annexed east Jerusalem, where the municipality plans to tear down almost 90 Arab homes. (AFP)"I believe the Israeli government is carrying out a policy of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians here in east Jerusalem," said Maguire, who won the 1976 Nobel prize for her efforts at reaching a peaceful solution to the violence in Northern Ireland.
"I believe the Israeli government policies are against international law, against human rights, against the dignity of the Palestinian people," she said at a news conference.
It was held in a protest tent erected by residents of east Jerusalem's Silwan neighbourhood where 88 Arab homes are under demolition orders.
The Israeli authorities say the houses were built or extended without the necessary construction permits. Palestinians say the planned demolitions aim at forcing them out of east Jerusalem.
If the demolition orders are carried out 1,500 people would be left homeless in one of the largest forced evictions since Israel occupied mostly Arab east Jerusalem in the 1967 war and later annexed it.
Israel considers Jerusalem to be its eternal and undivided capital, while Palestinians want to make east Jerusalem the capital of their future state.
The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem says that since 2004 the Israeli authorities have torn down more than 400 homes in east Jerusalem."
Meanwhile, the Israelis just carry one cocking their noses at the world and the US in particular. The Independent reports in "Israel defies US and destroys Palestinian home":
"Brushing aside international criticism, Israel demolished a Palestinian house in East Jerusalem in the latest in a series of actions that critics say is racheting up tensions in the city, harming chances for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
Dozens of Prisoners Held by CIA Still Missing, Fates Unknown
The depths - and illegalities? - of the Bush Administration, and its CIA's actions, become more extraordinary by the day.
ProPublico - journalism in the public interest - in "Dozens of Prisoners Held by CIA Still Missing, Fates Unknown" reports:
"Last week, we pointed out that one of the newly released Bush-era memos inadvertently confirmed that the CIA held an al-Qaeda suspect named Hassan Ghul in a secret prison and subjected him to what Bush administration lawyers called "enhanced interrogation techniques." The CIA has never acknowledged holding Ghul, and his whereabouts today are secret.
But Ghul is not the only such prisoner who remains missing. At least three dozen others who were held in the CIA's secret prisons overseas appear to be missing as well. Efforts by human rights organizations to track their whereabouts have been unsuccessful, and no foreign governments have acknowledged holding them. (See the full list.)
In September 2007, Michael V. Hayden, then director of the CIA, said "fewer than 100 people had been detained at CIA's facilities." One memo (PDF) released last week confirmed that the CIA had custody of at least 94 people as of May 2005 and "employed enhanced techniques to varying degrees in the interrogations of 28 of these ".”
One thing is almost certain. If the Obama Administration wants to be shown to have any legitimacy, decency and integrity, it really has no alternative to at the very least set up an inquiry into who was doing what during the Bush years. As matters stand it appears that if Obama doesn't some of the Europeans Governments will. The Washington Post reports:
"European prosecutors are likely to investigate CIA and Bush administration officials on suspicion of violating an international ban on torture if they are not held legally accountable at home, according to U.N. officials and human rights lawyers.
Many European officials and civil liberties groups said they were disappointed by President Obama's opposition to trials of CIA interrogators who subjected terrorism suspects to waterboarding and other harsh tactics. They said the release last week of secret U.S. Justice Department memos authorizing the techniques will make it easier for foreign prosecutors to open probes if U.S. officials do not."
ProPublico - journalism in the public interest - in "Dozens of Prisoners Held by CIA Still Missing, Fates Unknown" reports:
"Last week, we pointed out that one of the newly released Bush-era memos inadvertently confirmed that the CIA held an al-Qaeda suspect named Hassan Ghul in a secret prison and subjected him to what Bush administration lawyers called "enhanced interrogation techniques." The CIA has never acknowledged holding Ghul, and his whereabouts today are secret.
But Ghul is not the only such prisoner who remains missing. At least three dozen others who were held in the CIA's secret prisons overseas appear to be missing as well. Efforts by human rights organizations to track their whereabouts have been unsuccessful, and no foreign governments have acknowledged holding them. (See the full list.)
In September 2007, Michael V. Hayden, then director of the CIA, said "fewer than 100 people had been detained at CIA's facilities." One memo (PDF) released last week confirmed that the CIA had custody of at least 94 people as of May 2005 and "employed enhanced techniques to varying degrees in the interrogations of 28 of these ".”
One thing is almost certain. If the Obama Administration wants to be shown to have any legitimacy, decency and integrity, it really has no alternative to at the very least set up an inquiry into who was doing what during the Bush years. As matters stand it appears that if Obama doesn't some of the Europeans Governments will. The Washington Post reports:
"European prosecutors are likely to investigate CIA and Bush administration officials on suspicion of violating an international ban on torture if they are not held legally accountable at home, according to U.N. officials and human rights lawyers.
Many European officials and civil liberties groups said they were disappointed by President Obama's opposition to trials of CIA interrogators who subjected terrorism suspects to waterboarding and other harsh tactics. They said the release last week of secret U.S. Justice Department memos authorizing the techniques will make it easier for foreign prosecutors to open probes if U.S. officials do not."
Lost in Translation?
Stephen Walt - Professor of International Relations at Harvard - writing on his blog as part of FP:
"The Obama administration has said that a purely military victory is not possible in Afghanistan, and promised to devote greater attention to civilian "nation-building." Journalist/historian Gareth Porter questions the feasibility of this approach, pointing out that the United States lacks anywhere near the number of Pashto speakers that such a strategy would require. I'l let him take it from here:
Pashtuns who represent about 42 percent of the population of Afghanistan. It is in the Pashtun southern and eastern regions of the country that the complex insurgency that has come to be called the Taliban has been able to organise and often effectively govern at the village level in recent years.
'If all you are going to do is kill the bad guys, then you don’t need a lot of Pashto speakers,' said Larry Goodson of the Department of National Security and Strategy at the National War College, who was a member of the team assembled by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to formulate a proposal for Afghanistan and Pakistan. But an effort to win over Pashto-speaking Afghans cannot succeed without officials who can communicate effectively in Pashto.
According to Chris Mason, who was a member of the Interagency Group on Afghanistan from early 2002 until September 2005, the Pashtuns of southern Afghanistan are 'proto-insurgents,' meaning that they are 'naturally averse to the imposition of external order.'
The United States needs 'thousands' of Pashto speakers to have any chance of success in winning them over, said Mason, recalling that 5,000 U.S. officials had learned Vietnamese by the end of the Vietnam War. 'The Foreign Service Institute should be turning out 200 to 300 Pashto speakers a year,' he said.
But according to an official at the State Department's Bureau of Human Resources, the United States has turned out a total of only 18 Foreign Service officers who can speak Pashto, and only two of them are now serving in Afghanistan –- both apparently in Kabul.
The Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California trains roughly 30 to 40 military personnel in Pashto each year, according to media relations officer Brian Lamar, most of whom are enlisted men in military intelligence.
That indicates that there are very few U.S. nationals capable of working with local Pashtuns on development and political problems. The National War College's Goodson said the almost complete absence of Pashto-speaking U.S. officials in Afghanistan 'belies the U.S. commitment to a nation-building and counter-insurgency approach.'"
Uh-oh."
"The Obama administration has said that a purely military victory is not possible in Afghanistan, and promised to devote greater attention to civilian "nation-building." Journalist/historian Gareth Porter questions the feasibility of this approach, pointing out that the United States lacks anywhere near the number of Pashto speakers that such a strategy would require. I'l let him take it from here:
Pashtuns who represent about 42 percent of the population of Afghanistan. It is in the Pashtun southern and eastern regions of the country that the complex insurgency that has come to be called the Taliban has been able to organise and often effectively govern at the village level in recent years.
'If all you are going to do is kill the bad guys, then you don’t need a lot of Pashto speakers,' said Larry Goodson of the Department of National Security and Strategy at the National War College, who was a member of the team assembled by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to formulate a proposal for Afghanistan and Pakistan. But an effort to win over Pashto-speaking Afghans cannot succeed without officials who can communicate effectively in Pashto.
According to Chris Mason, who was a member of the Interagency Group on Afghanistan from early 2002 until September 2005, the Pashtuns of southern Afghanistan are 'proto-insurgents,' meaning that they are 'naturally averse to the imposition of external order.'
The United States needs 'thousands' of Pashto speakers to have any chance of success in winning them over, said Mason, recalling that 5,000 U.S. officials had learned Vietnamese by the end of the Vietnam War. 'The Foreign Service Institute should be turning out 200 to 300 Pashto speakers a year,' he said.
But according to an official at the State Department's Bureau of Human Resources, the United States has turned out a total of only 18 Foreign Service officers who can speak Pashto, and only two of them are now serving in Afghanistan –- both apparently in Kabul.
The Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California trains roughly 30 to 40 military personnel in Pashto each year, according to media relations officer Brian Lamar, most of whom are enlisted men in military intelligence.
That indicates that there are very few U.S. nationals capable of working with local Pashtuns on development and political problems. The National War College's Goodson said the almost complete absence of Pashto-speaking U.S. officials in Afghanistan 'belies the U.S. commitment to a nation-building and counter-insurgency approach.'"
Uh-oh."
Professor [who else, but Dershowitz?] plumbs new depths
There are many, including this MPS, who regard Alan Dershowitz an absolute disgrace - not only for some of the views he spews [he doesn't articulate!] but his behaviour, which reflects badly on the lawyers, the Harvard Law School, where he "teaches" and Jews generally. And that isn't to forget that it has been established that he is a plagiarist.
Now, Dershowitz has plumbed new depths in hisaccusations levelled at Nobel Peace Prize winner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu. IOL reports:
"Tutu is a bigot and a racist," said Derschowitz about the Nobel Peace Prize winning South African archbishop. He is "blind, deaf and dumb when it comes to issues of Israel".
So, there you have it! Of all the people who might be "attacked" the professor goes for Tutu. Check out Tutu's criticism of Israel here.
On the subject of bigotry and racism, Irfan Yusf, writing in newmaltilda in "Does One Moron Really Ruin The Whole Conference?" rightly says that racism is alive and well, and not just in Iran. It's also pretty big in Israel and Australia. We need to get over Ahmadinejad's rant and seize opportunities like Durban II to fight it.
Now, Dershowitz has plumbed new depths in hisaccusations levelled at Nobel Peace Prize winner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu. IOL reports:
"Tutu is a bigot and a racist," said Derschowitz about the Nobel Peace Prize winning South African archbishop. He is "blind, deaf and dumb when it comes to issues of Israel".
So, there you have it! Of all the people who might be "attacked" the professor goes for Tutu. Check out Tutu's criticism of Israel here.
On the subject of bigotry and racism, Irfan Yusf, writing in newmaltilda in "Does One Moron Really Ruin The Whole Conference?" rightly says that racism is alive and well, and not just in Iran. It's also pretty big in Israel and Australia. We need to get over Ahmadinejad's rant and seize opportunities like Durban II to fight it.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Publish and be damned, Mr Cheney
Philipe Sands QC is a barrister in the Matrix Chambers and a professor of international law at University College London. He is the author of Torture Team (published by Penguin).
Writing an open letter to former VP Cheney in Comment is Free in The Guardian, Sands says:
"Dear Mr Cheney,
Last night, you appeared on Fox News' Hannity show, calling for an "honest debate" on the benefits of the Bush Administration's "bold" interrogation programme. You seem unhappy with last week's publication of four new legal memos authorising torture, so you referred to reports that have not yet been declassified "that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity". You told Hannity:
"I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country."
Of course, you have a terrific track record on the intelligence material that you have seen and read. I recall that, back in August 2002, you told a Nashville convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Now, you seem keen that we should be able to see the reports you read showing all the benefits of interrogations to be made public. But why stop there? Let's have those reports. Let's also have the interrogation logs. Let's have the videos and audio tapes of the actual interrogations, assuming they haven't all been destroyed (in the meantime, you may want to take a quick peek at this, Christopher Hitchens writing in Vanity Fair, to see what waterboarding actually looks like in practice, and its effects on one of our more robust journalists. Why not call for the declassification of the waterboarding videos, so we can see for ourselves what information was gleaned in the moments and hours and days after the waterboarding was carried out?"
Continue reading here.
And here is that video Sands speaks of:
"
Writing an open letter to former VP Cheney in Comment is Free in The Guardian, Sands says:
"Dear Mr Cheney,
Last night, you appeared on Fox News' Hannity show, calling for an "honest debate" on the benefits of the Bush Administration's "bold" interrogation programme. You seem unhappy with last week's publication of four new legal memos authorising torture, so you referred to reports that have not yet been declassified "that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity". You told Hannity:
"I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country."
Of course, you have a terrific track record on the intelligence material that you have seen and read. I recall that, back in August 2002, you told a Nashville convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Now, you seem keen that we should be able to see the reports you read showing all the benefits of interrogations to be made public. But why stop there? Let's have those reports. Let's also have the interrogation logs. Let's have the videos and audio tapes of the actual interrogations, assuming they haven't all been destroyed (in the meantime, you may want to take a quick peek at this, Christopher Hitchens writing in Vanity Fair, to see what waterboarding actually looks like in practice, and its effects on one of our more robust journalists. Why not call for the declassification of the waterboarding videos, so we can see for ourselves what information was gleaned in the moments and hours and days after the waterboarding was carried out?"
Continue reading here.
And here is that video Sands speaks of:
"
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The Pulitzer-winning investigation that dare not be uttered on TV
And people wonder why the media is so often on the nose!
Glenn Greenwald, writing in Salon, raises an interesting question in his piece "The Pulitzer-winning investigation that dare not be uttered on TV":
"The New York Times' David Barstow won a richly deserved Pulitzer Prize yesterday for two articles that, despite being featured as major news stories on the front page of The Paper of Record, were completely suppressed by virtually every network and cable news show, which to this day have never informed their viewers about what Barstow uncovered. Here is how the Pulitzer Committee described Barstow's exposés:
'Awarded to David Barstow of The New York Times for his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended.'
By whom were these "ties to companies" undisclosed and for whom did these deeply conflicted retired generals pose as "analysts"? ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and Fox -- the very companies that have simply suppressed the story from their viewers. They kept completely silent about Barstow's story even though it sparked Congressional inquiries, vehement objections from the then-leading Democratic presidential candidates, and allegations that the Pentagon program violated legal prohibitions on domestic propaganda programs. The Pentagon's secret collaboration with these "independent analysts" shaped multiple news stories from each of these outlets on a variety of critical topics. Most amazingly, many of them continue to employ as so-called "independent analysts" the very retired generals at the heart of Barstow's story, yet still refuse to inform their viewers about any part of this story".
Glenn Greenwald, writing in Salon, raises an interesting question in his piece "The Pulitzer-winning investigation that dare not be uttered on TV":
"The New York Times' David Barstow won a richly deserved Pulitzer Prize yesterday for two articles that, despite being featured as major news stories on the front page of The Paper of Record, were completely suppressed by virtually every network and cable news show, which to this day have never informed their viewers about what Barstow uncovered. Here is how the Pulitzer Committee described Barstow's exposés:
'Awarded to David Barstow of The New York Times for his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended.'
By whom were these "ties to companies" undisclosed and for whom did these deeply conflicted retired generals pose as "analysts"? ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and Fox -- the very companies that have simply suppressed the story from their viewers. They kept completely silent about Barstow's story even though it sparked Congressional inquiries, vehement objections from the then-leading Democratic presidential candidates, and allegations that the Pentagon program violated legal prohibitions on domestic propaganda programs. The Pentagon's secret collaboration with these "independent analysts" shaped multiple news stories from each of these outlets on a variety of critical topics. Most amazingly, many of them continue to employ as so-called "independent analysts" the very retired generals at the heart of Barstow's story, yet still refuse to inform their viewers about any part of this story".
Behind Bars in Iran
It's a paradox! At the very same time Iranian President Ahmadinejad is lecturing the world on racism, prejudice and injustice, his own country has convicted and sentenced an American-Iranian to 8 years jail in a trial, held in secret, said to have lasted all of 15 minutes.
The NY Times has an interesting background piece "Behind Bars in Iran" on being imprisoned in Iran:
"When Roxana Saberi, a 31-year-old Iranian-American journalist, was arrested in Tehran in January, her parents were told it was because she tried to buy alcohol. Details about her detention in the notorious Evin prison near Tehran were sketchy. But her case was speeded up this month when she was charged with spying, then convicted and sentenced in a short trial.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reportedly instructed the prosecutor to give Ms. Saberi a chance to mount a full defense, presumably during her appeal. Was he paving the way for Ms. Saberi’s eventual release, or was he simply trying to undercut international criticism of her quick conviction?
We asked others who have been jailed in Iran or who have worked with journalists who have been detained there to comment."
Read the "stories" of the Times has gathered here.
The NY Times has an interesting background piece "Behind Bars in Iran" on being imprisoned in Iran:
"When Roxana Saberi, a 31-year-old Iranian-American journalist, was arrested in Tehran in January, her parents were told it was because she tried to buy alcohol. Details about her detention in the notorious Evin prison near Tehran were sketchy. But her case was speeded up this month when she was charged with spying, then convicted and sentenced in a short trial.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reportedly instructed the prosecutor to give Ms. Saberi a chance to mount a full defense, presumably during her appeal. Was he paving the way for Ms. Saberi’s eventual release, or was he simply trying to undercut international criticism of her quick conviction?
We asked others who have been jailed in Iran or who have worked with journalists who have been detained there to comment."
Read the "stories" of the Times has gathered here.
That Conference. Not going a bad call
Barbara Crossette, United Nations correspondent for The Nation, is a former New York Times correspondent and bureau chief in Asia and at the UN.
Writing in The Nation in "America's UN Boycott Backfires" she says:
"The Obama administration and the United States as a whole will be haunted for a long time by the decision to boycott a United Nations international conference on racism and intolerance starting today in Geneva.
A brief five-paragraph statement announcing the decision was released by the State Department on Saturday evening while everyone was focused elsewhere: this time on the summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago. There, paradoxically, White House officials were happy to stress to reporters the importance the president placed on racial diversity and multiculturalism."
Down in Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald editorialises in "Surrendering the Floor" on the same subject:
"Far better for Western and Israeli diplomats to have gritted their teeth, argued against Mr Ahmadinejad's Holocaust-denying views if repeated, and lobbied for further changes in the draft. As indeed happened in Durban: despite poisonous anti-Israel diatribes on the conference floor (and even more in a simultaneous NGO forum), the final declaration said the Holocaust must never be forgotten, and while calling for a Palestinian state, also backed Israel's right to security. Much of the campaign by Israel and Jewish diaspora groups against the Durban Review has been jumping at the shadows of what might happen. As is the reasoning of the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, for Australia's pull-out. If his $35 million campaign to win a UN Security Council seat is to get anywhere, his diplomats will have to get on the floor and wrestle in talkfests like this."
Blogger Antony Loewenstein's take on the Conference [as reproduced on Muzzlewatch and Mondoweiss] in "Durban II, the how, why and who" is:
"As a Jew who writes extensively about Israel/Palestine, I have no desire for Iran to speak for me on human rights (and my recent book, The Blogging Revolution, details the woeful record of the Islamic Republic.) But the fierce resistence to even examine the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and its well documented recent abuses in Gaza is shameful. These are not actions of a civilised nation. It is the behaviour that we would condemn if done by a relatively unknown Third World nation, but Israel is seemingly untouchable.
Well, it’s not anymore. Any number of activists, journalists, human rights workers and lawyers are increasingly speaking out about Palestine. Until the Western political and elite understand this, resistance will continue. Self-appointed Jewish leaders and their Western backers are trying to stop the inevitable; Israel is the new South Africa and will soon be viewed in exactly the same way that that apartheid regime was seen.
It’s already happening.
I don’t write this with glee but the madness of Durban II won’t change anything, other than convince a handful of smug Jews that the world hates Israel and Jews. A handful do, most do not."
Writing in The Nation in "America's UN Boycott Backfires" she says:
"The Obama administration and the United States as a whole will be haunted for a long time by the decision to boycott a United Nations international conference on racism and intolerance starting today in Geneva.
A brief five-paragraph statement announcing the decision was released by the State Department on Saturday evening while everyone was focused elsewhere: this time on the summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago. There, paradoxically, White House officials were happy to stress to reporters the importance the president placed on racial diversity and multiculturalism."
Down in Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald editorialises in "Surrendering the Floor" on the same subject:
"Far better for Western and Israeli diplomats to have gritted their teeth, argued against Mr Ahmadinejad's Holocaust-denying views if repeated, and lobbied for further changes in the draft. As indeed happened in Durban: despite poisonous anti-Israel diatribes on the conference floor (and even more in a simultaneous NGO forum), the final declaration said the Holocaust must never be forgotten, and while calling for a Palestinian state, also backed Israel's right to security. Much of the campaign by Israel and Jewish diaspora groups against the Durban Review has been jumping at the shadows of what might happen. As is the reasoning of the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, for Australia's pull-out. If his $35 million campaign to win a UN Security Council seat is to get anywhere, his diplomats will have to get on the floor and wrestle in talkfests like this."
Blogger Antony Loewenstein's take on the Conference [as reproduced on Muzzlewatch and Mondoweiss] in "Durban II, the how, why and who" is:
"As a Jew who writes extensively about Israel/Palestine, I have no desire for Iran to speak for me on human rights (and my recent book, The Blogging Revolution, details the woeful record of the Islamic Republic.) But the fierce resistence to even examine the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and its well documented recent abuses in Gaza is shameful. These are not actions of a civilised nation. It is the behaviour that we would condemn if done by a relatively unknown Third World nation, but Israel is seemingly untouchable.
Well, it’s not anymore. Any number of activists, journalists, human rights workers and lawyers are increasingly speaking out about Palestine. Until the Western political and elite understand this, resistance will continue. Self-appointed Jewish leaders and their Western backers are trying to stop the inevitable; Israel is the new South Africa and will soon be viewed in exactly the same way that that apartheid regime was seen.
It’s already happening.
I don’t write this with glee but the madness of Durban II won’t change anything, other than convince a handful of smug Jews that the world hates Israel and Jews. A handful do, most do not."
Where’s Rev. Wright When You Need Him?
Chris Hedges in his latest op-ed piece "Where’s Rev. Wright When You Need Him?" in truthdig.com. has a simple message for the US president:
"The Obama administration’s decision not to prosecute CIA and Bush administration officials for the use of torture because it wants to look to the future is easy to accept if you were never tortured. The decision not to confront slavery and the continued discrimination against African-Americans is easy to accept if your ancestors were not kidnapped, crammed into slave ships, denied their religion and culture, deprived of their language, stripped of their names, severed from their families and forced into generations of economic misery. The decision not to discuss the genocide of Native Americans is easy if your lands were not stolen and your people driven into encampments and slaughtered. The doctrine of pre-emptive war and illegal foreign occupation is easy to accept if you are not a Palestinian, an Iraqi or an Afghan.
“The Obama administration’s decision not to prosecute CIA and Bush administration officials for the use of torture because it wants to look to the future is easy to accept if you were never tortured.”
To victims of oppression, the past is never over. It is not even past. Trauma, suffering and discrimination do not afford them that luxury. Generations bear the scars of whips and chains. They carry heavy physical and psychological burdens. And these burdens do not disappear when someone glibly decides to look to the future.
The conference in Geneva will discuss racism and continued segregation around the world, including in America, where African-Americans remain the nation’s underclass. In addressing slavery, it will raise the issue of reparations, something we deem appropriate for Jewish victims of the Holocaust but not for African-Americans. And it will seek to force all nations to confront injustices they would rather keep hidden. But we are not ready to look."
"The Obama administration’s decision not to prosecute CIA and Bush administration officials for the use of torture because it wants to look to the future is easy to accept if you were never tortured. The decision not to confront slavery and the continued discrimination against African-Americans is easy to accept if your ancestors were not kidnapped, crammed into slave ships, denied their religion and culture, deprived of their language, stripped of their names, severed from their families and forced into generations of economic misery. The decision not to discuss the genocide of Native Americans is easy if your lands were not stolen and your people driven into encampments and slaughtered. The doctrine of pre-emptive war and illegal foreign occupation is easy to accept if you are not a Palestinian, an Iraqi or an Afghan.
“The Obama administration’s decision not to prosecute CIA and Bush administration officials for the use of torture because it wants to look to the future is easy to accept if you were never tortured.”
To victims of oppression, the past is never over. It is not even past. Trauma, suffering and discrimination do not afford them that luxury. Generations bear the scars of whips and chains. They carry heavy physical and psychological burdens. And these burdens do not disappear when someone glibly decides to look to the future.
The conference in Geneva will discuss racism and continued segregation around the world, including in America, where African-Americans remain the nation’s underclass. In addressing slavery, it will raise the issue of reparations, something we deem appropriate for Jewish victims of the Holocaust but not for African-Americans. And it will seek to force all nations to confront injustices they would rather keep hidden. But we are not ready to look."
State of Play: A Portrait of the Journalist as a Fallible Man
At a time when newspapers are struggling to survive along comes a movie about reporters.
Alyssa Rosenberg, writes in a piece in The Atlantic, "State of Play: A Portrait of the Journalist as a Fallible Man" about the movie :
"“People tend to forget that my presence runs counter to their best interests,” Joan Didion wrote in her introduction to Slouching Towards Bethlehem, in a passage that has become an unfortunate and clichéd summation of the character of reporters. “And it always does….writers are always selling somebody out.”
What Didion neglects to mention is that the people journalists sell out, and hurt, can include themselves. On film, and in print, Didion’s description is convenient. It’s easy to slot reporters into one of two roles: the hero who has to resort to unscrupulous tactics for the sake of the People’s Right to Know; or the sycophant who lives on the cocktail-party circuit and churns out flattery instead of copy. Movies tend to prefer the former, pundits and media critics the latter.
Into that schematic comes State of Play, an engaging if unremarkable remake of a masterly 2003 BBC miniseries, which refuses to conform to those simplistic formulas. In a climate in which reporters are expected to be as detached as jurors, and against the backdrop of a flailing industry, State of Play dares to suggest that journalists, like the people they cover, have messy and complicated personal lives that affect and interact with their work. What separates the reporters in this movie from their subjects is merely the reporters’ comparative lack of power. And as such, the journalists are shown to make poor material for clear-cut heroism or villainy—which is what makes State of Play well worth watching."
Meanwhile, over at the NY Times, A. O Scott in "The News on Paper, and Other Artifacts" reviews the film:
"I will admit that I choked up a little at the end of “State of Play.” Not because the story was especially moving — or even, ultimately, all that interesting — but because the iconography of the closing credits tugged at my ink-stained heartstrings. The images are stirring and familiar, though in a few years’ time they may look as quaint as engravings of stagecoaches and steam engines. A breaking, earthshaking story makes its way from computer screen to newsprint. The plates are set, the presses whir, sheaves of freshly printed broadsheet are collated, stacked on pallets and sent out to meet the eyes of the hungry public. Truth has been told, corruption revealed and new oxygen pumped into the civic bloodstream. All that’s missing is a paperboy yelling “extra!” to crowds of commuters in raincoats and fedoras.
Those of us who work in the newspaper business are highly susceptible to the kind of sentimental view of our trade this movie offers, especially when the sentiment masquerades as tough-minded cynicism, which makes us go all dewy and reach for the bottle of rye we keep stashed in the bottom drawer of our battered metal desk. And anyone, in whatever field, who cherishes memories of “All the President’s Men” or “His Girl Friday” will smile when “State of Play,” directed by Kevin Macdonald (“The Last King of Scotland”), now and again hits the sweet spot of the genre."
Alyssa Rosenberg, writes in a piece in The Atlantic, "State of Play: A Portrait of the Journalist as a Fallible Man" about the movie :
"“People tend to forget that my presence runs counter to their best interests,” Joan Didion wrote in her introduction to Slouching Towards Bethlehem, in a passage that has become an unfortunate and clichéd summation of the character of reporters. “And it always does….writers are always selling somebody out.”
What Didion neglects to mention is that the people journalists sell out, and hurt, can include themselves. On film, and in print, Didion’s description is convenient. It’s easy to slot reporters into one of two roles: the hero who has to resort to unscrupulous tactics for the sake of the People’s Right to Know; or the sycophant who lives on the cocktail-party circuit and churns out flattery instead of copy. Movies tend to prefer the former, pundits and media critics the latter.
Into that schematic comes State of Play, an engaging if unremarkable remake of a masterly 2003 BBC miniseries, which refuses to conform to those simplistic formulas. In a climate in which reporters are expected to be as detached as jurors, and against the backdrop of a flailing industry, State of Play dares to suggest that journalists, like the people they cover, have messy and complicated personal lives that affect and interact with their work. What separates the reporters in this movie from their subjects is merely the reporters’ comparative lack of power. And as such, the journalists are shown to make poor material for clear-cut heroism or villainy—which is what makes State of Play well worth watching."
Meanwhile, over at the NY Times, A. O Scott in "The News on Paper, and Other Artifacts" reviews the film:
"I will admit that I choked up a little at the end of “State of Play.” Not because the story was especially moving — or even, ultimately, all that interesting — but because the iconography of the closing credits tugged at my ink-stained heartstrings. The images are stirring and familiar, though in a few years’ time they may look as quaint as engravings of stagecoaches and steam engines. A breaking, earthshaking story makes its way from computer screen to newsprint. The plates are set, the presses whir, sheaves of freshly printed broadsheet are collated, stacked on pallets and sent out to meet the eyes of the hungry public. Truth has been told, corruption revealed and new oxygen pumped into the civic bloodstream. All that’s missing is a paperboy yelling “extra!” to crowds of commuters in raincoats and fedoras.
Those of us who work in the newspaper business are highly susceptible to the kind of sentimental view of our trade this movie offers, especially when the sentiment masquerades as tough-minded cynicism, which makes us go all dewy and reach for the bottle of rye we keep stashed in the bottom drawer of our battered metal desk. And anyone, in whatever field, who cherishes memories of “All the President’s Men” or “His Girl Friday” will smile when “State of Play,” directed by Kevin Macdonald (“The Last King of Scotland”), now and again hits the sweet spot of the genre."
Krugman's Simple Message: A Government of Monsters
A message can't be more pointed and direct than that of Nobel Prize winner [for economics] Paul Krugman - writing in the NY Times under the headline "The Conscience of a Liberal":
"Back from a partly medical absence. Before I do some economics posts, I think I ought to say something about the torture memos — namely, that there is now no way to view the people who ruled us these past 8 years as anything but monsters. We had all these rationalizations of torture over the “ticking clock” and all that — then we learn, for example, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in one month.
I really don’t even want to think about all this. But this was our government — and these people might be back."
"Back from a partly medical absence. Before I do some economics posts, I think I ought to say something about the torture memos — namely, that there is now no way to view the people who ruled us these past 8 years as anything but monsters. We had all these rationalizations of torture over the “ticking clock” and all that — then we learn, for example, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in one month.
I really don’t even want to think about all this. But this was our government — and these people might be back."
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Olbermann: Investigate torture
Perhaps not surprisingly, Keith Olbermann has made a Special Comment on why a better future for the United States must begin with a criminal investigation into who is responsible for the Bush administration torture memos.
What hypocricy!
Israel has been at the forefront in seeking to have other nations boycott the Durban Review Conference due to start in Geneva on 20 April.
The US, Canada, the Netherlands and Australia, amongst others - to their shame - have fallen into line and won't be attending the Conference.
Interesting, then, to read this blog "Promised Land" by Noam Sheizaf, a journalist in Israel's “Maariv” daily paper.
He writes:
"I have often claimed here that the public atmosphere in Israel is becoming more and more racist towards Arabs. A good example of this can be found in the comments (“talkbacks”) on all major internet sites."
Read the posting, in full, here, for examples of strident racism alive and well in Israel.
Talk about people - Israel - in glass houses!
Update [21 April]: Predictably, the address by Iranian President Ahmadinijad to the Conference in Geneva has attracted criticism and mainly European delegates walking out on the speech. The President accused Israel of being a racist State.
What to make then of this report on YNet News [yes, an Israeli news service] "Racism on the rise in Israel" in December 2007?:
"The Association for Civil Rights in Israel's (ACRI) report on civil rights in Israel paints a bleak picture: Increasing racism, restriction of personal freedoms and discrimination even within the Knesset walls – and that's just scratching the surface.
Published Saturday, the report reveled that Israeli youths are bombarded with stereotypic, racist imagery, and their opinions have developed accordingly: Over two-thirds Israeli teen believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together.
The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March of 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes."
Even more up to date, only last week, is this piece "Israel's Racist in Chief" by Chris Hedges [one-time NY Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem] on truthdig.com:
"It was unthinkable, when I was based as a correspondent in Jerusalem two decades ago, that an Israeli politician who openly advocated ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from Israeli-controlled territory, as well as forcing Arabs in Israel to take loyalty oaths or be forcibly relocated to the West Bank, could sit on the Cabinet. The racist tirades of Jewish proto-fascists like Meir Kahane stood outside the law, were vigorously condemned by most Israelis and were prosecuted accordingly. Kahane’s repugnant Kach Party, labeled by the United States, Canada and the European Union as a terrorist organization, was outlawed by the Israeli government in 1988 for inciting racism.
Israel has changed. And the racist virus spread by Kahane, whose thugs were charged with the murders and beatings of dozens of unarmed Palestinians and whose members held rallies in Jerusalem where they chanted “Death to Arabs!” has returned to Israel in the figure of Israel’s powerful new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman openly calls for an araberrein Israel—an Israel free of Arabs."
The US, Canada, the Netherlands and Australia, amongst others - to their shame - have fallen into line and won't be attending the Conference.
Interesting, then, to read this blog "Promised Land" by Noam Sheizaf, a journalist in Israel's “Maariv” daily paper.
He writes:
"I have often claimed here that the public atmosphere in Israel is becoming more and more racist towards Arabs. A good example of this can be found in the comments (“talkbacks”) on all major internet sites."
Read the posting, in full, here, for examples of strident racism alive and well in Israel.
Talk about people - Israel - in glass houses!
Update [21 April]: Predictably, the address by Iranian President Ahmadinijad to the Conference in Geneva has attracted criticism and mainly European delegates walking out on the speech. The President accused Israel of being a racist State.
What to make then of this report on YNet News [yes, an Israeli news service] "Racism on the rise in Israel" in December 2007?:
"The Association for Civil Rights in Israel's (ACRI) report on civil rights in Israel paints a bleak picture: Increasing racism, restriction of personal freedoms and discrimination even within the Knesset walls – and that's just scratching the surface.
Published Saturday, the report reveled that Israeli youths are bombarded with stereotypic, racist imagery, and their opinions have developed accordingly: Over two-thirds Israeli teen believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together.
The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March of 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes."
Even more up to date, only last week, is this piece "Israel's Racist in Chief" by Chris Hedges [one-time NY Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem] on truthdig.com:
"It was unthinkable, when I was based as a correspondent in Jerusalem two decades ago, that an Israeli politician who openly advocated ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from Israeli-controlled territory, as well as forcing Arabs in Israel to take loyalty oaths or be forcibly relocated to the West Bank, could sit on the Cabinet. The racist tirades of Jewish proto-fascists like Meir Kahane stood outside the law, were vigorously condemned by most Israelis and were prosecuted accordingly. Kahane’s repugnant Kach Party, labeled by the United States, Canada and the European Union as a terrorist organization, was outlawed by the Israeli government in 1988 for inciting racism.
Israel has changed. And the racist virus spread by Kahane, whose thugs were charged with the murders and beatings of dozens of unarmed Palestinians and whose members held rallies in Jerusalem where they chanted “Death to Arabs!” has returned to Israel in the figure of Israel’s powerful new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman openly calls for an araberrein Israel—an Israel free of Arabs."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)