UNITED NATIONS, Nov 18: The UN General Assembly on Friday voted overwhelmingly to condemn Israel for "indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force" in its military offensive in Gaza which, according to the Palestinian ambassador, threatens to "destroy the entire people." The resolution was passed by a vote of 156 to 7, with six abstentions. The US, Israel and Australia voted against the document while all the European Union members supported it. The resolution "deeply deplores" the Israeli offensive, launched after the June capture of an Israel soldier, and calls on Israel to immediately halt its operation and pull its troops out of the Gaza Strip. The vote came less than a week after the United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution criticizing Israel for launching a Nov 8 missile strike that killed 18 civilians in the town of Beit Hanoun. Opening the debate on Friday, Palestinian Ambassador Riyad Mansour called for "an end to this rampant Israeli campaign, which intends to destroy an entire people." The Arab League had asked for the session after the US vetoed a similar, but watered-down UN Security Council draft resolution against Israel's actions last weekend, its second veto on the issue this year.
The resolution was passed by a vote of 156 to 7, with six abstentions. The US, Israel and Australia voted against the document while all the European Union members supported it.
The resolution "deeply deplores" the Israeli offensive, launched after the June capture of an Israel soldier, and calls on Israel to immediately halt its operation and pull its troops out of the Gaza Strip.
The vote came less than a week after the United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution criticizing Israel for launching a Nov 8 missile strike that killed 18 civilians in the town of Beit Hanoun.
Opening the debate on Friday, Palestinian Ambassador Riyad Mansour called for "an end to this rampant Israeli campaign, which intends to destroy an entire people."
The Arab League had asked for the session after the US vetoed a similar, but watered-down UN Security Council draft resolution against Israel's actions last weekend, its second veto on the issue this year.
The trial of Saddam Hussein was so flawed that its verdict is unsound, the advocacy group Human Rights Watch says. The former Iraqi leader was sentenced to death on 5 November after being convicted of crimes against humanity. But HRW said it had documented "serious administrative, procedural and substantive legal defects" that meant he did not get a fair trial. The Iraqi government has dismissed the report, telling the BBC that the trial was both "just and fair". Appeal controversy Saddam Hussein has two more weeks to lodge an appeal against the verdict - but his lawyer claims he has been blocked from doing so. Chief defence lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi told the BBC his team had been prevented from filing appeal papers. Under Iraqi law it must be done within a month of sentencing.
The former Iraqi leader was sentenced to death on 5 November after being convicted of crimes against humanity.
But HRW said it had documented "serious administrative, procedural and substantive legal defects" that meant he did not get a fair trial.
The Iraqi government has dismissed the report, telling the BBC that the trial was both "just and fair".
Appeal controversy
Saddam Hussein has two more weeks to lodge an appeal against the verdict - but his lawyer claims he has been blocked from doing so.
Chief defence lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi told the BBC his team had been prevented from filing appeal papers. Under Iraqi law it must be done within a month of sentencing.
A month before the November elections, Vice-President Dick Cheney was sitting in on a national-security discussion at the Executive Office Building. The talk took a political turn: what if the Democrats won both the Senate and the House? How would that affect policy toward Iran, which is believed to be on the verge of becoming a nuclear power? At that point, according to someone familiar with the discussion, Cheney began reminiscing about his job as a lineman, in the early nineteen-sixties, for a power company in Wyoming. Copper wire was expensive, and the linemen were instructed to return all unused pieces three feet or longer. No one wanted to deal with the paperwork that resulted, Cheney said, so he and his colleagues found a solution: putting "shorteners" on the wire--that is, cutting it into short pieces and tossing the leftovers at the end of the workday. If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put "shorteners" on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way. The White House's concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. "They're afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra war," a former senior intelligence official told me.
The White House's concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. "They're afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra war," a former senior intelligence official told me.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A classifed draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter has said. Seymour Hersh, writing in an article for the November 27 issue of the magazine The New Yorker released in advance, reported on whether the administration of Republican President George W. Bush was more, or less, inclined to attack Iran after Democrats won control of Congress last week. A month before the November 7 legislative elections, Hersh wrote, Vice President Dick Cheney attended a national-security discussion that touched on the impact of Democratic victory in both chambers on Iran policy. "If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion. Cheney said the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions "and thus stop Congress from getting in its way," he said.
Seymour Hersh, writing in an article for the November 27 issue of the magazine The New Yorker released in advance, reported on whether the administration of Republican President George W. Bush was more, or less, inclined to attack Iran after Democrats won control of Congress last week.
A month before the November 7 legislative elections, Hersh wrote, Vice President Dick Cheney attended a national-security discussion that touched on the impact of Democratic victory in both chambers on Iran policy.
"If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion.
Cheney said the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions "and thus stop Congress from getting in its way," he said.
Hard to tell. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
· Hundreds of neighbours join first successful action · Air force calls off missile attack to protect civilians Palestinians yesterday stopped Israel from destroying the home of two militants by surrounding it with a human shield. In the first incident of its kind, hundreds of neighbours surrounded the home of Mohammed Baroud and climbed on its roof after he received a call from the Israeli army informing him he had 30 minutes to vacate his home before it was destroyed by missiles. The Israeli airforce called off its strike because of the risk of killing a large number of civilians. It is the first time Palestinians have thwarted an Israeli air strike in this way. Israel has developed a strategy of telephoning its targets to ensure that nobody is inside when the homes are struck. Residents are given about half an hour to gather some clothes and escape. Neighbours are also contacted if the explosion is likely to be big enough to endanger them. Dozens of homes have been blown up on suspicion that they are the site for a smuggling tunnel or arms cache. It is likely that Israel will have to find a new way of destroying homes as yesterday's protest began to be copied elsewhere.
Palestinians yesterday stopped Israel from destroying the home of two militants by surrounding it with a human shield.
In the first incident of its kind, hundreds of neighbours surrounded the home of Mohammed Baroud and climbed on its roof after he received a call from the Israeli army informing him he had 30 minutes to vacate his home before it was destroyed by missiles.
The Israeli airforce called off its strike because of the risk of killing a large number of civilians.
It is the first time Palestinians have thwarted an Israeli air strike in this way. Israel has developed a strategy of telephoning its targets to ensure that nobody is inside when the homes are struck. Residents are given about half an hour to gather some clothes and escape. Neighbours are also contacted if the explosion is likely to be big enough to endanger them.
Dozens of homes have been blown up on suspicion that they are the site for a smuggling tunnel or arms cache. It is likely that Israel will have to find a new way of destroying homes as yesterday's protest began to be copied elsewhere.
It is likely that Israel will have to find a new way of destroying homes
"Will have to".
And this isn't the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, or even the Telegraph, this is friggin' pro-Palestinian Guardian.
Utterly disgusting. And not a word about the illegality of these IDF 'tactics'. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
onPhilanthropy: Partnerships and Collaboration In, Lists Out, at Slate 60 Philanthropy Confab (11/15/06)
This week, the daily, web-based newsmagazine, Slate, held its annual Slate 60 Conference and Philanthropy Series to convene and honor America's biggest donors. Held at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum in Little Rock Arkansas, invitees included those named to the Slate 60 as well as a smattering of those who, like me, are working to increase the scale and impact of philanthropy. In two days packed with a rich variety of content and conversation, I was most struck by the fact that the gathering's superstars don't see themselves as philanthropists, donors, or the newest term: "philanthropreneurs." These are folks used to getting things done -- problem solvers who are bringing to the globe's most deeply-entrenched social problems, many of the same tools they use to address business challenges. In a nutshell, their approaches tend to: A.) "Un-silo" information, resources and financing across the private, government and nonprofit sectors. B.) Evolve from serving clients one-on-one to solutions that can be leveraged more broadly, C.) Emphasize better use of technology, and D.) Demand strong accountability.
In two days packed with a rich variety of content and conversation, I was most struck by the fact that the gathering's superstars don't see themselves as philanthropists, donors, or the newest term: "philanthropreneurs." These are folks used to getting things done -- problem solvers who are bringing to the globe's most deeply-entrenched social problems, many of the same tools they use to address business challenges.
In a nutshell, their approaches tend to: A.) "Un-silo" information, resources and financing across the private, government and nonprofit sectors. B.) Evolve from serving clients one-on-one to solutions that can be leveraged more broadly, C.) Emphasize better use of technology, and D.) Demand strong accountability.
Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way. New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars. He believes a draft would bolster U.S. troop levels that are currently insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq. "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft, and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said. Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year. In 2003, he proposed a draft covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42. It went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress. Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the November 7 mid-term election. At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel.
New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars. He believes a draft would bolster U.S. troop levels that are currently insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft, and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.
Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.
In 2003, he proposed a draft covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42. It went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.
Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the November 7 mid-term election.
At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel.
Rangel is right. It is a deep injustice that some portions of the population -- overwhelmingly for economic reasons -- are forced to shoulder the burden of providing defense to the U.S., while other portions of the population -- overwhelmingly for economic reasons -- get a free ride in terms of defending the country.
Being under 42, I would still be eligible for the draft, and that is fine with me. If I disagree with a war I were to be drafted into, then I would simply refuse to enlist and accept the consequences. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
The real problem is a psychotic executive branch, which - as I understand it - has ignored the usual rules about declaring war and gone right ahead and started a war (sic) without oversight or accountability.
The lack of oversight and accountability, together with the delusional beliefs of a unitary executive, are the real problems. If those are solved there's no need for a draft, because there isn't going to be a war to draft anyone into.
If the situation changed in the future and a real threat appeared, a draft could always be organised to order. But instituting a draft without a real threat just to score a political point - and Iraq certainly isn't a real threat - makes no sense at all.
But I am afraid it would be irresponsibly* wishful thinking to rely only on a "commitment"/"directed effort" to solve these and to trust that their resolution will prevent further militaristic madness down the road.
That is why changing the stakes of the game would help. In two ways:
(1) As Rangel says, concentrate the minds of would-be war-mongerers.
and
(2) Arrange matters so that if the American people is ever gullible/stupid/vindictive enough again to follow its leaders into a disastrous military adventure, then the price of that mistake should be much more fairly distributed among the entire population.
* I say "irresponsibly" because "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Militarisation affects the entire tone of a culture, and its a dangerous thing to do in a culture that's already so heavily militarised.
If such a draft were in place before Bush II appeared, I can't see any way that it would have made Iraq less of a fiasco. And I can see a lot of ways it could have made things much worse. Because with a pre-existing draft it's likely the US army would now be in Iran, Lebanon, Syria - and probably also Milton Keynes. And Paris.
And as for making everyone fight - deferments happened before, and you can be sure the rich and powerful would find ways to make them happen again.
It may just be me, but during my 4+ years in California I came away with the impression that the US has a very militaristic society and culture. And it begins with the large amount of veterans one interacts with in civilian life. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
While I think that is a good point, I would go one step further: If and when the government goes psychotic again in the future (God save us all), it will be immoral for Americans to let things stand in a situation where only "career" military personnel are forced to put their life and limb on the line to carry out such military policies.
Yes, these professionals "volunteered" for the job. But I believe that a significant number of these volunteers signed up because they had few other if any attractive job opportunities. That may be a false myth, and I welcome being corrected on it. However, the U.S. Defense Department's own 1998 Population Representation in the Military Services report suggests that many recruits enroll for lack of more attractive economic opportunities:
Because the U.S. economy has enjoyed a spate of economic success the past few years, with low unemployment rates and increased job opportunities for more and varied groups, the supply of quality military applicants has been tight. The economic detractors from recruiting are compounded by growing college enrollment rates among youth of enlistment age. Without the draft to press youth into service, the military must compete for qualified recruits. While a military career, or even one term of service, offers many tangible and intangible benefits to include pay, job training, educational opportunities, adventure, discipline, and pride, it carries significant burdens not the least of which include separation from family, danger, and other routine hardships. <...> Without the draft to call varied segments of society into service, the over- or underrepresentation of various ethnic/racial and economic subgroups in the military is to be expected. <...> The military may find that as Blacks have more economic options available to them, fewer numbers may enlist. <...> Because the military relies exclusively on volunteers for its personnel, it must recognize and work with these societal trends. Understanding the economic opportunities available to different groups, the population projections of ethnic and racial minorities, and various other population trends will provide the military with some of the information necessary to understand its future recruiting and personnel needs.
<...>
Without the draft to call varied segments of society into service, the over- or underrepresentation of various ethnic/racial and economic subgroups in the military is to be expected.
The military may find that as Blacks have more economic options available to them, fewer numbers may enlist.
Because the military relies exclusively on volunteers for its personnel, it must recognize and work with these societal trends. Understanding the economic opportunities available to different groups, the population projections of ethnic and racial minorities, and various other population trends will provide the military with some of the information necessary to understand its future recruiting and personnel needs.
Before this asinine war, I would never have believed that the U.S. could be so demented as to get involved in another military adventure like this. But now that it has demonstrated otherwise, it is only right to prepare for the grim likelihood that brutes and boneheads in the upper echelons of power will yet again try to move the U.S. into war, and if they succeed, then the costs of that mistake should not be borne disproportionately by those unfortunate enough to have little choice but to join the military in order to obtain a decent* livelihood.
Once such arrangements have been put in place -- i.e. the institution of a draft that would make all able-bodied young men and women eligible regardless of education, wealth, connections to power, etc. -- hopefully that will concentrate the minds of any would-be warmongerers in the future. However, even if they succeed in going forward with war anyway, well then it won't just be the poor and otherwise socioeconomically disadvantaged who will have to pay for the mistakes of our militaristic leaders (and those of us who supported them.)
*(Although even that is subject to debate.) Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
It is a deep injustice that some portions of the population -- overwhelmingly for economic reasons -- are forced to shoulder the burden of providing defense to the U.S., while other portions of the population -- overwhelmingly for economic reasons -- get a free ride in terms of defending the country.
But we all know that the rich white kids would go into the National Guard so's they can shoot troublemaking students, whilst all the poor kids would do the dying in foreign lands. I don't see how you can end the ability of the rich to apply influence and finesse their kids into safety. Can you stop the next Cheney being too busy to fight ?
No, you need more skepticism about believing that pre-emptive miltaristic adventures constitutes defense. Having such an over-whelming military machine along with so many corporates that have a vested interest in that machine requiring re-orders, predisposes the US towards solving its problems forcibly.
Instead of questioning the wisdom of destroying other countries to win hearts and minds, the US pours concern into avoiding injuries. This makes the military even more dependent upon hi-tech remote control munitions with overwhelming explosive capability. All of which just makes the damage, suffering and injustice inflicted on the target population all the worse, particularly in light of the incredibly crappy targetting.
Just how proportionate is it to destroy a town to compensate for killing 4 contractors ? Or flatten a block of flats, killing everybody inside, cos one insurgent was seen to run into it ?
You still need to have peace at the end of the war, so you might as well plan for it beforehand. In fact it#s better to get there without the war. But it's not as much fun, it doesn't look as good on CNN. Journalists don't get to play "embedded soldier". Peace just ain't so glamorous is it ? There's no profit in it. keep to the Fen Causeway
No university deferments. Period. Even for so-called "elite" students.
And yes, the most powerful and most connected will still manage to save some of their own, but if you can drastically increase the number in the bulk of the population who could potentially see active combat, I think you'll get the
more skepticism about believing that pre-emptive miltaristic adventures constitutes defense
you asked for.
And beyond that, you spread the burden of preserving "national security" more evenly across all members of society.
We ask that the costs of healthcare -- which are overwhelmingly financial in nature -- be spread across the population. By the same logic, the costs of national security -- which are both financial AND "bodily" -- should be spread across the population. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Vietnam went on for a decade.
What about conscietous objectors, BTW? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Conscientious objectors in the 1980's and early 1990's played a big role in the end of the draft in Spain and the transition to professional, volunteer armed forces. And there wasn't even a war on. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
As someone who nearly became one, I am happy that Europe is increasingly abandoning the draft. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Now, how could you be "unsubmissively" anti-militaristic and also an interventionist? Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
Apatriotism another factor: intervention as international enterprise, vs. drafted army is national. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I went to university in the US. For my undergraduate degree I had to not only take subjects in my major, and related areas, but also in history, anthropology, sociology, literature, art, or rather, I had to pick several subjects from a list of humanities, arts, and social sciences. Subject that I would have never bothered with at the university level, not because I don't find them interesting, but because under a system where it would be allowed but not required I would have felt compelled to concentrate on what directly mattered to my future occupation.
(For all the terrible things I have to say about the US, I really, really like their broader undergraduate curriculum. Going to university there was quite simply great. Maybe not true for all schools??)
Follow up to report in The Telegraph that "Iran 'is training the next al-Qa'eda leaders'".
Iran's Permanent Mission to the United Nations said on Saturday that a report by the Fox TV Network is 'an unfounded fabrication' alleged harbouring of a member of the Al-Qaeda terrorist group. In a letter to the US defense department TV network, the mission said the report was a 'mere lie' and against the basic and professional rules of journalism. The network has recently aired a report claiming that Iran has harbored al-Qaeda No. 3 man, Saif al-Adel, in its territory in order to replace him by the terrorist group's ailing leader Osama Bin Laden as he was in a critical health condition. Calling the report a 'blatant media fabrication and a mere lie', the mission said in its letter that as one of the primary victims of al-Qaeda terrorist acts in Afghanistan, Iran has repeatedly condemned the terrorist group. Al-Qaeda gunmen martyred eight Iranian diplomats and IRNA reporter Mahmoud Saremi at Iranian consulate in Mazari-i-Sharif on August 8, 1998. "Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have frequently said that neither the acts of terrorism nor the terrorist group of al-Qaeda are considered as Islamic," stressed the letter. Referring to al-Qaeda as 'a threat to Iran's security', it added that attributing such allegations to Iran was 'ridiculous' as al-Qaeda clearly opposes Shia school of thought and the Shia principles.
In a letter to the US defense department TV network, the mission said the report was a 'mere lie' and against the basic and professional rules of journalism.
The network has recently aired a report claiming that Iran has harbored al-Qaeda No. 3 man, Saif al-Adel, in its territory in order to replace him by the terrorist group's ailing leader Osama Bin Laden as he was in a critical health condition.
Calling the report a 'blatant media fabrication and a mere lie', the mission said in its letter that as one of the primary victims of al-Qaeda terrorist acts in Afghanistan, Iran has repeatedly condemned the terrorist group.
Al-Qaeda gunmen martyred eight Iranian diplomats and IRNA reporter Mahmoud Saremi at Iranian consulate in Mazari-i-Sharif on August 8, 1998.
"Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have frequently said that neither the acts of terrorism nor the terrorist group of al-Qaeda are considered as Islamic," stressed the letter.
Referring to al-Qaeda as 'a threat to Iran's security', it added that attributing such allegations to Iran was 'ridiculous' as al-Qaeda clearly opposes Shia school of thought and the Shia principles.
