|
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
SHAMED BY 42 BRAINLESS BLOWS
 |
|
UNDER FIRE: Grenade hits compound. All pictures are News Of The World Copyright. No reproduction permitted. |
 |
|
RIOT ALERT: Youths stone army base |
 |
|
GET 'EM! Snatch squad chase rioters |
 |
|
GRABBED: Rioters are brought back in |
 |
|
SOLDIER'S VICIOUS FILM VOICEOVER: 'Oh yes, oh yes, you're gonna get it. Naughty little boys. You little f***ers, you little f***. DIE' |
 |
|
VICIOUS: Helmeted soldier headbutts trapped Prisoner 1 |
 |
|
BULLIES: Troops dwarf victim |
 |
|
BRUTE FORCE: Squad pile into prisoner on ground |
EXCLUSIVE BRUTAL & BRITISH:
Exposed.. squad of British soldiers beat teenage Iraqis and shame their country
By Robert Kellaway
TODAY we expose a rogue squad of British soldiers who savagely attacked a defenceless bunch of Iraqi teenagers —and with 42 brutal blows brought shame on our nation and its proud army.
The horrifying scenes on these pages will shock the world and ignite a huge military scandal.
They were captured on a secret home video — apparently filmed for "fun" by a corporal—and show at least eight of his hulking comrades cruelly:
DRAGGING four weedy rioters—all apparently in their early teens—off the street and behind the high walls of a secluded army compound,
BEATING them senseless with vicious blows from batons, boots and fists,
IGNORING their pitiful pleas for mercy, until the incident climaxes with what appears to be an NCO delivering a sickening full-force kick in the genitals of a cringeing lad pinned to the ground.
All the while the callous cameraman delivers a stomach-churning commentary urging his mates on, cackling with laughter and screaming: "Oh yes! Oh yes! You're gonna get it. Yes, naughty little boys! You little f***ers, you little f***ers. DIE! Ha, ha!"
The video—later shown to the corporal's pals at their home base in Europe—was exposed to the News of the World by a disgusted whistleblower.
He told us the unit and regiment involved but for security reasons we are not publishing the details.
Our informant said: "These Iraqis were just kids. Most haven't even got shoes on.
"Those eight soldiers were pumped up and out of control. They're an insult to the thousands of soldiers who have worked so hard in Iraq with courage and dignity for so long.
"They're nothing but a gang of thugs, a disgrace to themselves, their regiment and country."
The cowardly beating is believed to have taken place in early 2004 amid a series of street riots in southern Iraq. Troops were involved in running battles with hundreds of screaming demonstrators armed with stones, sticks, shovels and home-made grenades.
The atmosphere and tension comes across vividly in the video, believed to have been shot from a rooftop within the troops' HQ compound. The muzzle of an Army SA80 rifle laid on its side is visible in the foreground.
A DIY grenade lands and explodes inside the compound—blasting out shrapnel and a cloud of grey-white smoke. A fire blazes just outside the perimeter wall sending up a pall of black fumes as crowds of rioters chant abuse at the soldiers. Dozens of youths run towards the compound hurling stones, but suddenly turn on their heels—chased by a unit of squaddies in combat helmets with riot visors and desert camouflage. Some of the soldiers are wearing flak vests and are armed with batons and rifles.
A crackling radio message to the troops pinpoints a target: "Black top, blue bottoms! Black top, blue bottoms! GO!"
The camera then cuts to eight soldiers returning with four prisoners, gripped in headlocks. The squad march their captives to the compound gate and drag them inside—out of sight from the rioters outside. Then the horror begins.
PRISONER 1 is hauled in wearing a dark blue T-shirt, blue jeans and white trainers—the only victim not in bare feet.
His captor releases the headlock, stands him up and—with combat helmet on and visor down—lands a crushing head butt. He rips the youngster's T-shirt over his head and smashes his right fist twice into his kidneys and once into his head.
In panic the terrified captive desperately clings to the lanyard of the soldier's baton in an attempt to stop it being used on him.
His pitiful cries of "No! Please!" are clearly heard. But the mocking commentator merely puts on a childlike voice and mimics his Iraqi accent: "No, pleeese—don't hurt me."
Another soldier grabs the lad by the neck and hurls him to the floor to be kicked and beaten again. The head-butt soldier then raises his baton and brings it crashing down on him.
PRISONER 2, in blue T-shirt and grey trousers, is marched in, gripped by the shoulder. His captor forces him to the ground and hits him about the body and legs with his baton.
As he unleashes ten blows the boy twists and squirms around the soldier's ankles trying to save himself. A soldier in a floppy hat—not part of the snatch squad—looks on. He is clearly unsure of what to do but does not look alarmed or make any attempt to stop the beating.
Instead he helps fix plastic restraining ties on the lad's wrists. Another burly soldier, in desert camouflage and webbing belt with water bottle attached, strides up and whacks the Iraqi's backside with a baton. The prisoner's feet jerk in agony before he appears to pass out, a dark patch that looks like blood around his head. Meanwhile PRISONER 3, in white T-shirt and jeans, is booted in the back and body six times by two soldiers.
As he struggles on the floor one squaddie grabs him by the shoulder, kicks him twice and cracks him about the legs and bare feet with his baton.
PRISONER 4, barefoot in light blue T-shirt with beige trousers, is beaten before being picked bodily off the ground like a sack of potatoes, dumped on his chest and held with his arms up his back by two of the squad.
One soldier, identified by our source as a sergeant, walks up behind him and kicks him hard between the legs from behind.
The boy's body arches in pain and the soldier behind the camera is heard poking fun and groaning: "Oorrgghh!"
As another squad troop past and take no notice a soldier's voice is heard to scream: "In the f***ing head!"
The beating sequence on the video, which appears to be a series of excerpts from the incident, takes up 60 seconds of the 3minute 12second tape. Our investigators counted 42 separate blows but there were probably many more not caught on camera.
The video also has two other shocking sequences. In one, the camera approaches an Iraqi corpse while a soldier draws back a blanket to display it as a sickening trophy.
The cameraman then commits an act considered the ultimate insult to an Iraqi—and kicks the dead man twice in the face, humiliating him in death. As the head of the man, aged in his 20s, is lifted to face the lens a soldier sniggers: "He's been a bad mother****er."
Another scene shows an Iraqi man grabbed by three soldiers and forced to kneel behind a wall where he is kicked hard in the chest.
The video came to light following the unit's return home. Our source was horrified when he saw it and vowed the tape MUST be made public to force the army to clamp down on the abuse of prisoners—and protect the reputations of more than 80,000 dedicated British troops—including 101 killed and 230 injured—who have served in Iraq since the start of the second Gulf war.
He told us: "I'm sure those Iraqis weren't innocent little boys—I bet they'd all been slinging rocks and maybe even explosives. But that's no excuse for a beating like that.
"The ringleader was supposed to be a senior sergeant. Instead of reeling the lads in and calming them down, he was in the thick of it, urging them on. He even kicked that boy straight in the b***s with two other soldiers twice the lad's size holding him face down.
"That's sick. You could understand some terrified 19-year-old private losing it. But that's what NCOs are for—to lead and set an example."
Last night we handed our dossier of evidence to the Ministry of Defence. A Military Police investigation is now under way.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml
Posted at 06:40 pm by R7fel
Permalink
Sunday, February 12, 2006
From America's Worst T.V. Network
|
NBC Puts On 2-Week Commercial for US Power
|
|
by Pierre Tristam |
| |
| About half the readers of this site are from outside the United States, which means that among those of you who chose to watch the Olympics’ opening ceremonies from Turin Friday, about half of you were lucky enough not to be subjected to NBC’s nauseating production. But I’m not so sure you should count your blessings. Watching an American production of a world sporting event these days may be embarrassing. It is simplistic. It is supremacist. It is promotional to the core. But it is also instructive. NBC covers the Olympics the way American neocons do foreign policy: The world is 95 percent America, 3 percent water, and 2 percent everything else. America’s projection onto the world is mostly as an emblem of force, preferably unrivaled. What world does exist outside its borders is reduced to elementary-school simplicities (“1.3 billion Chinese!” and how to say Turin in Italian). Above all, it’s reduced to the presumption that the rest of the world is either a by-stander, an enabler or a threat to American hegemony—what America’s Republicans, who have more in common with Charles DeGaulle than with Abraham Lincoln, would call American greatness (even as that greatness is right now pulling an Algerian rug from under its booted feet, with Iraqi weaving). That’s how NBC projects its Olympic coverage. All the world’s a spectator to American prowess and dominance. You get the sense that none but American athletes are in these competitions, just as the Bush White House gives the sense that all the world is collateral for American foreign policy. NBC has been trained for the task. The same people who brought us the Iraq war as show business and “The Rescue of Jessica Lynch” as truth, and who keep bringing us coverage of the White House as public relations, now bring us the Olympics as a two-week commercial for American power.
The introduction set the tone. The announcer, speaking in the cadences of a Vietnam War documentary, gave a Travel Channel-synopsis of Turin’s Alpine character, with cinematography spectacular enough to make you wonder why it was so maliciously abbreviated. He swept over Turin’s architecture and summed up its two thousand year history in twelve seconds or so (about the length of any world history lesson in White House briefings). He intoned about this or that athlete from another country, the one whose body was “stitched together after twelve surgeries” or the one who single-handedly convinced his no-snow African nation to endorse a winter Olympic federation so he could compete. He made you feel that, well, maybe there is a world out there after all. But then the music changed — from conventionally upbeat to Rambo-martial. Instinctively you knew what was up, for having been on the receiving end of similarly ominous soundtracks for the last four years every time a news show substituted nationalistic bombast for reporting: The subject switched exclusively to American athletes. It was no longer sport, but war. It was no longer competition, but defiance, whether it was about the athlete who “has converted his body into a bullet” or the one from New Hampshire who has taken his state motto and, somewhat inexplicably, turned it into his Olympic promise: “Live free or die.” If this weren’t enough, the announcer trumped up a little bit of divine right when he claimed that “the royalty of American figure skating” was making its return, lord knows from what genesis — Tonya Harding? Nancy Kerrigan? The eternally unfulfilled promise of Michelle Kwan? Naturally, Kwan was NBC’s very first Olympic interview, though not word one about the four Olympians who’d already been booted out for doping up, among them Zach Lund, the American sledder who made a gold medal seem like his entitlement.
What’s imperial gold to America sounds tinny to much of the world, and of course even to much of America, judging by the other inescapable parallel in this story: Bush’s anemic approval ratings—and NBC’s: “Friday’s Olympic opening ceremony was the worst-watched in at least a decade,” went one report. There’s a lesson there, but America’s powers that beam, from the presidency down to its media farmhands, aren’t learning it for being too self-absorbed. To the self-deluded, approval doesn’t matter anymore.
In 2001, the whole world called itself American in solidarity with the attacks the country sustained. It didn’t last, because President Bush couldn’t pass up the opportunity to answer fanaticism with fanaticism, alienating the world along the way. That the world’s pronounced tendency to hate Americaalmost as much as it hates Iran seems only to reinforce his conviction that the only country that matters is America. He said as much in an interview with Bob Woodward in early 2002: “At some point,” Bush said of the war on terror, “we may be the only ones left. That’s okay with me. We are America.” NBC’s Olympic coverage revels in that unilateral view. It should be alienating to anyone but the most hardened, modern version of America-Firsters. But we keep watching because we don’t have a choice, or because the instructive element is worth the attention, or because there are always a few surprises, like NBC’s uncharacteristic decision to show the entire parade of nations, cutting not a single one of the eighty participating countries even when it went to commercial. Not bad. But that was the sort of exception that proved the rule, a bone thrown to Bob Costas, the eminently qualified (and worldly) Olympic anchor since the late 1980s. His talent was ruinously snubbed Friday by NBC’s decision to stick him with a an escort for the evening, the way the Pentagon sticks reporters with escorts in war zones: Costas’ shadow was none other than Brian Williams, the NBC News anchor and recent replacement for Tom Brokaw. It was half publicity stunt half conceit. NBC wants to give Williams exposure in his new role. Williams wants to give himself gravitas. And NBC’s Olympic coverage wants to seem au courant, hip to the sporty and the newsy. Instead, Williams’ comments — about Italy providing the third-biggest contingent in Iraq (he did not mention that Italy was withdrawing its troops over the next several months), about China having an iffy environmental record, about Iran threatening Israel, about Danish athletes potentially triggering demonstrations over the Muhammad cartoons — had the feel of a mortician distributing his calling card at a wedding. It wasn’t just intrusive. It was obscene for its self-promotion and redundancy, and for what it took away from the athletes while inferring that they somehow reflected their nations’ policies. The Olympics may be all about promotion, politics, profiteering, marketing, drugs and corruption outside the playing fields. But within them, for those brief moments that athletes hold the stage, they remain about sport for sport’s sake. With obvious exceptions — the U.S.-U.S.S.R. hockey match at the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics come to mind — they remain exclusively about the athletes and their individual frailties and triumphs. Not their nations’. Leave it to NBC to demolish that one last redeeming illusion. It was bound to, having demolished all others.
For here’s another one of those ironies of American technological supremacy and “freedom”: We were not allowed to watch the opening ceremonies live, the way most of the rest of the world did. We won’t be allowed to watch most of the fortnight’s marquee events live, either. NBC packages them for prime-time viewing, between 8 and 11 p.m., to suit advertisers and best reap its $613 million investment in broadcasting rights to these games alone. So it goes with freedom’s might. When dividends are at stake, freedom is reduced to a pretty slogan (which NBC made much use of in its descriptions of “ Torino” as the birth-place of Italy). We are now treated to news anchors who, like one local specimen for NBC’s WESH-2 in Orlando, said he “can’t wait to see what happens tonight” — a newsman saying this — even though the opening ceremony was several hours old and its glittery pictures and accounts were all over the Internet. If the Pentagon is always fighting the last war, the television networks are always broadcasting the previous decade’s Olympics. The distortions are nevertheless in perfect alignment with the American presumption that time zones don’t exist outside the United States, that time itself is an exclusively American luxury others abide by. To watch the Olympics on NBC, like watching the news on any American network, is like shopping in a mall or gambling in a casino: It’s a world onto its own where clocks don’t intrude and windows on the world are non-existent, for fear of distracting the consumer from his primordial duty: to buy what’s being dished out efficiently and uncomplainingly. And then to celebrate his luxurious imprisonment with canned patriotism, for let’s not forget the flag-raising ceremonies disproportionately detained by the Star Spangled Banner.
To reword Tacitus’ famous phrase about Roman armies, they created a monopoly and called it free enterprise. And it is this sort of mentality that pretends to be bringing freedom (and free enterprise!) to the world.
Pierre Tristam is an editorial writer and columnist at the Daytona Beach, Florida., News-Journal, and editor of Candide’s Notebooks. Reach him at ptristam@att.net.
© 2006 Pierre Tristam |
Posted at 07:55 pm by R7fel
Permalink
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Major Spanish Media Company
Univision Considers Going on the Block
Published: February 8, 2006
Univision Communications, the Spanish-language media company, is considering a plan to put itself up for sale, people briefed on the proposal said last night.
Skip to next paragraph
Univision, via Associated Press
"Piel de Otoño" is one of Univision's telenovelas, or soap operas.
An auction for Univision, which is worth nearly $10 billion, could set off a scramble among the country's media giants — the News Corporation, Time Warner and CBS — as they vie for a slice of the lucrative and growing Spanish-language market.
Univision's directors are expected to meet today to decide whether to put the company up for sale, these people said. The company has retained UBS, its investment bank, to run the auction if it approves the plan.
The attraction of such a media asset is obvious: the buyer would immediately gain the biggest gateway into a rapidly growing Latino market with some $480 billion in annual buying power. Univision owns the No. 1 Spanish-language television network, radio broadcaster, music company and online operations.
The nation's second-largest Spanish-language broadcaster, Telemundo, was acquired by the NBC unit of General Electric in 2001.
But Univision dwarfs Telemundo, eclipsing its audience by nearly four times. It is the fifth-largest television network in the country behind Fox and ahead of the WB network, reaching some 98 percent of Spanish-speaking households through its 62 television stations, more than 90 affiliate stations and more than 2,000 cable affiliates.
Known chiefly for its telenovelas, or soap operas, the network also offers news and soccer, as well as the longest-running show in prime time, "Sabado Gigante."
In addition to the flagship Univision network, the company has the TeleFutura network and the Galavisión cable channel. Since it bought Hispanic Broadcasting for $3 billion in 2002, it has been the leading Spanish-language radio broadcaster in the United States.
The company is run by A. Jerrold Perenchio, 75, a onetime Hollywood talent agent and a force in syndicated television who saw the potential for Spanish-language broadcasting. In 1992, he led a group that included Emilio Azcarraga, the late father of the current chairman of Grupo Televisa, to acquire Univision, and 13 Spanish-language stations from Hallmark for $500 million.
Mr. Perenchio, who does not speak Spanish, has also been a big contributor to President Bush and the Republican Party. He owns about 11 percent of Univision, while Grupo Televisa owns about 10 percent.
But there are hurdles for any suitor. The biggest may be a Federal Communications Commission regulation that limits ownership to stations that reach 39 percent of the nation's homes.
At a Goldman Sachs conference in September, Leslie Moonves, then co-chief operating officer of Viacom, now chief executive of CBS, the broadcast operations that split from Viacom, said: "I wish the F.C.C. didn't regulate us. We would love to own some of the stations. As a matter of fact, we would go after Univision if we could own more television stations. But with our 40 percent cap, we're sort of limited by that."
The News Corporation, run by Rupert Murdoch, could have the same problem. But analysts suggest that such companies would probably be willing to sell some stations to get under the 39 percent threshold and enable a deal to happen.
Time Warner, which is expected to express interest, could be hamstrung because it is in the midst of a fierce proxy contest for control of the company's board with Carl C. Icahn.
Another possible suitor is the Mexican media giant Grupo Televisa, which provides much of Univision's programming under an agreement that runs until 2017.
While Televisa could not buy Univision on its own because of a federal regulation that prevents foreigners from owning more than 25 percent of an American broadcaster, it could team with a private equity firm or other interested buyer.
Still, Univision and Televisa have had a tension-filled relationship: Televisa has sued Univision over royalty payments and last week said Univision was in material breach of the 1992 licensing agreement.
And of course, private equity firms, flush with cash, could make a play for Univision on their own.
But Univision would not come cheap. Its stock trades at nearly 37 times expected earnings. After falling to a 52-week low of $23.52 in late October, the stock is up 30 percent, at $30.54. Some analysts suggested the company could be sold for a 30 or even 40 percent premium or possibly higher because it is the last opportunity for a major American media company to get into the Spanish-language market.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/business/media/08network.html?th&emc=th
Posted at 08:57 am by R7fel
Permalink
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
ANSWER Coalition: All Out for April 29 in New York City!
End Occupation from Iraq to Palestine, to Haiti, and Everywhere!
Fight for workers rights, civil rights and civil liberties - unite against racism!
Dear Felix,
|
300,000 Came to Washington on Sept. 24
|
In recent weeks the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition has been in the final stages for planning a national demonstration in Washington DC on April 29, 2006. This action was to follow the local and regional demonstrations for March 18-19 and youth and student actions scheduled on March 20 on the 3rd anniversary of the criminal bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq.
On September 24, 2005 more than 300,000 people surrounded the White House in the largest mobilization against the Iraq war and occupation since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. This demonstration was initiated by the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition in May 2005 and we urged a united front with other major anti-war coalitions and communities. We marched demanding immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq. We also stood in solidarity with the Palestinian and Haitian people and others who are suffering under and resisting occupation. Coming as it did following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we changed the demands of the September 24 protest to include the slogan "From Iraq to New Orleans, Fund People's Needs not the War Machine."
During the past several years, and as demonstrated in a powerful display on September 24, the anti-war movement has grown significantly in its breadth and depth as the leadership has included the Arab and Muslim community -- those who are among the primary targets of the Bush Administration's current war at home and abroad.
The anti-war sentiment inside the United States is rapidly becoming a significant obstacle to the Bush Administration's war in Iraq. The anti-war movement has the potential to be a critical deterrent to the U.S. government's aspirations for Empire. At this moment the White House and Pentagon are issuing threats and making plans to move against other sovereign countries. Iran and Syria are being targeted as the U.S. seeks to consolidate power in the Middle East. Simultaneously the Bush administration is working to undermine the gains of the people of Latin America by working to topple the democratically elected president of Venezuela and destroy the revolutionary process for social change going on in that country. Likewise it is intensifying the economic war and CIA subversions against Cuba.
We believe that our movement must weld together the broadest, most diverse coalition of various sectors and communities into an effective force for change. This requires the inclusion of targeted communities and political clarity. The war in Iraq is not simply an aberrational policy of the Bush neo-conservatives. Iraq is emblematic of a larger war for Empire. It is part of a multi-pronged attack against all those countries that refuse to follow the economic, political and military dictates of the Washington establishment and Wall Street.
This is the foundation of the political program upon which the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition has organized mass demonstrations in the recent years. The fact that many hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated in Washington D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York and other cities is a testament to the huge progress that has been made in building a new movement on this principled basis.
 |
The people of the United States have nothing to gain and everything to lose from the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Haiti and the threats of new wars and intervention in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, the Philippines, North Korea and elsewhere. It has been made crystal clear in recent weeks that Washington is aggressively prosecuting its strategy of total domination of the Middle East. U.S. leaders are seeking to crush all resistance to their colonial agenda, whether from states or popular movements in the region. The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition and the anti-war movement is raising the demand, "U.S. Out of the Middle East."
At its core, the war for Empire is supported by the Republican Party and Democratic Party alike, which constitute the twin parties of militarism and war, and this quest for global domination will continue regardless of the outcome of the 2006 election. In fact, leading Democrats are attacking Bush for being "soft" on Iran and North Korea. Real hope for turning the tide rests with building a powerful global movement of resistance in which the people of the United States stand with their sisters and brothers struggling against imperialism and the new colonialism.
On the home front the Bush administration is involved in a far-reaching assault against working class communities as most glaringly evidenced by its criminal and racist negligence towards the people of New Orleans and throughout the hurricane ravaged Gulf States. While turning their backs on these communities in the moments of greatest need, the U.S. government is now working with the banks and developers who, like vultures, are exploiting mass suffering and dislocation to carry out racist gentrification that only benefits the wealthy. The administration is also working to eviscerate hard-fought civil rights and civil liberties, engaging in a widespread campaign of domestic spying and wiretapping against the people of the U.S. and other assaults against the First and Fourth Amendments.
In early December 2005, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition filed for permits for a national march in Washington DC on April 29, 2006. We were preparing to announce the April 29 action but in recent days we have heard from A.N.S.W.E.R. organizers in a number of unions that U.S. Labor Against the War was seeking union endorsements for a call for an anti-war demonstration on the same day in New York City. Having two demonstrations on April 29 in both Washington D.C. and New York City seems to us to be less advantageous than having the movement unite behind one single mobilization. As such, we decided to hold back our announcement. Subsequently, the New York City demonstration has been announced by a number of organizations. Underscoring the need to have the largest possible demonstration on April 29, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition has decided to fully mobilize, in all of its chapters and organizing centers, to bring people to the New York City demonstration on April 29. The banners and slogans of different coalitions may not be the same, but it is in the interest of everyone to march shoulder-to-shoulder against the criminal war in Iraq and the Bush administration's War for Empire, including its racist, sexist and anti-worker domestic program.
All out for a united, mass mobilization on April 29 in New York City!
Click here to become a transportation center in your city or town for the April 29 demonstration.
Click here to receive updates on A.N.S.W.E.R.'s mobilization for the April 29 NYC demonstration. 
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
Act Now to Stop War & End Racism
http://www.answercoalition.org/
info@internationalanswer.org
National Office in Washington DC: 202-544-3389
New York City: 212-694-8720
Los Angeles: 323-464-1636
San Francisco: 415-821-6545
Posted at 08:20 am by R7fel
Permalink
A Message From Danny Glover
|
|
| Danny Glover |
|
|
Actor, Activist and President TransAfrica Forum Board
I would like to ask you to take action to stop the genocide in Darfur. You might remember that I got arrested at the Sudanese Embassy in 2004 protesting the on-going violence. We have now come to a tipping point, a critical moment both in terms of the genocide itself and the politics surrounding a resolution at the United Nations. In February, the U.S. will chair the UN Security Council and will have the opportunity to use this position of leadership to protect the people of Darfur by introducing a resolution authorizing a UN multinational peacekeeping operation. As we know, the Bush Administration is unlikely to work for justice in Africa without significant pressure from the public, especially from Americans of African descent.
Please mark your calendar today for two important days of action. Please call the U.S. Mission at the UN on February 1st and please come out to Lafayette Park in Washington DC on February 2nd for a rally at the White House.
Join Trans Africa Forum's close allies at Africa Action who are organizing these initiatives. This could be the most important moment in the campaign to stop genocide in Darfur.
More information about the message for the Call-In Day for the 1st and the rally on the 2nd can be found at http://capwiz.com/africaaction/utr/1/ECLSFKWBJT/FEPBFKWCLR/596815201.
As Americans we have a unique power to assist the people of Darfur to protect themselves-please - join us on February 1st and 2nd.
In struggle for peace with justice,
Danny Glover
P.S. From Africa Action - If you are in the New York area, please join us at noon on February 8th at the U.S. Mission to the UN, E. 45th Street between Third and Lexington Avenues for a rally and picket. | |
Posted at 07:50 am by R7fel
Permalink
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Conservative Alito Replaces Liberal O'Connor
Senate Confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
Tuesday, January 31, 2006; Posted: 11:24 a.m. EST (16:24 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate confirmed Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court on Tuesday by a vote of 58-42, a day after an attempt by some Democratic senators to block his nomination fizzled.
Alito, who will be the court's 110th justice, will be sworn into office across the street from the Capitol at the Supreme Court, just hours before President Bush's State of the Union address. He will then join Chief Justice John Roberts in the House chamber for Tuesday night's speech. Judge Alito will be ceremonially sworn into office Wednesday in the East Room of the White House.
Alito watched the Senate vote from the Roosevelt Room of the White House with President Bush and his wife, Martha-Ann Bomgardner.
Alito's supporters in the Senate, as expected, cleared the final roadblock Monday when senators, by a vote of 72-25, decided to cut off debate and proceed to a final vote, rebuffing an attempt by a cadre of liberal senators to talk the nomination to death.
The vote easily exceeded the 60 votes needed to pass the motion. (What is a filibuster?)
In the end, only 24 of the chamber's 44 Democrats went along with the filibuster, a maneuver allowed under Senate rules to block a vote by extending debate indefinitely. It was also supported by the chamber's lone independent, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont.
Arguing against cutting off debate, Sen. John Kerry -- who spearheaded the filibuster effort with his fellow Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. Ted Kennedy -- said Alito's record during his 15 years on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has given "the extreme right wing unbelievable public cause for celebration."
"That just about tells you what you need to know," Kerry said. "The vote today is whether or not we will take a stand against ideological court-packing."
But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said the move to cut off debate fulfilled a "very straightforward principle -- a nominee with the support of a majority of senators deserves a fair up-or-down vote."
"The sword of the filibuster has been sheathed because we are placing principle before politics, and results before rhetoric," Frist said.
The White House released a statement from President Bush hailing Monday's vote and saying he was looking forward to Alito's confirmation.
"I am pleased that a strong, bipartisan majority in the Senate decisively rejected attempts to obstruct and filibuster an up-or-down vote," Bush said.
The motion to cut off debate drew the support of 53 Republicans and 19 Democrats, including all 14 senators who signed on to an agreement last year that ended a series of Democratic filibusters of Bush's judicial nominations.
The so-called Gang of 14 included seven Democrats and seven Republicans.
The Democrats agreed not to support judicial filibusters except under "extraordinary circumstances," which would be up to each senator to define. In return, the GOP members agreed not to support any attempt by Republican leaders to change Senate rules to permanently end the practice.
Among the 24 Democrats who supported the filibuster were five senators being mentioned as possible 2008 White House contenders -- Kerry, who lost to Bush in 2004; Hillary Clinton of New York; Evan Bayh of Indiana; Russ Feingold of Wisconsin; and Joe Biden of Delaware.
The Senate's top two Democrats, Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, also supported the Kerry-Kennedy filibuster effort.
With at least four Democrats and 53 Republicans in favor, confirmation was all but guaranteed.
At least 37 Democrats and Jeffords have announced they will vote no. Only one of the Senate's 55 Republicans has come out against Alito's confirmation -- Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a moderate facing re-election this fall in an overwhelmingly Democratic state.
"I am a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican, and I will be voting against this nomination," Chafee said in a statement.
The four Democrats who have said they will vote for Alito are Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. All four represent states Bush carried in both 2000 and 2004.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/alito/index.html
Posted at 11:47 am by R7fel
Permalink
The Hamas Victory: Green Dawn, Red Dusk?
Toufic Haddad, The Electronic Intifada, 31 January 2006
 |
| Out with the old, in with the new: Yasser Arafat's Fateh party was crushed by Hamas in last week's legislative elections (Magnus Johansson/Ma'an News) |
27 January 2006 — Less than 24 hours after the sweeping Hamas victory in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections, it is clear that the consequences of this event are likely to be so profound that they are capable of bringing about a political tsunami once the wave finally reaches shore. Although the final implications of the elections are yet to be seen regarding how Hamas will form its governing coalition, what this means for the "peace process", and how this will affect Palestinian-Israeli and Palestinian-World politics, certain things can already be deduced from the structure of prevailing power relations. That is to say, the dominant Israeli discourse integrally embedded within the rubric and actions of the US "war against terror" are already beginning to frame the way in which these events are narrated: the Hamas victory ushers in the definitive "Islamization of the conflict" in which Israel, and indirectly "all Western countries", are confronted by a war for "elementary values of democracy and sacredness of life". Within this logic, Israel must reasonably wage an "eternal war" with "no compromises", "against religious extremism", while attempting to preserve the values which "separate us from them". After all, who can reasonably expect negotiations with those who send suicide bombers, and "call for Israel's destruction"?
Tragically, the wide scale dehumanization and racism pitted against Islamist movements since September 11th across the world has been so successful that wide sections of the US Left will likewise fall prisoner to similar logic. It is therefore necessary to immediately and clearly articulate an accurate understanding of what the Hamas victory means both for the powers that be, as well as for activists concerned with the fate of the Palestinian national movement, and all subsequent anti-racist, anti-colonialist, and anti-imperialist movements.
Why Hamas Won
Hamas won a resounding victory commanding 76 seats in the 132 Person Legislative Council. Together with the support of 4 additional independent candidates who won, and were backed by Hamas, the 'Change and Reform' slate of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Harakat Al Moqawama Al Islamiyya) garnered a total of 80 seats - 60.6 % of the high voter turn out (75% of the eligible voters) and almost double the 43 seats of Fateh. What does this represent in the algebra of regional and world forces?
Defeating Fateh
No doubt the clearest message the election results show is that the Palestinian electorate resoundingly said "No More!" to the ruling Fateh party. Fateh's extended 40 year hegemony over Palestinian national decision making and financial resources; its undemocratic decision making processes both vis-a-vis other factions and within Fateh itself; its poor political calculations and performance; and its latent financial corruption, in the end created more enemies than friends within Palestinian society. Ever since the Intifada began, and particularly after the death of Yasser Arafat, the glue that once kept Fateh together has dissolved as the contradictions it oversaw bubbled to the surface. Simultaneously, Hamas built itself upon the organizational framework initially laid down by the West Bank and Gaza Strip Islamic Brotherhood movements in previous years. Its launching in 1987 within the vibrant theatre of Palestinian politics, forced fundamental changes upon the organization which over time resulted in its growth into a dynamic, disciplined, democratic, centralized party structure. Moreover its political platform cleverly shadowed all the political areas where Fateh and the Oslo Accords retreated with respect to Palestinian national rights: the right of return of Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem, and the unity of the entire Palestinian people. Despite being the largest employer in the Occupied Territories; despite being the only major Palestinian party not on the CIA's top 20 International Terrorist Group list; despite being the "one with all the connections" to 'international legitimacy', Fateh was finally punished for its cynicism, corruption, double speak, and internalized defeatism, both politically and organizationally.
A Moral Victory for the Resistance and for "the Party Serves the People"
But the Hamas victory is not just about negation. Nor is it merely about the oft-cited social welfare network it oversees. Although there are significant socio-economic reasons behind Hamas' success, this simplification assumes that Palestinians are simply so desperate that they vote for whoever feeds them, and are devoid of any critical political faculties.
Far more significant to Hamas' victory is what it represents politically, particularly when contrasted with the trajectory of the previous Fateh movement. Hamas represents a definitive departure from the Oslo model and the humiliating false discourse it propagated. Palestinians rejected that they had to be a "partner to peace"; that they were the ones who had to prove that they were not the terrorists; and that "Israeli security and self-defense" was a legitimate premise in the peace process, necessitating all of Israel's subsequent actions. It is precisely this vocabulary which greased the wheels of the machines which actively sought to extinguish the Palestinian national movement for the past 5 years, and colonized Palestinian lands in the West Bank and Gaza for the past 38.
Equally as important was the fact that in the struggle to attain these rights, Hamas articulated an alternative strategy to what it saw as the dead end of Oslo. Hamas preserved and implemented at times, the Palestinian right to resist. This, in the eyes of its US, Israeli and EU detractors, was its gravest sin. Although this resistance may have taken controversial forms, the reality of the matter is that Hamas was never unique in its employment of these methods amongst Palestinian factions, and often proved itself to be far more disciplined in its use of them. Furthermore, in the course of the Intifada, it was not Hamas which began the hostilities (Israel gets credit for that), nor was it the first Palestinian faction to initiate the Intifada's militarization (Fateh's responsibility.)
Only after politically positioning itself upon a firm political base, and articulating a program which protected and sometimes implemented a resistance centered campaign, can Hamas' social works be understood in context. In fact, it is precisely through the consolidation of these first two criteria that Hamas' social welfare networks become transformed from mere charity networks, into instruments for political mobilization. Hamas' victory also exemplified that it is first and foremost the responsibility of the political party to serve its people and not the other way around.
Defeat for US Imperialism and Zionism
Although cynics will no doubt argue that the Hamas victory falls in line with US and Israeli policies to legitimize its future actions, the fact of the matter is that both would have no doubt preferred a Fateh victory. US and Israeli strategies during Oslo were premised around the PA being Israel's security subcontractor. After the Intifada broke out, the US and Israel shifted tack, opting in favor of 'unilateralism' to get their way (as implemented in construction of the massive wall and checkpoint system, and the disengagement from Gaza). As for the Palestinian Authority, it was to be retained only in so far it was to be an object of continued torment -"until the Palestinians turn into Finns", according to Sharon's right hand man Dov Weisglas. This was supposed to free Israel's hand to be able to unilaterally determine Israel's borders, and anything else Israel and the US saw fit.
Although no doubt both Israel and the US have plenty of resources at their expense to exploit the current scenario to their advantage, the Hamas victory is an affront to the politics of how the US and Israel have been running the show for the previous 12 years. Hamas has the potential and desire to reorganize and regroup the Palestinian national movement on a surer footing, stemming the corrosive effects of Fateh's leadership under Oslo and Israel's deliberately destructive tactics against it. Hamas' victory also flies in the face of the Bush doctrine's efforts to 'bring democracy to the Middle East', as though this was to be equated with bringing to power moderate, pro-American regimes. Indeed the contrary has taken place, and it is this model which now shall be held up for movements across the region, eager to push for democracy in their respective countries. No doubt social movements in Egypt, Jordan and a host of other notoriously repressive US sponsored regimes will take note of this 'Arab experiment in democracy'.
A Victory and a Warning
Despite the fact that these elections took place under a brutal occupation and that Israel made no serious concessions to facilitate them; despite the fact that Israel currently holds 9,000 prisoners many of whom are pivotal national leaders in its jails; despite the fact that just months ago, Israel attempted to arrest the entire Hamas list and campaign organizers; despite the millions of dollars pumped directly and indirectly into Fateh's campaign by the US and the EU in a last ditch effort to keep the theater of absurd "peace process" alive - the Palestinian people voted resoundingly for a different future. Hamas should be given credit for politically and organizationally articulating and catalyzing that desire for change. At the same time, it must be noted that Hamas' victory is equally as much a failure for the Palestinian Left, and other secular forces to articulate and organize an attractive alternative. No doubt, the internal debates, and maneuvering on that front are only just beginning.
The Palestinian center of gravity has shifted to Hamas, and all others groupings within the Palestinian arena will be at pains to rearticulate and reorganize themselves if they are to one day seriously challenge them. For the time being however, Hamas will be given time to prove itself in action. At the same time the ballooning of its supporters will also bring with it expectations and political diversity, which the movement itself will also find difficult to navigate.
All this however cannot be decontextualized from what Israel and US will do to ensure that Hamas, like Fateh, cannot bring anything substantial back to its constituency in the form of tangible achievements for Palestinian rights. Indeed, both have already underscored that they will not deal with Hamas "until it recognizes Israel", "accepts the Road Map" and disarms. Furthermore, the US and EU are openly considering cutting relations and funding to the PA, while the major Israeli political parties (Labor, Kadima and Likud) all advocate 'unilateralism' if Hamas is in power (and incidentally, if they are not). These policies alone could spell the end for the PA as we have known it, while unmasking what was always the conditional commitment of these parties to "a peace process". Yet more worrying is the discourse which emerged within hours of the election results from former Israeli Army Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon. Ya'alon argued that what we are witnessing is the creation of "Hamastan, Hizbullahstan and al-Qaedastan" in Gaza, and that Iran is at Israel's doorstep. This discourse, and all similar discourse, truly only has one implication behind it - the desire to justify in advance massacres on a scale never seen in the previous 5 years. Hamas is certainly wary of this possibility, and for that reason will ensure it provides no excuses to bring that reality about. Nonetheless, Israel will be the one who orchestrates this and its timing, though likely not before the March elections for Prime Minister.
In these times of reconfiguring mentalities, Palestine solidarity activists must be consistent in challenging the rote racism and dehumanization of Arabs and Muslims which facilitate these bloody scenarios. Likewise they must argue politically for what is truly at the heart of this election, and that the right to self-determination and political representation is an internal Palestinian matter that does not contravene the over-arching framework within which the conflict must be understood: the fight of the Palestinian people to resist the colonization of their land for the establishment of an exclusivist Jewish state that acts as the watchdog of US imperialism in the region. Though a Hamas victory on some levels may make this task harder, it also crucially brings up so many issues which Palestinian activists must convincingly argue if we are ever to win real gains: challenging the historiography of the Oslo peace process and exposing the US role in supporting the exclusionary Zionist state and its oppressive policies against the Palestinian national movement. The fact that this election result was achieved more or less democratically (although with clear limitations which should not be overlooked) should potentially make our task easier - but only if we know what's at stake. Indeed if Israel is to be prevented from eventually doing what it wants to in Gaza, (as it did to Beirut, the heart of Palestinian organizing from 1970 -1982), then Palestine activists will have much to do in the coming months.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4434.shtml
Posted at 11:32 am by R7fel
Permalink
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Mozart's 250th Anniversary
In Salzburg, a Warm Birthday Party
on a Cold Night
Joe Klamar/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images
Thousands of Salzburgers and tourists gather for celebrations marking the 250th birthday of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. More Photos > Published: January 28, 2006
SALZBURG, Austria, Jan. 27 — You couldn't say that the intermission upstaged the concert, exactly. Not this concert, with Riccardo Muti conducting the Vienna Philharmonic and a handful of worthy soloists at the Festspielhaus to celebrate Mozart's 250th birthday, on Friday evening.
Still, the intermission provided rich diversions. For one, there was the heartwarming gesture on the part of the churches here in the city of Mozart's birth to ring their bells at 8 p.m., the time he was born. Many concertgoers braved the cold to listen.
Some even ventured a few blocks to experience another touching scene at an outdoor Mozart stage in the Kapitalplatz. The Orchester TransArt Salzburg (presumably with heaters onstage) was playing the first movement of "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" for a throng of chilled listeners: a stark contrast to the scene at the Festpielhaus, with its cosseted patrons.
The Vienna Philharmonic concert was the centerpiece of the annual Mozart Week run by the Mozarteum Foundation, this year expanded to two weeks and running until Feb. 5. The event generated considerable advance publicity and at least a little rancor this week, when the soprano Renée Fleming, one of the soloists scheduled to appear, was summarily replaced by the mezzo-soprano Cecilia Bartoli.
The issue was the recitative and aria "Ch'io mi scordi di te ... Non temer amato bene," which Ms. Fleming, just days before the concert, found too low for the current state of her voice, although she had performed it before. For whatever reasons, the foundation would not allow Ms. Fleming to withdraw from that piece and retain her other two items on the program. It insisted on keeping the program intact and also on having a single female singer opposite the one male singer, the baritone Thomas Hampson.
But Ms. Bartoli's entry on the scene raised another question. How would a mezzo-soprano fare in one of the other pieces scheduled, the high-flying motet "Exsultate, Jubilate"?
The answer, it can now be reported, is so-so. Hitting the high notes was no problem for Ms. Bartoli, who has an enormous range. Hitting the right tone was a problem.
By definition, this is exultant, jubilant music, but it is not comic opera, and Ms. Bartoli's mugging, vocal as well as facial, falsified its exalted spirit. In addition, her tonal quality seemed too dark and recessed for such bright, effervescent music.
That said, Ms. Bartoli's agility was remarkable, especially in the florid "Alleluia." In any case, Ms. Bartoli received a clamorous ovation from listeners who obviously found more to enjoy.
Mr. Hampson, by contrast, was a model of probity and reserve, almost a bit stiff. In their duet, "La ci darem la mano" from "Don Giovanni," he let his lines flow; Ms. Bartoli seemed to extrude hers in fits and starts.
But there the controversy and the criticism end. The pianist Mitsuko Uchida opened the program with her usual lyricism, elegance, sparkle and wit in Mozart's Concerto No. 25. Ms. Uchida also played the obbligato piano part in "Ch'io mi scordi di te," perhaps one reason the Mozarteum did not want to change the program.
The violinist Gidon Kremer and the violist Yuri Bashmet brought a finely honed partnership to Mozart's exquisite Sinfonia Concertante in E flat. Typically in this work, the violinist and the violist try to blend their sounds seamlessly. Not here: Mr. Kremer's sonority is so intensely focused that it could probably not be subsumed in any other, and Mr. Bashmet's is distinctive in other ways. In the end, those discrepancies made the conversation all the richer.
Mr. Muti opened the second half of the program with Mozart's "Haffner" Symphony, conducted with flair and drive. When Mr. Muti joins the Vienna Philharmonic in Mozart, he often seems to be listening in admiration as much as conducting. Especially in slow movements, he tends to stop his baton or even drop his arms and let the orchestra play unimpeded, as he did several times here.
Mr. Muti ended the evening with the final chorus from "Die Zauberflöte," with the orchestra joined by the Vienna Singverein: a satisfying close to an event a considerable cut above the typical all-star extravaganza.
The concert was broadcast around the world on radio. It was also televised in most of the civilized world, which evidently no longer includes the United States. It was not picked up by Channel 13, PBS or — to the knowledge of itsdirector, Brian Large — any other American outlet: a slight made all the more remarkable by the expected presence of two noted American singers, Ms. Fleming and Mr. Hampson.
This concert was actually the second of the day involving the Vienna Philharmonic. On Friday morning, in a shorter musical program filled out with speeches at the Mozarteum, Nikolaus Harnoncourt conducted the orchestra in Mozart's Symphony No. 40, and the pianist Pierre-Laurent Aimard joined three of its players in Mozart's Piano Quartet in G minor.
Mr. Harnoncourt conducted an impassioned performance, for reasons partly explained in his keynote lecture: the work at one point changed his life, when he gave up a career as an orchestral cellist after one too many sickly sweet performances of the work. He sees it as demonic.
Mr. Aimard continues to impress in every guise: alone, in chamber music or with an orchestra. The Philharmonic string players, perhaps wary of the long day ahead, were less distinguished.
There is much around Salzburg at the moment that smacks of unabashed exploitation of a composer whose relationship with it was, to put it mildly, ambivalent. But these concerts seemed to be genuine efforts to do right by the essence of Mozart.
Posted at 10:30 am by R7fel
Permalink
Monday, January 23, 2006
Israel Killed Arafat, says Assad
January 23, 2006
DAMASCUS: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has caused outrage by accusing Israel of assassinating former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, whose death 14 months ago remains a mystery.
"Of the many assassinations that Israel carried out in a methodical and organised way, the most dangerous thing that Israel did was the assassination of president Yasser Arafat," Mr Assad told a gathering of Arab lawyers in what was billed as a speech on democratic reform.
"This was under the world's gaze and its silence, and not one state dared to issue a statement or stance towards this, as though nothing happened."
Arafat died in Paris on November 11, 2004, at the age of 75, after being rushed from his West Bank compound to a French military hospital.
Israel has denied being responsible for the deterioration in Arafat's health and has denied poisoning him.
Israeli officials said he had access to medical treatment, food, water and medication during the two years he spent in his compound in Ramallah, which was besieged by Israeli troops for months in 2002.
French doctors denied rumours that Arafat was poisoned but have refused to publish his medical reports, citing strict privacy laws.
Arafat aides had quoted doctors as saying he had a low count of platelets, which help the blood to clot. They later said he had gone into a coma, suffered a brain haemorrhage and lost the use of his vital organs one by one. But no definitive cause of death was announced.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17904974%255E2703,00.html
Posted at 10:23 pm by R7fel
Permalink
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Wilson Pickett Dies of Heart Attack at 64
Thursday, January 19, 2006; Posted: 5:48 p.m. EST (22:48 GMT)
Wilson Pickett, shown in 2001, is a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Chris Tuthill of the management company Talent Source said Pickett had been suffering from health problems for the past year.
One of Pickett's children said he hoped his father received the proper recognition.
"He did his part. It was a great ride, a great trip, I loved him and I'm sure he was well-loved, and I just hope that he's given his props," Michael Wilson Pickett, the fourth of the singer's six children, told WRC-TV in Washington after his death.
A member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Pickett -- known as the "Wicked Pickett" -- became a star with his soulful hits in the 1960s.
"In the Midnight Hour" made the top 25 on the Billboard pop charts in 1965, and "Mustang Sally" did the same the following year.
Pickett was defined by his raspy voice and passionate delivery.
But the Alabama-born Pickett actually got his start singing gospel music in church.
After moving to Detroit as a teen, he joined the group the Falcons, which scored the hit "I Found a Love" with Pickett on lead vocals in 1962.
He went solo a year later.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.
Posted at 06:19 pm by R7fel
Permalink
|
|
|
|
