RAS LANOUF, Libya – Moammar Gadhafi's forces hammered rebels with tanks and rockets, turning their rapid advance into a panicked retreat in an hourslong battle Tuesday. The fighting underscored the dilemma facing the U.S. and its allies in Libya: Rebels may be unable to oust Gadhafi militarily unless already contentious international airstrikes go even further in taking out his forces.
Opposition fighters pleaded for strikes as they fled the hamlet of Bin Jawwad, where artillery shells crashed thunderously, raising plumes of smoke. No such strikes were launched during the fighting, and some rebels shouted, "Sarkozy, where are you?" — a reference to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, one of the strongest supporters of using air power against Gadhafi.
Reports overnight indicated that the rebels were in flight from Brega and Ras Lanouf.
World leaders meeting in London agreed that Gadhafi should step down but have yet to decide what additional pressure to put on him.
"Gadhafi has lost the legitimacy to lead, so we believe he must go. We're working with the international community to try to achieve that outcome," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters after the talks concluded.
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said it "has to be made very clear to Gadhafi: His time is over." But Germany and other countries have expressed reservations about the current military intervention in Libya, let alone expanding it.
France has struck a more forceful tone. Defense Minister Gerard Longuet told France-Inter radio that Paris and London believe that the campaign "must obtain more" than the end of shooting at civilians.
The rout of the rebels Tuesday illustrated how much they rely on international air power. Only a day earlier, they had been storming westward in hopes of taking Sirte, Gadhafi's hometown and a bastion of his support in central Libya. They reached within 60 miles (100 kilometers) of the city before they were hit by the onslaught from Gadhafi's forces, driving them back east to Bin Jawwad under barrages of rocket and tank fire."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/the-kill-team-photos-20110327/0232760 ter·ror·ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Here are the differences between George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last “days, not months” before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration’s ‘coalition of the willing’ in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,753503,00.html It is being hailed as the start of a new political era in Germany. The Green Party looks set to appoint its first state governor after Sunday's election in the state of Baden-Württemberg. The result is a huge setback for Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The Fukushima disaster has had, and will have, many consequences around the world. One of the more unlikely, however, appears to be the results of Sunday's election in the southwestern German state of Baden-Württemberg, where skepticism about nuclear power helped propel the Green Party to a historic victory over Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU).
The Greens doubled their share of the vote to 24.2 percent, according to preliminary results released by the state electoral commission. They are now likely to govern the state in a coalition with the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which secured 23.1 percent of the vote, down 2 percent from the last election in 2006. In what would be a first for Germany, the Greens, as the senior partner in the coalition, will likely appoint the state governor.
The Green's leading candidate, Winfried Kretschmann, talked of a "historic electoral victory," while national Green Party co-leader Claudia Roth described the result as "the start of a new political era."
Although the CDU emerged as the strongest party, with 39 percent of the vote, down 5 percent from 2006, the conservatives and their preferred coalition partner, the business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP), do not have enough seats between them to form a coalition government. The election represents a particular setback for the FDP, who only got 5.3 percent of the vote, half of what they received in 2006 and barely squeaking past the 5 percent hurdle required for representation in the state parliament.
Setback for Merkel
The conservatives had already been suffering in the polls, but the Fukushima disaster effectively turned the state election into a referendum on nuclear power, dealing a blow to the CDU and boosting the fortunes of the anti-nuclear Greens. The debate damaged incumbent CDU Governor Stefan Mappus, who had in the past been a vocal supporter of nuclear power. Merkel's political U-turn on atomic energy in the wake of the catastrophe in Japan also appears to have backfired. Voters apparently saw her sudden decision to temporarily take a number of older reactors off the grid as blatant electioneering.
Support for the CDU in the state had also suffered as a result of widespread opposition to Stuttgart 21, an expensive transportation and urban redevelopment project in the state capital. The unpopularity of that project also benefited the Greens, who had opposed the plans.
Sunday's result is a huge setback for Angela Merkel, whose CDU ruled the state for almost six decades. The result further reduces the number of seats the CDU and FDP have in the Bundesrat -- Germany's upper legislative chamber, which represents the interests of the states -- and will make it even harder for the national government to pass certain legislation.
SPD Keep Power in Rhineland-Palatinate
Voters in the western state of Rhineland-Palatinate also went to the polls on Sunday. There, the incumbent SPD experienced a disappointing result. They lost their absolute majority in the state parliament, with their share of the vote falling almost 10 points to 35.7 percent compared to 2006. The Greens tripled their votes, from 4.6 percent to 15.4 percent. The SPD and Greens will now probably form a coalition government, with the SPD as senior partner.
That election went slightly better for the CDU, who increased its share of the vote by 2.5 points to 35.3 percent. The result was humiliating for the CDU's coalition partner the FDP, however: They only secured 4.2 percent, down from 8.0 percent in 2006, and therefore missing the 5 percent hurdle. As a result, they will no longer be represented in the state parliament.
http://www.earthhour.org/Homepage.aspx At 8:30 PM on Saturday 26th March 2011, lights will switch off around the globe for Earth Hour and people will commit to actions that go beyond the hour.
With Earth Hour almost upon us, our thoughts are with the people of Japan during this incredibly challenging and sad time for their country.
ABOUT EARTH HOUR
Earth Hour started in 2007 in Sydney, Australia when 2.2 million individuals and more than 2,000 businesses turned their lights off for one hour to take a stand against climate change. Only a year later and Earth Hour had become a global sustainability movement with more than 50 million people across 35 countries/territories participating. Global landmarks such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, CN Tower in Toronto, Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, and Rome’s Colosseum, all stood in darkness, as symbols of hope for a cause that grows more urgent by the hour. Earth Hour - Chile
In March 2009, hundreds of millions of people took part in the third Earth Hour. Over 4000 cities in 88 countries/territories officially switched off to pledge their support for the planet, making Earth Hour 2009 the world’s largest global climate change initiative.
On Saturday 27 March, Earth Hour 2010 became the biggest Earth Hour ever. A record 128 countries and territories joined the global display of climate action. Iconic buildings and landmarks from Asia Pacific to Europe and Africa to the Americas switched off. People across the world from all walks of life turned off their lights and came together in celebration and contemplation of the one thing we all have in common – our planet.
Earth Hour 2011 will take place on Saturday 26 March at 8.30PM (local time). This Earth Hour we want you to go beyond the hour, so after the lights go back on think about what else you can do to make a difference. Together our actions add up.
From the article: Economics Minister Rainer Brüderle has said that the snap decision to temporarily shut down seven nuclear reactors in Germany in the wake of the disaster in Fukushima was motivated by campaign tactics ahead of state elections this weekend. The claim threatens to rob Chancellor Merkel of what little credibility she had left.
Safety first. That is the message that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was trying to convey with her government's recent decision to temporarily shut down seven of her country's aging nuclear reactors. With a nuclear disaster brewing in Japan, Merkel's move -- taken just a few days after the earthquake and tsunami which devastated parts of Japan's eastern seaboard -- was supposed to demonstrate decisiveness and leadership.
The whispers, though, started immediately. With a trio of important state votes looming, the course reversal on atomic energy smacked of electioneering. And on Thursday, skeptics received conformation of their doubts -- from none other than Economics Minister Rainer Brüderle.
According to a Thursday report in the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung, at the exact moment that Merkel announced the reactor shutdowns on March 15, Brüderle was addressing a meeting of the Federation of German Industries (BDI) -- a body which includes 40 of the country's top businessmen. Upon being asked about the new nuclear policy, Brüderle, according to the meeting minutes which the Süddeutsche has obtained, "noted that, given the approaching state elections, politicians are under pressure and, as such, decisions are not always rational."
Brüderle, of course, has something of a reputation for ill-thought-out utterances. During a visit to Brazil in May 2010, the economics minister mentioned numbers relating to the planned size of a euro bailout package -- without coordinating his comments with other cabinet members. He also announced that he would be making a stopover in Portugal on the way home, giving the impression of a brewing crisis there.
Difficult to Fool
Volker Kauder, conservative floor leader in Germany's parliament, the Bundestag, has denied that this weekend's elections in Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden-Württemberg -- and last weekend's vote in Saxony-Anhalt -- had anything to do with Merkel's about-face on atomic energy. "We take necessary decisions independent of elections," he told mass-circulation tabloid Bild on Thursday.
The BDI issued a statement on Thursday saying that the transcript of Brüderle's comments was erroneous. "The comments of the economics minister were incorrectly reproduced," the statement claims.
Still, even if the account of Brüderle's March 15 comments was correct, they would be shocking only for their candidness. Merkel's snap decision left plenty of people across Germany scratching their heads. It was only last autumn that her government spent significant quantities of political capital in its move to extend nuclear reactor lifespans in the country. Merkel's predecessor, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, had passed a law in 2002 requiring the country to go nuclear-free by 2022 -- but Merkel, together with her coalition partners from the Free Democrats, to which Brüderle belongs, reversed course, adding an average of 12 years to Germany's 17 reactors.
In doing so, Merkel insisted that lifespan extensions were unproblematic given the safety of German reactors. Many have interpreted her post-Fukushima shutdowns as an admission that such claims were disingenuous.
That perception appears to be eating into support for her party. A new survey released on Wednesday by the polling agency Forsa found that nationwide support for Merkel's Christian Democrats has plummeted by three percentage points in the last week to 33 percent. Furthermore, only 50 percent of Germans consider their chancellor to be "credible." That's way down from the 68 percent rating she enjoyed a year and a half ago.
And German voters, it would seem, are also difficult to fool. The survey found that fully 71 percent of Germans think that Merkel's three-month nuclear power moratorium was simply a campaign tactic. It looks like they were right.
http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/germany-ends-nuclear-program Last Thursday German chancellor Angela Merkel declared that her government plans to close its nuclear power plants in a "measured exit"; the decision to end Germany's nuclear power program was a result of the continuing nuclear crisis in Japan; some believe that Chancellor Merkel's announcement is driven more by politics than safety concerns; recent polls show that 80 percent of voters are opposed to nuclear power; Merkel's party faces close regional elections in states where nuclear plants are located; Switzerland, Venezuela, and China have also announced that they will suspend or delay plans to build new nuclear plants.
Socialism? The Rich Are Winning the US Class War -- It Has Been Going On for A Long Time!
Writer Bill Quigley states that the Tea Party’s rants about President Obama’s “socialistic” policies would be hilarious, if they were not so widely believed. He says, "What a strange socialism, which fosters the greatest inequality between rich and poor among all Western industrialized nations and it has been getting worse for 40 years? The facts of American life describe a society in which the rich become richer and more powerful by the day, while “we now have the highest number of poor people in 51 years."
“The rich talk about the rise of socialism to divert attention from the fact that they are devouring the basics of the poor and everyone else.”
The rich and their paid false prophets are doing a bang up job deceiving the poor and middle class. They have convinced many that an evil socialism is alive in the land and it is taking their fair share. But the deception cannot last – facts say otherwise.
Yes, there is a class war – the war of the rich on the poor and the middle class – and the rich are winning. That war has been going on for years. Look at the facts – facts the rich and their false paid prophets do not want people to know.
Let Glenn Beck go on about socialists descending on Washington. Allow Rush Limbaugh to rail about “class warfare for a leftist agenda that will destroy our society.” They are well compensated false prophets for the rich.
The truth is that for several decades the rich in the US have been getting richer and the poor and middle class have been getting poorer. Look at the facts then make up your own mind.
Poor Getting Poorer: Facts
The official US poverty numbers show we now have the highest number of poor people in 51 years. The official US poverty rate is 14.3 percent or 43.6 million people in poverty. One in five children in the US is poor; one in ten senior citizens is poor. Source: US Census Bureau.
One of every six workers, 26.8 million people, is unemployed or underemployed. This “real” unemployment rate is over 17%. There are 14.8 million people designated as “officially” unemployed by the government, a rate of 9.6 percent. Unemployment is worse for African American workers of whom 16.1 percent are unemployed. Another 9.5 million people who are working only part-time while they are seeking full-time work but have had their hours cut back or are so far only able to find work part-time are not counted in the official unemployment numbers. Also, an additional 2.5 million are reported unemployed but not counted because they are classified as discouraged workers in part because they have been out of work for more than 12 months. Source: US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics October 2010 report.
“African American US women are nearly 4 times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than white women.”
The median household income for whites in the US is $51,861; for Asians it is $65,469; for African Americans it is $32,584; for Latinos it is $38,039. Source: US Census Bureau.
Fifty million people in the US lack health insurance. Source: US Census Bureau.
Women in the US have a greater lifetime risk of dying from pregnancy-related conditions than women in 40 other countries. African American US women are nearly 4 times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than white women. Source: Amnesty International Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA.
About 3.5 million people, about one-third of which are children, are homeless at some point in the year in the US. Source: National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.
Outside Atlanta, 33,000 people showed up to seek applications for low cost subsidized housing in August 2010. When Detroit offered emergency utility and housing assistance to help people facing evictions, more than 50,000 people showed up for the 3,000 vouchers. Source: News reports.
There are 49 million people in the US who live in households that eat only because they receive food stamps, visit food pantries or soup kitchens for help. Sixteen million are so poor they have skipped meals or foregone food at some point in the last year. This is the highest level since statistics have been kept. Source: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Middle Class Going Backward: Facts
One or two generations ago it was possible for a middle class family to live on one income. Now it takes two incomes to try to enjoy the same quality of life. Wages have not kept up with inflation; adjusted for inflation they have lost ground over the past ten years. The cost of housing, education and health care have all increased at a much higher rate than wages and salaries. In 1967, the middle 60 percent of households received over 52% of all income. In 1998, it was down to 47%. The share going to the poor has also fallen, with the top 20% seeing their share rise. Mark Trumball, “Obama’s challenge: reversing a decade of middle-class decline,” Christian Science Monitor, January 25, 2010.http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0125/Obama-s-challenge-reversing-a-decade-of-middle-class-decline
A record 2.8 million homes received a foreclosure notice in 2009, higher than both 2008 and 2007. In 2010, the rate is expected to be rise to 3 million homes. Sources: Reuters and RealtyTrac.
“Sixteen million are so poor they have skipped meals or foregone food at some point in the last year.”
Eleven million homeowners (about one in four homeowners) in the US are “under water” or owe more on their mortgages than their house is worth. Source: “Home truths,” The Economist, October 23, 2010.
For the first time since the 1940s, the real incomes of middle-class families are lower at the end of the business cycle of the 2000s than they were at the beginning. Despite the fact that the American workforce is working harder and smarter than ever, they are sharing less and less in the benefits they are creating. This is true for white families but even truer for African American families whose gains in the 1990s have mostly been eliminated since then. Source: Jared Bernstein and Heidi Shierholz, State of Working America.http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/swa08_00_execsum.pdf
Rich Getting Richer: Facts
The wealth of the richest 400 people in the US grew by 8% in the last year to $1.37 trillion. Source: Forbes 400: The super-rich get richer, September 22, 2010, Money.com
The top Hedge Fund Manager of 2009, David Tepper, “earned” $4 billion last year. The rest of the top ten earned: $3.3 billion, $2.5 billion, $2.3 billion, $1.4 billion, $1.3 billion (tie for 6th and 7th place), $900 million (tie for 8th and 9th place), and in last place out of the top ten, $825 million. Source: Business Insider. “Meet the top 10 earning hedge fund managers of 2009.” http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-top-10-earning-hedge-fund-managers-of-2009-2010-4
Income disparity in the US is now as bad as it was right before the Great Depression at the end of the 1920s. From 1979 to 2006, the richest 1% more than doubled their share of the total US income, from 10% to 23%. The richest 1% have an average annual income of more than $1.3 million. For the last 25 years, over 90% of the total growth in income in the US went to the top 10% earners – leaving 9% of all income to be shared by the bottom 90%. Source: Jared Bernstein and Heidi Shierholz, State of Working America.
Since 1992, the average tax rate on the richest 400 taxpayers in the US dropped from 26.8% to 16.62%. Source: US Internal Revenue Service. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf
“For the last 25 years, over 90% of the total growth in income in the US went to the top 10% earners – leaving 9% of all income to be shared by the bottom 90%.”
The US has the greatest inequality between rich and poor among all Western industrialized nations and it has been getting worse for 40 years. The World Factbook, published by the CIA, includes an international ranking of the inequality among families inside of each country, called the Gini Index. The US ranking of 45 in 2007 is the same as Argentina, Cameroon, and Cote d’Ivorie. The highest inequality can be found in countries like Namibia, South Africa, Haiti and Guatemala. The US ranking of 45 compares poorly to Japan (38), India (36), New Zealand, UK (34), Greece (33), Spain (32), Canada (32), France (32), South Korea (31), Netherlands (30), Ireland (30), Australia (30), Germany (27), Norway (25), and Sweden (23). Source: CIA The World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html
Rich people live an average of about five years longer than poor people in the US. Naturally, gross inequality has consequences in terms of health, exposure to unhealthy working conditions, nutrition and lifestyle. In 1980, the most well off in the US had a life expectancy of 2.8 years over the least well-off. As the inequality gap widens, so does the life expectancy gap. In 1990, the gap was a little less than 4 years. In 2000, the least well-off could expect to live to age of 74.7 while the most well off had a life expectancy of 79.2 years. Source: Elise Gould, “Growing disparities in life expectancy,” Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20080716/
Conclusion
These are extremely troubling facts for anyone concerned about economic fairness, equality of opportunity, and justice.
Thomas Jefferson once observed that the systematic restructuring of society to benefit the rich over the poor and middle class is a natural appetite of the rich. “Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to…the general prey of the rich on the poor.” But Jefferson also knew that justice can only be delayed so long when he said, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
The rich talk about the rise of socialism to divert attention from the fact that they aredevouring the basics of the poor and everyone else. Many of those crying socialism the loudest are doing it to enrich or empower themselves. They are right about one thing – there is a class war going on in the US. The rich are winning their class war, and it is time for everyone else to fight back for economic justice. -- Bill Quigley
Bill Quigley is Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and professor of law at Loyola University New Orleans. You can reach Bill at quigley77@gmail.com.
http://www.slate.com/id/2288928/ The Arab Powder Keg An animated map of protests in the Middle East as they spread from country to country.
The protests that drove Hosni Mubarak out of power in Egypt were only the beginning of a wave of civil unrest that has boiled over into nearly all of the Middle East. Tunisia had already driven longtime President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali from office, and by the beginning of February, unrest had spread to Jordan, Lebanon, and Sudan. Many more countries were to follow. This map depicts the tides of protests and government retaliations day by day, beginning in Tunisia and ending with the unresolved conflict in Libya. You can click through the days one by one with the green arrows or choose "Autoplay." To get the big picture, just turn off the info boxes and crack up the speed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110318/ap_on_re_us/libya_diplomacy UNITED NATIONS – Moving swiftly in response to a request by Arab nations, the U.N. Security Council paved the way for international air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi's forces, voting to authorize military action to protect civilians and impose a no-fly zone over Libya.
The council acted five days after the Arab League urged the U.N.'s most powerful body to try to halt Gadhafi's advancing military and reverse the realities on the ground, where rebels and their civilian supporters are in danger of being crushed by pro-government forces using rockets, artillery, tanks and warplanes.
The Thursday vote was 10-0 with five countries abstaining including Russia and China, which have veto power in the council, along with India, Germany and Brazil. Russia and China expressed concern about the United Nations and other outside powers using force against Gadhafi, and Germany expressed fear that military action would lead to more casualties.
The United States — which in a dramatic reversal joined the resolution's initial supporters Britain, France and Lebanon — not only helped push for a quick vote but pressed for action beyond creation of a no-fly zone to protect civilians from air, land and sea attacks by Gadhafi's fighters.
"This council moved with remarkable speed in response to the great urgency of the situation on the ground," U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said. "This resolution should send a strong message to Colonel Gadhafi and his regime that the violence must stop, the killing must stop, and the people of Libya must be protected and have the opportunity to express themselves freely."
The resolution bans all flights in Libya's airspace to help protect civilians. It also authorizes U.N. member states to take "all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."
U.S. officials said the resolution provides a strong legal base for enforcing the no-fly zone and for countries to carry out air and sea strikes against Gadhafi's forces.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters in Tunisia on Thursday that a U.N. no-fly zone over Libya would require action to protect the planes and pilots, "including bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems."
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the three criteria for taking action — a demonstrated need, clear legal basis and broad regional support — all have been fulfilled.
"This places a responsibility on members of the United Nations, and that is a responsibility to which the United Kingdom will now respond," he said.
Libya's Deputy U.N. Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi, whose support for the opposition spurred many Libyan diplomats around the world to demand Gadhafi's ouster, called on the world to respond "immediately."
"The lives of the civilians are in danger right now and I expect the international community to move quickly," he said.
Britain's U.N. Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said with the "strong legal base," Britain and a number of other countries in NATO and a number of Arab League countries "will be looking to implement those measures." Diplomats said Arab countries likely to participate in possible strikes include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan.
In Britain, a lawmaker with knowledge of defense matters confirmed that British forces were on standby for air strikes and could be mobilized as soon as Thursday night. The lawmaker declined to be named because the Defense Ministry has not issued official confirmation.
French Prime Minister Francois Fillon told France-2 Television that France would support military action against Gadhafi within a matter of hours after the resolution was approved.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the council had taken "an historic decision" to protect civilians from violence perpetrated by their own government. "Given the critical situation on the ground, I expect immediate action on the resolution's provisions," he said.
Immediately before the vote, France's Foreign Minister Alain Juppe urged adoption of the resolution saying sanctions imposed by the Security Council on Feb. 26 aren't enough and "violence against the civilian population has been redoubled."
"We have very little time left. It's a matter of days. It's perhaps a matter of hours. We should not arrive too late," he said.
In the opposition capital Benghazi, Al-Jazeera satellite TV channel showed a large crowd watching the vote on an outdoor TV projection burst into celebration when the resolution was approved as green and red fireworks exploded in the air.
On Friday, China said it had "serious reservations" about the Security Council's action.
The Foreign Ministry said in a statement Friday that China opposes using military force in international relations. The ministry said China has consistently stressed respect for Libya's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity and that the crisis should be resolved through dialogue.
The resolution came hours after Gadhafi went on Libyan television and vowed to crush the rebellion with a final assault on Benghazi.
In an interview broadcast just before the vote, Gadhafi said, "the U.N. Security Council has no mandate. We don't acknowledge their resolutions." He pledged to respond harshly to U.N.-sponsored attacks. "If the world is crazy, we will be crazy too," he told the Portuguese public Radiotelevisao Portuguesa.
But Libya's Dabbashi said the council's action will make "the people of Benghazi ... feel safe from this time on."
"It is a clear message to the Libyan people that they are not alone, that the international community is with them and is going to help them to protect themselves," he said. "It is also a clear message to Col. Gadhafi and those who are supporting him that there is no place for dictatorship, there is no place for killing the people."
The resolution also calls for stronger enforcement of the arms embargo, adds names of people, companies and other entities to the list of those subject to travel bans and asset freezes, and requires all countries to ban Libyan flights from landing, taking off or overflying their country.
It also demands that Libya ensure the "rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance" and asks U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to establish an eight-member panel of experts to assist the Security Council committee in monitoring sanctions.
Russia and China had expressed doubts about the United Nations and other outside powers using force against Gadhafi, a view backed by India, Brazil and Germany who also abstained.
Germany's U.N. Ambassador Peter Wittig expressed fear that using military force could lead to "the likelihood of large-scale loss of life."
Gaddafi loyalists in Libya. The Libyan defence ministry said it would target all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean in the event of foreign intervention. Photograph: Mohamed Messara/EPA
Britain, France and the US, along with several Arab countries, are to join forces to throw a protective ring around the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi as soon as a UN security council vote on military action is authorised, according to security council sources.
A source at UN headquarters in New York said military forces could be deployed "within hours" of a new security council resolution calling for states to protect civilians by halting attacks by Muammar Gaddafi's forces by air, land and sea.
The resolution would impose a no-fly zone over Libya – but a no-fly zone was no longer enough, the source said. "The resolution authorises air strikes against tank columns advancing on Benghazi or engaging naval ships bombarding Benghazi," he said.
Britain, France and Lebanon sponsored the new resolution, which provides the moral and legal basis for military action.
British and French forces are understood to have been placed on standby after the US said it was prepared to support the measure if Arab countries agreed to take an active role.
The security council was scheduled to vote on the new resolution this evening, and its backers expressed confidence it would pass after hours of negotiation.
In London, William Hague, the foreign secretary, indicated to MPs that military preparations to protect Benghazi were at an advanced stage. The no-fly zone would be imposed from land, and not from aircraft carriers.
"No, it is not the case that carrier-borne aircraft are necessary to do such a thing," Hague said. "In the contingency plans of all the nations, none of them involve an aircraft carrier."
The increase in military preparations came as Gaddafi announced that his forces would invade Benghazi within hours and would show no mercy on fighters who resisted them.
"No more fear, no more hesitation: the moment of truth has come," he declared. "There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight."
Residents and a rebel spokesman reported three air strikes on the outskirts of Benghazi, including at the airport, and another air raid further south.
There was also heavy fighting in residential areas of nearby Ajdabiyah, where around 30 people were killed, al-Arabiya reported.
Libyan authorities also warned that all maritime traffic in the Mediterranean would be in danger if it was targeted by foreign forces.
In a statement broadcast on Libyan television, the defence ministry said: "Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea to danger, and civilian and military [facilities] will become targets of Libya's counterattack," the statement said. "The Mediterranean basin will face danger not just in the short-term, but also in the long-term."
The UN resolution, which calls for "all necessary measures short of an occupation force" to protect civilians, needs the support of a further six further members of the security council to pass – and to avoid vetoes from Russia and China.
A Downing Street spokesman said: "The prime minister has been making a series of calls on Libya. He has spoken to a number of Arab and African leaders. We can now confirm that he has also spoken to several European leaders.
"In all his calls, the prime minister has made the case for strong action by the UN security council, to increase the pressure on Gaddafi and put a stop to the campaign he is waging against the Libyan people. The prime minister will be making further calls this evening."
The move marks a last-gasp attempt to keep the Libyan uprising alive.
It has been relatively rare in recent years for the UN to give the go-ahead for military action – the security council, for example, refused to support the Iraq invasion. The resolution reflects the extent of despair felt in Britain, France, the US and parts of the Arab world at the prospect of total victory by Gaddafi and fears of a massacre in Benghazi.
After weeks of prevarication by the US, Washington backed the resolution. The Obama administration was stalled by a split between the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who favoured a no-fly zone, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates, who was opposed. The White House, caught in the middle, dithered.
Gates redeployed US naval vessels close to the Libyan coast and told Barack Obama that, though heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military was capable of fighting on a third front.
The US, crucially, insisted it would only act if there was Arab support, in order to avoid it being seen as a western intervention. Several Arab countries have promised to provide planes, but insisted upon their identity being withheld until the resolution was passed.
Speculation as to which countries would participate include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
There is no plan to send in ground troops, other than for isolated incidents such as rescuing downed pilots.
Supporters of the resolution, speaking before the vote, said they were confident of achieving the necessary nine votes in the 15-member chamber. A source who was present at the talks said that China and Russia have vetoes that could scupper the resolution, but indicated they would abstain.
Brazil, Germany and India expressed scepticism over military action, but their votes were not needed to secure a majority.
John Kerry, the chairman of the US Senate foreign affairs committee, said: "The international community cannot simply watch from the sidelines as the Libyan people's quest for democratic reform is met with violence … Time is running out for the Libyan people. The world needs to respond immediately."
Raymond Davis killed two Pakistanis, enraging many in a country already suspicious of US intervention [GALLO/GETTY]
The case of Raymond Davis has all the trappings of a 21st century spy novel.
It is a story of murder, prison and clandestine payments, starring a burly former US Special Forces soldier tangled in a murky web of intelligence agencies, competing diplomats and – differentiating his case from Cold War spy sagas – shady private military contractors.
Pakistani authorities released the CIA contractor from prison on Wednesday, after families of two motorcyclists he killed in January were paid a reported $2.3mn in "blood money".
Details surrounding the case are sketchy at best: a series of claims and counter-claims from various diplomats, agencies and organisations which are almost impossible to independently verify. And the stakes are high.
Privatising conflict
"The case highlights the fact that the US is engaged in a covert war in Pakistan - a country it has not declared war against," says Jeremy Scahill, author of Blackwater: the Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.
Davis, 36, once hustled for Blackwater, the controversial military contractor responsible for killing civilians in Iraq, which has since been rebranded as Xe Services LLC.
"He worked for Blackwater when the company was working on the drone bombing campaign with the JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command], and the CIA against high-value individuals in Pakistan," Scahill told Al Jazeera.
Davis owns Hyperion Protective Consultants, according to ABC News. The firm sells surveillance equipment and provides clients with "loss and risk management professionals".
In the new world of intelligence, individuals can wear several different hats, often at the same time.
"In theory, it would be cheaper to have government agents do the work contractors are doing: they don't get paid as much and there is no dedicated profit margin," says Eamon Javers, author of Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy: The Secret World of Corporate Espionage.
"There is a huge open question about the legal jurisdiction these contractors are operating under in war zones. They are not accountable to US military justice, as special ops would be," Javers told Al Jazeera.
Christine Fair, a Pakistan expert at Georgetown University says, "There is nothing abnormal about military contractors gathering intelligence, conducting warfare or helping with diplomacy", concerns about high costs, impunity and jurisdiction notwithstanding.
"The way we [Americans] do business, fight wars, provide assistance, and the way we run our embassies is being done through contractors," Fair told Al Jazeera.
Who is immune?
When Pakistani authorities arrested Davis in Lahore, he carried classic tools of the spy trade: a Glock semiautomatic pistol, a long-range wireless set, camera, flashlight and small telescope.
The initial public conflict between Pakistan and the US revolved around Davis's diplomatic status. The US said the contractor had diplomatic immunity from prosecution, while Pakistani authorities disputed the claim.
According to Fair, the issue of diplomatic immunity is simple and was "misconstrued" throughout the Davis saga. Whether Davis was a contractor or a formal embassy employee is not important for the question of immunity, she says.
"The diplomatic status of staff members is set by the sending countries," she says, referring in this case to the US. "The Pakistani government has one choice to make: to accept the terms or not to. Pakistan accepted the terms and issued a visa and then re-issued it."
There is no debate about the process for getting diplomatic immunity, as Pakistan and the US have signed the Vienna Convention which sets out the rules.
But Jeremy Scahill is not sure Davis's diplomatic status is quite so clear. "There have been some reports that the US tried to claim he was a diplomat after the events took place," Scahill says.
Conflicting crime stories
The events in question transpired on January 27. Davis was driving his car through a poor section of Lahore. He stopped at a crowded intersection. Two Pakistani men jumped off motorcycles and came towards him, with weapons drawn, according to American accounts of the incident. Davis opened fire with his Glock, killing them.
He said he fired in self-defence, assuming they were trying to rob him. Pakistani authorities disputed this claim, saying the men were shot in the back and Davis got out of his car to take photographs of the bodies.
Pakistani security forces chased Davis to a traffic circle a short distance away from the crime scene and arrested him. Before being taken down, Davis called the US Consulate to extract him from the dicey situation. The US sent an unmarked SUV tearing through the streets of Lahore.
It drove the wrong way down a one way street, killing a random motorcyclist, in a development that further infuriated Pakistanis. The three killings lead to widespread outrage, fuelling anti-American demonstrations.
"Those who oppose the partnership between Pakistan and the US have been making noise," says Rasul Baksh Raees, a political science professor at Lahore University of Management Sciences.
Wary of anger on the streets, Pakistan's government may have initially denied giving the contractor immunity to save face, says Muqtedar Khan, a professor of international relations at the University of Delaware.
Intrigue
Many Pakistanis, including the political opposition, are furious about US drone strikes and other killings in the country. But this is nothing new.
The intrigue concerns the identities of the men Davis killed - and the nature of his mission.
"Some suggest Davis was trying to document links between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) and Lashkar-e-Taiba [the Army of the Pure], which would expose the ISI's links to the Mumbai attacks [of 2008]," says Khan. The US and UN Security Council have designated Lashkar as an international terrorist organisation.
In February, Leon Panetta, the CIA director, said the ISI-CIA relationship is one of the "most complicated" he has encountered during his time in intelligence.
"If Ray Davis was targeting Laskhkar or trying to establish links between it and Pakistani intelligence, that would be probably one of the most sensitive places to hit the ISI," says Jeremy Scahill, the author and investigative journalist.
In a US federal court in New York, a lawsuit was filed in 2010 against the ISI for backing the Mumbai attacks. Davis's conclusions could have damaged more than the ISI's public image. US tax dollars paid to Pakistani security forces under the auspices of fighting terrorism, not to mention a major financial settlement, could be at stake.
Christine Fair, the Georgetown professor, says two high-level Pakistani officials told her that the men Davis killed were ISI agents tasked with following him.
Davis worked out of a safe house in an obscure part of Lahore as part of a CIA cell investigating Lashkar, Fair says.
"The CIA cooperates with the ISI on certain issues," Fair says. "But these organisations also operate against each other. This is spy versus spy."
The origins of Lashkar can be traced to US support for forces fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s, Khan says. Today, the group operates openly in Pakistan from a sprawling compound in the suburbs of Lahore, where it runs schools, hospitals and a blood bank. Hafiz Saeed, the group's leader, is a frequent commentator in the Pakistani press.
The group frequently espouses anti-Western ideology, targeting India, Israel and the US in their literature, says professor Fair, adding that "they never really operated to achieve those larger objectives – perhaps until 2004, when they started attacking the US in Afghanistan".
The ISI and some other branches of Pakistan's government see Lashkar as an important tool against India in Kashmir, a province claimed by both India and Pakistan, says Muqtedar Khan.
"In recent years, the balance of power has shifted significantly in India's favour, in terms of traditional warfare," Khan says. "The economic disparity is such that Pakistan cannot launch a conventional war against India for Kashmir," he says. Pakistan sees unconventional forces like Lashkar as crucial defences against its traditional rival.
Pakistan also worries about Indian dominance in Afghanistan after the US pulls out, and wants Lashkar ready to fill the vacuum of American power, Khan says.
Money talks
Raymond Davis's case has caused head-aches for the US and Pakistan. They both hoped it would go-away, but neither could lose face.
The payment of "blood money" to relatives of the men Davis killed - an accepted custom in Pakistan - was the easiest solution.
The sum of $2.3mn is exponentially higher than what the US normally pays family members when its forces kill innocents in Iraq or Afghanistan, Jeremy Scahill says.
Money talks, and such a large sum illustrates the importance of the case. According to Scahill, the blood money suggested by the US state department for victims of Blackwater killings in Iraq was about $5,000.
"What is even more important than the money, is what the Pakistanis and the ISI extracted from the US in exchange for [Davis's] release," Scahill says.
After "blood money" was paid, American consular officials whisked Raymond Davis out of the country. His exact mission, or the conclusions from the intelligence he gathered, may never come to light.
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, denied that the US paid family members. However, she wouldn't comment on who forked over the cash.
"It is rather a charade to suggest [the US] didn't pay family members," says Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, who alleged that the payment came from Pakistan's ISI, which receives money from the US through bilateral military cooperation deals.
But Davis's political footprint will last, as anti-American protests spread across Pakistan, with people demanding more accountability from foreign forces operating on Pakistani territory. "Raymond Davis was basically the tip of the iceberg," says Professor Khan.
"He was not the cause, but a part of, the diverging interests between Pakistan and the US in the war on terror."
By Brendan Conway and Kristina Peterson Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Fears over Japan's nuclear crisis sent major U.S. stock indexes into negative territory for the year, as the barrage of negative headlines from the country continued.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 254 points, or 2.2%, to 11601 and the Nasdaq Composite dropped 2.1% to 2612. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index fell 2.2% to 1253, with every sector losing ground.
As the crisis mounts, the U.S. Embassy warns American citizens living within 50 miles of a crippled Japanese nuclear plant to evacuate or seek shelter, while the U.S. nuclear chief recommended evacuating those living within a "much larger radius" than Japan's government has called for.
Traders said the market's jumpy reaction to officials' comments and warnings underlined the deep current of anxiety among investors.
"There's going to be constant commentary about precautionary measures--certainly they should not be a surprise to anybody, but the reaction you're seeing from the tape tells you people are going to err on the side of selling," said Pete McCorry, senior trader at Keefe Bruyette & Woods. "That's the sentiment we're going to have going forward because quite frankly, no one can tell us definitively when this is going to be over."
The afternoon losses compounded a late morning slide that followed remarks by the European Union's commissioner for energy, that one of Japan's nuclear plants is "effectively out of control," and that the situation could continue to deteriorate.
France court awards Bosnia civil war victims damages for injuries
Ann Riley at 2:04 PM ET
[JURIST] A French court on Monday awarded a Bosnian family 200,000 euros (USD $280,000) for wartime abuses committed by former Bosnian Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Biljana Plavsic [JURIST news archives]. In an unprecedented civil decision, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris [official website, in French] ordered Karadzic and Plavsic to compensate [AFP report, in French] Adil and Zuhra Kovac and their children for the humiliation they suffered and costs incurred from Adil's injuries sustained after being attacked during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war [JURIST news archive]. During the attack on their home, Adil was beaten, and the family was locked in their gasoline-drenched house. The Kovacs fled to the woods where their grandmother was murdered and Kovac's son was shot in the leg. After the incident, the Kovacs left Bosnia and acquired French citizenship, beginning their civil suit against Karadzic, Plavsic, Ratko Mladic and Momcilo Krajisnik [ICTY materials] for 1,000,000 euros six years ago. The court found sufficient evidence that Karadzic and Plavsic were personally responsible for the harm suffered by the Kovacs. The court requested additional evidence the determine Mladic's responsibility and declared itself incompetent to hear the case against Krajisnik. The decision must now be accepted by Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and communicated to Karadzic and Plavsic.
The court's ruling may pave the way for victims of war crimes to obtain civil compensation from war criminals without a criminal trial. Karadzic faces 11 war crimes charges [indictment, PDF], including counts of genocide and murder, for alleged crimes he committed during the war in BiH. Karadzic is defending himself in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website] and has denied all of the charges against him. After multiplesuspensions [JURIST reports], Karadzic's trial is expected to last through 2012. In 2009, Plavsic was released [JURIST report] from a Swedish prison after serving two-thirds of her sentence for war crimes committed between July 1991 and December 1992. Plavsic voluntarily surrendered herself to the ICTY in 2001 and was sentenced to 11 years in a Swedish prison. The ICTY agreed to grant her release [JURIST report], citing good behavior and "substantial evidence of rehabilitation." In 2010, the ICTY denied [decision, PDF; JURIST report] early release to Krajisnik who was sentenced [JURIST report] by the ICTY in 2006 to 27 years in a British prison for his role in the forced evacuation and displacement of several thousand Muslims and Croatians, including women and children. The ICTY reduced [JURIST report] Krajisnik's sentence to 20 years in 2009, transferring him to a UK prison to serve his time. Mladic, who faces charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, is currently at large [JURIST report] under the jurisdiction of the ICTY and has yet to be arrested.
Pakistan ex-president Musharraf says UK gave 'tacit approval' to use of torture
Zach Zagger at 11:17 AM ET
[JURIST] Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] said that the UK gave "tacit approval" for torture of terror suspects, making the statements in a BBC documentary to be aired Monday. Musharraf's claims raise questions [BBC report] over UK's public stance discouraging other countries from torturing UK citizens on its behalf. Musharraf, who was president of Pakistan from 1999-2008 and a key US ally against al Qaeda, told the BBC that he was never informed of the UK's policy discouraging torture and defended the use of torture to fight al Qaeda. But Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of UK intelligence MI5 [official website] at the time, denied that it turned a blind-eye to torture by other countries. Claims that the UK allowed torture by other countries will be investigated by an independent commission set to begin work within the next two months. One of those believed to have been tortured with UK acquiescence was Binyam Mohamed [JURIST news archive], an Ethiopian native who had lived in the UK for eight years. He has claimed he was tortured by US officials at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] with the knowledge of UK security services. He has denied allegations against him and claims he made false admissions under the duress of torture.
Musharraf himself has come under scrutiny during his time as Pakistan president. Last month, an arrest warrant was issued [JURIST report] for Musharraf by a Pakistani anti-terrorism court in connection with the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto [BBC obituary; JURIST news archive]. The court determined Musharraf had not cooperated during the investigation of Bhutto's death, and investigators have alleged that Musharraf did not provide adequate security for Bhutto when she was assassinated during a campaign rally in Pakistan in 2007. Last December, the UK government agreed to settlements [JURIST report] with 16 Guantanamo Bay detainees, including Mohamed, over allegations of torture. Details of the settlement agreement, which are legally bound to a confidentiality agreement, have not been released, although at least seven detainees are expected to receive compensation, with at least one receiving over one million pounds.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42070773/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/ CAIRO — Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain on Monday to help put down weeks of protests by the Shiite Muslim majority, a move opponents of the Sunni ruling family on the island called a declaration of war.
Analysts saw the troop movement into Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, as a mark of concern in Saudi Arabia that concessions by the country's monarchy could inspire the conservative Sunni kingdom's own Shiite minority.
About 1,000 Saudi soldiers entered Bahrain to protect government facilities, a Saudi official source said, a day after mainly Shiite protesters overran police and blocked roads.
"They are part of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) force that would guard the government installations," the source said, referring to the six-member bloc that coordinates military and economic policy in the world's top oil-exporting region.
Bahrain said on Monday it had asked the Gulf troops for support in line with a GCC defence pact. The United Arab Emirates has said it would also respond to the call.
"The Bahrain government asked us yesterday to look at ways to help them to defuse tension in Bahrain," United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan said in Paris. He said they sent 500 Emirati police and the Saudis and others also sent forces "to get calm and order in Bahrain."
We probably all have seen photos and videos first from the natural and then the man-made disasters n Japan. These poor, from the giant earthquake and tsunami traumatized people now have to face the danger of a worst case scenario, the meltdown of parts of one, two or even three nuclear power plants whose fuel rods partially run with plutonium. Smallest quantities of plutonium are deadly, it is the most poisonous matter on earth.
These power plants are in a distance of about 200 km to Tokyo, the region had a population of 34,47 million inhabitants in 2005. Currently the wind blows the fall-out to the sea and it will reach, a bit diluted other countries and blow around the world, but meteorologists say it will change in some days. It would make the disaster even worse when the wind blows towards Tokyo.
25 years ago we experienced the Tschernobyl disaster with clouds of radioactive particles drifting over Europe, contaminating plants, vegetables, animals, humans, just everything and later also diffused world wide. Then as well as now the information politics followed the same script: trying to calm the worries, only admit the obvious, trying to downplay the threat and longtime biohazard.
The corporates which sell and install nuclear power plants are the big ones among the global players. Biggest among them is Toshiba, who would have thought that. Siemens AG, British Nuclear Fuels plc and Westinghouse Electric Corporation are some other names. They all promise safety. A running nuclear plant is a machine to print money
The basis of our culture is wasting, wasting of resources, energy, human time. This all is just to keep us entertained and willing to spend money for the latest nick nack and newest trends. We send our garbage to third world countries and let others pay the price. This time it's Japan. Who will be the next?
And just another thought... Gadhafi must be very happy currently. He can slaughter his opposition in the meantime, while the world is looking at Japan.
More information at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,750682,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7358670n For some children, socializing and learning are being cruelly complicated by homelessness, as Scott Pelley reports from Florida, where school buses now stop at motels for children who've lost their homes.
From this page: This map has been created by compiling reports from trusted accounts on Twitter. Nonetheless, these reports are in general unconfirmed. This information should be considered in the context of there being absolutely no independent media in Libya when I started. This map is not automatically produced. Each posting is considered before it is mapped. These considerations have evolved over time as conditions on the ground have changed. If you have any questions you can contact me via Twitter @Arasmus.
You can also hear up-to-the-minute personal audio reports from people inside Libya by visiting: http://audioboo.fm/feb17voices
Here is a discussion of lessons learned from this project: http://goo.gl/67SxE I hope it will be of some use to others thinking about similar projects.
The URL for this map is blocked in Libya. Please embed this map elsewhere and tweet “#Libya Pro-Democracy Map [URL of your blog page with map] #feb17”
355,602 views - Public Created on Feb 15 - Updated 5 hours ago By Arasmus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12655035 Mervyn King is the Governor of the Bank of England. Seems obvious to me that he wants the very discredited Financial Services Association, as created by dickhead Gordon Brown to be disbanded, and control and regulation of the banks passed back to the Bank of England.
Sounds blindingly obvious to me, so I guess it begs the question as to whether or not George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, has the balls to make the change....
I had expressed my disappointement with a UK court decision to send to jail some Muslim protesters, calling the UK soldiers, who were on their way to Iraq or Afghanistan, rapists and baby-killers I have had a lot of valuable feedback then about the view in the UK. To contrast it, I had brought up a case in the US, which, in my opinion, was somewhat comparable. That particular case has been finalized as shown below.
If there would have been a similar outcome had they been Muslim protesters, is open to speculation, of course.
Supreme Court sides with churchgoers who picketed military funeral
The justices say members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas have the right to carry anti-gay and other signs at U.S. troops' funerals, however offensive their message may be considered.
By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
March 3, 2011
Reporting from Washington —
Ruling in a case that pressed the outer limits of free speech, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said that even anti-gay protesters who picketed the funerals of U.S. troops with signs reading, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," cannot be sued.
In an 8-1 decision, the justices upheld an appellate court's decision to strike down a jury verdict against Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. Phelps and his family gained national attention — and stirred deep anger — for using military funerals as a backdrop to proclaim an anti-gay and anti-military message.
The church believes that the United States is too tolerant of sin and that the death of American soldiers is God's punishment.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that when the disputed words "address matters of public import on public property" and when the protest is conducted "in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials," they are protected.
Roberts cited past rulings that shielded offensive words and outrageous protests.
He pointed to the decision that freed protesters who burned the American flag and another that protected a Hustler magazine satirist who portrayed the Rev. Jerry Falwell in an outhouse. Last year, Roberts spoke for the court in striking down on free-speech grounds a law that made it crime to sell videos of illegal dog-fighting.
The "bedrock principle underlying the 1st Amendment," Roberts said in quoting the flag-burning ruling by the late liberal Justice William J. Brennan Jr., is that the government cannot punish words or ideas "simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
The decision Wednesday drew a howl of protest from Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. — like Roberts, a conservative — who said that the father of the dead Marine who sued the protesters was "not a public figure" who could be expected to tolerate such an onslaught, but a private person who sought to "bury his son in peace."
"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," Alito wrote. "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims."
Five years ago, Phelps and his daughters were sued after they picketed near the funeral for Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who died in Iraq in 2006.
Police had kept picketers at least 200 feet from the funeral procession. The demonstrators' signs included one that said, "Thank God for IEDs," a reference to the roadside bombs that have claimed many soldiers' lives in Iraq.
The messages did not refer to the late Marine. His father, Albert Snyder, testified that he saw the signs only when he watched television coverage in the evening.
A few weeks later, however, Snyder saw a posting on Westboro church's website that scorned him and said he had raised his son to serve the devil.
A jury awarded Snyder $11 million in damages for the emotional distress he suffered, but a judge reduced the amount to $5 million. A U.S. appeals court, siding with the Phelps family, said the verdict could not stand.
The Supreme Court took up the case of Snyder vs. Phelps. The issue was difficult for the justices because the public picketing targeted a private family funeral.
If the picketing had taken place at the Pentagon or Capitol Hill, no one would have questioned the Phelps' right to carry their signs, even with their offensive messages.
Lawyers for the father argued that the verdict should stand because he was a private figure, not a public person, and because the protest was a targeted assault on a private memorial service.
In the end, the justices concluded the picketing was more a public protest than a mean-spirited private assault.
The picketing, Roberts wrote, "is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner."
"On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Roberts wrote. "As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
The decision does not appear to affect the laws in 43 states that seek to keep the protesters away from military funerals. In the past, the court has said that officials may regulate where marches and protests take place, so long as they do not ban them or their message entirely.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars said they were "greatly disappointed with the result."
"The Westboro Baptist Church may think they have won, but the VFW will continue to support community efforts to ensure no one hears their voice," said Richard Eubank, the VFW's national commander.
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURST
We probably all have seen photos and videos first from the natural and then the man-made disasters n Japan. These poor, from the giant earthquake and tsunami traumatized people now have to face the danger of a worst case scenario, the meltdown of parts of one, two or even three nuclear power plants whose fuel rods partially run with plutonium. Smallest quantities of plutonium are deadly, it is the most poisonous matter on earth.
