After all, if I were confident in my case and knew that I could argue my heart out on the merits and win a conviction for the good and true folks of my little town, then why should it be a cause of concern if the defendant knows what evidence I have?
THE CORRIDORS OF POWERDr. Kevin Anderson
I often contemplate the parable of the college professor who shows his class an empty glass container. He then places a number of large rocks inside the container and asks the class: “How many of you believe this container is full?” Of course, most in the class raise their hands. With that the professor continues to pour increasingly smaller varieties of rock, from pebbles to gravel to sand into the container, at each interval asking the class the same question. Eventually the class, marveling at the amount of material that the professor is able to fit into the container, is dumbstruck.
At the end of the demonstration, the professor finally concedes that the container is, in fact, full. He then pointedly asks the class about the meaning of the demonstration to their lives. No hands go up. Finally, in the rear of the class, a normally timid young woman raises her hand. The professor calls on her, and in a trembling voice she says: “Our lives are the container and in order to fill our lives we must always start with the big rocks. If we do that, we will always find room for the smaller rocks.”
More about that in a bit.
Perhaps it might be useful to view Anwar’s current legal struggle in the light of standards that exist outside of the Malaysian legal system. Of course, we as citizens of a nation can only work within the framework of the legal system of our country or state. Each sovereign has the absolute authority and prerogative to create laws that suit its people and that somehow reflect its legal history, its constitution and its overall mentality toward justice in general. And, certainly, Malaysian law should not be compared with, and is in many ways entirely dissimilar to, U.S. law. I understand this and am in no way suggesting that Malaysian law should be in lockstep with American legal precepts. As a former prosecutor in the U.S., I have always marveled at the many attractions in Malaysian law, not the least of which is the ability of the government to appeal acquittals and to seek upward modifications of sentence. Similarly, it certainly creates loads of new opportunities for closing arguments when the prosecutor is allowed to suggest that the defendant’s silence, under circumstances in which a reasonable man would be expected to cry out his innocence, is strongly suggestive of guilt. I mean, from the state’s standpoint, what’s not to like?
However, the present situation and battle being fought by Anwar is one that normally does not appeal to the majority of armchair legal quarterbacks who enjoy the pitched battle of actual trials: what we sometimes refer to as “the guilt phase”. This time, it’s the nitty-gritty stuff: evidence. Anwar is now in the midst of what is referred to in my state as a “motion in limine”. A motion in limine is any request, by either side, that may be raised prior to trial. These normally are critical evidence motions, often involving issues associated with providing evidence as set forth in the relevant rules.
What Anwar is dealing with now, and which notably the government is appealing, is a decision regarding “discovery”. Discovery is the term used in U.S. law to refer to the obligation of the parties in litigation (the State and the Defendant in a criminal case) to provide each other with certain information. Both have obligations to disclose some portion of their intended evidence.
My state of is no different than the other 49 states in its promulgation of criminal procedure rules that are strongly – and increasingly - deferential to the rights of criminal defendants. There are a number of reasons for this, primarily the U.S. constitution’s grant to the accused of the right to a fair trial. Beyond that is the requirement, accepted under Malaysian law as well, that governments prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The implication of this burden of proof on the discovery process is the widely held perception that the defense can only illuminate such doubt when it has the benefit of assessing the evidence. Of course, there is the history underlying the formation of the 13 colonies: that a government with unbridled powers is a potential obstruction to liberty throwing back to touchy colonial issues such as freedom of worship, and taxation without representation.
Honestly, as a prosecutor, I never cared much for the requirement to turn over my case to the defense. Yet, I acknowledged that I represented the government: a well-oiled machine that had police, scientists, resources, credibility and, ultimately, the commonly-held belief within society that anyone who is charged with a crime is, well, probably guilty.
Remembering that the international symbol of justice is the blindfolded woman holding a scale, I always had to slap myself to remember that my disclosure of the state’s evidence went a long way in ensuring that balance. After all, if I were confident in my case and knew that I could argue my heart out on the merits and win a conviction for the good and true folks of my little town, then why should it be a cause of concern if the defendant knows what evidence I have? And, if his having the evidence allows him the opportunity to construct a lawful defense, then, at the end of the day, he has achieved his constitutional privilege of a fair trial. Don’t misunderstand me. I loved to win, perhaps too much. One of the things I often overlooked and that, in fact, ultimately drove me out of criminal practice, was my slap-in-the-face learning moment that it wasn’t how many notches I had in my gun belt It was all about letting the system work; about remembering that a man’s life and family are riding on judicial outcomes.
But it’s not my light bulb moment that matters now. It’s Anwar’s situation.
So, what is Anwar asking for? And here, I do have to do a little tit-for-tat comparison, so please excuse. Under my state’s law, the state must disclose all evidence that it intends to use at trial. It must also turn over all exculpatory evidence (evidence tending to suggest the innocence of the defendant). I, as prosecutor must also provide the names and reports of all experts I intend to call as a witness in the state’s case including the results of any tests or assessments done; the statements of any witnesses I intend to call, any tapes and recordings of statements made by the defendant, any information I have that tends to impeach the credibility of state’s witnesses, including prior inconsistent statements, relationship with the prosecution and evidence suggesting a character for untruthfulness. Significantly, all the above-mentioned items must be disclosed without request. They are what we call “automatic discovery”. It would appear that Anwar’s requests do not exceed what the majority view in U.S. law would consider stuff to which he is entitled without even having to ask.
The question I have then is a rhetorical one perhaps, yet one that must would appear to underlie the Anwar case at this point. Why isn’t it automatic discovery in this case? There is nothing fundamentally unjust about Malaysia. Its legal system is largely founded upon precepts of the British common law system, as is the American system. Similarly, there is nothing magical, mystical, anti-Asian, overly liberal, American or even western about American rules of discovery. They are simply a means to learn the truth in the judicial setting and to do so in a forum that offers a fair opportunity for both parties to access and benefit from that truth. And, in a country whose judicial system seeks to demonstrate its independence and to dispel suggestions of impropriety, aren’t the truth and the search therefore its best friends? Shouldn’t they be? Isn’t the best response by government to allegations that Anwar’s trial is somehow politically motivated – in the words of the old casino metaphor – to simply lay its cards on the table? To throw the chips in the air and let them fall where they may? Ultimately, as strong as is the belief that one who is charged is guilty, is the belief that one who hides something has something to hide. And, at the end of the day, all legal systems are based on such broad notions found within natural law. I am, perhaps, overly optimistic and believe that it is in the best interest of a government to ensure that, as the old legal axiom goes: “justice must be seen to be done.” Malaysian discovery rules need not become clones of those followed in the U.S.
Nevertheless, at stake here and in every courthouse in every nation, town, county, parish, district or province in the world is a search for the truth and the ability of all sides to assist in finding it. Remember the parable of the professor and the glass jar? This is the big rock with which we must start when filling the container of a healthy, unassailable judicial system. When we have loaded in the search for the truth, we will find that rules of discovery that assist in that search are somewhere between the gravel and the sand. They will fit quite nicely. Then the jar will be full.
Sunday 26 July 2009
Get Rich ..
NO HOLDS BARRED by Raja Petra Kamarudin
The aftermath of Malaysia’s 11th General Elections: Where to now BA?The opposition coalition, the Alterative Front (Barisan Alternatif or BA), will need a couple of days to recover from the shellshock before it regains its composure and decides where it goes from hereon. Yesterday, BA, in particular the National Justice Party (Parti Keadilan Nasional or keADILan) was wiped out in Malaysia’s 11th General Elections.
I am not about to go into a lengthy ‘I told you so’ piece. Nobody likes a ‘hindsight expert’. If you are so clever then why not talk with foresight, most would say. To offer your analysis after the event is easy. It is forecasting before the event that makes one an expert.The fight has not endedFirst of all, a defeat in an election is part and parcel of the game. Maybe keADILan has not seen itself massacred yet as, understandably, it is a new party and this is only its second election.
It will need many more elections under its belt before it can learn how to handle both defeat and victory.The Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS), though, is better at this as once before, in 1986, it was wiped out leaving it a solitary seat in Parliament. Since then, however, PAS revamped itself and went through a leadership change after which it bounced back stronger than ever -- until yesterday.Now, PAS will have to do what it did in 1986. It will have to do some serious soul-searching and ask itself what went wrong. And what it discovers it is not going to like. But PAS will still need to address the matter. It will need to ask itself whether it is a missionary movement or a political party. It will need to ask itself whether it is in the business of propagating Islam or in the business of winning elections.PAS is trying to be both. But it cannot, as it should by now have learnt. PAS wants to serve God and it conducts its business with this in mind -- the Islamic State Document (ISD) is but one proof of this. PAS must now understand that, to win elections, it must serve the voters’ interest. And if serving God is not what the voters want, is this then the political strategy to adopt?
I am not saying that serving God is wrong. What I am saying is PAS should ask the voters what it would like to see and structure itself, its policies and its strategies taking into account the voters’ sentiment. As it is now, PAS does things in isolation, detached from the voters, and this is not how a political party should be run. And all those who would like to serve God should leave the party and become fulltime preachers, leaving the ‘hardcore’ politicians the task of ‘mending’ the party.KeADILan too will have to do its own soul-searching. Will it too need a leadership revamp? This will be for the party leadership to ponder upon. But keADILan will need to understand what it needs to do and change accordingly. If yesterday’s fiasco is the result of a bad leadership, then those responsible should gracefully stand aside and allow the party to be run by those who better understand politics.
If the party feels I have seriously erred and my role as the editor of the party newspaper, Seruan Keadilan, is a liability to the party, then I will be the first to tender my resignation and leave the scene without a whimper. I leave it to the party to decide my fate and I will accept whatever decision the party makes in the spirit of the betterment of the party.I hope those others will do the same.PAS’s 14-year cyclePAS seems to suffer from a 14-year cycle, probably similar to what people call the ‘7-year itch’. In 1990 it won Kelantan State, which thereafter saw its performance going uphill the two elections following it in 1995 and 1999. Today, 14 years down the road, and it is back where it used to be prior to 1990.Roughly 12 years prior to its success in the 1990 elections, Kelantan was under UMNO rule where in 1978 UMNO, with Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah leading the charge, knocked PAS out. 19 years before that, PAS was in control of Kelantan.In short, every three elections or so, Kelantan changes hands from PAS to UMNO, back to PAS, then back to UMNO again. And now Kelantan may be back to UMNO again or, even if PAS can still retain Kelantan after the recount of about five or six seats today, it will only be able to rule the state with a simple majority. Whatever the outcome, no one is going to have a two-thirds majority in the Kelantan State Assembly.
The question now would be, will PAS require another 14 years or three general elections before it takes back the state from UMNO? This will mean it would be close to 2020 before PAS will see its fortunes change in Kelantan.I remember way back in 1978 when UMNO managed to kick PAS out, one Kelantanese told me that every few elections they will give the state to UMNO so that they can get development. Then, when they feel they have been sufficiently developed, they will kick UMNO out and give the state back to PAS.This sounds over-simplified, but if this is really the mentality of the Kelantanese, then expect Umno to be in power in Kelantan for the next three elections, or at least until the Kelantanese feel they have had enough development. Maybe UMNO would then now not over-develop the state to ensure that the people keep on feeling they still need more, which means Kelantan can perpetually remain under UMNO control.The clock has been turned back 30 yearsAll Malaysians must understand the impact of yesterday’s general election. I am not talking with the advantage of hindsight here as I have said this even as early as last year during the launch of Party Keadilan Rakyat and what I said then drew a lot of flak from the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese supporters of the Democratic Action Party (DAP).What happened yesterday is we have turned the clock back 30 years, back to the days leading to the 13 May 1969 racial riots infamously known as ‘May 13’.
Then, when we utter the word “opposition” it is meant “Chinese” and when we say “government” we mean “Malay”. Today, we are back where we were in the days of the 1960s.In this scenario who loses? What we managed to achieve in 1999, 42 years after independence or Merdeka, has just been demolished. In 1999, after 42 years of sweat and toil, both the ruling party and opposition were transformed into a multi-racial mix. No longer could you say that Chinese oppose while Malays support. Today that is again what it is.This situation is bad for the Chinese as it is now so easy to play the racial card. When the Chinese go against the government it can easy be manipulated as they are against the Malays. Every policy the Chinese opposition oppose can be bandied as they are trying to undermine the Malays.UMNO, which in 1999 lost the right to claim it was a party representing Malay interests, has regained that right. The opposition, in particular keADILan, which claims to represent all races and fights for equality for all races can no longer claim so.In short, the line has been redrawn to Chinese opposing Malay interests. And with keADILan out of the picture this claim would have credibility.I have said this before, and that is the opposition must not be reduced to Chinese only and the ruling party as all Malay. My saying so drew accusations that I am a racist. But what I feared most has happened. I also said if this happens then the Chinese have only themselves to blame as kicking out keADILan would mean Malaysian politics would be again reduced to Malays on one side and Chinese on another.And is this not what happened yesterday? And does this not now put the Chinese at a great disadvantage? Every time the Chinese opposition opens its mouth the ruling party will scream that it is anti-Malay. And since the opposition is all-Chinese, and there is no real Malay opposition to speak off, will this not sound true?
It’s all about worldly desiresBefore this, one could only speculate that the Malays are religious and that the ‘Islamic values’ tagline would work with them. PAS’ success in the Malay heartland of Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah was touted as proof of this.Opinion polls done over the last two years, however, revealed the stark reality that money was the motivating factor for the Malays and not rewards in the afterlife. 1999 was a unique situation and should not be used as an indication that the Malays have finally ‘seen the light’ and have rediscovered Islam. The Malays are still basically the same.
They have not changed much and money and development is still what the Malays seekWhat was most puzzling is the Malays’ sense of ‘values’. The Malays seem to be torn between two opposing values. For example, more than 80% of the respondents in the poll feel that the Internal Security Act (ISA) is undemocratic as detention without trial go against the very grain of democracy. These same respondents, however, though they pray, fast, perform their Hajj (pilgrimage) and so on -- in short display signs of being pious Muslims -- are not able to equate the ISA to Islam teachings.In other words, those 80% Malays who feel the ISA is wrong feel so with the spirit of ‘western’ democracy and not because detention without trial goes against Islamic teachings. In short, Islam is farthest from their minds in their opposition to the ISA.Then, when the issue of security is discussed, these same people feel that the ISA is necessary to protect the security of this nation. How can they feel that the ISA is undemocratic yet feel it is required to guarantee the peace and stability of Malaysia? They agree that the ISA is evil but is a necessary evil.
This is where the Malays demonstrate an extremely confused state of mind and I have said this before in a piece where I said the Malays are a difficult race to understand whom even the Malays themselves do not understand, let alone a non-Malay.What, therefore, do the Malays really want? A good afterlife is certainly not one of them! What they want is a good life right here on earth. And the Malays will chose secure jobs, a home, a couple of cars in their driveway, and money in the pocket, over guarantees of heaven after death. And if the ISA is required to guarantee them all this then the ISA shall remain, though in the same breath they may agree it is an undemocratic law.In short, forget about “give me liberty or give me death”. To the Malays it is, “to hell with democracy but give me property”. And to hell with Islam as well if I have to sacrifice my comfort here on earth.The Putrajaya experienceWhich brings me to what happened in Putrajaya where the keADILan candidate, Abdul Rahman Othman, not only lost but lost his deposit as well.
This, in fact, had been predicted, by no less than the Umno candidate, Adnan Mansor, who repeated time and time again that this would happen.But how did Adnan know? How could be so boldly predict this without fear that he would embarrassingly be proven wrong? Because he knew he would be proven right and he knew why.The Putrajaya constituency is 100% civil servants and 95% Malay. And they all live in government quarters, homes they do not own, at the grace of the government. Abdul Rahman knew this and he knew this would be the trump card Adnan could use against the Putrajaya voters. And he did.Adnan met the civil servants face-to-face in their offices, though this was not allowed, and told them in very clear terms that they risk being kicked out of their government quarters if they voted for the opposition.The voters were also told that their votes could be detected.
All the ballot papers are numbered. The voters too have serial numbers. Once the ballot paper is torn from the book, the voter’s serial number is recorded on the counterfoil that has corresponding numbers to the ballot papers.All they have to do is to check the ballot papers of the opposition votes and match its serial number against that on the counterfoil to know who voted for the opposition. When the voter goes into the polling station, his serial number is shouted out for all to hear and everyone in the room records it.Many civil servants personally told Abdul Rahman that they strongly believe their votes are not a secret and that the government can detect whom they voted for. Abdul Rahman tried his best to assure the voters that this is not so and that their votes are definitely confidential but the fear factor was just to high, and in the short space of seven days it was impossible to change their minds on this.Abdul Rahman, in fact, brought this matter to the attention of the Election Commission (EC) and requested them to make an official statement to clear the air. But it was not done and the Putrajaya voters who went to the polls on 21 March 2004 believed that their votes are not a secret and that it is not worth the risk of voting for the opposition and getting kicked out of their government quarters.Two days before Polling Day,
I discussed this fear factor with Abdul Rahman. We both believed that even if we cannot win we can still garner about 2,000 votes, an impressive enough performance against 5,000 voters, and not lose our deposit. But the fear factor was still very high and we had not been able to overcome it yet. If we could not do it the following 48 hours then we may yet prove Adnan’s prediction right.We also discussed the ‘Scud missile’ that Adnan would probably use against us. We believed that a ‘Scud missile’ was waiting to be fired, and this should be in the wee hours of the eve of Polling Day. But we just did not know what. There was no question of not getting hit with something ‘big’. We even knew the timing. But we were groping in the dark wondering as to what it was going to be.We decided to embark on a last round ‘polishing’ exercise of our own to counter whatever Adnan had waiting for us. Abdul Rahman himself prepared the ammunition. But on the last night we were stuck in our operations centre, unable to move. Every time we sent a team out the UMNO army surrounded it and locked it in. We phoned the police but got no help from them and this is not surprising considering this has been the scenario the entire week.I phoned the head of the Putrajaya Special Branch, ASP Ibrahim, and shouted at him. I accused him of being an UMNO tool. I went berserk.
I also sent him a nasty SMS message, which he saved on his hand phone, probably to use against me the next time they (again) detain me under the ISA.While we were under siege on that last night, the UMNO army did their rounds popping VCDs into every letterbox of the 5,000 Putrajaya voters. The VCDs was a documentary of Lokman Noor Adam, the onetime Executive Secretary of the keADILan Youth Movement, ‘revealing’ amongst others that keADILan was being funded by the Jewish currency trader, George Soros, “the man instrumental in wrecking Malaysia’s economy”, that the keADILan leaders misappropriate the money received from supporters and donors for personal use to build lavish homes and buy luxury cars, and so on and so forth.In short, keADILan was portrayed as a party backed by an enemy of Islam and Malaysia and its leaders but a bunch of corrupt, immoral and dishonest crooks. And this expose was made by non other than its Youth Secretary. And the VCDs showed the so-called ‘documentary evidence’ such as bank statements, etc. Whatever little support Abdul Rahman had was totally demolished.What is frustrating about this whole thing is we knew it was coming and even knew when. We even planned our own counter-operation. But we were stuck at base and had to just helplessly watch the UMNO boys tear us down piece by piece. We knew we had lost even before the race started. We were outnumbered, outgunned and outmanoeuvred. And the UMNO boys laughed at us while they destroyed us in our very face.We saw it comingPutrajaya is not the only place we saw it coming but were forced to stand by helplessly and watch everything crumble before our very eyes.
I frequently joke that PAS was built on love while keADILan was built on hate. PAS was built on love for Islam while keADILan was built on hate for Dr Mahathir.This may have been said in jest but, as they say, many a true word is said in jest.On the second day of Ramadan, a two-day conference was held in Melaka to discuss our political strategy for the 11th General Election. The number one issue that was agreed by all is that, now that Dr Mahathir has left the scene and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has taken over, keADILan has lost the concept of enemy.It would, in fact, have been better if Dr Mahathir had stayed on. We could have held our ground or maybe even perform better if Dr Mahathir was still the Prime Minister. Now that Pak Lah is in charge, the concept of enemy has disappeared and this spells bad news for keADILan.It was further agreed that keADILan would need to quickly reinvent the enemy or else face irrelevancy. If it fails to do so, then the need for keADILan will disappear. KeADILan is only required so far as to kick Dr Mahathir out of office. Once this has been achieved, then who needs keADILan anymore? Our political strategists, however, were not able to come up with this new ‘enemy’, or maybe they did not see the need for one. Whatever it may be, the prediction resulting from the Melaka conference was fulfilled.Pak Lah walks down the same road as Dr MahathirOver the last couple of months I was asked by the foreign media, on more than one occasion, what I felt about the 11th General Elections and what was my prediction of the outcome. I replied that one must look back to the 1982 General Election soon after Dr Mahathir took over as Prime Minister. Then, Dr Mahathir was in his ‘honeymoon’ period and he performed well, as he did in the election after that in 1986. But, by the third election in 1990, his fortunes started to change and he lost Kelantan.But Dr Mahathir lost Kelantan not because PAS, who at that time had teamed up with Tengku Razaleigh’s Semangat 46, was strong, but because the Kelantanese just hated Dr Mahathir’s guts.If Dr Mahathir had stayed for just two terms, he would have retired at the top. But he stayed beyond that and, thereafter, Dr Mahathir was never able to recapture his ‘honeymoon’ period performance of 1982 and 1986 when PAS was practically wiped out.Pak Lah, I replied, just like Dr Mahathir in 1982, is now also in his ‘honeymoon’ period. He, just like Dr Mahathir in 1982, is going to perform well this election. And he will continue to do so in the following election as well in 2009, just like Dr Mahathir did in 1986. It will have to be in the third election in 2014 (Malaysia’s 13 General Election) before Pak Lah can be brought to his knees.If Pak Lah is smart, I added, he should retire around 2013 or 2014, just before the 13th General Election. Then he will retire at the top, something Dr Mahathir did not do. This will make Pak Lah the best performing prime minister in Malaysia history. If, however, just like Dr Mahathir, he tries to take Malaysia into his third election as Prime Minister, then he would face the same humiliation Dr Mahathir suffered.
In short, the opposition can expect humiliation in the 11th General Election, plus in the 12th as well. The opposition will then have to hope that Pak Lah becomes ‘greedy’ and clings to power, which means its fortunes will change in the 13th General Election. If, however, Pak Lah very cleverly bails out and hands the country to his deputy just before that, this would be bad news for the opposition as then it may never recover.‘Show me the money’I know this prediction does not augur well for the opposition. But when the Malaysian opposition parties can only win by default, win when the ruling party makes mistakes, then what can it expect? You just need to listen to the opposition speeches. The opposition leaders speak about the mistakes made by the government. It talks about the excesses and abuses. It talks about the corruption and mismanagement. In spite of all this, the country’s economy grows and Malaysians see development.The opposition fails, or refuses, to understand what the voters want. They want the security and comfort of a good life and the ruling party has shown it can guarantee this. They want peace and stability and the freedom to get rich and the ruling party offers this. They want education and good jobs and the ruling party provides this.Agreed, to get all this Malaysians must sacrifice a little freedom and democracy. Granted, while the voters are free to get rich, the ministers too help themselves to some of the money. Maybe, there is no real equality but the Chinese still prosper in spite of the Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) policy.Malaysia offers the voters a win-win solution.
Get rich, prosper, get a good education, get good jobs, live in beautiful homes, drive nice cars, but just do not question what the government does or criticise it. This is acceptable to two-thirds of the voting population. The balance one-third disgruntled voting population can support the opposition if it so wishes. But in the ‘first past the post’ election system that Malaysia practices, the one-third is of no consequence.And yesterday’s 11th General Election has proven this point.The voters have not heard how the opposition can better develop Malaysia. The voters have not been told how they would get even richer than now if the opposition were to come to power. In fact, Kelantan and Terengganu have proven the reverse; the people get poorer with the opposition running these two states. And this is all that counts. And this is something the opposition does not seem to understand.
Do I hear someone say this is a most unIslamic stand to take? Do I hear someone say that principles cannot be compromised and exchanged for worldly desires? Don’t tell me, tell the voters, they don’t seem to think so as yesterday’s message from them has very loudly and clearly shown.And the message from the voters is, “Show me the money!”
The aftermath of Malaysia’s 11th General Elections: Where to now BA?The opposition coalition, the Alterative Front (Barisan Alternatif or BA), will need a couple of days to recover from the shellshock before it regains its composure and decides where it goes from hereon. Yesterday, BA, in particular the National Justice Party (Parti Keadilan Nasional or keADILan) was wiped out in Malaysia’s 11th General Elections.
I am not about to go into a lengthy ‘I told you so’ piece. Nobody likes a ‘hindsight expert’. If you are so clever then why not talk with foresight, most would say. To offer your analysis after the event is easy. It is forecasting before the event that makes one an expert.The fight has not endedFirst of all, a defeat in an election is part and parcel of the game. Maybe keADILan has not seen itself massacred yet as, understandably, it is a new party and this is only its second election.
It will need many more elections under its belt before it can learn how to handle both defeat and victory.The Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS), though, is better at this as once before, in 1986, it was wiped out leaving it a solitary seat in Parliament. Since then, however, PAS revamped itself and went through a leadership change after which it bounced back stronger than ever -- until yesterday.Now, PAS will have to do what it did in 1986. It will have to do some serious soul-searching and ask itself what went wrong. And what it discovers it is not going to like. But PAS will still need to address the matter. It will need to ask itself whether it is a missionary movement or a political party. It will need to ask itself whether it is in the business of propagating Islam or in the business of winning elections.PAS is trying to be both. But it cannot, as it should by now have learnt. PAS wants to serve God and it conducts its business with this in mind -- the Islamic State Document (ISD) is but one proof of this. PAS must now understand that, to win elections, it must serve the voters’ interest. And if serving God is not what the voters want, is this then the political strategy to adopt?
I am not saying that serving God is wrong. What I am saying is PAS should ask the voters what it would like to see and structure itself, its policies and its strategies taking into account the voters’ sentiment. As it is now, PAS does things in isolation, detached from the voters, and this is not how a political party should be run. And all those who would like to serve God should leave the party and become fulltime preachers, leaving the ‘hardcore’ politicians the task of ‘mending’ the party.KeADILan too will have to do its own soul-searching. Will it too need a leadership revamp? This will be for the party leadership to ponder upon. But keADILan will need to understand what it needs to do and change accordingly. If yesterday’s fiasco is the result of a bad leadership, then those responsible should gracefully stand aside and allow the party to be run by those who better understand politics.
If the party feels I have seriously erred and my role as the editor of the party newspaper, Seruan Keadilan, is a liability to the party, then I will be the first to tender my resignation and leave the scene without a whimper. I leave it to the party to decide my fate and I will accept whatever decision the party makes in the spirit of the betterment of the party.I hope those others will do the same.PAS’s 14-year cyclePAS seems to suffer from a 14-year cycle, probably similar to what people call the ‘7-year itch’. In 1990 it won Kelantan State, which thereafter saw its performance going uphill the two elections following it in 1995 and 1999. Today, 14 years down the road, and it is back where it used to be prior to 1990.Roughly 12 years prior to its success in the 1990 elections, Kelantan was under UMNO rule where in 1978 UMNO, with Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah leading the charge, knocked PAS out. 19 years before that, PAS was in control of Kelantan.In short, every three elections or so, Kelantan changes hands from PAS to UMNO, back to PAS, then back to UMNO again. And now Kelantan may be back to UMNO again or, even if PAS can still retain Kelantan after the recount of about five or six seats today, it will only be able to rule the state with a simple majority. Whatever the outcome, no one is going to have a two-thirds majority in the Kelantan State Assembly.
The question now would be, will PAS require another 14 years or three general elections before it takes back the state from UMNO? This will mean it would be close to 2020 before PAS will see its fortunes change in Kelantan.I remember way back in 1978 when UMNO managed to kick PAS out, one Kelantanese told me that every few elections they will give the state to UMNO so that they can get development. Then, when they feel they have been sufficiently developed, they will kick UMNO out and give the state back to PAS.This sounds over-simplified, but if this is really the mentality of the Kelantanese, then expect Umno to be in power in Kelantan for the next three elections, or at least until the Kelantanese feel they have had enough development. Maybe UMNO would then now not over-develop the state to ensure that the people keep on feeling they still need more, which means Kelantan can perpetually remain under UMNO control.The clock has been turned back 30 yearsAll Malaysians must understand the impact of yesterday’s general election. I am not talking with the advantage of hindsight here as I have said this even as early as last year during the launch of Party Keadilan Rakyat and what I said then drew a lot of flak from the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese supporters of the Democratic Action Party (DAP).What happened yesterday is we have turned the clock back 30 years, back to the days leading to the 13 May 1969 racial riots infamously known as ‘May 13’.
Then, when we utter the word “opposition” it is meant “Chinese” and when we say “government” we mean “Malay”. Today, we are back where we were in the days of the 1960s.In this scenario who loses? What we managed to achieve in 1999, 42 years after independence or Merdeka, has just been demolished. In 1999, after 42 years of sweat and toil, both the ruling party and opposition were transformed into a multi-racial mix. No longer could you say that Chinese oppose while Malays support. Today that is again what it is.This situation is bad for the Chinese as it is now so easy to play the racial card. When the Chinese go against the government it can easy be manipulated as they are against the Malays. Every policy the Chinese opposition oppose can be bandied as they are trying to undermine the Malays.UMNO, which in 1999 lost the right to claim it was a party representing Malay interests, has regained that right. The opposition, in particular keADILan, which claims to represent all races and fights for equality for all races can no longer claim so.In short, the line has been redrawn to Chinese opposing Malay interests. And with keADILan out of the picture this claim would have credibility.I have said this before, and that is the opposition must not be reduced to Chinese only and the ruling party as all Malay. My saying so drew accusations that I am a racist. But what I feared most has happened. I also said if this happens then the Chinese have only themselves to blame as kicking out keADILan would mean Malaysian politics would be again reduced to Malays on one side and Chinese on another.And is this not what happened yesterday? And does this not now put the Chinese at a great disadvantage? Every time the Chinese opposition opens its mouth the ruling party will scream that it is anti-Malay. And since the opposition is all-Chinese, and there is no real Malay opposition to speak off, will this not sound true?
It’s all about worldly desiresBefore this, one could only speculate that the Malays are religious and that the ‘Islamic values’ tagline would work with them. PAS’ success in the Malay heartland of Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah was touted as proof of this.Opinion polls done over the last two years, however, revealed the stark reality that money was the motivating factor for the Malays and not rewards in the afterlife. 1999 was a unique situation and should not be used as an indication that the Malays have finally ‘seen the light’ and have rediscovered Islam. The Malays are still basically the same.
They have not changed much and money and development is still what the Malays seekWhat was most puzzling is the Malays’ sense of ‘values’. The Malays seem to be torn between two opposing values. For example, more than 80% of the respondents in the poll feel that the Internal Security Act (ISA) is undemocratic as detention without trial go against the very grain of democracy. These same respondents, however, though they pray, fast, perform their Hajj (pilgrimage) and so on -- in short display signs of being pious Muslims -- are not able to equate the ISA to Islam teachings.In other words, those 80% Malays who feel the ISA is wrong feel so with the spirit of ‘western’ democracy and not because detention without trial goes against Islamic teachings. In short, Islam is farthest from their minds in their opposition to the ISA.Then, when the issue of security is discussed, these same people feel that the ISA is necessary to protect the security of this nation. How can they feel that the ISA is undemocratic yet feel it is required to guarantee the peace and stability of Malaysia? They agree that the ISA is evil but is a necessary evil.
This is where the Malays demonstrate an extremely confused state of mind and I have said this before in a piece where I said the Malays are a difficult race to understand whom even the Malays themselves do not understand, let alone a non-Malay.What, therefore, do the Malays really want? A good afterlife is certainly not one of them! What they want is a good life right here on earth. And the Malays will chose secure jobs, a home, a couple of cars in their driveway, and money in the pocket, over guarantees of heaven after death. And if the ISA is required to guarantee them all this then the ISA shall remain, though in the same breath they may agree it is an undemocratic law.In short, forget about “give me liberty or give me death”. To the Malays it is, “to hell with democracy but give me property”. And to hell with Islam as well if I have to sacrifice my comfort here on earth.The Putrajaya experienceWhich brings me to what happened in Putrajaya where the keADILan candidate, Abdul Rahman Othman, not only lost but lost his deposit as well.
This, in fact, had been predicted, by no less than the Umno candidate, Adnan Mansor, who repeated time and time again that this would happen.But how did Adnan know? How could be so boldly predict this without fear that he would embarrassingly be proven wrong? Because he knew he would be proven right and he knew why.The Putrajaya constituency is 100% civil servants and 95% Malay. And they all live in government quarters, homes they do not own, at the grace of the government. Abdul Rahman knew this and he knew this would be the trump card Adnan could use against the Putrajaya voters. And he did.Adnan met the civil servants face-to-face in their offices, though this was not allowed, and told them in very clear terms that they risk being kicked out of their government quarters if they voted for the opposition.The voters were also told that their votes could be detected.
All the ballot papers are numbered. The voters too have serial numbers. Once the ballot paper is torn from the book, the voter’s serial number is recorded on the counterfoil that has corresponding numbers to the ballot papers.All they have to do is to check the ballot papers of the opposition votes and match its serial number against that on the counterfoil to know who voted for the opposition. When the voter goes into the polling station, his serial number is shouted out for all to hear and everyone in the room records it.Many civil servants personally told Abdul Rahman that they strongly believe their votes are not a secret and that the government can detect whom they voted for. Abdul Rahman tried his best to assure the voters that this is not so and that their votes are definitely confidential but the fear factor was just to high, and in the short space of seven days it was impossible to change their minds on this.Abdul Rahman, in fact, brought this matter to the attention of the Election Commission (EC) and requested them to make an official statement to clear the air. But it was not done and the Putrajaya voters who went to the polls on 21 March 2004 believed that their votes are not a secret and that it is not worth the risk of voting for the opposition and getting kicked out of their government quarters.Two days before Polling Day,
I discussed this fear factor with Abdul Rahman. We both believed that even if we cannot win we can still garner about 2,000 votes, an impressive enough performance against 5,000 voters, and not lose our deposit. But the fear factor was still very high and we had not been able to overcome it yet. If we could not do it the following 48 hours then we may yet prove Adnan’s prediction right.We also discussed the ‘Scud missile’ that Adnan would probably use against us. We believed that a ‘Scud missile’ was waiting to be fired, and this should be in the wee hours of the eve of Polling Day. But we just did not know what. There was no question of not getting hit with something ‘big’. We even knew the timing. But we were groping in the dark wondering as to what it was going to be.We decided to embark on a last round ‘polishing’ exercise of our own to counter whatever Adnan had waiting for us. Abdul Rahman himself prepared the ammunition. But on the last night we were stuck in our operations centre, unable to move. Every time we sent a team out the UMNO army surrounded it and locked it in. We phoned the police but got no help from them and this is not surprising considering this has been the scenario the entire week.I phoned the head of the Putrajaya Special Branch, ASP Ibrahim, and shouted at him. I accused him of being an UMNO tool. I went berserk.
I also sent him a nasty SMS message, which he saved on his hand phone, probably to use against me the next time they (again) detain me under the ISA.While we were under siege on that last night, the UMNO army did their rounds popping VCDs into every letterbox of the 5,000 Putrajaya voters. The VCDs was a documentary of Lokman Noor Adam, the onetime Executive Secretary of the keADILan Youth Movement, ‘revealing’ amongst others that keADILan was being funded by the Jewish currency trader, George Soros, “the man instrumental in wrecking Malaysia’s economy”, that the keADILan leaders misappropriate the money received from supporters and donors for personal use to build lavish homes and buy luxury cars, and so on and so forth.In short, keADILan was portrayed as a party backed by an enemy of Islam and Malaysia and its leaders but a bunch of corrupt, immoral and dishonest crooks. And this expose was made by non other than its Youth Secretary. And the VCDs showed the so-called ‘documentary evidence’ such as bank statements, etc. Whatever little support Abdul Rahman had was totally demolished.What is frustrating about this whole thing is we knew it was coming and even knew when. We even planned our own counter-operation. But we were stuck at base and had to just helplessly watch the UMNO boys tear us down piece by piece. We knew we had lost even before the race started. We were outnumbered, outgunned and outmanoeuvred. And the UMNO boys laughed at us while they destroyed us in our very face.We saw it comingPutrajaya is not the only place we saw it coming but were forced to stand by helplessly and watch everything crumble before our very eyes.
I frequently joke that PAS was built on love while keADILan was built on hate. PAS was built on love for Islam while keADILan was built on hate for Dr Mahathir.This may have been said in jest but, as they say, many a true word is said in jest.On the second day of Ramadan, a two-day conference was held in Melaka to discuss our political strategy for the 11th General Election. The number one issue that was agreed by all is that, now that Dr Mahathir has left the scene and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has taken over, keADILan has lost the concept of enemy.It would, in fact, have been better if Dr Mahathir had stayed on. We could have held our ground or maybe even perform better if Dr Mahathir was still the Prime Minister. Now that Pak Lah is in charge, the concept of enemy has disappeared and this spells bad news for keADILan.It was further agreed that keADILan would need to quickly reinvent the enemy or else face irrelevancy. If it fails to do so, then the need for keADILan will disappear. KeADILan is only required so far as to kick Dr Mahathir out of office. Once this has been achieved, then who needs keADILan anymore? Our political strategists, however, were not able to come up with this new ‘enemy’, or maybe they did not see the need for one. Whatever it may be, the prediction resulting from the Melaka conference was fulfilled.Pak Lah walks down the same road as Dr MahathirOver the last couple of months I was asked by the foreign media, on more than one occasion, what I felt about the 11th General Elections and what was my prediction of the outcome. I replied that one must look back to the 1982 General Election soon after Dr Mahathir took over as Prime Minister. Then, Dr Mahathir was in his ‘honeymoon’ period and he performed well, as he did in the election after that in 1986. But, by the third election in 1990, his fortunes started to change and he lost Kelantan.But Dr Mahathir lost Kelantan not because PAS, who at that time had teamed up with Tengku Razaleigh’s Semangat 46, was strong, but because the Kelantanese just hated Dr Mahathir’s guts.If Dr Mahathir had stayed for just two terms, he would have retired at the top. But he stayed beyond that and, thereafter, Dr Mahathir was never able to recapture his ‘honeymoon’ period performance of 1982 and 1986 when PAS was practically wiped out.Pak Lah, I replied, just like Dr Mahathir in 1982, is now also in his ‘honeymoon’ period. He, just like Dr Mahathir in 1982, is going to perform well this election. And he will continue to do so in the following election as well in 2009, just like Dr Mahathir did in 1986. It will have to be in the third election in 2014 (Malaysia’s 13 General Election) before Pak Lah can be brought to his knees.If Pak Lah is smart, I added, he should retire around 2013 or 2014, just before the 13th General Election. Then he will retire at the top, something Dr Mahathir did not do. This will make Pak Lah the best performing prime minister in Malaysia history. If, however, just like Dr Mahathir, he tries to take Malaysia into his third election as Prime Minister, then he would face the same humiliation Dr Mahathir suffered.
In short, the opposition can expect humiliation in the 11th General Election, plus in the 12th as well. The opposition will then have to hope that Pak Lah becomes ‘greedy’ and clings to power, which means its fortunes will change in the 13th General Election. If, however, Pak Lah very cleverly bails out and hands the country to his deputy just before that, this would be bad news for the opposition as then it may never recover.‘Show me the money’I know this prediction does not augur well for the opposition. But when the Malaysian opposition parties can only win by default, win when the ruling party makes mistakes, then what can it expect? You just need to listen to the opposition speeches. The opposition leaders speak about the mistakes made by the government. It talks about the excesses and abuses. It talks about the corruption and mismanagement. In spite of all this, the country’s economy grows and Malaysians see development.The opposition fails, or refuses, to understand what the voters want. They want the security and comfort of a good life and the ruling party has shown it can guarantee this. They want peace and stability and the freedom to get rich and the ruling party offers this. They want education and good jobs and the ruling party provides this.Agreed, to get all this Malaysians must sacrifice a little freedom and democracy. Granted, while the voters are free to get rich, the ministers too help themselves to some of the money. Maybe, there is no real equality but the Chinese still prosper in spite of the Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) policy.Malaysia offers the voters a win-win solution.
Get rich, prosper, get a good education, get good jobs, live in beautiful homes, drive nice cars, but just do not question what the government does or criticise it. This is acceptable to two-thirds of the voting population. The balance one-third disgruntled voting population can support the opposition if it so wishes. But in the ‘first past the post’ election system that Malaysia practices, the one-third is of no consequence.And yesterday’s 11th General Election has proven this point.The voters have not heard how the opposition can better develop Malaysia. The voters have not been told how they would get even richer than now if the opposition were to come to power. In fact, Kelantan and Terengganu have proven the reverse; the people get poorer with the opposition running these two states. And this is all that counts. And this is something the opposition does not seem to understand.
Do I hear someone say this is a most unIslamic stand to take? Do I hear someone say that principles cannot be compromised and exchanged for worldly desires? Don’t tell me, tell the voters, they don’t seem to think so as yesterday’s message from them has very loudly and clearly shown.And the message from the voters is, “Show me the money!”
The other side of midnight in .....
Written by Our Correspondent ASentinel
Monday, 20 July 2009
How did an opposition party aide manage to throw himself off an anti-corruption agency building? If Teoh Beng Hock had died in the custody of the police in Moscow or Chechnya, the death would have been all over the western media as yet another example of the brutality of the system.
But because Malaysia buys lots of arms from the west, western tourists love Langkawi beaches, and Manchester United makes millions from its Malaysian fans, this appalling story rated the briefest of international mentions. Yet murder goes closer to top people in Malaysia than it does to their equivalents in Russia.Teoh was an aide to an executive councilor in the Selangor state government which is controlled by an opposition coalition including the Democratic Action Party (DAP) of which Teoh's boss was a senior member.
He was found dead on the fifth floor roof of the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission building having allegedly jumped to his death after an interrogation.The story is not just a tragedy for Beng Hock, his family, fiancée and friends. It is yet another tragedy for the Malaysian system of law and justice. Exactly what happened at the Shah Alam, Selangor, of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission we shall probably never know. Cover-ups will go on indefinitely, as also in the case of the murder of Mongolian model and translator Altantuya Shaaribu , the pregnant former mistress of Razak Baginda a close associate of now prime minister Najib Razak who was killed by members of Najib's security detail.According to the MACC, Teoh's interrogation had ended some hours earlier but he had elected to stay at its offices, from which he later jumped.
At the very least, if Teoh had killed himself it could only have been after mental or physical torture or administration of drugs by the MACC. Teoh was not the subject of investigation by the MACC, the agency said, only his boss. He was a former newspaper reporter for the Chinese daily Sin Chiew Jit Poh until joining the state government after the opposition victory last year. He was due to be married soon. The MACC may sound a worthy institution dedicated to clean government. But foreigners should not be fooled. Its interrogation of Yeoh was clearly aimed at trying to dig up something to pin on his boss and hence disrupt an opposition coalition already subject to the money politics which has helped keep the UMNO-led coalition in power at national level for more than 50 years.
The MACC meanwhile has singularly failed to investigate the payment of "commissions" totaling €114 million to Najib's friend Razak Baginda for the purchase of French submarines while Najib was Defense Minister. The French-speaking Altantuya visited Paris with Razak Baginda during discussions with the French so was almost certainly privy to the deal and, by her own admission, later tried to blackmail Baginda.
According to testimony which was not allowed in court, Najib was also present on one of these Paris visits. Indeed, according to a private detective who later recanted his testimony then disappeared, Najib himself had previously had a sexual relationship with Altantuya.The trial of Razak Baginda, who was acquitted, and two members of Najib's squad, who were found guilty, was a bizarre affair which made a mockery of justice. (see Asia Sentinel: Altantuya's Killers Judged Guilty) Yet western governments, which continue to lecture Russia and others on human rights and the rule of law for their own commercial reasons, continue to accord Malaysia's government and courts a liberal and democratic status which they lost two decades ago.
The death of Teoh Beng Hock is yet another tragic illustration of how rotten the Malaysian system has become after years of one party rule, racialism and blatant corruption on a massive scale.
Monday, 20 July 2009
How did an opposition party aide manage to throw himself off an anti-corruption agency building? If Teoh Beng Hock had died in the custody of the police in Moscow or Chechnya, the death would have been all over the western media as yet another example of the brutality of the system.
But because Malaysia buys lots of arms from the west, western tourists love Langkawi beaches, and Manchester United makes millions from its Malaysian fans, this appalling story rated the briefest of international mentions. Yet murder goes closer to top people in Malaysia than it does to their equivalents in Russia.Teoh was an aide to an executive councilor in the Selangor state government which is controlled by an opposition coalition including the Democratic Action Party (DAP) of which Teoh's boss was a senior member.
He was found dead on the fifth floor roof of the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission building having allegedly jumped to his death after an interrogation.The story is not just a tragedy for Beng Hock, his family, fiancée and friends. It is yet another tragedy for the Malaysian system of law and justice. Exactly what happened at the Shah Alam, Selangor, of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission we shall probably never know. Cover-ups will go on indefinitely, as also in the case of the murder of Mongolian model and translator Altantuya Shaaribu , the pregnant former mistress of Razak Baginda a close associate of now prime minister Najib Razak who was killed by members of Najib's security detail.According to the MACC, Teoh's interrogation had ended some hours earlier but he had elected to stay at its offices, from which he later jumped.
At the very least, if Teoh had killed himself it could only have been after mental or physical torture or administration of drugs by the MACC. Teoh was not the subject of investigation by the MACC, the agency said, only his boss. He was a former newspaper reporter for the Chinese daily Sin Chiew Jit Poh until joining the state government after the opposition victory last year. He was due to be married soon. The MACC may sound a worthy institution dedicated to clean government. But foreigners should not be fooled. Its interrogation of Yeoh was clearly aimed at trying to dig up something to pin on his boss and hence disrupt an opposition coalition already subject to the money politics which has helped keep the UMNO-led coalition in power at national level for more than 50 years.
The MACC meanwhile has singularly failed to investigate the payment of "commissions" totaling €114 million to Najib's friend Razak Baginda for the purchase of French submarines while Najib was Defense Minister. The French-speaking Altantuya visited Paris with Razak Baginda during discussions with the French so was almost certainly privy to the deal and, by her own admission, later tried to blackmail Baginda.
According to testimony which was not allowed in court, Najib was also present on one of these Paris visits. Indeed, according to a private detective who later recanted his testimony then disappeared, Najib himself had previously had a sexual relationship with Altantuya.The trial of Razak Baginda, who was acquitted, and two members of Najib's squad, who were found guilty, was a bizarre affair which made a mockery of justice. (see Asia Sentinel: Altantuya's Killers Judged Guilty) Yet western governments, which continue to lecture Russia and others on human rights and the rule of law for their own commercial reasons, continue to accord Malaysia's government and courts a liberal and democratic status which they lost two decades ago.
The death of Teoh Beng Hock is yet another tragic illustration of how rotten the Malaysian system has become after years of one party rule, racialism and blatant corruption on a massive scale.
Friday 20 February 2009
An eye for an eye...
the sufferers....
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Ameneh Bahrami is certain that one day she'll meet someone, fall in love and get married. But when her wedding day comes, her husband won't see her eyes, and she won't see her husband. Bahrami is blind, the victim of an acid attack by a spurned suitor.
Ameneh Bahrami said her attacker pestered her with marriage demands.
If she gets her way, her attacker will suffer the same fate. The 31-year-old Iranian is demanding the ancient punishment of "an eye for an eye," and, in accordance with Islamic law, she wants to blind Majid Movahedi, the man who blinded her.
"I don't want to blind him for revenge," Bahrami said in her parents' Tehran apartment. "I'm doing this to prevent it from happening to someone else."
Bahrami says she first crossed paths with Movahedi in 2002, when they attended the same university.
She was a 24-year-old electronics student. He was 19. She never noticed him until they shared a class. He sat next to her one day and brushed up against her. Bahrami says she knew it wasn't an accident.
"I moved away from him," she said, "but he brushed up against me again." Watch Bahrami return to the attack scene for the first time »
When Bahrami stood up in class and screamed for him to stop, Movahedi just looked at her in stunned silence. He wouldn't stay silent for long.
Bahrami said that over the next two years, Movahedi kept harassing her and making threats, even as he asked her to marry him. "He told me he would kill me. He said, 'You have to say yes.' "
On a November afternoon in 2004, Movahedi's threats turned to violence.
That day at 4:30 p.m., Bahrami left the medical engineering company where she worked. As she walked to the bus stop, she remembers sensing someone behind her.
She turned around and was startled to see Movahedi. A moment later came the agonizing pain. Movahedi had thrown something over her. What felt like fire on her face was acid searing through her skin.
"I was just yelling, 'I'm burning! I'm burning! For God's sake, somebody help me!' "
The acid seeped into Bahrami's eyes and streamed down her face and into her mouth. When she covered her face with her hands, streaks of acid ran down her fingers and onto her forearms. Watch how the still-pungent acid destroyed Bahrami's clothes »
Two weeks after the attack, Movahedi turned himself in to police and confessed in court. He was convicted in 2005 and has been behind bars all along.
Bahrami's lawyer, Ali Sarrafi, said Movahedi had never shown any remorse. "He says he did it because he loved her," Sarrafi said.
Attack victims in Iran usually accept "blood money": a fine in lieu of harsh punishment. With no insurance and mounting medical bills, Bahrami could've used the cash, but she said no.
"I told the judge I want an eye for an eye," Bahrami said. "People like him should be made to feel my suffering." Watch how the acid destroyed Bahrami's eyes (includes graphic content) »
Bahrami's demand has outraged some human rights activists. Criticizing acid-attack victims is almost unheard of, but some Internet bloggers have condemned Bahrami's decision.
"We cannot condone such cruel punishment," wrote one blogger. "To willingly inflict the same treatment on a person under court order is a violation of human rights."
Late last year, an Iranian court gave Bahrami what she asked for. It sentenced Movahedi to be blinded with drops of acid in each eye. This month, the courts rejected Movahedi's appeal.
Bahrami's lawyer, Sarrafi, said the sentencing might be carried out in a matter of weeks. He said he doesn't think Bahrami will change her mind. Neither does Bahrami.
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Ameneh Bahrami is certain that one day she'll meet someone, fall in love and get married. But when her wedding day comes, her husband won't see her eyes, and she won't see her husband. Bahrami is blind, the victim of an acid attack by a spurned suitor.
Ameneh Bahrami said her attacker pestered her with marriage demands.
If she gets her way, her attacker will suffer the same fate. The 31-year-old Iranian is demanding the ancient punishment of "an eye for an eye," and, in accordance with Islamic law, she wants to blind Majid Movahedi, the man who blinded her.
"I don't want to blind him for revenge," Bahrami said in her parents' Tehran apartment. "I'm doing this to prevent it from happening to someone else."
Bahrami says she first crossed paths with Movahedi in 2002, when they attended the same university.
She was a 24-year-old electronics student. He was 19. She never noticed him until they shared a class. He sat next to her one day and brushed up against her. Bahrami says she knew it wasn't an accident.
"I moved away from him," she said, "but he brushed up against me again." Watch Bahrami return to the attack scene for the first time »
When Bahrami stood up in class and screamed for him to stop, Movahedi just looked at her in stunned silence. He wouldn't stay silent for long.
Bahrami said that over the next two years, Movahedi kept harassing her and making threats, even as he asked her to marry him. "He told me he would kill me. He said, 'You have to say yes.' "
On a November afternoon in 2004, Movahedi's threats turned to violence.
That day at 4:30 p.m., Bahrami left the medical engineering company where she worked. As she walked to the bus stop, she remembers sensing someone behind her.
She turned around and was startled to see Movahedi. A moment later came the agonizing pain. Movahedi had thrown something over her. What felt like fire on her face was acid searing through her skin.
"I was just yelling, 'I'm burning! I'm burning! For God's sake, somebody help me!' "
The acid seeped into Bahrami's eyes and streamed down her face and into her mouth. When she covered her face with her hands, streaks of acid ran down her fingers and onto her forearms. Watch how the still-pungent acid destroyed Bahrami's clothes »
Two weeks after the attack, Movahedi turned himself in to police and confessed in court. He was convicted in 2005 and has been behind bars all along.
Bahrami's lawyer, Ali Sarrafi, said Movahedi had never shown any remorse. "He says he did it because he loved her," Sarrafi said.
Attack victims in Iran usually accept "blood money": a fine in lieu of harsh punishment. With no insurance and mounting medical bills, Bahrami could've used the cash, but she said no.
"I told the judge I want an eye for an eye," Bahrami said. "People like him should be made to feel my suffering." Watch how the acid destroyed Bahrami's eyes (includes graphic content) »
Bahrami's demand has outraged some human rights activists. Criticizing acid-attack victims is almost unheard of, but some Internet bloggers have condemned Bahrami's decision.
"We cannot condone such cruel punishment," wrote one blogger. "To willingly inflict the same treatment on a person under court order is a violation of human rights."
Late last year, an Iranian court gave Bahrami what she asked for. It sentenced Movahedi to be blinded with drops of acid in each eye. This month, the courts rejected Movahedi's appeal.
Bahrami's lawyer, Sarrafi, said the sentencing might be carried out in a matter of weeks. He said he doesn't think Bahrami will change her mind. Neither does Bahrami.
So important and assignment...
Wow, an "important" case, .. so boring...(they are no bigger fish to catch ?)
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 20 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has said there is "strong evidence" to show Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim had misused his powers over the purchase of 46 cows and maintenance of his own cars.
The cases are believed to be linked to allegations brought up by his predecessor Datuk Seri Mohd Khir Toyo, and which is now the subject of a law suit brought by Khalid for defamation against the Barisan Nasional man.
It is understood the investigation papers have been forwarded to the Attorney-General's Chambers.
"The MACC can decide but it's better for the Attorney-General to consider and take action, it involves a VIP and we have to be fair to everyone," MACC chief commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan told a news conference in Penangafter performing the ground-breaking ceremony for the Penang MACC quarters building.
Bernama quoted him as saying that from the technical point of view, there was evidence pertaining to the allegations.
Abdul Khalid has been accused of using state government funds for the maintenance of his personal sports utility vehicle, a Lexus bearing the number plate WQR779, and the purchase of 46 cows costing RM10,400 for sacrifice.
On another matter, Ahmad Said said the MACC would also investigate allegations of abuse of power by Perak state assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar for suspending Perak Menteri Besar Perak Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six state executive councillors from the assembly.
"If it's true that there has been abuse of power, the MACC will take appropriate action," he added...SOO BORING
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 20 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has said there is "strong evidence" to show Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim had misused his powers over the purchase of 46 cows and maintenance of his own cars.
The cases are believed to be linked to allegations brought up by his predecessor Datuk Seri Mohd Khir Toyo, and which is now the subject of a law suit brought by Khalid for defamation against the Barisan Nasional man.
It is understood the investigation papers have been forwarded to the Attorney-General's Chambers.
"The MACC can decide but it's better for the Attorney-General to consider and take action, it involves a VIP and we have to be fair to everyone," MACC chief commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan told a news conference in Penangafter performing the ground-breaking ceremony for the Penang MACC quarters building.
Bernama quoted him as saying that from the technical point of view, there was evidence pertaining to the allegations.
Abdul Khalid has been accused of using state government funds for the maintenance of his personal sports utility vehicle, a Lexus bearing the number plate WQR779, and the purchase of 46 cows costing RM10,400 for sacrifice.
On another matter, Ahmad Said said the MACC would also investigate allegations of abuse of power by Perak state assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar for suspending Perak Menteri Besar Perak Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six state executive councillors from the assembly.
"If it's true that there has been abuse of power, the MACC will take appropriate action," he added...SOO BORING
Thursday 5 February 2009
Its the power that matters..
who cares about respect and dubious...
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 5 — Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said a large section of the public will be angry if the Perak Ruler does not dissolve the state assembly and invites Barisan Nasional to form the state government on the basis of dubious crossovers.
Writing in his blog, the Gua Musang Umno MP cautioned that taking control of Perak without getting the mandate of the people will spell disaster for BN in the next general election.
"Our taking control without resorting to elections would cement the enmity of the very people we should be trying to win back.
"Come the next general election, they are going to reject both our state and parliamentary candidates with greater vehemence, and not just in Perak."
The former finance minister said contests in a democracy are not a fight for survival where anything goes but a competition to serve and BN must reform to improve its ability to serve with distinction.
He said this was a long-term goal which required immediate focus, adding that BN did not need questionable victories which he described as distractions but needed to upgrade itself to win elections again, fair and square.
Tengku Razaleigh said this was the only sustainable way for BN to win back the public.
He said Umno was in critical condition because of ethical failures and its biggest challenge was tackling corruption at every level.
"We are under close public scrutiny and unless we implement radical reforms and are seen to be doing so, we are finished politically come next elections".
However, he said, BN was embroiled in "winning back" Perak with the crossover of who he described as low-calibre individuals.
"The two assemblymen whose allegiance we have suddenly gained are under investigation for corruption, while the Bota assemblyman's justification for his record-breaking 10-day double-hop is an insult to the public's intelligence and nauseating in its insincerity."
He said this open abuse, for personal gain, is what caused people to hate Umno.
Tengku Razaleigh also lashed out at the circumstances surrounding the defections.
"The mysterious disappearances, sudden reversals, and weak explanations, show ample signs of illegal inducement.
"No matter what the truth of the matter, let us not fool ourselves. People will not believe that these crossovers were honest. This mistrust will taint any government formed on the back of these crossovers."
He said the celebrations over the Perak takeover were premature because the defections may or may not topple the state government.
"The Constitution and the role of the Ruler in such crises must be respected because defections are not a basis for the formation of a government. Elections are."
He said the Constitution spells out a formal process for the formation of a government and the Ruler is sworn to uphold and protect this constitutional process.
"The menteri besar has sought the Ruler's consent for the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly.
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 5 — Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said a large section of the public will be angry if the Perak Ruler does not dissolve the state assembly and invites Barisan Nasional to form the state government on the basis of dubious crossovers.
Writing in his blog, the Gua Musang Umno MP cautioned that taking control of Perak without getting the mandate of the people will spell disaster for BN in the next general election.
"Our taking control without resorting to elections would cement the enmity of the very people we should be trying to win back.
"Come the next general election, they are going to reject both our state and parliamentary candidates with greater vehemence, and not just in Perak."
The former finance minister said contests in a democracy are not a fight for survival where anything goes but a competition to serve and BN must reform to improve its ability to serve with distinction.
He said this was a long-term goal which required immediate focus, adding that BN did not need questionable victories which he described as distractions but needed to upgrade itself to win elections again, fair and square.
Tengku Razaleigh said this was the only sustainable way for BN to win back the public.
He said Umno was in critical condition because of ethical failures and its biggest challenge was tackling corruption at every level.
"We are under close public scrutiny and unless we implement radical reforms and are seen to be doing so, we are finished politically come next elections".
However, he said, BN was embroiled in "winning back" Perak with the crossover of who he described as low-calibre individuals.
"The two assemblymen whose allegiance we have suddenly gained are under investigation for corruption, while the Bota assemblyman's justification for his record-breaking 10-day double-hop is an insult to the public's intelligence and nauseating in its insincerity."
He said this open abuse, for personal gain, is what caused people to hate Umno.
Tengku Razaleigh also lashed out at the circumstances surrounding the defections.
"The mysterious disappearances, sudden reversals, and weak explanations, show ample signs of illegal inducement.
"No matter what the truth of the matter, let us not fool ourselves. People will not believe that these crossovers were honest. This mistrust will taint any government formed on the back of these crossovers."
He said the celebrations over the Perak takeover were premature because the defections may or may not topple the state government.
"The Constitution and the role of the Ruler in such crises must be respected because defections are not a basis for the formation of a government. Elections are."
He said the Constitution spells out a formal process for the formation of a government and the Ruler is sworn to uphold and protect this constitutional process.
"The menteri besar has sought the Ruler's consent for the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly.
Are you listening..?
do we get people's mandate in times like this?
Making sense of the Perak controversy
By Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
FEB 4 — Before embarking on an analysis of the state of play in Perak, it would be of value to consider the objective facts:
Two assemblymen signed undated resignation letters as a condition to their being nominated by their political party for a state election. For this, the party also gave them full support, financial and otherwise. They won their respective seats;
The undated resignation letters were submitted to the speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The Perak Constitution allows members of the assembly the option of resigning their membership “by writing under his hand addressed to the speaker”;
The party opted to submit the resignations of the two assemblymen. It is not apparent what prompted this;
The speaker has accepted the resignations and communicated the fact of the resignations to the Election Commission. The speaker has taken the position and ruled for the purposes of the assembly that the resignations have taken effect and by-elections be held. He will treat the assemblymen as no longer being members of the assembly for the purposes of proceedings in the assembly;
The two assemblymen dispute the validity of the resignation. They do not contend that the resignations letters were not under their hand. They contend that the resignations were procured through duress;
The Election Commission has decided that the resignations are doubtful and as such not true resignations.
From the above, it could be said that the following questions arose when the controversy first erupted:
The legal value or validity of the resignations. There is no authoritative decision of the courts on this point. A 1982 decision of the then Federal Court (Datuk Ong Kee Hui) observed that such resignations could be viewed as being contrary to public policy in view of elections at both the state and federal level being of individuals as opposed to political parties. A question of honouring the wishes of the electorate, that is the electing of the individual as opposed to the party, arises. The Federal Court did not decide on the point as the Member of Parliament concerned did not seek to invalidate the resignation nor had the speaker been joined as a party. The point is as such open to argument.
Whether the resignation letters were procured under duress;
However, these questions have been overtaken by events, in particular the decision of the speaker to accept the resignations and give effect to them. The speaker may be wrong but until he is shown to be wrong through valid process — either in the assembly (to the extent that such process is available) or through the courts — the speaker’s decision must stand.
In this regard, the Election Commission is charged with the conduct of elections. It could be argued that in order to do so, the Election Commission must have the power to determine whether an election is needed in the first place. Where state and federal elections are concerned, this is established by the dissolution of the assemblies and Parliament respectively. However, where casual vacancies (through death, resignations or disqualifications) arise, the situation is more nuanced.
The Perak Constitution (Article 36(5)) provides that a casual vacancy shall be filled within 60 days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy. Vacancies caused by death and disqualifications are easily established. Where the latter is concerned, the matter is decided by the assembly itself, which in law is taken to have final say (save where there is a matter of legal interpretation). In the ordinary course resignations are similarly uncomplicated; the speaker receives the letter of resignation and communicates the fact to the Election Commission which establishes the vacancy based on the speaker’s declaration. From this, it is apparent that the vacancy is established by reference to the position taken by the speaker. This is consistent with the basic principle of parliamentary democracy that it is the speaker who regulates the assembly.
The question that arises is therefore whether this process is derailed by a dispute as to the validity of the resignation. In my view, it should not be, and the Election Commission must act accordingly. I say this for two main reasons. First, the scheme explained above.
Secondly, it is not for the Election Commission to embark on a fact-finding or adjudicative process as, amongst other things, it does not have the power to do so. In denying the position the speaker has taken, the Election Commission is in effect asserting that that the speaker is wrong. The Election Commission cannot do so. If there is a question as to the correctness of the speaker’s position, then it must be challenged through proper channels.
Seen from this perspective, this unprecedented and very curious action of the Election Commission regrettably raises questions as to its motives. It must be taken to appreciate the precarious position it has left Perak in, one which looked upon objectively appears to have been made more accommodating to the machinations of the Barisan Nasional. I note that by-elections would be inconvenient for Umno which is scheduled to have its assembly in March. It is as such open to question as to whether the Election Commission has conducted itself in the independent manner the Federal Constitution requires of it.
Where this leaves the Perak government is an open question. It could seek a ruling of the court as to the correctness of the decision made by the Election Commission and an order to compel the latter to conduct the by-election. This would be a time-consuming affair and occasion a delay that can only work against the interests of the state. The razor-thin margin is undermining stability and it is more probable than not the attention of those who make up the state government would be focused more on preserving their government than the affairs of the state.
The Election Commission’s stance and the underlying events would afford sufficient cause for the menteri besar to request that the Sultan dissolve the assembly and call for fresh elections. All things considered, this may be the best way to protect the interests of Perak. In these difficult times, governments should be focused on what needs to be done rather than politics.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is the current president of the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM) and a lawyer.
Making sense of the Perak controversy
By Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
FEB 4 — Before embarking on an analysis of the state of play in Perak, it would be of value to consider the objective facts:
Two assemblymen signed undated resignation letters as a condition to their being nominated by their political party for a state election. For this, the party also gave them full support, financial and otherwise. They won their respective seats;
The undated resignation letters were submitted to the speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The Perak Constitution allows members of the assembly the option of resigning their membership “by writing under his hand addressed to the speaker”;
The party opted to submit the resignations of the two assemblymen. It is not apparent what prompted this;
The speaker has accepted the resignations and communicated the fact of the resignations to the Election Commission. The speaker has taken the position and ruled for the purposes of the assembly that the resignations have taken effect and by-elections be held. He will treat the assemblymen as no longer being members of the assembly for the purposes of proceedings in the assembly;
The two assemblymen dispute the validity of the resignation. They do not contend that the resignations letters were not under their hand. They contend that the resignations were procured through duress;
The Election Commission has decided that the resignations are doubtful and as such not true resignations.
From the above, it could be said that the following questions arose when the controversy first erupted:
The legal value or validity of the resignations. There is no authoritative decision of the courts on this point. A 1982 decision of the then Federal Court (Datuk Ong Kee Hui) observed that such resignations could be viewed as being contrary to public policy in view of elections at both the state and federal level being of individuals as opposed to political parties. A question of honouring the wishes of the electorate, that is the electing of the individual as opposed to the party, arises. The Federal Court did not decide on the point as the Member of Parliament concerned did not seek to invalidate the resignation nor had the speaker been joined as a party. The point is as such open to argument.
Whether the resignation letters were procured under duress;
However, these questions have been overtaken by events, in particular the decision of the speaker to accept the resignations and give effect to them. The speaker may be wrong but until he is shown to be wrong through valid process — either in the assembly (to the extent that such process is available) or through the courts — the speaker’s decision must stand.
In this regard, the Election Commission is charged with the conduct of elections. It could be argued that in order to do so, the Election Commission must have the power to determine whether an election is needed in the first place. Where state and federal elections are concerned, this is established by the dissolution of the assemblies and Parliament respectively. However, where casual vacancies (through death, resignations or disqualifications) arise, the situation is more nuanced.
The Perak Constitution (Article 36(5)) provides that a casual vacancy shall be filled within 60 days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy. Vacancies caused by death and disqualifications are easily established. Where the latter is concerned, the matter is decided by the assembly itself, which in law is taken to have final say (save where there is a matter of legal interpretation). In the ordinary course resignations are similarly uncomplicated; the speaker receives the letter of resignation and communicates the fact to the Election Commission which establishes the vacancy based on the speaker’s declaration. From this, it is apparent that the vacancy is established by reference to the position taken by the speaker. This is consistent with the basic principle of parliamentary democracy that it is the speaker who regulates the assembly.
The question that arises is therefore whether this process is derailed by a dispute as to the validity of the resignation. In my view, it should not be, and the Election Commission must act accordingly. I say this for two main reasons. First, the scheme explained above.
Secondly, it is not for the Election Commission to embark on a fact-finding or adjudicative process as, amongst other things, it does not have the power to do so. In denying the position the speaker has taken, the Election Commission is in effect asserting that that the speaker is wrong. The Election Commission cannot do so. If there is a question as to the correctness of the speaker’s position, then it must be challenged through proper channels.
Seen from this perspective, this unprecedented and very curious action of the Election Commission regrettably raises questions as to its motives. It must be taken to appreciate the precarious position it has left Perak in, one which looked upon objectively appears to have been made more accommodating to the machinations of the Barisan Nasional. I note that by-elections would be inconvenient for Umno which is scheduled to have its assembly in March. It is as such open to question as to whether the Election Commission has conducted itself in the independent manner the Federal Constitution requires of it.
Where this leaves the Perak government is an open question. It could seek a ruling of the court as to the correctness of the decision made by the Election Commission and an order to compel the latter to conduct the by-election. This would be a time-consuming affair and occasion a delay that can only work against the interests of the state. The razor-thin margin is undermining stability and it is more probable than not the attention of those who make up the state government would be focused more on preserving their government than the affairs of the state.
The Election Commission’s stance and the underlying events would afford sufficient cause for the menteri besar to request that the Sultan dissolve the assembly and call for fresh elections. All things considered, this may be the best way to protect the interests of Perak. In these difficult times, governments should be focused on what needs to be done rather than politics.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is the current president of the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM) and a lawyer.
Thursday 22 January 2009
New USA's President: Obama...
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Today, the official ceremony ushering in Barack H. Obama II as the new president of the United States took place at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.. A 21-gun salute, as well as the playing of four ruffles and flourishes and "Hail to the Chief", marked the moment he assumed power from his predecessor, George W. Bush.
President Barack Obama being sworn in at the inauguration
Bush's second term as President of the United States, which began on January 20, 2005, expired with the swearing-in of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, at noon EST (UTC-5), under the provisions of the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Bush performed his final official act this morning, welcoming Barack Obama and Michelle to the White House for coffee before the swearing-in, shortly before 10am EST, and then accompanied them there by motorcade to attend the ceremony. Last week, Bush had made his farewells to the nation in a televised address, saying that the inauguration turns a page in race relations. "Obama's story — his black father was from Kenya, his white mother from Kansas — represents "the enduring promise of our land," said Bush.
Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday called on Obama to seek "understanding, co-operation and peace" among nations. "I offer cordial good wishes, together with the assurance of my prayers that Almighty God will grant you unfailing wisdom and strength in the exercise of your high responsibilities," the Pontiff said.
[edit] Oaths of office
The National Mall gates at the inaugural ceremony opened early, with official introductions beginning around 11:30am EST. On the west front lawn of the U.S. Capitol, Senator Dianne Feinstein provided the call to order and welcoming remarks, shortly after followed by invocation by the Rev. Rick Warren and a musical performance by Aretha Franklin.
Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden, Jr., a Democrat, who was elected Vice President in the 2008 presidential election, took his oath of office, succeeding Dick Cheney. Biden took his oath at 11:57am EST from Associate Justice John Paul Stevens.
U.S. service members prepare for the 56th United States presidential inauguration rehearsal in the west steps of the United States Capitol Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2009.Image: Master Sgt. Cecilio Ricardo, U.S. Air Force.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr. then administered the oath of office to Obama, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 8. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God," Obama swore, using the 1861 President Lincoln Inaugural Bible.
First Lady Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama and daughters Malia Ann and Sasha, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi were among the record-setting crowd of over 2 million people, including more than a million people that filled the National Mall. Vice President Dick Cheney arrived in a wheelchair, having pulled a muscle in his back while moving, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
Obama has decided to follow tradition and use his full name, including his middle name Hussein, regardless of its past and present use by detractors as an effort to slander his image. The advanced scheduled program stated that the inaugural address was to be delivered by "the President of the United States, The Honorable Barack H. Obama."
[edit] Obama's inaugural address
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Obama succeeds Bush as 44th president of the United States
The President delivered his inaugural address in front of Capitol Hill with the theme "A New Birth of Freedom," commemorating the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, said Feinstein.
Obama focused on the restoration of public confidence and personal "responsibility," reassuring recession-weary Americans they can rebound from hard times. He conveyed to the world his desire to fix a battered U.S. image overseas. He asked the nation to reject the "culture of anything goes" and to restore a national value system that honors responsibility and accountability. Elizabeth Alexander recited a poem, followed by the benediction by Rev. Joseph E. Lowery. The National Anthem was thereafter played by The United States Navy Band "Sea Chanters."
Over 200 million viewers worldwide had watched inauguration videos and live streams provided online by a number of news organizations and online video broadcasting companies over the internet. The event was also available live to select iPhone users.
After the ceremony
Obama's presidential limousine, a 2009 Cadillac
Following his speech, President Obama escorted former President George W. Bush at 12:53pm EST as they left for a departure ceremony. Bush drove off, ending his 8 years as president, with Obama waving goodbye from the courtyard of the US Capitol.
At 2:35pm EST in the Capitol's Statuary Hall, at the inaugural luncheon attended by Obama, it is reported that Ted Kennedy had a stroke. Paramedics arrived and took the senator to a hospital.
A parade extended for over two hours in the afternoon. It included 15,000 people, 240 horses, dozens of marching bands, two drum and bugle corps, and one mariachi band from Espanola, New Mexico.
Just after 4pm EST, Obama and his wife joined the celebrating crowds on Pennsylvania Avenue. After a short time waving to the masses, they returned to the Presidential Limousine, a 2009 Cadillac, which transported them to the White House. The First Limo has replaced President Bush’s Cadillac DTS Presidential Limousine that rolled out in 2004.
Mr and Mrs Obama plan to attend a total of ten official inaugural balls, including the Neighbourhood Ball, the Obama Home States (Illinois and Hawaii) Ball, the Biden Home States (Pennsylvania and Delaware) Ball and the Youth Ball. American R&B singer-songwriter Beyonce has been planned to perform the first dance song. The Obamas will return to the White House, their new home, following the last ball.
Today, the official ceremony ushering in Barack H. Obama II as the new president of the United States took place at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.. A 21-gun salute, as well as the playing of four ruffles and flourishes and "Hail to the Chief", marked the moment he assumed power from his predecessor, George W. Bush.
President Barack Obama being sworn in at the inauguration
Bush's second term as President of the United States, which began on January 20, 2005, expired with the swearing-in of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, at noon EST (UTC-5), under the provisions of the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Bush performed his final official act this morning, welcoming Barack Obama and Michelle to the White House for coffee before the swearing-in, shortly before 10am EST, and then accompanied them there by motorcade to attend the ceremony. Last week, Bush had made his farewells to the nation in a televised address, saying that the inauguration turns a page in race relations. "Obama's story — his black father was from Kenya, his white mother from Kansas — represents "the enduring promise of our land," said Bush.
Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday called on Obama to seek "understanding, co-operation and peace" among nations. "I offer cordial good wishes, together with the assurance of my prayers that Almighty God will grant you unfailing wisdom and strength in the exercise of your high responsibilities," the Pontiff said.
[edit] Oaths of office
The National Mall gates at the inaugural ceremony opened early, with official introductions beginning around 11:30am EST. On the west front lawn of the U.S. Capitol, Senator Dianne Feinstein provided the call to order and welcoming remarks, shortly after followed by invocation by the Rev. Rick Warren and a musical performance by Aretha Franklin.
Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden, Jr., a Democrat, who was elected Vice President in the 2008 presidential election, took his oath of office, succeeding Dick Cheney. Biden took his oath at 11:57am EST from Associate Justice John Paul Stevens.
U.S. service members prepare for the 56th United States presidential inauguration rehearsal in the west steps of the United States Capitol Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2009.Image: Master Sgt. Cecilio Ricardo, U.S. Air Force.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr. then administered the oath of office to Obama, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 8. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God," Obama swore, using the 1861 President Lincoln Inaugural Bible.
First Lady Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama and daughters Malia Ann and Sasha, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi were among the record-setting crowd of over 2 million people, including more than a million people that filled the National Mall. Vice President Dick Cheney arrived in a wheelchair, having pulled a muscle in his back while moving, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
Obama has decided to follow tradition and use his full name, including his middle name Hussein, regardless of its past and present use by detractors as an effort to slander his image. The advanced scheduled program stated that the inaugural address was to be delivered by "the President of the United States, The Honorable Barack H. Obama."
[edit] Obama's inaugural address
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Obama succeeds Bush as 44th president of the United States
The President delivered his inaugural address in front of Capitol Hill with the theme "A New Birth of Freedom," commemorating the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, said Feinstein.
Obama focused on the restoration of public confidence and personal "responsibility," reassuring recession-weary Americans they can rebound from hard times. He conveyed to the world his desire to fix a battered U.S. image overseas. He asked the nation to reject the "culture of anything goes" and to restore a national value system that honors responsibility and accountability. Elizabeth Alexander recited a poem, followed by the benediction by Rev. Joseph E. Lowery. The National Anthem was thereafter played by The United States Navy Band "Sea Chanters."
Over 200 million viewers worldwide had watched inauguration videos and live streams provided online by a number of news organizations and online video broadcasting companies over the internet. The event was also available live to select iPhone users.
After the ceremony
Obama's presidential limousine, a 2009 Cadillac
Following his speech, President Obama escorted former President George W. Bush at 12:53pm EST as they left for a departure ceremony. Bush drove off, ending his 8 years as president, with Obama waving goodbye from the courtyard of the US Capitol.
At 2:35pm EST in the Capitol's Statuary Hall, at the inaugural luncheon attended by Obama, it is reported that Ted Kennedy had a stroke. Paramedics arrived and took the senator to a hospital.
A parade extended for over two hours in the afternoon. It included 15,000 people, 240 horses, dozens of marching bands, two drum and bugle corps, and one mariachi band from Espanola, New Mexico.
Just after 4pm EST, Obama and his wife joined the celebrating crowds on Pennsylvania Avenue. After a short time waving to the masses, they returned to the Presidential Limousine, a 2009 Cadillac, which transported them to the White House. The First Limo has replaced President Bush’s Cadillac DTS Presidential Limousine that rolled out in 2004.
Mr and Mrs Obama plan to attend a total of ten official inaugural balls, including the Neighbourhood Ball, the Obama Home States (Illinois and Hawaii) Ball, the Biden Home States (Pennsylvania and Delaware) Ball and the Youth Ball. American R&B singer-songwriter Beyonce has been planned to perform the first dance song. The Obamas will return to the White House, their new home, following the last ball.
Jerusalem: next page plse...
JERUSALEM (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama pledged on Wednesday to pursue Middle East peace, telephoning Israeli and Palestinian leaders after Israel completed a troop withdrawal from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
In a call to Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Obama reiterated that he and his administration would work to achieve Middle East peace, a Palestinian official said.
Palestinian leaders later said they would only resume peace talks with Israel if the Jewish state commits to a comprehensive freezing of all settlement activity and undertakes to give up all occupied land captured in the 1967 Middle East war.
A statement from Olmert's office said the prime minister updated Obama on the situation in the Gaza Strip and added that he hoped efforts by Israel, Egypt, the U.S. and European countries to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza would succeed.
The statement added that Olmert undertook that "Israel would invest in efforts to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip and would work to improve the economic situation in the West Bank."
In Washington, the White House said Obama had also spoken to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah and that the U.S. president would actively engage in peace efforts.
"He used this opportunity on his first day in office to communicate his commitment to active engagement in pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace from the beginning of his term, and to express his hope for their continued cooperation and leadership," spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.
Israel left the Gaza Strip devastated by its 22-day offensive. It completed its pullout earlier on Wednesday.
"We've redeployed on our side of the frontier and we will follow events closely," said Mark Regev, a spokesman for Olmert. "If Hamas breaks the ceasefire, we of course reserve the right to act to protect our people."
PRESSURE
Under international pressure to end the deadliest Israeli-Palestinian fighting in decades, Israel and Hamas declared separate ceasefires on Sunday, opening the way for more aid to be brought into the rubble-strewn enclave where thousands are homeless.
Reconstruction, if it can be launched in light of the West shunning Hamas as a "terrorist" group, may cost close to $2 billion, according to Palestinian and international estimates.
Diplomatic efforts led by Egypt were focusing on reaching a long-term Israel-Hamas truce deal, far short of an accord on Palestinian statehood sought by the United States and other international peace brokers.
Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said in Damascus that Israel had failed to achieve its goals in Gaza.
"This battle has proved that force alone will not provide security for the Zionist entity (Israel)," Meshaal said.
He said that Arab countries seeking to help rebuild Gaza should donate money to the group's leader in the territory, Ismail Hanieyh, whom he described as the head of the legitimate Palestinian government, shunning Abbas's Fatah administration which holds sway in the occupied West Bank.
Israel's attacks in an offensive it began on December 27 killed some 1,300 Palestinians. Gaza medical officials said the Palestinian dead included at least 700 civilians.
Israel said hundreds of militants died and that it dealt Hamas a strong blow that had boosted the Jewish state's power of deterrence and drawn international pledges to help prevent the Islamist group from replenishing its rocket arsenal.
Ten Israeli soldiers and three civilians, hit by cross-border rocket fire, were killed in the conflict.
Israel's Haaretz daily, reporting what it said were details of an army probe into its soldiers' use of white-phosphorous shells, said 200 were fired in the fighting, including 20 in a built-up area in the northern Gaza Strip.
Two Palestinian children were killed and 14 people suffered severe burns on January 17 when Israeli shells landed in a U.N.-run school in the northern Beit Lahiya area, medical officials said.
TROOP WITHDRAWAL
Calling the troop withdrawal a "victory for Palestinian resistance," Hamas demanded a lifting of the blockade Israel tightened on the Gaza Strip after the Islamist group seized control of the territory from the Fatah movement in 2007.
Israel said at the start of the military campaign it never intended for its army, which quit the Gaza Strip in 2005 after 38 years of occupation, to remain there permanently.
Most Israeli forces pulled out before Obama was sworn in on Tuesday, in a move analysts saw as an attempt to avoid any early tensions with his administration.
Looking to reconstruction efforts, Israel has told the United Nations and aid groups they must apply for project-by-project approval and provide guarantees none of the work will benefit Hamas, Western and Palestinian officials said.
Israel, the officials said, is also preventing the Western-backed Palestinian Authority from transferring cash to the Gaza Strip to pay its workers and others hard-hit by war.
The restrictions threatened to undercut the ability of Abbas's government to reassert a presence in the enclave.
Hamas officials and an Israeli envoy planned to meet separately with Egyptian mediators in Cairo on Thursday to discuss ways to make the ceasefire "durable" and a reopening of border crossings, an official close to the talks said.
(Additional reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi and Doug Hamilton in Gaza, Adam Entous in Jerusalem and Ali Sawafta in Ramallah; Editing by Charles Dick)
In a call to Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Obama reiterated that he and his administration would work to achieve Middle East peace, a Palestinian official said.
Palestinian leaders later said they would only resume peace talks with Israel if the Jewish state commits to a comprehensive freezing of all settlement activity and undertakes to give up all occupied land captured in the 1967 Middle East war.
A statement from Olmert's office said the prime minister updated Obama on the situation in the Gaza Strip and added that he hoped efforts by Israel, Egypt, the U.S. and European countries to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza would succeed.
The statement added that Olmert undertook that "Israel would invest in efforts to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip and would work to improve the economic situation in the West Bank."
In Washington, the White House said Obama had also spoken to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah and that the U.S. president would actively engage in peace efforts.
"He used this opportunity on his first day in office to communicate his commitment to active engagement in pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace from the beginning of his term, and to express his hope for their continued cooperation and leadership," spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.
Israel left the Gaza Strip devastated by its 22-day offensive. It completed its pullout earlier on Wednesday.
"We've redeployed on our side of the frontier and we will follow events closely," said Mark Regev, a spokesman for Olmert. "If Hamas breaks the ceasefire, we of course reserve the right to act to protect our people."
PRESSURE
Under international pressure to end the deadliest Israeli-Palestinian fighting in decades, Israel and Hamas declared separate ceasefires on Sunday, opening the way for more aid to be brought into the rubble-strewn enclave where thousands are homeless.
Reconstruction, if it can be launched in light of the West shunning Hamas as a "terrorist" group, may cost close to $2 billion, according to Palestinian and international estimates.
Diplomatic efforts led by Egypt were focusing on reaching a long-term Israel-Hamas truce deal, far short of an accord on Palestinian statehood sought by the United States and other international peace brokers.
Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said in Damascus that Israel had failed to achieve its goals in Gaza.
"This battle has proved that force alone will not provide security for the Zionist entity (Israel)," Meshaal said.
He said that Arab countries seeking to help rebuild Gaza should donate money to the group's leader in the territory, Ismail Hanieyh, whom he described as the head of the legitimate Palestinian government, shunning Abbas's Fatah administration which holds sway in the occupied West Bank.
Israel's attacks in an offensive it began on December 27 killed some 1,300 Palestinians. Gaza medical officials said the Palestinian dead included at least 700 civilians.
Israel said hundreds of militants died and that it dealt Hamas a strong blow that had boosted the Jewish state's power of deterrence and drawn international pledges to help prevent the Islamist group from replenishing its rocket arsenal.
Ten Israeli soldiers and three civilians, hit by cross-border rocket fire, were killed in the conflict.
Israel's Haaretz daily, reporting what it said were details of an army probe into its soldiers' use of white-phosphorous shells, said 200 were fired in the fighting, including 20 in a built-up area in the northern Gaza Strip.
Two Palestinian children were killed and 14 people suffered severe burns on January 17 when Israeli shells landed in a U.N.-run school in the northern Beit Lahiya area, medical officials said.
TROOP WITHDRAWAL
Calling the troop withdrawal a "victory for Palestinian resistance," Hamas demanded a lifting of the blockade Israel tightened on the Gaza Strip after the Islamist group seized control of the territory from the Fatah movement in 2007.
Israel said at the start of the military campaign it never intended for its army, which quit the Gaza Strip in 2005 after 38 years of occupation, to remain there permanently.
Most Israeli forces pulled out before Obama was sworn in on Tuesday, in a move analysts saw as an attempt to avoid any early tensions with his administration.
Looking to reconstruction efforts, Israel has told the United Nations and aid groups they must apply for project-by-project approval and provide guarantees none of the work will benefit Hamas, Western and Palestinian officials said.
Israel, the officials said, is also preventing the Western-backed Palestinian Authority from transferring cash to the Gaza Strip to pay its workers and others hard-hit by war.
The restrictions threatened to undercut the ability of Abbas's government to reassert a presence in the enclave.
Hamas officials and an Israeli envoy planned to meet separately with Egyptian mediators in Cairo on Thursday to discuss ways to make the ceasefire "durable" and a reopening of border crossings, an official close to the talks said.
(Additional reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi and Doug Hamilton in Gaza, Adam Entous in Jerusalem and Ali Sawafta in Ramallah; Editing by Charles Dick)
Hamas : Really cared the people ..?..
just pawns...
It was 11:30 p.m. on Jan. 17, in a complex of apartment buildings at the Nuseirat refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, and Israel had just declared it would impose a unilateral ceasefire to begin at 2 a.m. The incessant sorties of Israeli jet bombers stopped almost immediately, but then suddenly there was a terrific whoosh, louder even than a bomb explosion. It was another of Hamas's homemade Qassam rockets being launched into Israel—and the mobile launchpad was smack in the middle of the four buildings, where every apartment was full, most of them with newly made refugees.
On this occasion, fortunately, there was no Israeli retaliation. At places all over Gaza, however, Palestinian civilians have not been so lucky. Israel blames Hamas for using housing areas, hospitals, schools and mosques to launch attacks into Israel or against its soldiers, provoking defensive counter-fire that it says is responsible for most of the civilian casualties. Hamas retorts that Israel was using indiscriminate force with complete disregard for civilians in the way, especially in its efforts to assassinate Hamas leaders. There are plenty of examples to support both their contentions.
In eastern Jabaliya, just north of Gaza City, an entire neighborhood—at least 50 homes—had been bombed by the Israelis, then occupied with tank units, and then methodically demolished house-by-house, some of them with bulldozers, others with high explosives. In several hours of interviews, every one of the residents interviewed in eastern Jabaliya insisted that there had been no provocation from the area, no resistance fighters, and no rocket launchings. "They are punishing us because they can't reach the resistance to punish them," said Majdi Qatari, a lawyer whose home was one of those destroyed, leaving 13 people homeless. Near him, Najah Abd Rabo shook her head and said Israeli actions were beyond comprehension. "They were claiming there are tunnels under here," she said. Hamas fighters use tunnels, often short ones that are little more than bunkers, to pop out and launch attacks and then get back in, hiding from Israel's ubiquitous surveillance drones, reemerging in a house or backyard as an unarmed civilian. "There aren't any tunnels around here, we are not resistance," she said. Yet not more than 20 feet away from Najah, there was just such a tunnel, which Israeli troops had unearthed. Right in the middle of the road, it had a convincingly camouflaged roof that matched the rest of the road. Inside it was shored up with timbers and concrete.
Down the road from the non-existent tunnel was Khalid Abd Rabo, who claimed that Israeli troops fired on his daughters and mother as they left his home under a white flag, killing Suad, 9, and Amal, 2, and gravely wounding Samer, 4, who has since been evacuated to Belgium for treatment. "The children died before my eyes," he said. "Four days later they came back and destroyed the house." Khalid, who had been a policeman with the anti-Hamas Fatah party, said the Israeli troops fired at them from only 22 yards away. His mother was wounded; he could not explain why they spared him. Surrounded by neighbors, he had no criticism of Hamas, but later on one of his relatives took a journalist aside and said that Hamas's actions had brought retaliation on such communities, while accomplishing nothing militarily. "We blame Israel but we also blame Hamas, because Hamas was not able to defend the people," he said, asking that his name not be used for fear of reprisal by Hamas militants.
Hamas officials accuse the Israelis of reflexively blaming them for provoking attacks, and even when they are retaliating, using excessive force. "I don't understand how Palestinians would use other Palestinians as a human shield," said Ahmed Yousef, Hamas's deputy foreign minister. "They consider all Palestinians collateral damage."
The most notorious of attacks killing civilians was the bombing of a UNRWA-run school, Faqhourah School, which was being used to house people newly homeless from the fighting. Forty-three persons were killed in the attack, and some of them lay dying while troops denied them medical assistance. At least two other UNRWA schools were hit by Israeli bombs. UNRWA head John Ging said the Israeli excuse that the schools were being used as firing positions against them is implausible. "These people had already fled the fighting, some of them lost everything they had. Do you think they'd tolerate someone setting up positions there?" In addition, he said, UNRWA staff strictly controlled access to the schools and would not have allowed armed men in.
Isreali Defense Forces spokesperson Avital Leibovich, head of the IDF's foreign-press branch, counters that the military has documentary evidence including aerial surveillance tapes of the northern part of Gaza City "in which you can see schools next to [Hamas] training camps, launching sites in or near schools or from the streets themselves …When fire is opened at us and soldiers are in a life or death situation, we protect ourselves and Hamas is accountable for casualties if it chooses to put a launching site near schools and hospitals." She also gave NEWSWEEK a copy of what she said was a Hamas map which paratroopers recovered during ground operations inside Gaza. "It shows how a neighborhood was taken and divided into three war zones. Hamas centers were scattered over the neighborhood including a gas depot with explosive charges … On the map, you can see the Football Association and Technical School are surrounded by 45 Hamas positions, from which Hamas fired."
Many Gazans have no problem with the idea of Hamas attacking Israelis, but complain that they made a disappointing job of it this time. Only 10 Israeli soldiers were killed in the three-week-long operation, compared to more than 200 dead Hamas fighters, according to independent Palestinian figures. And thousands of rockets fired into southern Israel killed just three civilians there. "There's nothing in Gaza but buildings," said a former Fatah military commander, who gave the name Mahmoud Barbakh. "No fighter can fight except in the streets, we can't fight Israel in the open." Yet Hamas did precious little fighting, he said, while ticking off half a dozen cases of Fatah militants who were deliberately shot in the legs by Hamas during the Israeli war, some for violations of Hamas orders putting them under house arrest.
One of the most notorious incidents during the war was the Jan. 15 shelling of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society buildings in the downtown Tal-al Hawa part of Gaza City, followed by a shell hitting their Al Quds Hospital next door; the subsequent fire forced all 500 patients to be evacuated. Asked if there were any militants firing from the hospital or the Red Crescent buildings, hospital director general Dr. Khalid Judah chose his words carefully. "I am not able to say if anyone was using the PRCS buildings [the two Palestine Red Crescent Society buildings adjacent to the hospital], but I know for a fact that no one was using the hospital." In the Tal-al Hawa neighborhood nearby, however, Talal Safadi, an official in the leftist Palestinian People's Party, said that resistance fighters were firing from positions all around the hospital. He shrugged that off, having a bigger beef with Hamas. "They failed to win the battle." Or as his fellow PPP official, Walid al Awad, put it: "It was a mistake to give Israel the excuse to come in."
placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')
Perhaps a doctor at Shifa Hospital summed it up best. "Hamas doesn't care about anything," he said, "and the Israelis will kill anyone to get to Hamas." Today Hamas threw a victory parade. A few hundred young men with green flags marched through the middle of Gaza City, one of them riding on a cart at the head of the procession and holding aloft a chunk of metal, purportedly from an Israeli tank. No one lined the streets to cheer them on. No one poured out from his or her home to join the parade. Most Hamas critics in Gaza are afraid to openly say what they think, but sometimes actions (or the absence of them) speak louder than words.
With reporting by Joanna Chen/Jerusalem
It was 11:30 p.m. on Jan. 17, in a complex of apartment buildings at the Nuseirat refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, and Israel had just declared it would impose a unilateral ceasefire to begin at 2 a.m. The incessant sorties of Israeli jet bombers stopped almost immediately, but then suddenly there was a terrific whoosh, louder even than a bomb explosion. It was another of Hamas's homemade Qassam rockets being launched into Israel—and the mobile launchpad was smack in the middle of the four buildings, where every apartment was full, most of them with newly made refugees.
On this occasion, fortunately, there was no Israeli retaliation. At places all over Gaza, however, Palestinian civilians have not been so lucky. Israel blames Hamas for using housing areas, hospitals, schools and mosques to launch attacks into Israel or against its soldiers, provoking defensive counter-fire that it says is responsible for most of the civilian casualties. Hamas retorts that Israel was using indiscriminate force with complete disregard for civilians in the way, especially in its efforts to assassinate Hamas leaders. There are plenty of examples to support both their contentions.
In eastern Jabaliya, just north of Gaza City, an entire neighborhood—at least 50 homes—had been bombed by the Israelis, then occupied with tank units, and then methodically demolished house-by-house, some of them with bulldozers, others with high explosives. In several hours of interviews, every one of the residents interviewed in eastern Jabaliya insisted that there had been no provocation from the area, no resistance fighters, and no rocket launchings. "They are punishing us because they can't reach the resistance to punish them," said Majdi Qatari, a lawyer whose home was one of those destroyed, leaving 13 people homeless. Near him, Najah Abd Rabo shook her head and said Israeli actions were beyond comprehension. "They were claiming there are tunnels under here," she said. Hamas fighters use tunnels, often short ones that are little more than bunkers, to pop out and launch attacks and then get back in, hiding from Israel's ubiquitous surveillance drones, reemerging in a house or backyard as an unarmed civilian. "There aren't any tunnels around here, we are not resistance," she said. Yet not more than 20 feet away from Najah, there was just such a tunnel, which Israeli troops had unearthed. Right in the middle of the road, it had a convincingly camouflaged roof that matched the rest of the road. Inside it was shored up with timbers and concrete.
Down the road from the non-existent tunnel was Khalid Abd Rabo, who claimed that Israeli troops fired on his daughters and mother as they left his home under a white flag, killing Suad, 9, and Amal, 2, and gravely wounding Samer, 4, who has since been evacuated to Belgium for treatment. "The children died before my eyes," he said. "Four days later they came back and destroyed the house." Khalid, who had been a policeman with the anti-Hamas Fatah party, said the Israeli troops fired at them from only 22 yards away. His mother was wounded; he could not explain why they spared him. Surrounded by neighbors, he had no criticism of Hamas, but later on one of his relatives took a journalist aside and said that Hamas's actions had brought retaliation on such communities, while accomplishing nothing militarily. "We blame Israel but we also blame Hamas, because Hamas was not able to defend the people," he said, asking that his name not be used for fear of reprisal by Hamas militants.
Hamas officials accuse the Israelis of reflexively blaming them for provoking attacks, and even when they are retaliating, using excessive force. "I don't understand how Palestinians would use other Palestinians as a human shield," said Ahmed Yousef, Hamas's deputy foreign minister. "They consider all Palestinians collateral damage."
The most notorious of attacks killing civilians was the bombing of a UNRWA-run school, Faqhourah School, which was being used to house people newly homeless from the fighting. Forty-three persons were killed in the attack, and some of them lay dying while troops denied them medical assistance. At least two other UNRWA schools were hit by Israeli bombs. UNRWA head John Ging said the Israeli excuse that the schools were being used as firing positions against them is implausible. "These people had already fled the fighting, some of them lost everything they had. Do you think they'd tolerate someone setting up positions there?" In addition, he said, UNRWA staff strictly controlled access to the schools and would not have allowed armed men in.
Isreali Defense Forces spokesperson Avital Leibovich, head of the IDF's foreign-press branch, counters that the military has documentary evidence including aerial surveillance tapes of the northern part of Gaza City "in which you can see schools next to [Hamas] training camps, launching sites in or near schools or from the streets themselves …When fire is opened at us and soldiers are in a life or death situation, we protect ourselves and Hamas is accountable for casualties if it chooses to put a launching site near schools and hospitals." She also gave NEWSWEEK a copy of what she said was a Hamas map which paratroopers recovered during ground operations inside Gaza. "It shows how a neighborhood was taken and divided into three war zones. Hamas centers were scattered over the neighborhood including a gas depot with explosive charges … On the map, you can see the Football Association and Technical School are surrounded by 45 Hamas positions, from which Hamas fired."
Many Gazans have no problem with the idea of Hamas attacking Israelis, but complain that they made a disappointing job of it this time. Only 10 Israeli soldiers were killed in the three-week-long operation, compared to more than 200 dead Hamas fighters, according to independent Palestinian figures. And thousands of rockets fired into southern Israel killed just three civilians there. "There's nothing in Gaza but buildings," said a former Fatah military commander, who gave the name Mahmoud Barbakh. "No fighter can fight except in the streets, we can't fight Israel in the open." Yet Hamas did precious little fighting, he said, while ticking off half a dozen cases of Fatah militants who were deliberately shot in the legs by Hamas during the Israeli war, some for violations of Hamas orders putting them under house arrest.
One of the most notorious incidents during the war was the Jan. 15 shelling of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society buildings in the downtown Tal-al Hawa part of Gaza City, followed by a shell hitting their Al Quds Hospital next door; the subsequent fire forced all 500 patients to be evacuated. Asked if there were any militants firing from the hospital or the Red Crescent buildings, hospital director general Dr. Khalid Judah chose his words carefully. "I am not able to say if anyone was using the PRCS buildings [the two Palestine Red Crescent Society buildings adjacent to the hospital], but I know for a fact that no one was using the hospital." In the Tal-al Hawa neighborhood nearby, however, Talal Safadi, an official in the leftist Palestinian People's Party, said that resistance fighters were firing from positions all around the hospital. He shrugged that off, having a bigger beef with Hamas. "They failed to win the battle." Or as his fellow PPP official, Walid al Awad, put it: "It was a mistake to give Israel the excuse to come in."
placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')
Perhaps a doctor at Shifa Hospital summed it up best. "Hamas doesn't care about anything," he said, "and the Israelis will kill anyone to get to Hamas." Today Hamas threw a victory parade. A few hundred young men with green flags marched through the middle of Gaza City, one of them riding on a cart at the head of the procession and holding aloft a chunk of metal, purportedly from an Israeli tank. No one lined the streets to cheer them on. No one poured out from his or her home to join the parade. Most Hamas critics in Gaza are afraid to openly say what they think, but sometimes actions (or the absence of them) speak louder than words.
With reporting by Joanna Chen/Jerusalem
Sunday 18 January 2009
oh ya?
it need two habds to clap,...so what does hamas side says...
AP – Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, left, shakes hands with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, right, …
JERUSALEM – Israel declared a unilateral cease-fire Saturday in its 22-day offensive that turned Gaza neighborhoods into battlegrounds and dealt a stinging blow to the Islamic militants of Hamas. But Israeli troops will stay in the Palestinian territory for now and Hamas threatened to keep fighting until they leave.
In announcing the cease-fire, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel had achieved its goals and more.
"Hamas was hit hard, in its military arms and in its government institutions. Its leaders are in hiding and many of its men have been killed," Olmert said.
Israel launched the offensive on Dec. 27 to stop years of rocket fire from Gaza at southern Israeli towns. But the rockets did not stop coming throughout the assault. Militants fired about 30 rockets into Israel on Saturday, eight of them around the time Olmert spoke.
More than 1,100 Palestinians have been killed in the offensive, about half civilians, according to Palestinian and U.N. officials. At least 13 Israelis have also died.
GAZA CITY, (AFP) – The skies over Gaza remained calm on Sunday morning for the first time in 22 days as Israel unilaterally halted the onslaught which has killed more than 1,200 Palestinians and levelled vast swathes of the Hamas-run enclave.
A nervous peace reigned in the impoverished territory of 1.5 million people in the absence of any immediate reports of a breach of the ceasefire, begun at 2:00 am (0000 GMT).
An army spokesman confirmed that the order to stand down had gone into effect.
However, the duration of the ceasefire is still in doubt after Hamas said it would not accept the presence of a single Israeli soldier in the territory, while Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas said the ceasefire should be followed by a full pull-out.
Egypt will host an international summit on Sunday afternoon attended by several European leaders and UN chief Ban Ki-moon, to seek a lasting truce between Israel and Hamas.
Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, said on Saturday his country "will continue its efforts as soon as there is a ceasefire to restore the truce and lift the blockade" imposed by Israel on crossing points into Gaza.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced after a meeting of his security cabinet he was calling an immediate end to offensive operations but added that troops would stay in Gaza for the time being with orders to return fire if attacked.
"At two o'clock in the morning (0000 GMT Sunday) we will stop fire but we will continue to be deployed in Gaza and its surroundings," Olmert said in a speech after the vote.
"We have reached all the goals of the war, and beyond," he added.
Defence Minister Ehud Barak acknowledged there was "no guarantee" that Hamas would stop firing rockets but said the army would hit back "severely."
"The army will stay as needed and if Hamas continues to fire, the army will fire back severely and will be ready to follow and intensify its operations as necessary," he said.
AP – Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, left, shakes hands with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, right, …
JERUSALEM – Israel declared a unilateral cease-fire Saturday in its 22-day offensive that turned Gaza neighborhoods into battlegrounds and dealt a stinging blow to the Islamic militants of Hamas. But Israeli troops will stay in the Palestinian territory for now and Hamas threatened to keep fighting until they leave.
In announcing the cease-fire, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel had achieved its goals and more.
"Hamas was hit hard, in its military arms and in its government institutions. Its leaders are in hiding and many of its men have been killed," Olmert said.
Israel launched the offensive on Dec. 27 to stop years of rocket fire from Gaza at southern Israeli towns. But the rockets did not stop coming throughout the assault. Militants fired about 30 rockets into Israel on Saturday, eight of them around the time Olmert spoke.
More than 1,100 Palestinians have been killed in the offensive, about half civilians, according to Palestinian and U.N. officials. At least 13 Israelis have also died.
GAZA CITY, (AFP) – The skies over Gaza remained calm on Sunday morning for the first time in 22 days as Israel unilaterally halted the onslaught which has killed more than 1,200 Palestinians and levelled vast swathes of the Hamas-run enclave.
A nervous peace reigned in the impoverished territory of 1.5 million people in the absence of any immediate reports of a breach of the ceasefire, begun at 2:00 am (0000 GMT).
An army spokesman confirmed that the order to stand down had gone into effect.
However, the duration of the ceasefire is still in doubt after Hamas said it would not accept the presence of a single Israeli soldier in the territory, while Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas said the ceasefire should be followed by a full pull-out.
Egypt will host an international summit on Sunday afternoon attended by several European leaders and UN chief Ban Ki-moon, to seek a lasting truce between Israel and Hamas.
Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, said on Saturday his country "will continue its efforts as soon as there is a ceasefire to restore the truce and lift the blockade" imposed by Israel on crossing points into Gaza.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced after a meeting of his security cabinet he was calling an immediate end to offensive operations but added that troops would stay in Gaza for the time being with orders to return fire if attacked.
"At two o'clock in the morning (0000 GMT Sunday) we will stop fire but we will continue to be deployed in Gaza and its surroundings," Olmert said in a speech after the vote.
"We have reached all the goals of the war, and beyond," he added.
Defence Minister Ehud Barak acknowledged there was "no guarantee" that Hamas would stop firing rockets but said the army would hit back "severely."
"The army will stay as needed and if Hamas continues to fire, the army will fire back severely and will be ready to follow and intensify its operations as necessary," he said.
Saturday 17 January 2009
it ok.....
whatever,...
The debate over the controversial practice of child marriage in Saudi Arabia was pushed back into the spotlight this week, with the kingdom's top cleric saying that it's OK for girls as young as 10 to wed.
Saudi cleric Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh says it's OK for a girl aged 10 or 12 to get married.
"It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger," Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom's grand mufti, said in remarks quoted Wednesday in the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her."
The issue of child marriage has been a hot-button topic in the deeply conservative kingdom in recent weeks.
In December, Saudi judge Sheikh Habib Abdallah al-Habib refused to annul the marriage of an 8-year-old girl to a 47-year-old man.
The judge rejected a petition from the girl's mother, whose lawyer said the marriage was arranged by her father to settle a debt with "a close friend." The judge required the girl's husband to sign a pledge that he would not have sex with her until she reaches puberty.
Al-Sheikh was asked during a lecture Monday about parents forcing their underage daughters to marry.
"We hear a lot in the media about the marriage of underage girls," he said, according to the newspaper. "We should know that Shariah law has not brought injustice to women."
Don't Miss
Saudi judge refuses to annul marriage of girl, 8
Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabia researcher for Human Rights Watch, recently told CNN that his organization has heard many other cases of child marriages.
"We've been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger, especially so when girls are traded off to older men," Wilcke said.
Wilcke explained that while Saudi ministries may make decisions designed to protect children, "It is still the religious establishment that holds sway in the courts, and in many realms beyond the court."
Last month, Zuhair al-Harithi, a spokesman for the Saudi government-run Human Rights Commission, said his organization is fighting against child marriages.
"The Human Rights Commission opposes child marriages in Saudi Arabia," al-Harithi said. "Child marriages violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed." He added that his organization has been able to intervene and stop at least one child marriage from taking place.
Wajeha al-Huwaider, co-founder of the Society of Defending Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia, told CNN in December that achieving human rights in the kingdom means standing against those who want to "keep us backward and in the dark ages."
She said the marriages cause girls to "lose their sense of security and safety. Also, it destroys their feeling of being loved and nurtured. It causes them a lifetime of psychological problems and severe depression."
The Saudi Ministry of Justice has not made any public comment on the issue.
The debate over the controversial practice of child marriage in Saudi Arabia was pushed back into the spotlight this week, with the kingdom's top cleric saying that it's OK for girls as young as 10 to wed.
Saudi cleric Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh says it's OK for a girl aged 10 or 12 to get married.
"It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger," Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom's grand mufti, said in remarks quoted Wednesday in the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her."
The issue of child marriage has been a hot-button topic in the deeply conservative kingdom in recent weeks.
In December, Saudi judge Sheikh Habib Abdallah al-Habib refused to annul the marriage of an 8-year-old girl to a 47-year-old man.
The judge rejected a petition from the girl's mother, whose lawyer said the marriage was arranged by her father to settle a debt with "a close friend." The judge required the girl's husband to sign a pledge that he would not have sex with her until she reaches puberty.
Al-Sheikh was asked during a lecture Monday about parents forcing their underage daughters to marry.
"We hear a lot in the media about the marriage of underage girls," he said, according to the newspaper. "We should know that Shariah law has not brought injustice to women."
Don't Miss
Saudi judge refuses to annul marriage of girl, 8
Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabia researcher for Human Rights Watch, recently told CNN that his organization has heard many other cases of child marriages.
"We've been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger, especially so when girls are traded off to older men," Wilcke said.
Wilcke explained that while Saudi ministries may make decisions designed to protect children, "It is still the religious establishment that holds sway in the courts, and in many realms beyond the court."
Last month, Zuhair al-Harithi, a spokesman for the Saudi government-run Human Rights Commission, said his organization is fighting against child marriages.
"The Human Rights Commission opposes child marriages in Saudi Arabia," al-Harithi said. "Child marriages violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed." He added that his organization has been able to intervene and stop at least one child marriage from taking place.
Wajeha al-Huwaider, co-founder of the Society of Defending Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia, told CNN in December that achieving human rights in the kingdom means standing against those who want to "keep us backward and in the dark ages."
She said the marriages cause girls to "lose their sense of security and safety. Also, it destroys their feeling of being loved and nurtured. It causes them a lifetime of psychological problems and severe depression."
The Saudi Ministry of Justice has not made any public comment on the issue.
i dun care....
am not responsible just irresponsible..
or both...
a leader love his people more...?
DOHA (Reuters) - Hamas said on Friday it would not accept Israeli conditions for a ceasefire and would continue to fight until Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip ends.
Khaled Meshaal, leader of the Palestinian Islamist group, called on leaders at the opening of an emergency meeting on Gaza in Doha to cut all ties with the Jewish state.
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal speaks during a meeting with supporters in Damascus in this September 13, 2008 file photo. (REUTERS/Khaled al-Hariri/Files)
"Despite all the destruction in Gaza, I assure you: we will not accept Israel's conditions for a ceasefire," Meshaal told the meeting in Doha, which was attended by the presidents of Syria, Iran and Lebanon. Heavyweights Saudi Arabia and Egypt were absent.
The meeting in Qatar conflicted with another meeting by Arab foreign ministers in Kuwait to discuss the three-week-old Israeli offensive that has highlighted deep splits in the Arab world over Gaza, where the death toll has exceeded 1,100.
.............
GAZA (Reuters) - Israel called off its three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, saying Hamas was "badly beaten," but the Islamist group vowed to fight on in a war that has killed 1,200 Palestinians in the coastal enclave.
Within minutes of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announcing that a unilateral ceasefire would start three hours later at 2 a.m. (0000 GMT) on Sunday, several missiles struck southern Israel.
or both...
a leader love his people more...?
DOHA (Reuters) - Hamas said on Friday it would not accept Israeli conditions for a ceasefire and would continue to fight until Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip ends.
Khaled Meshaal, leader of the Palestinian Islamist group, called on leaders at the opening of an emergency meeting on Gaza in Doha to cut all ties with the Jewish state.
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal speaks during a meeting with supporters in Damascus in this September 13, 2008 file photo. (REUTERS/Khaled al-Hariri/Files)
"Despite all the destruction in Gaza, I assure you: we will not accept Israel's conditions for a ceasefire," Meshaal told the meeting in Doha, which was attended by the presidents of Syria, Iran and Lebanon. Heavyweights Saudi Arabia and Egypt were absent.
The meeting in Qatar conflicted with another meeting by Arab foreign ministers in Kuwait to discuss the three-week-old Israeli offensive that has highlighted deep splits in the Arab world over Gaza, where the death toll has exceeded 1,100.
.............
GAZA (Reuters) - Israel called off its three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, saying Hamas was "badly beaten," but the Islamist group vowed to fight on in a war that has killed 1,200 Palestinians in the coastal enclave.
Within minutes of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announcing that a unilateral ceasefire would start three hours later at 2 a.m. (0000 GMT) on Sunday, several missiles struck southern Israel.
Thursday 15 January 2009
only one planet...
yours or mine...
Editor's Note: Larry Schweiger is President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Wildlife Federation. The federation is a nonprofit organization that seeks to protect wildlife habitats and advocate for solutions to global warming.
Larry Schweiger says global warming is the defining issue of the 21st century.
(CNN) -- Nature can be amazingly resilient, capable of adapting to constantly changing ecological conditions. And yet, this resiliency is limited and rapidly reaching the breaking point.
In the lifetime of a child born today, 20 percent to 30 percent of the world's plant and animal species will be on the brink of extinction -- in part because of global warming -- if we fail to act.
Like it or not, global warming is the defining issue of the 21st Century. Climate scientists have issued warnings that we must act now to curb emissions of heat-trapping gases that cause global warming.
Dr. James Hansen of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has warned that the next two years are a "last chance" to act before we tip our climate system too far out of balance, creating a fundamentally "different planet."
Unchecked, we are heading to a full-blown climate crisis as the planet encounters several key tipping points including:
• Widespread damage to forests caused by expanded wildfire and insect infestation. A four-fold increase in the number of forest fires and a six-fold expansion of acres burned in the Western United States has been linked to global warming and drier conditions. Fires in Russia last summer consumed 29 million acres. Insect infestations have killed millions of acres of forests in North America as larvae increasingly survive warmer winters.
• Persistent drought. By the 2020s, 75 to 250 million people in Africa risk losing access to clean water, and some African countries are expected to see a 50 percent decline in crop yields.
• Flooding caused by rising sea levels will put hundreds of millions of people, including many Americans, at risk.
The acceleration of the Arctic ice melt is a powerful warning that we are rapidly running out of time. The last two summers have seen dramatic, record-shattering declines in the Arctic ice cap.
Not too long ago, scientists were concerned that global warming could completely melt the Arctic ice cap within a century. Today, some scientists are predicting that this may happen in five years. Polar bears are drowning and other sea life is struggling with the decline of Arctic ice.
Don't Miss
Shark fin soup alters an ecosystem
Commentary: James Bond and dead monkeys
In Depth: Commentaries
Arctic ice melt presents multiple dangers, including the release of methane. Vast quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide, are stored in permafrost.
Melting of even a small fraction of this permafrost -- on land or the ocean floor -- and the subsequent release of methane could cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Scientists recently documented openings in the Arctic Ocean sea floor off the Siberian coast where millions of tons of methane are escaping.
This rapid ice melt is now creating an international fight for the oil that lies beneath the ice. The irony of this should not be lost. Oil is a top culprit in polluting our atmosphere with heat-trapping gases. Rather than fighting for more of the very resource that has created this climate crisis, countries should be working together to do everything possible to prevent further melting.
Fortunately, America is ready to act. President-elect Barack Obama has stated that we are entering "a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change." He recognizes the economic opportunity to create jobs and reduce our dependency on oil by investing in the clean energy technologies that will safeguard our planet.
We need a green shovel to dig our way out of our economic hole. The investments in clean energy that forestall a climate meltdown will aid our recovery from the global financial meltdown.
Overwhelming numbers of Americans are ready. According to election polling, more than three-quarters of voters are demanding a shift toward clean energy in order to revitalize America's economy.
And yet, the clean energy revolution will not be a sufficient response to the climate crisis. We must also protect the nature of tomorrow in the face of this threat. Safeguarding wildlife and protecting natural resources in a warming world requires bold approaches to natural resource management that will transform the way we approach wildlife conservation.
The eyes of the world are upon America and what we do this coming year. In 2009, we need to enact a federal program to promptly cap and reduce the pollution causing global warming at the pace scientists tell us is needed. We must use the financial resources from this program to invest in clean energy technologies, safeguard America's natural resources and protect communities from the threats of a destabilized climate.
With renewed U.S. leadership, we can secure an effective global agreement on climate change that engages every nation around the world in the effort to protect our planet, and ourselves.
Conflicts over natural resources are accelerating, and we must address the imperative of balancing human needs with the natural world. We can no longer afford to separate the two -- we all depend on healthy natural resources for the food we eat, the water we drink, the houses we build -- no matter where we live.
After all, we have only one planet. And good planets are hard to find.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Larry Schweiger.
Editor's Note: Larry Schweiger is President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Wildlife Federation. The federation is a nonprofit organization that seeks to protect wildlife habitats and advocate for solutions to global warming.
Larry Schweiger says global warming is the defining issue of the 21st century.
(CNN) -- Nature can be amazingly resilient, capable of adapting to constantly changing ecological conditions. And yet, this resiliency is limited and rapidly reaching the breaking point.
In the lifetime of a child born today, 20 percent to 30 percent of the world's plant and animal species will be on the brink of extinction -- in part because of global warming -- if we fail to act.
Like it or not, global warming is the defining issue of the 21st Century. Climate scientists have issued warnings that we must act now to curb emissions of heat-trapping gases that cause global warming.
Dr. James Hansen of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has warned that the next two years are a "last chance" to act before we tip our climate system too far out of balance, creating a fundamentally "different planet."
Unchecked, we are heading to a full-blown climate crisis as the planet encounters several key tipping points including:
• Widespread damage to forests caused by expanded wildfire and insect infestation. A four-fold increase in the number of forest fires and a six-fold expansion of acres burned in the Western United States has been linked to global warming and drier conditions. Fires in Russia last summer consumed 29 million acres. Insect infestations have killed millions of acres of forests in North America as larvae increasingly survive warmer winters.
• Persistent drought. By the 2020s, 75 to 250 million people in Africa risk losing access to clean water, and some African countries are expected to see a 50 percent decline in crop yields.
• Flooding caused by rising sea levels will put hundreds of millions of people, including many Americans, at risk.
The acceleration of the Arctic ice melt is a powerful warning that we are rapidly running out of time. The last two summers have seen dramatic, record-shattering declines in the Arctic ice cap.
Not too long ago, scientists were concerned that global warming could completely melt the Arctic ice cap within a century. Today, some scientists are predicting that this may happen in five years. Polar bears are drowning and other sea life is struggling with the decline of Arctic ice.
Don't Miss
Shark fin soup alters an ecosystem
Commentary: James Bond and dead monkeys
In Depth: Commentaries
Arctic ice melt presents multiple dangers, including the release of methane. Vast quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide, are stored in permafrost.
Melting of even a small fraction of this permafrost -- on land or the ocean floor -- and the subsequent release of methane could cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Scientists recently documented openings in the Arctic Ocean sea floor off the Siberian coast where millions of tons of methane are escaping.
This rapid ice melt is now creating an international fight for the oil that lies beneath the ice. The irony of this should not be lost. Oil is a top culprit in polluting our atmosphere with heat-trapping gases. Rather than fighting for more of the very resource that has created this climate crisis, countries should be working together to do everything possible to prevent further melting.
Fortunately, America is ready to act. President-elect Barack Obama has stated that we are entering "a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change." He recognizes the economic opportunity to create jobs and reduce our dependency on oil by investing in the clean energy technologies that will safeguard our planet.
We need a green shovel to dig our way out of our economic hole. The investments in clean energy that forestall a climate meltdown will aid our recovery from the global financial meltdown.
Overwhelming numbers of Americans are ready. According to election polling, more than three-quarters of voters are demanding a shift toward clean energy in order to revitalize America's economy.
And yet, the clean energy revolution will not be a sufficient response to the climate crisis. We must also protect the nature of tomorrow in the face of this threat. Safeguarding wildlife and protecting natural resources in a warming world requires bold approaches to natural resource management that will transform the way we approach wildlife conservation.
The eyes of the world are upon America and what we do this coming year. In 2009, we need to enact a federal program to promptly cap and reduce the pollution causing global warming at the pace scientists tell us is needed. We must use the financial resources from this program to invest in clean energy technologies, safeguard America's natural resources and protect communities from the threats of a destabilized climate.
With renewed U.S. leadership, we can secure an effective global agreement on climate change that engages every nation around the world in the effort to protect our planet, and ourselves.
Conflicts over natural resources are accelerating, and we must address the imperative of balancing human needs with the natural world. We can no longer afford to separate the two -- we all depend on healthy natural resources for the food we eat, the water we drink, the houses we build -- no matter where we live.
After all, we have only one planet. And good planets are hard to find.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Larry Schweiger.
Sunday 4 January 2009
Listen....
an interview .., with a Jew.
Avrum Burg is the scion of one of Israel's founding families — his father was the deputy speaker of the first Knesset, and Burg himself later became speaker of the legislature, and a member of Israel's cabinet. His position at the heart of the Israeli establishment makes all the more remarkable his critique of the Jewish State, which he claims has lost its sense of moral purpose. In his new book The Holocaust Is Over: We Must Rise from Its Ashes (Palgrave/MacMillan), he argues that an obsession with an exaggerated sense of threats to Jewish survival cultivated by Israel and its most fervent backers actually impedes the realization of Judaism's higher goals.
He discussed his ideas with TIME.com's Tony Karon.
TIME: You argue that the Jewish people are in a state of crisis, partly because of the extent to which the Holocaust dominates contemporary Jewish identity. Can you explain?
Burg: I, like many others, believe that a day will come very soon when we will live in peace with our neighbors, and then, for the first time in our history, the vast majority of the Jewish people will be living without an immediate threat to their lives. Peaceful Israel and a secure Diaspora, all of us living the democratic hemisphere. And then the question facing our generation will be, can the Jewish people survive without an external enemy? Give me war, give me pogrom, give me disaster, and I know what to do; give me peace and tranquility, and I'm lost. The Holocaust was a hellish horror, but we often use it as an excuse to avoid looking around seeing how, existentially, 60 years later, in a miraculous way, are living in a much better situation.
In your book, you raise the question of the purpose of Jewish survival over thousands of years, insisting that Jews have not simply survived for the sake of survival. What is this higher purpose?
Both my parents were survivors — my father ran away from Berlin in September 1939; my mum survived the 1929 massacre in Hebron. So, my family knows something about trauma. Still, my siblings and I were brought up in a trauma-free atmosphere. We were brought up to believe that the Jewish people did not continue in order to continue, or survive in order to survive. A cat can survive — so it's a circumcised cat, so what? It's not about survival; survival for what?
Look at the Exodus: After 400 years of very aggressive oppression and enslavement, all of a sudden the outcry was "Let my people go," and that continues to resonate against slavery everywhere to this day. Then we come to the Sinai covenant, which is a key moment not just for Jewish theology, but for Christian belief as well: The Ten Commandments is the first human-to-human constitution, setting out the relations among humans on the basis of laws. And then you come to the Prophets, and its amazing that they're calling so clearly for a just society. And then, in the Middle Ages, you listen to Maimonides say he's waiting for redemption of the world without oppression between nations. So, in the Jewish story over so many centuries, there has always been a higher cause, not just for the Jews, but for all of humanity.
Even in the Holocaust, the lesson is "Never Again." But this doesn't mean just never again can genocide be allowed to happen to the Jews, but never again can genocide be allowed to happen to any human being. So, the Holocaust is not just mine; it belongs to all of humanity.
You suggest that there's been a turning inward from the universal purpose and meaning of the Jewish experience...
Both the internal and the external hemispheres of the Jewish experience are essential. I cannot envisage my Judaism without the input I got from the external world, be it philosophy, aesthetics, even democracy, which was introduced to the Jews in the last 200 years because of our interface with the the world. On the other hand, I can't imagine my Western civilization and Western culture without the Jewish input, without Jesus Christ, who was born, was crucified and passed away as a Mishnaic rabbinical Jew. I cannot image Christian Europe opening up to modernity without a Maimonides reintroducing Greek philosophy. I cannot imagine modern times without a Spinoza, and Mendelson. I cannot imagine the 20th century without Marx and Freud. So, this conversation between Jews and the world is not just a conversation of pogroms and slaughter and Holocaust; it's also a couple of thousand years of a conversation that enriched me and enriched them, and I don't want to give that up.
Your book argues that the centrality of the Holocaust in Israeli identity is dysfunctional...
The Holocaust is a very real trauma for many people in Israel, and nobody can argue with that. But ... when I hear someone like Benjamin Netanyahu, who is a very intelligent person, say of [Iran's President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, "It's 1938 all over again," I say, is it?! Is this the reality? Did we have such an omnipotent army in 1938? Did we have an independent state in 1938? Did we have the unequivocal support in 1938 of all the important superpowers in the world? No, we did not. And when you compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler, don't you diminish Hitler's significance?
The sad thing is that whenever a head of state begins a visit to Israel, he doesn't go to a university or to the high-tech sector or the beautiful cultural places we have in Israel; first you should get molded into the Israeli reality at [the Holocaust memorial] Yad Vashem. And I do not think that Yad Vashem should be the showcase or the gateway through which everybody should first encounter Israel. Part of the program, yes; but the starting point? This is not the way to baptize people into an encounter with Judaism.
You argue that the purpose of the Yad Vashem visit is to silence criticism...
It's an emotional blackmail that says to people, this is what we have experienced, so shut up and help us... When the sages created the national holiday of Tisha Be'av, they made it the single day on which we commemorate all the traumas of our history, from the destruction of the first temple to the Spanish expulsion. These events did not all happen on this exact date; the founders of Jewish civilization confined the memory of the traumas of our history to one day, to allow us the rest of the year to get on with being Jewish, rather than letting sorrow take over our entire existence...
Look where we were 100 years ago and look where we are today — no other people made this transformation. Imagine we did not keep the shadow of the trauma looming over ourselves daily, what could we have been? How come 25% of the Nobel laureates in certain fields are of Jewish origins, and 10% of the arms deals around the world are done by Israelis? Why is my brother or sister in America a great poet or composer or physician whose achievements raise up all of humanity, and I who live here on my sword became a world expert on arms and swords? Is that really my mission, or is that an outcome of the black water with which I water my flowers? To make our contribution to humanity, we have to free ourselves of the obsession with the trauma.
Many Jews, in Israel and in America, see Israel as surrounded by deadly threats, and would see the benign and peaceful world you describe as a dangerous fantasy. What do you say to your critics?
I have very low expectations of new thinking and insight emerging from the mainstream Israeli and Jewish establishment. Their role is to maintain the status quo. Israel is bereft of forward thinking. We are experts at managing the crisis rather than finding alternatives to the crisis. In Israel you have many tanks, but not many think tanks. One of the reasons I left the Israeli politics was my growing feeling that Israel became a very efficient kingdom, but with no prophecy. Where is it going?
My idea of Judaism can be represented through a classic Talmudic dilemma: You are walking along by the river and there are two people drowning. One is Rabbi [Meir] Kahane, and the other is the Dalai Lama. You can only save one of them. For whom will you jump? If you jump for Rabbi Kahane because genetically he's Jewish, you belong to a different camp than mine, because I would jump for the Dalai Lama. As much as he's not genetically Jewish, he's my Jewish brother when it comes to my value system. That's the difference between me and the Jewish establishment in Israel and America.
But how can this new thinking you're advocating help Israel solve its security problems?
Many people say to me, "What about Gaza? Don't have so much compassion for them, don't tell the Israelis to be nice there, tell [the Palestinians] to be nice there. And I say Gaza is a nightmare, and it's a stain on my conscience. And I'm very troubled by the attitude of Israelis against Israeli Arabs. It's a shame. It's a black hole in my democracy. But I say sometimes that I'm too close to the reality; I don't have the perspective; I don't have the bigger picture. But if enough of my kids and enough of my youth will go to volunteer, be it in Darfur or be it Rwanda, or be it in the squatter camps of South Africa, they will sharpen their sensitivities. And they will come back and say, listen, if we can do so much good out there, let's do something over here. And I see my own kids, when they come back from India and from Latin America, how changed they are as people. I see my son, after one and a half years in Latin American. He came home, and five days later, was called for 30 days "miluim" service [with his military unit] in the West Bank. And he was sitting in the worst junction in the West Bank. And he says, "When I look around me 360 degrees, nobody loves me. Settlers, Kahanes, rabbis, mullahs, Hamas, Palestinians, you name it — they all hate me. And he told me, "Here I was sitting on a corner one day; it was my break time, and I was drinking coffee with a friend of mine, and out of the valley climbed an old Arab. He was very bent forward and frail, and walked slowly to us and said 'Here is my ID.' And we told him, you don't have to give us your ID; we didn't ask for it. And he said 'No, here it is, I want you to look at it. Look at it, I'm okay, I'm kosher, I'm kosher.' I checked it and let him pass, and then I began crying and crying."
So, I asked my son, why did you cry, what happened? And he said, "You don't understand that for a year and a half, I was in Latin America, going to small villages and sitting with this kind of man, listening to their oral tradition, to the beauty of their history, to the wisdom of their culture. And they shared it with me. And now here I am, the policeman, here I am the bad guy, here I am the occupier. And I can't talk to this man. You know how much he could tell me under different circumstances?" And I say, that's an example for me.
Avrum Burg is the scion of one of Israel's founding families — his father was the deputy speaker of the first Knesset, and Burg himself later became speaker of the legislature, and a member of Israel's cabinet. His position at the heart of the Israeli establishment makes all the more remarkable his critique of the Jewish State, which he claims has lost its sense of moral purpose. In his new book The Holocaust Is Over: We Must Rise from Its Ashes (Palgrave/MacMillan), he argues that an obsession with an exaggerated sense of threats to Jewish survival cultivated by Israel and its most fervent backers actually impedes the realization of Judaism's higher goals.
He discussed his ideas with TIME.com's Tony Karon.
TIME: You argue that the Jewish people are in a state of crisis, partly because of the extent to which the Holocaust dominates contemporary Jewish identity. Can you explain?
Burg: I, like many others, believe that a day will come very soon when we will live in peace with our neighbors, and then, for the first time in our history, the vast majority of the Jewish people will be living without an immediate threat to their lives. Peaceful Israel and a secure Diaspora, all of us living the democratic hemisphere. And then the question facing our generation will be, can the Jewish people survive without an external enemy? Give me war, give me pogrom, give me disaster, and I know what to do; give me peace and tranquility, and I'm lost. The Holocaust was a hellish horror, but we often use it as an excuse to avoid looking around seeing how, existentially, 60 years later, in a miraculous way, are living in a much better situation.
In your book, you raise the question of the purpose of Jewish survival over thousands of years, insisting that Jews have not simply survived for the sake of survival. What is this higher purpose?
Both my parents were survivors — my father ran away from Berlin in September 1939; my mum survived the 1929 massacre in Hebron. So, my family knows something about trauma. Still, my siblings and I were brought up in a trauma-free atmosphere. We were brought up to believe that the Jewish people did not continue in order to continue, or survive in order to survive. A cat can survive — so it's a circumcised cat, so what? It's not about survival; survival for what?
Look at the Exodus: After 400 years of very aggressive oppression and enslavement, all of a sudden the outcry was "Let my people go," and that continues to resonate against slavery everywhere to this day. Then we come to the Sinai covenant, which is a key moment not just for Jewish theology, but for Christian belief as well: The Ten Commandments is the first human-to-human constitution, setting out the relations among humans on the basis of laws. And then you come to the Prophets, and its amazing that they're calling so clearly for a just society. And then, in the Middle Ages, you listen to Maimonides say he's waiting for redemption of the world without oppression between nations. So, in the Jewish story over so many centuries, there has always been a higher cause, not just for the Jews, but for all of humanity.
Even in the Holocaust, the lesson is "Never Again." But this doesn't mean just never again can genocide be allowed to happen to the Jews, but never again can genocide be allowed to happen to any human being. So, the Holocaust is not just mine; it belongs to all of humanity.
You suggest that there's been a turning inward from the universal purpose and meaning of the Jewish experience...
Both the internal and the external hemispheres of the Jewish experience are essential. I cannot envisage my Judaism without the input I got from the external world, be it philosophy, aesthetics, even democracy, which was introduced to the Jews in the last 200 years because of our interface with the the world. On the other hand, I can't imagine my Western civilization and Western culture without the Jewish input, without Jesus Christ, who was born, was crucified and passed away as a Mishnaic rabbinical Jew. I cannot image Christian Europe opening up to modernity without a Maimonides reintroducing Greek philosophy. I cannot imagine modern times without a Spinoza, and Mendelson. I cannot imagine the 20th century without Marx and Freud. So, this conversation between Jews and the world is not just a conversation of pogroms and slaughter and Holocaust; it's also a couple of thousand years of a conversation that enriched me and enriched them, and I don't want to give that up.
Your book argues that the centrality of the Holocaust in Israeli identity is dysfunctional...
The Holocaust is a very real trauma for many people in Israel, and nobody can argue with that. But ... when I hear someone like Benjamin Netanyahu, who is a very intelligent person, say of [Iran's President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, "It's 1938 all over again," I say, is it?! Is this the reality? Did we have such an omnipotent army in 1938? Did we have an independent state in 1938? Did we have the unequivocal support in 1938 of all the important superpowers in the world? No, we did not. And when you compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler, don't you diminish Hitler's significance?
The sad thing is that whenever a head of state begins a visit to Israel, he doesn't go to a university or to the high-tech sector or the beautiful cultural places we have in Israel; first you should get molded into the Israeli reality at [the Holocaust memorial] Yad Vashem. And I do not think that Yad Vashem should be the showcase or the gateway through which everybody should first encounter Israel. Part of the program, yes; but the starting point? This is not the way to baptize people into an encounter with Judaism.
You argue that the purpose of the Yad Vashem visit is to silence criticism...
It's an emotional blackmail that says to people, this is what we have experienced, so shut up and help us... When the sages created the national holiday of Tisha Be'av, they made it the single day on which we commemorate all the traumas of our history, from the destruction of the first temple to the Spanish expulsion. These events did not all happen on this exact date; the founders of Jewish civilization confined the memory of the traumas of our history to one day, to allow us the rest of the year to get on with being Jewish, rather than letting sorrow take over our entire existence...
Look where we were 100 years ago and look where we are today — no other people made this transformation. Imagine we did not keep the shadow of the trauma looming over ourselves daily, what could we have been? How come 25% of the Nobel laureates in certain fields are of Jewish origins, and 10% of the arms deals around the world are done by Israelis? Why is my brother or sister in America a great poet or composer or physician whose achievements raise up all of humanity, and I who live here on my sword became a world expert on arms and swords? Is that really my mission, or is that an outcome of the black water with which I water my flowers? To make our contribution to humanity, we have to free ourselves of the obsession with the trauma.
Many Jews, in Israel and in America, see Israel as surrounded by deadly threats, and would see the benign and peaceful world you describe as a dangerous fantasy. What do you say to your critics?
I have very low expectations of new thinking and insight emerging from the mainstream Israeli and Jewish establishment. Their role is to maintain the status quo. Israel is bereft of forward thinking. We are experts at managing the crisis rather than finding alternatives to the crisis. In Israel you have many tanks, but not many think tanks. One of the reasons I left the Israeli politics was my growing feeling that Israel became a very efficient kingdom, but with no prophecy. Where is it going?
My idea of Judaism can be represented through a classic Talmudic dilemma: You are walking along by the river and there are two people drowning. One is Rabbi [Meir] Kahane, and the other is the Dalai Lama. You can only save one of them. For whom will you jump? If you jump for Rabbi Kahane because genetically he's Jewish, you belong to a different camp than mine, because I would jump for the Dalai Lama. As much as he's not genetically Jewish, he's my Jewish brother when it comes to my value system. That's the difference between me and the Jewish establishment in Israel and America.
But how can this new thinking you're advocating help Israel solve its security problems?
Many people say to me, "What about Gaza? Don't have so much compassion for them, don't tell the Israelis to be nice there, tell [the Palestinians] to be nice there. And I say Gaza is a nightmare, and it's a stain on my conscience. And I'm very troubled by the attitude of Israelis against Israeli Arabs. It's a shame. It's a black hole in my democracy. But I say sometimes that I'm too close to the reality; I don't have the perspective; I don't have the bigger picture. But if enough of my kids and enough of my youth will go to volunteer, be it in Darfur or be it Rwanda, or be it in the squatter camps of South Africa, they will sharpen their sensitivities. And they will come back and say, listen, if we can do so much good out there, let's do something over here. And I see my own kids, when they come back from India and from Latin America, how changed they are as people. I see my son, after one and a half years in Latin American. He came home, and five days later, was called for 30 days "miluim" service [with his military unit] in the West Bank. And he was sitting in the worst junction in the West Bank. And he says, "When I look around me 360 degrees, nobody loves me. Settlers, Kahanes, rabbis, mullahs, Hamas, Palestinians, you name it — they all hate me. And he told me, "Here I was sitting on a corner one day; it was my break time, and I was drinking coffee with a friend of mine, and out of the valley climbed an old Arab. He was very bent forward and frail, and walked slowly to us and said 'Here is my ID.' And we told him, you don't have to give us your ID; we didn't ask for it. And he said 'No, here it is, I want you to look at it. Look at it, I'm okay, I'm kosher, I'm kosher.' I checked it and let him pass, and then I began crying and crying."
So, I asked my son, why did you cry, what happened? And he said, "You don't understand that for a year and a half, I was in Latin America, going to small villages and sitting with this kind of man, listening to their oral tradition, to the beauty of their history, to the wisdom of their culture. And they shared it with me. And now here I am, the policeman, here I am the bad guy, here I am the occupier. And I can't talk to this man. You know how much he could tell me under different circumstances?" And I say, that's an example for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
