US News and World Report Gets it Wrong, by Andrew J. Coulson
Cato at Liberty, Feb 02, 2009
US News and World Report contributing editor Bonnie Erbe writes that “school vouchers… have already drained federal tax coffers of hundreds of millions of dollars.” With all due respect, this is not true.
There is only one federal school voucher program, in Washington, DC. That program is serving fewer than 2,000 children with an average voucher amount below $6,000, for an annual price tag under $12 million. It is in its fifth year of operation. Perhaps Ms. Erbe can explain to her readers how 5 * $12 million can be made to exceed $100 million?
Of course, even if the value of the vouchers to date did exceed $100 million, that wouldn’t mean it had “drained federal coffers” as Erbe claims. That’s because, as I wrote in the Washington Post and on this website, DC’s public schools spent $24,600 per pupil in 2007-08 — more than four times the average voucher cost. Much of the DC school system’s budget comes from the federal government, and the DC voucher program is saving taxpayers a great deal of money for every child it serves in place of the exorbitant district schools.
Ms. Erbe’s misrepresentation of the cost of federal vouchers calls into question the reliability of the US News and World Report. A correction is in order.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Who is the Indian Mujahideen?
Who is the Indian Mujahideen? Namrata Goswami
IDSA, Feb 3, 2009
In 2008, India faced multiple terror attacks on its cities across several states. These attacks resulted mostly in civilian deaths. The May 13, 2008 Jaipur bombings killed 80 civilians and injured more than 200, the Ahmedabad terrorist bombings of July 26, 2008, killed nearly 45 civilians and wounded 160, while the Bangalore bombs the previous day killed one person and wounded six. The Delhi bombings of September 13, 2008 killed 30 civilians and injured nearly 90 while the Guwahati blasts of October 30 the same year killed 83 civilians and injured nearly 300. In the Guwahati attacks, a group, identifying itself as Islamic Security Force (Indian Mujahideen), originally claimed responsibility via an email. Significantly, in all the other attacks, a hitherto unknown group calling itself the Indian Mujahideen (IM) claimed responsibility, thereby shifting the blame from more established terror groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM). In an email sent five minutes before the Ahmedabad bombings, the IM requested the LeT not to claim responsibility for the bombings. A deeper scrutiny into such behaviour by terrorist outfits reveal that newly established terror groups carry out attacks at short intervals not only to establish their deadly credibility in the world of terror networks but also to attract sponsors at home and abroad for their activities.
The IM’s frequent bomb blasts in Indian cities except perhaps Mumbai where the direct involvement of the LeT is established, begs answers to the question: who is the IM, what are their motives and where do they actually come from?
The Indian Mujahideen: Tracing the Roots and the Causes
According to Indian intelligence, the IM is not a well knit organization with a hierarchical structure like other more established groups like the LeT. Rather, it is a loose network of Islamic organizations which includes the Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), certain individuals from the state of Uttar Pradesh with alleged links with the Harkat ul-Jihad-e-Islami (HuJI), and the terror cartel of Aftab Ansari. Key SIMI members like Qayamuddin Kapadia, Usman Agarbattiwala and Sajid Mansuri started supporting the idea of the formation of the IM as early as December 2007 with 50 SIMI cadres participating in a jihadi training camp in Aluva, Kerala1. The plausible reason for men forming the IM could be many. First could be their personal experiences during the Gujarat riot of 2002. Other reasons could be the availability of funds for such activities in abundance in an underground network of terror financiers. Young men especially from UP also join these activities because of the availability of money in it vis-à-vis the absence of alternate employment opportunities. Terror activities also do not require too much of education or knowledge of the English language and yet the monetary benefit could be tremendous. Most of the arrested IM cadres were ill versed in English yet fluent in Hindi or Urdu.
Radical Ideology
Another important reason for young men taking up such subversive activities is the teaching of radical Islam which is easily available these days in the internet in any language. It is also a fact that the ideological roots of Islamic fundamentalism started in South Asia. History reveals that the founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan was Maulana Maududi (1903-1979), who in turn inspired men like Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) of Egypt to further spread it. Maududi’s Islamic liberation theology was an anti-thesis to the West attracting several young alienated Muslims to take up arms. Maududi in fact called for a universal jihad by all Muslims to fight Western barbarism providing an ideological framework for many Sunni Islamic fundamentalist groups.2 The SIMI narratives also reveal the influence of Maududi’s teachings and can be very influential on younger people.
Anger at mainstream media biased reporting is also cited as one of the causes by most IM arrested cadres. It is argued that the mainstream media turns a blind eye to Hindu fundamentalist groups while mostly depicting the fundamental nature of Islam.
Politics is seen as another cause of the radicalization of communities along religious lines. Political parties deliberately play on the religious nerve of communities in order to garner votes. This results in social fragmentation and a polarized politics which in turn leads to young men and women from the minority community viewing the Indian state as been non-representative of all its communities. Experts like B. Raman also argue that “Over the last few years, [Indian Islamist terrorists] have expanded the ambit of their grievances from purely domestic issues to global issues like the U.S.-led war in Iraq”.
Leadership and Cadres
The leadership of the IM is mainly traced to a man from Mumbai named Abdul Subhan Usman Qureshi, code name “Kasim” or “al-arbi” who signed the email manifestos sent by the IM before and after the multiple blasts last year. Qureshi’s background however refutes the theory that most IM cadres come from a deprived background or was schooled in a radical Madrassa. Qureshi studied at the Antonio DeSouza High School ran by a Christian missionary in Byculla, Mumbai and came from an economically privileged background. Qureshi was studying at Bharatiya Vidyapeeth in Navi Mumbai in 1992 when the Mumbai riots took place followed by the demolition of the Babri Masjid. In 1995, he obtained a diploma in industrial electronics and in 1996, a specialised software maintenance qualification from the CMS Institute in Marol. After obtaining these degrees, he joined Radical Solutions, an independent computer firm operating out of the Fort area in south Mumbai in November, 1996. In 1999, he changed jobs and joined Datamatics, a major computer firm in Mumbai. However, somewhere in these years, Qureshi was also harbouring more radical ideologies and in 2001, he left his job at the firm stating in his resignation letter that “I have decided to devote one complete year to pursue religious and spiritual matters.”3
According to Mumbai police intelligence, by 1998, Qureshi was one of the most committed SIMI activists going on to edit one of SIMI’s house-magazines, Islamic Voice, from New Delhi. By then, SIMI’s growing links with global Islamic movements like the Egyptian Brotherhood and Hamas were clear. Links with Bangladesh based HuJI and Pakistan based LeT were also coming to the fore. The radicalization process of SIMI became clearer by its 1999 Aurangabad convention when SIMI activists Mohammad Amir Shakeel Ahmad stated that “Islam is our nation, not India”. Qureshi was one of the principal organisers of SIMI’s last public conference in 2001 in which 25, 000 young people participated. He also succeeded in training hundreds of SIMI-IM cadres since 2007 and was the mastermind of the Delhi blasts undertaken by Mohammad Bashir, Mohammad Fakruddin and Saif Ahmad in September 2008.4 The main assault members of the IM include Atif Amin, who belongs to UP, and responsible for the Ahmedabad bombings, and Aftab Ansari’s lieutenant, Riaz Bhatkal, who is mainly responsible for the IM’s finance coming mostly from West Asia.5 Recently, an arrest in Pune of Anwar Ali Bagwaan, a MBBS graduate who was practicing in Hyderabad, revealed that he trained IM members on how to administer sedatives on persons they were planning to kidnap. According to another UP based IM cadre, Sadiq Shaikh, hailing from Azamgarh district and who was arrested on September 23, 2008, IM modules exist in Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Pune and Mumbai. Shaikh is a software professional who lived in Central Mumbai. Most arrested IM cadres are computer professionals and bomb makers. Among those arrested are Pune-based Mohammed Mansoor Asgar Peerbhoy and Mubin Kadar Shaikh, who jointly designed the IM logo and hacked into unsecured Wi-fi connections.
Another significant intelligence input from the UP police indicates that UP based IM cadre Fahim Arshad Ansari who was arrested in UP in February 2008 was in direct contact with the LeT in masterminding the Mumbai attacks of November 2008. Ansari studied at the Malad Municipal Secondary School in Mumbai, from where he graduated in 1989 but later on went onto Dubai. In 2005, another Hyderabadi, Sami Ahmad who was arrested by the police in 2006 revealed that he agreed to put Ansari in touch with the LeT then. The narrative of Ansari is equally revealing. He got in touch with LeT in Dubai and reached Pakistan in 2005 itself. In the LeT’s Muzzafarabad base, Ansari was put under Muzammil, the LeT commander in charge of operations in India. Ansari revealed during interrogation that he went through a 21-day Daura Aam (basic combat course), followed by a rigorous three-month advanced Daura Khaas (specialized guerrilla tactics) as a precursor to the Fidayeen attack on Mumbai6. He also learnt the use of maps, compasses and Global Positioning Systems (GPS). Mumbai was traced in the Google Earth maps and chillingly, Mumbai stock exchange, the Taj Mahal Hotel, railway station and airport were identified as target areas. Ansari arrived in India in 2007 and from November 28 to December 10, 2007, he stayed at the Sunlight Guest House in Mumbai, photographing and mapping the targets he had been shown prominent amongst them being the Chattrapati Shivaji Terminus and the Taj Mahal Hotel.7
Game Plan
The game plan of the IM is rather obvious. Despite its obvious LeT connections and training in Pakistan in sophisticated weaponry and guerrilla warfare, the IM wants to establish itself as an Indian based terror outfit. This is done for three reasons.
First, when the blame for terror attacks in India is pinned on the IM, then Indian security forces will have to concentrate their resources within India instead. This is done deliberately as Indian intelligence on the IM cellular networks is rather weak at present and most of the intelligence inputs are gathered from arrested IM cadres who might mislead the police.
Second, the LeT then can go blameless despite its obvious hand in training and providing weaponry. That will also offset any diplomatic pressure from India and the international community on Pakistan to act against the LeT in its territory.
Third, once its credibility is established, the IM can also easily target vulnerable minority youth base within India for direct recruitment into terror outfits in India and abroad.
Linkages
Though the IM cadres mostly come from India, their linkages with a global jihad are worrisome. Links to the LeT and the HuJi also portends the fact that cross border movement of cadres and arms appears rather easy with the help of false names and passports mostly of Pakistani origin. Ansari entered India in 2007 from Nepal with a false Pakistani passport no. BM 6809341, issued on November 1, 2007 in Pakistan with the pseudonym Hammad Hasan. The connection to HuJI is also alarming given the porous nature of India’s international border with Bangladesh. Hence, despite India increasing surveillance and border security at the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan in its Western border, motivated IM-LeT cadres like Qureshi or Ansari can easily enter India via Nepal and Bangladesh with the help of HuJI who is active in these areas. Insurgent groups from Assam like the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) also run camps in Bangladesh with covert connections with HuJI and could end up transporting terror cells into India. This calls for very strict fencing of India’s eastern borders and steep increase in border patrolling.
Countering the IM
A review of India’s ground forces for law enforcement and intelligence gathering last year reveal that India's police strength comes to 126 officers per 100,000 people while the standard United Nations norm is 222.9 The Intelligence Bureau (IB) has only 3,500 field operatives to monitor a country of 1.1 billion. Thereby, a boost in India’s security forces is a must along with modernization of the police forces and speedy undertaking of vital security sector reforms. Terror activities can be deterred if specific intelligence can zero in on different actors within a terror network. According to two distinguished terror experts, Paul Davies and Brian Jenkins, terror groups comprise of “leaders, lieutenants, financiers, logisticians, and other facilitators, foot soldiers, supporting population segments, and religious and otherwise ideological figures”10. Hence, it’s a long drawn process of planning and coordination before the final act of terror is unleashed. Terror activity is a process rather than the single final act that we see in terms of violence. The 9/11 terror process started in 1996 when Muhammad Atta began planning for the attack in Hamburg.11 Keeping this insight in mind, the IM terror process can be easily deterred if the state forces concentrate on finding the financiers, usually the least motivated amongst the other actors.
A counter against the IM ideology can also be undertaken at the social level. In February, 2008, theologians from 6,000 religious schools met at the Darul-Uloom Deoband, an influential, 150-year-old Islamic school in UP, to denounce terrorism as an activity against Islam. Deoband’s cooperation in fighting terror is a very positive way of handling the spread of radical ideologies within India. Also, vulnerable areas like Azamgarh in UP must be closely monitored and the local civil society encouraged to talk against terror activities. India has to construct a counter-narrative against terror which should have cooperation from all the nation’s stakeholders if the fight against terror is to be a unified and successful effort.
References
1. Pravin Swami, “New Insights into Indian Mujahideen Network”, The Hindu, October 08, 2008 at http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/02/stories/2008100256021200.htm (Accessed on October 09, 2008).2. Saba Naqvi, “Delhi Blasts: Mind of Terror” at http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20080929&fname=Cover+Story&sid=1&pn=2 (Accessed on October 17, 2008). 3. Pravin Swami, “The Hunt for the Indian Mujahideen’s al-arbi”, The Hindu, September 13, 2008 at http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/13/stories/2008091355761100.htm (Accessed on September 15, 2008). Also see Jeremy Page, “Abdul Subhan Qureshi, known as India’s Bin Laden named as bombing suspect” at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4759825.ece (Accessed on January 19, 2009).4. Namrata Goswami, “Averting Terror Attacks”, IDSA Strategic Comments, September 25, 2008 at http://www.idsa.in/publications/stratcomments/NamrataGoswami250908.htm (Accessed on September 29, 2008). 5. Pravin Swami, no.3. 6. Praveen Swami, “ Abortive Lashkar plot hold clues to Mumbai massacres”, The Hindu, December 08, 2008 at http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/08/stories/2008120859431000.htm (Accessed on December 10, 2008). 7. Ibid. 8. Tejinder Singh, “Lashkar-e-Taiba’s audacious siege of Mumbai” at http://www.neurope.eu/articles/90887.php (Accessed on December 29, 2008). 9. Madhur Singh, “India: The Terrorist Within”, July 27, 2008 at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1826950,00.html (Accessed on January 19, 2009).10. As quoted in Robert F. Trager, Dessislava P. Zagorcheva, “Deterring Terrorism: It Can be Done”, International Security, 30/3, Winter 2005-06, p. 9611. Ibid, pp. 87-123.
IDSA, Feb 3, 2009
In 2008, India faced multiple terror attacks on its cities across several states. These attacks resulted mostly in civilian deaths. The May 13, 2008 Jaipur bombings killed 80 civilians and injured more than 200, the Ahmedabad terrorist bombings of July 26, 2008, killed nearly 45 civilians and wounded 160, while the Bangalore bombs the previous day killed one person and wounded six. The Delhi bombings of September 13, 2008 killed 30 civilians and injured nearly 90 while the Guwahati blasts of October 30 the same year killed 83 civilians and injured nearly 300. In the Guwahati attacks, a group, identifying itself as Islamic Security Force (Indian Mujahideen), originally claimed responsibility via an email. Significantly, in all the other attacks, a hitherto unknown group calling itself the Indian Mujahideen (IM) claimed responsibility, thereby shifting the blame from more established terror groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM). In an email sent five minutes before the Ahmedabad bombings, the IM requested the LeT not to claim responsibility for the bombings. A deeper scrutiny into such behaviour by terrorist outfits reveal that newly established terror groups carry out attacks at short intervals not only to establish their deadly credibility in the world of terror networks but also to attract sponsors at home and abroad for their activities.
The IM’s frequent bomb blasts in Indian cities except perhaps Mumbai where the direct involvement of the LeT is established, begs answers to the question: who is the IM, what are their motives and where do they actually come from?
The Indian Mujahideen: Tracing the Roots and the Causes
According to Indian intelligence, the IM is not a well knit organization with a hierarchical structure like other more established groups like the LeT. Rather, it is a loose network of Islamic organizations which includes the Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), certain individuals from the state of Uttar Pradesh with alleged links with the Harkat ul-Jihad-e-Islami (HuJI), and the terror cartel of Aftab Ansari. Key SIMI members like Qayamuddin Kapadia, Usman Agarbattiwala and Sajid Mansuri started supporting the idea of the formation of the IM as early as December 2007 with 50 SIMI cadres participating in a jihadi training camp in Aluva, Kerala1. The plausible reason for men forming the IM could be many. First could be their personal experiences during the Gujarat riot of 2002. Other reasons could be the availability of funds for such activities in abundance in an underground network of terror financiers. Young men especially from UP also join these activities because of the availability of money in it vis-à-vis the absence of alternate employment opportunities. Terror activities also do not require too much of education or knowledge of the English language and yet the monetary benefit could be tremendous. Most of the arrested IM cadres were ill versed in English yet fluent in Hindi or Urdu.
Radical Ideology
Another important reason for young men taking up such subversive activities is the teaching of radical Islam which is easily available these days in the internet in any language. It is also a fact that the ideological roots of Islamic fundamentalism started in South Asia. History reveals that the founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan was Maulana Maududi (1903-1979), who in turn inspired men like Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) of Egypt to further spread it. Maududi’s Islamic liberation theology was an anti-thesis to the West attracting several young alienated Muslims to take up arms. Maududi in fact called for a universal jihad by all Muslims to fight Western barbarism providing an ideological framework for many Sunni Islamic fundamentalist groups.2 The SIMI narratives also reveal the influence of Maududi’s teachings and can be very influential on younger people.
Anger at mainstream media biased reporting is also cited as one of the causes by most IM arrested cadres. It is argued that the mainstream media turns a blind eye to Hindu fundamentalist groups while mostly depicting the fundamental nature of Islam.
Politics is seen as another cause of the radicalization of communities along religious lines. Political parties deliberately play on the religious nerve of communities in order to garner votes. This results in social fragmentation and a polarized politics which in turn leads to young men and women from the minority community viewing the Indian state as been non-representative of all its communities. Experts like B. Raman also argue that “Over the last few years, [Indian Islamist terrorists] have expanded the ambit of their grievances from purely domestic issues to global issues like the U.S.-led war in Iraq”.
Leadership and Cadres
The leadership of the IM is mainly traced to a man from Mumbai named Abdul Subhan Usman Qureshi, code name “Kasim” or “al-arbi” who signed the email manifestos sent by the IM before and after the multiple blasts last year. Qureshi’s background however refutes the theory that most IM cadres come from a deprived background or was schooled in a radical Madrassa. Qureshi studied at the Antonio DeSouza High School ran by a Christian missionary in Byculla, Mumbai and came from an economically privileged background. Qureshi was studying at Bharatiya Vidyapeeth in Navi Mumbai in 1992 when the Mumbai riots took place followed by the demolition of the Babri Masjid. In 1995, he obtained a diploma in industrial electronics and in 1996, a specialised software maintenance qualification from the CMS Institute in Marol. After obtaining these degrees, he joined Radical Solutions, an independent computer firm operating out of the Fort area in south Mumbai in November, 1996. In 1999, he changed jobs and joined Datamatics, a major computer firm in Mumbai. However, somewhere in these years, Qureshi was also harbouring more radical ideologies and in 2001, he left his job at the firm stating in his resignation letter that “I have decided to devote one complete year to pursue religious and spiritual matters.”3
According to Mumbai police intelligence, by 1998, Qureshi was one of the most committed SIMI activists going on to edit one of SIMI’s house-magazines, Islamic Voice, from New Delhi. By then, SIMI’s growing links with global Islamic movements like the Egyptian Brotherhood and Hamas were clear. Links with Bangladesh based HuJI and Pakistan based LeT were also coming to the fore. The radicalization process of SIMI became clearer by its 1999 Aurangabad convention when SIMI activists Mohammad Amir Shakeel Ahmad stated that “Islam is our nation, not India”. Qureshi was one of the principal organisers of SIMI’s last public conference in 2001 in which 25, 000 young people participated. He also succeeded in training hundreds of SIMI-IM cadres since 2007 and was the mastermind of the Delhi blasts undertaken by Mohammad Bashir, Mohammad Fakruddin and Saif Ahmad in September 2008.4 The main assault members of the IM include Atif Amin, who belongs to UP, and responsible for the Ahmedabad bombings, and Aftab Ansari’s lieutenant, Riaz Bhatkal, who is mainly responsible for the IM’s finance coming mostly from West Asia.5 Recently, an arrest in Pune of Anwar Ali Bagwaan, a MBBS graduate who was practicing in Hyderabad, revealed that he trained IM members on how to administer sedatives on persons they were planning to kidnap. According to another UP based IM cadre, Sadiq Shaikh, hailing from Azamgarh district and who was arrested on September 23, 2008, IM modules exist in Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Pune and Mumbai. Shaikh is a software professional who lived in Central Mumbai. Most arrested IM cadres are computer professionals and bomb makers. Among those arrested are Pune-based Mohammed Mansoor Asgar Peerbhoy and Mubin Kadar Shaikh, who jointly designed the IM logo and hacked into unsecured Wi-fi connections.
Another significant intelligence input from the UP police indicates that UP based IM cadre Fahim Arshad Ansari who was arrested in UP in February 2008 was in direct contact with the LeT in masterminding the Mumbai attacks of November 2008. Ansari studied at the Malad Municipal Secondary School in Mumbai, from where he graduated in 1989 but later on went onto Dubai. In 2005, another Hyderabadi, Sami Ahmad who was arrested by the police in 2006 revealed that he agreed to put Ansari in touch with the LeT then. The narrative of Ansari is equally revealing. He got in touch with LeT in Dubai and reached Pakistan in 2005 itself. In the LeT’s Muzzafarabad base, Ansari was put under Muzammil, the LeT commander in charge of operations in India. Ansari revealed during interrogation that he went through a 21-day Daura Aam (basic combat course), followed by a rigorous three-month advanced Daura Khaas (specialized guerrilla tactics) as a precursor to the Fidayeen attack on Mumbai6. He also learnt the use of maps, compasses and Global Positioning Systems (GPS). Mumbai was traced in the Google Earth maps and chillingly, Mumbai stock exchange, the Taj Mahal Hotel, railway station and airport were identified as target areas. Ansari arrived in India in 2007 and from November 28 to December 10, 2007, he stayed at the Sunlight Guest House in Mumbai, photographing and mapping the targets he had been shown prominent amongst them being the Chattrapati Shivaji Terminus and the Taj Mahal Hotel.7
Game Plan
The game plan of the IM is rather obvious. Despite its obvious LeT connections and training in Pakistan in sophisticated weaponry and guerrilla warfare, the IM wants to establish itself as an Indian based terror outfit. This is done for three reasons.
First, when the blame for terror attacks in India is pinned on the IM, then Indian security forces will have to concentrate their resources within India instead. This is done deliberately as Indian intelligence on the IM cellular networks is rather weak at present and most of the intelligence inputs are gathered from arrested IM cadres who might mislead the police.
Second, the LeT then can go blameless despite its obvious hand in training and providing weaponry. That will also offset any diplomatic pressure from India and the international community on Pakistan to act against the LeT in its territory.
Third, once its credibility is established, the IM can also easily target vulnerable minority youth base within India for direct recruitment into terror outfits in India and abroad.
Linkages
Though the IM cadres mostly come from India, their linkages with a global jihad are worrisome. Links to the LeT and the HuJi also portends the fact that cross border movement of cadres and arms appears rather easy with the help of false names and passports mostly of Pakistani origin. Ansari entered India in 2007 from Nepal with a false Pakistani passport no. BM 6809341, issued on November 1, 2007 in Pakistan with the pseudonym Hammad Hasan. The connection to HuJI is also alarming given the porous nature of India’s international border with Bangladesh. Hence, despite India increasing surveillance and border security at the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan in its Western border, motivated IM-LeT cadres like Qureshi or Ansari can easily enter India via Nepal and Bangladesh with the help of HuJI who is active in these areas. Insurgent groups from Assam like the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) also run camps in Bangladesh with covert connections with HuJI and could end up transporting terror cells into India. This calls for very strict fencing of India’s eastern borders and steep increase in border patrolling.
Countering the IM
A review of India’s ground forces for law enforcement and intelligence gathering last year reveal that India's police strength comes to 126 officers per 100,000 people while the standard United Nations norm is 222.9 The Intelligence Bureau (IB) has only 3,500 field operatives to monitor a country of 1.1 billion. Thereby, a boost in India’s security forces is a must along with modernization of the police forces and speedy undertaking of vital security sector reforms. Terror activities can be deterred if specific intelligence can zero in on different actors within a terror network. According to two distinguished terror experts, Paul Davies and Brian Jenkins, terror groups comprise of “leaders, lieutenants, financiers, logisticians, and other facilitators, foot soldiers, supporting population segments, and religious and otherwise ideological figures”10. Hence, it’s a long drawn process of planning and coordination before the final act of terror is unleashed. Terror activity is a process rather than the single final act that we see in terms of violence. The 9/11 terror process started in 1996 when Muhammad Atta began planning for the attack in Hamburg.11 Keeping this insight in mind, the IM terror process can be easily deterred if the state forces concentrate on finding the financiers, usually the least motivated amongst the other actors.
A counter against the IM ideology can also be undertaken at the social level. In February, 2008, theologians from 6,000 religious schools met at the Darul-Uloom Deoband, an influential, 150-year-old Islamic school in UP, to denounce terrorism as an activity against Islam. Deoband’s cooperation in fighting terror is a very positive way of handling the spread of radical ideologies within India. Also, vulnerable areas like Azamgarh in UP must be closely monitored and the local civil society encouraged to talk against terror activities. India has to construct a counter-narrative against terror which should have cooperation from all the nation’s stakeholders if the fight against terror is to be a unified and successful effort.
References
1. Pravin Swami, “New Insights into Indian Mujahideen Network”, The Hindu, October 08, 2008 at http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/02/stories/2008100256021200.htm (Accessed on October 09, 2008).2. Saba Naqvi, “Delhi Blasts: Mind of Terror” at http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20080929&fname=Cover+Story&sid=1&pn=2 (Accessed on October 17, 2008). 3. Pravin Swami, “The Hunt for the Indian Mujahideen’s al-arbi”, The Hindu, September 13, 2008 at http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/13/stories/2008091355761100.htm (Accessed on September 15, 2008). Also see Jeremy Page, “Abdul Subhan Qureshi, known as India’s Bin Laden named as bombing suspect” at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4759825.ece (Accessed on January 19, 2009).4. Namrata Goswami, “Averting Terror Attacks”, IDSA Strategic Comments, September 25, 2008 at http://www.idsa.in/publications/stratcomments/NamrataGoswami250908.htm (Accessed on September 29, 2008). 5. Pravin Swami, no.3. 6. Praveen Swami, “ Abortive Lashkar plot hold clues to Mumbai massacres”, The Hindu, December 08, 2008 at http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/08/stories/2008120859431000.htm (Accessed on December 10, 2008). 7. Ibid. 8. Tejinder Singh, “Lashkar-e-Taiba’s audacious siege of Mumbai” at http://www.neurope.eu/articles/90887.php (Accessed on December 29, 2008). 9. Madhur Singh, “India: The Terrorist Within”, July 27, 2008 at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1826950,00.html (Accessed on January 19, 2009).10. As quoted in Robert F. Trager, Dessislava P. Zagorcheva, “Deterring Terrorism: It Can be Done”, International Security, 30/3, Winter 2005-06, p. 9611. Ibid, pp. 87-123.
China Policy Change?
China Policy Change? By Dan Blumenthal
AEI, Tuesday, February 3, 2009
As the first U.S. president to come of age after the Cold War, Barack Obama has an opportunity to dispose of the Cold War baggage that has guided U.S.-Chinese relations for the past thirty years. He should pursue a renewed policy that places increased emphasis on reforming China's human rights record, trade practices, and military pursuits, while strengthening relationships with Asia's diverse democracies.
Regarding China policy, President Obama may really offer change we can believe in. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's tough words about China's manipulation of its currency may be a harbinger of change in America's increasingly sclerotic approach to the People's Republic.
President Obama is not part of the generation that shaped our current China policy. He was graduating high school when Washington and Beijing finalized the terms of diplomatic normalization in 1979. Much of the deal had been worked out in secret, and set Washington on a 30-year path that would subordinate concerns about Taiwan, political reform in China, unfair trading practices and even China's military ambitions to diplomatic engagement at any cost. While the architects of China policy saw China through a Cold War prism, Mr. Obama is the first American president who came of age as the Cold War was receding. For many in Obama's generation, the massacre of Chinese protesters at Tiananmen Square is a more powerful symbol of Chinese leadership than President Nixon's breakthrough visit to Beijing.
It may have been reasonable for Cold Warriors to overlook Washington's many differences with Beijing when both countries were trying to contain the Soviet Union, but that rationale has obviously disappeared. Since the Soviet Union collapsed, the Sino-U.S. relationship has been a partnership in search of a purpose. Americans of Mr. Obama's generation wonder why Washington looks askance at China's poor human-rights record, intimidation of democratic Taiwan, irresponsible trade practices, and alarming military build-up.
Moreover, the president's experience in another Asian country, Indonesia, will undoubtedly help him understand that Asia is more than just China, and that Asians are quite capable of governing themselves under democratic rule. The young president will be less beholden to past legacies that define our China policy. He could start by questioning a policy that gives China a pass on its human-rights practices at home and irresponsible polices abroad. He can also puzzle over why China so often sets the policy agenda in a region made up of so many diverse and successful democratic countries.
A less Sino-centric Asia policy would be good for the United States, the rest of Asia and ultimately the Chinese people themselves. China is the only Asian power that is not a democracy. The United States benefits from deep and enduring cooperation with Australia, Japan, South Korea, India, Indonesia and Taiwan, precisely because these relationships are embedded in common values and interests.
China is more than capable of joining this club. Many Chinese people yearn for a more just and open system that acts responsibly on the world stage. If Mr. Obama changes America's "engagement at any price" policy, he will help the Chinese people fulfill their own aspirations at the same time as he advances American interests.
Obviously the president should not end America's engagement with China--that would be both imprudent and impossible. But he can change the way Washington engages. Mr. Obama can directly speak to the tech-savvy Chinese people--among whom he is very popular--about universal notions of liberty, justice and transparency.
At the same time, he can carry out America's official business with the Chinese Communist Party, urging a more balanced trade policy, cooperation on energy and the environment and cooperation on nonproliferation.
But he need not indulge in ritualized happy talk about a Sino-American relationship that is still fraught with problems. Neither should he repeat his predecessors' practice of overstating the relationship's modest successes. Speaking truthfully about a relationship characterized by economic interdependence on the one hand, and concerns about China's polices on the other, will set the relationship on a firmer course.
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama could strengthen relationships with Asia's diverse democracies from Jakarta to Taipei to Delhi. All of Washington's allies want to benefit from trade with China, but at the same time all are worried that an autocratic China will one day dominate Asia. In turn, as China sees Washington net together a web of Asia's democracies, China's many reformers could hold their government to the same standards of behavior as their democratic neighbors.
As our first president who came of age after the Cold War, Mr. Obama has an opportunity to dispose of the Cold War baggage that still guides our China policy. If Mr. Obama sides with the Chinese people pushing for a just and open society he will hear a billion more "yes we cans."
AEI, Tuesday, February 3, 2009
As the first U.S. president to come of age after the Cold War, Barack Obama has an opportunity to dispose of the Cold War baggage that has guided U.S.-Chinese relations for the past thirty years. He should pursue a renewed policy that places increased emphasis on reforming China's human rights record, trade practices, and military pursuits, while strengthening relationships with Asia's diverse democracies.
Regarding China policy, President Obama may really offer change we can believe in. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's tough words about China's manipulation of its currency may be a harbinger of change in America's increasingly sclerotic approach to the People's Republic.
President Obama is not part of the generation that shaped our current China policy. He was graduating high school when Washington and Beijing finalized the terms of diplomatic normalization in 1979. Much of the deal had been worked out in secret, and set Washington on a 30-year path that would subordinate concerns about Taiwan, political reform in China, unfair trading practices and even China's military ambitions to diplomatic engagement at any cost. While the architects of China policy saw China through a Cold War prism, Mr. Obama is the first American president who came of age as the Cold War was receding. For many in Obama's generation, the massacre of Chinese protesters at Tiananmen Square is a more powerful symbol of Chinese leadership than President Nixon's breakthrough visit to Beijing.
It may have been reasonable for Cold Warriors to overlook Washington's many differences with Beijing when both countries were trying to contain the Soviet Union, but that rationale has obviously disappeared. Since the Soviet Union collapsed, the Sino-U.S. relationship has been a partnership in search of a purpose. Americans of Mr. Obama's generation wonder why Washington looks askance at China's poor human-rights record, intimidation of democratic Taiwan, irresponsible trade practices, and alarming military build-up.
Moreover, the president's experience in another Asian country, Indonesia, will undoubtedly help him understand that Asia is more than just China, and that Asians are quite capable of governing themselves under democratic rule. The young president will be less beholden to past legacies that define our China policy. He could start by questioning a policy that gives China a pass on its human-rights practices at home and irresponsible polices abroad. He can also puzzle over why China so often sets the policy agenda in a region made up of so many diverse and successful democratic countries.
A less Sino-centric Asia policy would be good for the United States, the rest of Asia and ultimately the Chinese people themselves. China is the only Asian power that is not a democracy. The United States benefits from deep and enduring cooperation with Australia, Japan, South Korea, India, Indonesia and Taiwan, precisely because these relationships are embedded in common values and interests.
China is more than capable of joining this club. Many Chinese people yearn for a more just and open system that acts responsibly on the world stage. If Mr. Obama changes America's "engagement at any price" policy, he will help the Chinese people fulfill their own aspirations at the same time as he advances American interests.
Obviously the president should not end America's engagement with China--that would be both imprudent and impossible. But he can change the way Washington engages. Mr. Obama can directly speak to the tech-savvy Chinese people--among whom he is very popular--about universal notions of liberty, justice and transparency.
At the same time, he can carry out America's official business with the Chinese Communist Party, urging a more balanced trade policy, cooperation on energy and the environment and cooperation on nonproliferation.
But he need not indulge in ritualized happy talk about a Sino-American relationship that is still fraught with problems. Neither should he repeat his predecessors' practice of overstating the relationship's modest successes. Speaking truthfully about a relationship characterized by economic interdependence on the one hand, and concerns about China's polices on the other, will set the relationship on a firmer course.
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama could strengthen relationships with Asia's diverse democracies from Jakarta to Taipei to Delhi. All of Washington's allies want to benefit from trade with China, but at the same time all are worried that an autocratic China will one day dominate Asia. In turn, as China sees Washington net together a web of Asia's democracies, China's many reformers could hold their government to the same standards of behavior as their democratic neighbors.
As our first president who came of age after the Cold War, Mr. Obama has an opportunity to dispose of the Cold War baggage that still guides our China policy. If Mr. Obama sides with the Chinese people pushing for a just and open society he will hear a billion more "yes we cans."
Iraq Is Obama's Mideast Pillar
Iraq Is Obama's Mideast Pillar, by Bret Stephens
As an Arab democracy, it's a model for what we would like the rest of the Arab world to become.
WSJ, Feb 03, 2009
Imagine yourself as Barack Obama, gazing at a map of the greater Middle East and wondering how, and where, the United States can best make a fresh start in the region.
Your gaze wanders rightward to Pakistan, where preventing war with India, economic collapse or the Talibanization of half the country would be achievement enough. Next door is Afghanistan, where you are committing more troops, all so you can prop up a government that is by turns hapless and corrupt.
Next there is Iran, drawing ever closer to its bomb. You're mulling the shape of a grand bargain, but Israel is talking pre-emption. Speaking of Israel, you're girding for a contentious relationship with the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu, the all-but certain next prime minister.
What about Israel's neighbors? Palestine is riven between feckless moderates and pitiless fanatics. Lebanon and Hezbollah are nearly synonyms. You'd love to nudge Syria out of Iran's orbit, but Bashar Assad isn't inclined. In Egypt, a succession crisis looms the moment its octogenarian president retires to his grave.
And then there is Iraq, the country in the middle that you would have just as soon banished from sight. How's it doing? Perplexingly well.
The final tallies for Saturday's provincial elections aren't in yet. But a few conclusions are warranted. This time, the election seems to have been mostly free of fraud; four years ago, it was beset by fraud. This time, there was almost no violence; four years ago, there were 299 terrorist attacks. This time, 40% of voters in the overwhelmingly Sunni province of Anbar went to the polls; four years ago, turnout was 2%.
In 2005, Iraqis voted their sectarian preferences. Now sectarian parties are out of fashion. "Those candidates who campaigned under the banner of religion should be rejected," Abdul Kareem told Al Jazeera. "They corrupted the name of religion because they are notorious for being thieves. Religion is not politics." Mr. Kareem is a Shiite cleric.
Also out of fashion: Iran, previously thought to be the jolly inheritor of our Iraq misadventure. In 2005, Tehran's political minions in the Iranian-funded Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq -- itself the funder of the dreaded Badr brigade -- swept the field. Candidates loyal to anti-American fire-breather Moqtada al-Sadr also did well. This time, Sadr didn't even dare to field his own slate, and early reports are that the Supreme Council was trounced.
What's in fashion, electorally speaking, are secular parties, as well as the moderately religious Dawa Party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. This wasn't supposed to happen. The Palestinian parliamentary election of 2006 that put Hamas in power was taken in the West as proof that Arab democracy was destined to yield illiberal results. Saturday's election suggests otherwise, assuming there is a structure that guarantees that Islamists must stand for election more than once.
What about security? A month ago, Gen. Ray Odierno predicted that "al Qaeda will try to exploit the elections because they don't want them to happen. So I think they will attempt to create some violence and uncertainty in the population." But al Qaeda was a no-show on Saturday. Meanwhile, more U.S. soldiers died in accidents (12) than in combat (4) for the month of January. The war is over.
So what are you going to do about the one bright spot on your map -- an Arab country that is genuinely democratic, increasingly secular and secure, anti-Iranian and, all-in-all, on your side? So far, your only idea seems to bid to it good luck and bring most of the troops home in time for Super Bowl Sunday, 2010.
That's a campaign promise, but it isn't a foreign policy. Foreign policy begins with the recognition that Iraq has now moved from the liability side of the U.S. ledger to the asset side. As an Arab democracy, it is a model for what we would like the rest of the Arab world to become. As a Shiite democracy, it is a reproach to Iranian theocracy. As the country at the heart of the Middle East, it is ideally located to be a bulwark against Tehran's encroachments.
There was a time when American strategists understood the role countries could play as "pillars" of a regional strategy. Israel has been a pillar since at least 1967; Iran was one until 1979. Turkey, too, is a pillar, but it is fast slipping away, as is Egypt.
Within the Arab world, Iraq is the only country that can now fulfill that role. For that it will need military and economic aid, and lots of it. Better it than futile causes like Palestine, or missions impossible like winning over the mullahs. With Saturday's poll, Iraq has earned a powerful claim to our friendship.
Yes, you'd rather look elsewhere on the map for a Mideast legacy. But Iraq is where you'll find it. Don't miss your chance.
As an Arab democracy, it's a model for what we would like the rest of the Arab world to become.
WSJ, Feb 03, 2009
Imagine yourself as Barack Obama, gazing at a map of the greater Middle East and wondering how, and where, the United States can best make a fresh start in the region.
Your gaze wanders rightward to Pakistan, where preventing war with India, economic collapse or the Talibanization of half the country would be achievement enough. Next door is Afghanistan, where you are committing more troops, all so you can prop up a government that is by turns hapless and corrupt.
Next there is Iran, drawing ever closer to its bomb. You're mulling the shape of a grand bargain, but Israel is talking pre-emption. Speaking of Israel, you're girding for a contentious relationship with the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu, the all-but certain next prime minister.
What about Israel's neighbors? Palestine is riven between feckless moderates and pitiless fanatics. Lebanon and Hezbollah are nearly synonyms. You'd love to nudge Syria out of Iran's orbit, but Bashar Assad isn't inclined. In Egypt, a succession crisis looms the moment its octogenarian president retires to his grave.
And then there is Iraq, the country in the middle that you would have just as soon banished from sight. How's it doing? Perplexingly well.
The final tallies for Saturday's provincial elections aren't in yet. But a few conclusions are warranted. This time, the election seems to have been mostly free of fraud; four years ago, it was beset by fraud. This time, there was almost no violence; four years ago, there were 299 terrorist attacks. This time, 40% of voters in the overwhelmingly Sunni province of Anbar went to the polls; four years ago, turnout was 2%.
In 2005, Iraqis voted their sectarian preferences. Now sectarian parties are out of fashion. "Those candidates who campaigned under the banner of religion should be rejected," Abdul Kareem told Al Jazeera. "They corrupted the name of religion because they are notorious for being thieves. Religion is not politics." Mr. Kareem is a Shiite cleric.
Also out of fashion: Iran, previously thought to be the jolly inheritor of our Iraq misadventure. In 2005, Tehran's political minions in the Iranian-funded Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq -- itself the funder of the dreaded Badr brigade -- swept the field. Candidates loyal to anti-American fire-breather Moqtada al-Sadr also did well. This time, Sadr didn't even dare to field his own slate, and early reports are that the Supreme Council was trounced.
What's in fashion, electorally speaking, are secular parties, as well as the moderately religious Dawa Party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. This wasn't supposed to happen. The Palestinian parliamentary election of 2006 that put Hamas in power was taken in the West as proof that Arab democracy was destined to yield illiberal results. Saturday's election suggests otherwise, assuming there is a structure that guarantees that Islamists must stand for election more than once.
What about security? A month ago, Gen. Ray Odierno predicted that "al Qaeda will try to exploit the elections because they don't want them to happen. So I think they will attempt to create some violence and uncertainty in the population." But al Qaeda was a no-show on Saturday. Meanwhile, more U.S. soldiers died in accidents (12) than in combat (4) for the month of January. The war is over.
So what are you going to do about the one bright spot on your map -- an Arab country that is genuinely democratic, increasingly secular and secure, anti-Iranian and, all-in-all, on your side? So far, your only idea seems to bid to it good luck and bring most of the troops home in time for Super Bowl Sunday, 2010.
That's a campaign promise, but it isn't a foreign policy. Foreign policy begins with the recognition that Iraq has now moved from the liability side of the U.S. ledger to the asset side. As an Arab democracy, it is a model for what we would like the rest of the Arab world to become. As a Shiite democracy, it is a reproach to Iranian theocracy. As the country at the heart of the Middle East, it is ideally located to be a bulwark against Tehran's encroachments.
There was a time when American strategists understood the role countries could play as "pillars" of a regional strategy. Israel has been a pillar since at least 1967; Iran was one until 1979. Turkey, too, is a pillar, but it is fast slipping away, as is Egypt.
Within the Arab world, Iraq is the only country that can now fulfill that role. For that it will need military and economic aid, and lots of it. Better it than futile causes like Palestine, or missions impossible like winning over the mullahs. With Saturday's poll, Iraq has earned a powerful claim to our friendship.
Yes, you'd rather look elsewhere on the map for a Mideast legacy. But Iraq is where you'll find it. Don't miss your chance.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Offshore energy development moves forward - for now
We were the change! Offshore energy development moves forward.
IER, February 2, 2009
With all of the news about the inauguration of President Obama, you probably missed a very good piece of energy news—the Department of Interior is working to open up 31 offshore areas for energy exploration and development. This is the first time in over 25 years that many of these areas will be opened for energy development. Your efforts were instrumental in pushing the Federal government to open up more areas for energy exploration!
Last summer IER was the first group to call on President Bush to end the moratorium on offshore energy exploration and development. IER’s efforts, the high price of oil, coupled with the will of the American people led President Bush to tear up the moratorium on offshore energy development and start the process for increased energy access.
After Bush’s actions, the drop in oil prices was immediate and dramatic. The Bush Administration put out the proposed rule and over 30,000 people used IER’s website to send comments to the Administration in favor of increased energy development. Your comments gave the Administration the support it needed to propose the new plan for offshore energy exploration.
Unlike many of the economic “stimulus” proposals being considered by Washington politicians, energy jobs are real jobs. Responsibly developing America’s abundant but off-limits domestic energy supply would create 160,000 new jobs alone, generating $1.7 trillion for local, state and federal tax revenue, and providing a major shot in the arm to a flagging national economy.
But the Obama Administration does not necessarily have to allow increased access to America’s vast domestic energy resources. Supporters of President Obama are already lining up against increased domestic energy access. Environmental groups have already sued to stop energy exploration in the Atlantic.
President Obama in his inaugural address stated that “We will not apologize for our way of life.” We completely agree. We hope President Obama will fully embrace American energy, produced by Americans, for Americans. Many of his supporters will continue to oppose the use of America’s energy resources, but as Obama noted in his inaugural address, “the time has come to set aside childish things.”
If you support increased domestic energy production, please click here and send a message to the Administration that you support America and America’s energy resources.
IER, February 2, 2009
With all of the news about the inauguration of President Obama, you probably missed a very good piece of energy news—the Department of Interior is working to open up 31 offshore areas for energy exploration and development. This is the first time in over 25 years that many of these areas will be opened for energy development. Your efforts were instrumental in pushing the Federal government to open up more areas for energy exploration!
Last summer IER was the first group to call on President Bush to end the moratorium on offshore energy exploration and development. IER’s efforts, the high price of oil, coupled with the will of the American people led President Bush to tear up the moratorium on offshore energy development and start the process for increased energy access.
After Bush’s actions, the drop in oil prices was immediate and dramatic. The Bush Administration put out the proposed rule and over 30,000 people used IER’s website to send comments to the Administration in favor of increased energy development. Your comments gave the Administration the support it needed to propose the new plan for offshore energy exploration.
Unlike many of the economic “stimulus” proposals being considered by Washington politicians, energy jobs are real jobs. Responsibly developing America’s abundant but off-limits domestic energy supply would create 160,000 new jobs alone, generating $1.7 trillion for local, state and federal tax revenue, and providing a major shot in the arm to a flagging national economy.
But the Obama Administration does not necessarily have to allow increased access to America’s vast domestic energy resources. Supporters of President Obama are already lining up against increased domestic energy access. Environmental groups have already sued to stop energy exploration in the Atlantic.
President Obama in his inaugural address stated that “We will not apologize for our way of life.” We completely agree. We hope President Obama will fully embrace American energy, produced by Americans, for Americans. Many of his supporters will continue to oppose the use of America’s energy resources, but as Obama noted in his inaugural address, “the time has come to set aside childish things.”
If you support increased domestic energy production, please click here and send a message to the Administration that you support America and America’s energy resources.
Ban Congratulates Iraqis on Violence-Free Provincial Elections
Ban Congratulates Iraqis on Violence-Free Provincial Elections
UN, New York, Feb 2 2009 3:10PM
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today congratulated the people of Iraq for “strongly exercising” their right to vote in provincial elections that took place over the weekend, in an atmosphere that he called “admirably free of violence.”
“He was deeply impressed by their resolve to participate in a process that should strengthen Iraq’s democracy and further the cause of national reconciliation,” according to a <"statement'>http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=3694">statement issued by Mr. Ban’s spokesperson, which added that the Secretary-General also commended Iraqi’s determination to ensure a credible electoral process.
Saturday’s provincial, or governate, elections – the first polls held in the strife-torn country in four years – took place in 14 of Iraq’s 18 provinces, with elections for the provinces of the Kurdistan Region and the Kirkuk Governorate to take place at a later stage.
Some 14,467 candidates vied for posts in 6,471 polling centres. In addition, there were 84,000 Iraqi observers, 420,000 party agents and around 400 international observers.
In his statement, Mr. Ban commended Iraqi’s determination to ensure a transparent and credible process through such massive monitoring and other measures, praising the work of the Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) and the staff involved at each step of the process.
He also expressed satisfaction that the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (<"http://www.uniraq.org/">UNAMI) was “able to make helpful contributions to the process, including through its technical assistance,” and pledged UN support for further stages of the process.
The next stage of the election process includes the adjudication of formal complaints before results can be certified.
While noting that provisional results have yet to be announced, Staffan de Mistura, Mr. Ban’s Special Representative in Iraq, said that the UN is satisfied that the elections were conducted smoothly both procedurally and in terms of security
The polls “mark another important step in Iraq’s recovery,” he added.
“The United Nations was present in all 14 governorates and I myself visited polling centres in Anbar, Najaf and Baghdad,” he said. “I was very pleased to see Iraqis from all communities exercising their right to vote, particularly Iraqi women who turned out in large numbers.”
UNAMI, which Mr. de Mistura heads, has provided the Commission with advice and assistance on a broad range of electoral issues, including a nationwide revamping of the voter registry in order to increase accuracy and reduce the potential for multiple voting.
In a <"Newsmaker'>http://www.un.org/apps/news/newsmakers.asp?NewsID=9">Newsmaker interview with the UN News Centre released today, the Special Representative said that these elections were an important test for Iraq, since they are the first conducted by the Iraqis themselves, with UN assistance, and they are the first in which Sunnis voted in substantial numbers, among other factors.
In addition, he said, they are the first elections that will affect the day-to-day lives of Iraqi voters.
“These elections are about real power, in the sense that they are going to nominate the people who are on the ground, in the various district councils, and will be deciding on electricity, water, budget and jobs,” he said.
Feb 2 2009 3:10PM
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
UN, New York, Feb 2 2009 3:10PM
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today congratulated the people of Iraq for “strongly exercising” their right to vote in provincial elections that took place over the weekend, in an atmosphere that he called “admirably free of violence.”
“He was deeply impressed by their resolve to participate in a process that should strengthen Iraq’s democracy and further the cause of national reconciliation,” according to a <"statement'>http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=3694">statement issued by Mr. Ban’s spokesperson, which added that the Secretary-General also commended Iraqi’s determination to ensure a credible electoral process.
Saturday’s provincial, or governate, elections – the first polls held in the strife-torn country in four years – took place in 14 of Iraq’s 18 provinces, with elections for the provinces of the Kurdistan Region and the Kirkuk Governorate to take place at a later stage.
Some 14,467 candidates vied for posts in 6,471 polling centres. In addition, there were 84,000 Iraqi observers, 420,000 party agents and around 400 international observers.
In his statement, Mr. Ban commended Iraqi’s determination to ensure a transparent and credible process through such massive monitoring and other measures, praising the work of the Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) and the staff involved at each step of the process.
He also expressed satisfaction that the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (<"http://www.uniraq.org/">UNAMI) was “able to make helpful contributions to the process, including through its technical assistance,” and pledged UN support for further stages of the process.
The next stage of the election process includes the adjudication of formal complaints before results can be certified.
While noting that provisional results have yet to be announced, Staffan de Mistura, Mr. Ban’s Special Representative in Iraq, said that the UN is satisfied that the elections were conducted smoothly both procedurally and in terms of security
The polls “mark another important step in Iraq’s recovery,” he added.
“The United Nations was present in all 14 governorates and I myself visited polling centres in Anbar, Najaf and Baghdad,” he said. “I was very pleased to see Iraqis from all communities exercising their right to vote, particularly Iraqi women who turned out in large numbers.”
UNAMI, which Mr. de Mistura heads, has provided the Commission with advice and assistance on a broad range of electoral issues, including a nationwide revamping of the voter registry in order to increase accuracy and reduce the potential for multiple voting.
In a <"Newsmaker'>http://www.un.org/apps/news/newsmakers.asp?NewsID=9">Newsmaker interview with the UN News Centre released today, the Special Representative said that these elections were an important test for Iraq, since they are the first conducted by the Iraqis themselves, with UN assistance, and they are the first in which Sunnis voted in substantial numbers, among other factors.
In addition, he said, they are the first elections that will affect the day-to-day lives of Iraqi voters.
“These elections are about real power, in the sense that they are going to nominate the people who are on the ground, in the various district councils, and will be deciding on electricity, water, budget and jobs,” he said.
Feb 2 2009 3:10PM
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
Great Depression: Policies that decreased competition in product and labor markets were especially destructive
How Government Prolonged the Depression, by Harold L Cole and Lee E Ohanian
Policies that decreased competition in product and labor markets were especially destructive.
WSJ, Feb 02, 2009
The New Deal is widely perceived to have ended the Great Depression, and this has led many to support a "new" New Deal to address the current crisis. But the facts do not support the perception that FDR's policies shortened the Depression, or that similar policies will pull our nation out of its current economic downturn.
The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per adult, including government employees, were 18% below their 1929 level between 1930-32, but were 23% lower on average during the New Deal (1933-39). Private hours worked were even lower after FDR took office, averaging 27% below their 1929 level, compared to 18% lower between in 1930-32.
Even comparing hours worked at the end of 1930s to those at the beginning of FDR's presidency doesn't paint a picture of recovery. Total hours worked per adult in 1939 remained about 21% below their 1929 level, compared to a decline of 27% in 1933. And it wasn't just work that remained scarce during the New Deal. Per capita consumption did not recover at all, remaining 25% below its trend level throughout the New Deal, and per-capita nonresidential investment averaged about 60% below trend. The Great Depression clearly continued long after FDR took office.
Why wasn't the Depression followed by a vigorous recovery, like every other cycle? It should have been. The economic fundamentals that drive all expansions were very favorable during the New Deal. Productivity grew very rapidly after 1933, the price level was stable, real interest rates were low, and liquidity was plentiful. We have calculated on the basis of just productivity growth that employment and investment should have been back to normal levels by 1936. Similarly, Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping calculated on the basis of just expansionary Federal Reserve policy that the economy should have been back to normal by 1935.
So what stopped a blockbuster recovery from ever starting? The New Deal. Some New Deal policies certainly benefited the economy by establishing a basic social safety net through Social Security and unemployment benefits, and by stabilizing the financial system through deposit insurance and the Securities Exchange Commission. But others violated the most basic economic principles by suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors well above their normal levels. All told, these antimarket policies choked off powerful recovery forces that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend by the mid-1930s.
The most damaging policies were those at the heart of the recovery plan, including The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which tossed aside the nation's antitrust acts and permitted industries to collusively raise prices provided that they shared their newfound monopoly rents with workers by substantially raising wages well above underlying productivity growth. The NIRA covered over 500 industries, ranging from autos and steel, to ladies hosiery and poultry production. Each industry created a code of "fair competition" which spelled out what producers could and could not do, and which were designed to eliminate "excessive competition" that FDR believed to be the source of the Depression.
These codes distorted the economy by artificially raising wages and prices, restricting output, and reducing productive capacity by placing quotas on industry investment in new plants and equipment. Following government approval of each industry code, industry prices and wages increased substantially, while prices and wages in sectors that weren't covered by the NIRA, such as agriculture, did not. We have calculated that manufacturing wages were as much as 25% above the level that would have prevailed without the New Deal. And while the artificially high wages created by the NIRA benefited the few that were fortunate to have a job in those industries, they significantly depressed production and employment, as the growth in wage costs far exceeded productivity growth.
These policies continued even after the NIRA was declared unconstitutional in 1935. There was no antitrust activity after the NIRA, despite overwhelming FTC evidence of price-fixing and production limits in many industries, and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 gave unions substantial collective-bargaining power. While not permitted under federal law, the sit-down strike, in which workers were occupied factories and shut down production, was tolerated by governors in a number of states and was used with great success against major employers, including General Motors in 1937.
The downturn of 1937-38 was preceded by large wage hikes that pushed wages well above their NIRA levels, following the Supreme Court's 1937 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act. These wage hikes led to further job loss, particularly in manufacturing. The "recession in a depression" thus was not the result of a reversal of New Deal policies, as argued by some, but rather a deepening of New Deal polices that raised wages even further above their competitive levels, and which further prevented the normal forces of supply and demand from restoring full employment. Our research indicates that New Deal labor and industrial policies prolonged the Depression by seven years.
By the late 1930s, New Deal policies did begin to reverse, which coincided with the beginning of the recovery. In a 1938 speech, FDR acknowledged that the American economy had become a "concealed cartel system like Europe," which led the Justice Department to reinitiate antitrust prosecution. And union bargaining power was significantly reduced, first by the Supreme Court's ruling that the sit-down strike was illegal, and further reduced during World War II by the National War Labor Board (NWLB), in which large union wage settlements were limited by the NWLB to cost-of-living increases. The wartime economic boom reflected not only the enormous resource drain of military spending, but also the erosion of New Deal labor and industrial policies.
By 1947, through a combination of NWLB wage restrictions and rapid productivity growth, we have calculated that the large gap between manufacturing wages and productivity that emerged during the New Deal had nearly been eliminated. And since that time, wages have never approached the severely distorted levels that prevailed under the New Deal, nor has the country suffered from such abysmally low employment.
The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can -- and does -- deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk.
President Barack Obama and Congress have a great opportunity to produce reforms that do return Americans to work, and that provide a foundation for sustained long-run economic growth and the opportunity for all Americans to succeed. These reforms should include very specific plans that update banking regulations and address a manufacturing sector in which several large industries -- including autos and steel -- are no longer internationally competitive. Tax reform that broadens rather than narrows the tax base and that increases incentives to work, save and invest is also needed. We must also confront an educational system that fails many of its constituents. A large fiscal stimulus plan that doesn't directly address the specific impediments that our economy faces is unlikely to achieve either the country's short-term or long-term goals.
Mr. Cole is professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ohanian is professor of economics and director of the Ettinger Family Program in Macroeconomic Research at UCLA.
Policies that decreased competition in product and labor markets were especially destructive.
WSJ, Feb 02, 2009
The New Deal is widely perceived to have ended the Great Depression, and this has led many to support a "new" New Deal to address the current crisis. But the facts do not support the perception that FDR's policies shortened the Depression, or that similar policies will pull our nation out of its current economic downturn.
The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per adult, including government employees, were 18% below their 1929 level between 1930-32, but were 23% lower on average during the New Deal (1933-39). Private hours worked were even lower after FDR took office, averaging 27% below their 1929 level, compared to 18% lower between in 1930-32.
Even comparing hours worked at the end of 1930s to those at the beginning of FDR's presidency doesn't paint a picture of recovery. Total hours worked per adult in 1939 remained about 21% below their 1929 level, compared to a decline of 27% in 1933. And it wasn't just work that remained scarce during the New Deal. Per capita consumption did not recover at all, remaining 25% below its trend level throughout the New Deal, and per-capita nonresidential investment averaged about 60% below trend. The Great Depression clearly continued long after FDR took office.
Why wasn't the Depression followed by a vigorous recovery, like every other cycle? It should have been. The economic fundamentals that drive all expansions were very favorable during the New Deal. Productivity grew very rapidly after 1933, the price level was stable, real interest rates were low, and liquidity was plentiful. We have calculated on the basis of just productivity growth that employment and investment should have been back to normal levels by 1936. Similarly, Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping calculated on the basis of just expansionary Federal Reserve policy that the economy should have been back to normal by 1935.
So what stopped a blockbuster recovery from ever starting? The New Deal. Some New Deal policies certainly benefited the economy by establishing a basic social safety net through Social Security and unemployment benefits, and by stabilizing the financial system through deposit insurance and the Securities Exchange Commission. But others violated the most basic economic principles by suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors well above their normal levels. All told, these antimarket policies choked off powerful recovery forces that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend by the mid-1930s.
The most damaging policies were those at the heart of the recovery plan, including The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which tossed aside the nation's antitrust acts and permitted industries to collusively raise prices provided that they shared their newfound monopoly rents with workers by substantially raising wages well above underlying productivity growth. The NIRA covered over 500 industries, ranging from autos and steel, to ladies hosiery and poultry production. Each industry created a code of "fair competition" which spelled out what producers could and could not do, and which were designed to eliminate "excessive competition" that FDR believed to be the source of the Depression.
These codes distorted the economy by artificially raising wages and prices, restricting output, and reducing productive capacity by placing quotas on industry investment in new plants and equipment. Following government approval of each industry code, industry prices and wages increased substantially, while prices and wages in sectors that weren't covered by the NIRA, such as agriculture, did not. We have calculated that manufacturing wages were as much as 25% above the level that would have prevailed without the New Deal. And while the artificially high wages created by the NIRA benefited the few that were fortunate to have a job in those industries, they significantly depressed production and employment, as the growth in wage costs far exceeded productivity growth.
These policies continued even after the NIRA was declared unconstitutional in 1935. There was no antitrust activity after the NIRA, despite overwhelming FTC evidence of price-fixing and production limits in many industries, and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 gave unions substantial collective-bargaining power. While not permitted under federal law, the sit-down strike, in which workers were occupied factories and shut down production, was tolerated by governors in a number of states and was used with great success against major employers, including General Motors in 1937.
The downturn of 1937-38 was preceded by large wage hikes that pushed wages well above their NIRA levels, following the Supreme Court's 1937 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act. These wage hikes led to further job loss, particularly in manufacturing. The "recession in a depression" thus was not the result of a reversal of New Deal policies, as argued by some, but rather a deepening of New Deal polices that raised wages even further above their competitive levels, and which further prevented the normal forces of supply and demand from restoring full employment. Our research indicates that New Deal labor and industrial policies prolonged the Depression by seven years.
By the late 1930s, New Deal policies did begin to reverse, which coincided with the beginning of the recovery. In a 1938 speech, FDR acknowledged that the American economy had become a "concealed cartel system like Europe," which led the Justice Department to reinitiate antitrust prosecution. And union bargaining power was significantly reduced, first by the Supreme Court's ruling that the sit-down strike was illegal, and further reduced during World War II by the National War Labor Board (NWLB), in which large union wage settlements were limited by the NWLB to cost-of-living increases. The wartime economic boom reflected not only the enormous resource drain of military spending, but also the erosion of New Deal labor and industrial policies.
By 1947, through a combination of NWLB wage restrictions and rapid productivity growth, we have calculated that the large gap between manufacturing wages and productivity that emerged during the New Deal had nearly been eliminated. And since that time, wages have never approached the severely distorted levels that prevailed under the New Deal, nor has the country suffered from such abysmally low employment.
The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can -- and does -- deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk.
President Barack Obama and Congress have a great opportunity to produce reforms that do return Americans to work, and that provide a foundation for sustained long-run economic growth and the opportunity for all Americans to succeed. These reforms should include very specific plans that update banking regulations and address a manufacturing sector in which several large industries -- including autos and steel -- are no longer internationally competitive. Tax reform that broadens rather than narrows the tax base and that increases incentives to work, save and invest is also needed. We must also confront an educational system that fails many of its constituents. A large fiscal stimulus plan that doesn't directly address the specific impediments that our economy faces is unlikely to achieve either the country's short-term or long-term goals.
Mr. Cole is professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ohanian is professor of economics and director of the Ettinger Family Program in Macroeconomic Research at UCLA.
WSJ Editorial Page: Tax avoidance and Democratic Party standards
Driving Mr. Daschle. WSJ Editorial
Tax avoidance and Democratic Party standards.
WSJ, Feb 02, 2009
So Tom Daschle, the erstwhile prairie populist and scourge of multiple Presidential nominees, failed to disclose and pay taxes on hundreds of thousands of dollars of income. He also waited months to pay up and told the Obama transition team about his tax oversights only days before his Senate confirmation hearing to become Secretary of Health and Human Services.
This one is going to be fascinating to watch, less for what it says about Mr. Daschle than what it will reveal about Democratic standards. Every Republican in America knows that if Mr. Daschle were a Reagan or Bush nominee he'd now be headed back to private life faster than you can say John Tower. That's the way Democrats have treated GOP nominees who were accused of far lesser transgressions than Mr. Daschle's tax, er, avoidance. The question is whether Democrats are going to treat Mr. Daschle according to the standard that Mr. Daschle set when he was running the Senate.
And what standard was that? Well, on taxes, you may recall that Mr. Daschle's Senate Democrats led the campaign against "Benedict Arnold corporations" that earn too much income overseas. The companies do this legally, in part to avoid a U.S. corporate tax rate (35%) that is the developed world's second highest, but that hasn't stopped the Daschle Democrats from comparing them to traitors.
Then there was the assault on legal tax shelters, led in the Daschle Senate by Democrat Carl Levin. The Levin hearings encouraged the Justice Department to prosecute employees who sold tax shelters for KPMG, though no tax court had found them illegal. Most of the KPMG charges were later thrown out of court, but not before careers were ruined and life savings spent on legal defense fees. Under political pressure in 2002, the IRS disclosed the names of users of a KPMG shelter, including William Simon Jr., a Republican candidate for California Governor. Democrats cried that Mr. Simon was a tax cheat, and he had to release years of tax returns to show otherwise.
Now we learn that Mr. Daschle failed to report some $255,000 in income from 2005 through 2007 for a car and driver supplied to him for personal use. The chauffeur service was provided by Leo Hindery, a big Democratic donor who also made Mr. Daschle a bundle by making him a limited partner in InterMedia Partners, a private equity shop.
As a legal tax matter, this isn't even a close call. Mr. Daschle says he used the car service about 80% for personal use, and 20% for business. But his spokeswoman says it only dawned on the Senator last June that this might be taxable income. Mr. Daschle's excuse? According to a Journal report Friday, "he told committee staff he had grown used to having a car and driver as majority leader and did not think to report the perk on his taxes, according to staff members." How's that for a Leona Helmsley moment: Doesn't everyone have a car and chauffeur, dear?
The Senate Finance Committee is also reviewing whether certain "travel and entertainment services" provided to Mr. Daschle and his wife Linda, an aviation lobbyist, should also be reported as income. The Washington Post reports that Mr. Daschle has earned more than $5 million over the past two years, including $220,000 from the health-care industry he's been nominated to regulate. Capitalism is wonderful, but at the very least Mr. Daschle's record strips the veneer from President Obama's moralizing that lobbying and special interest pleading are the root of all evil in Washington. In appointing Mr. Daschle, Mr. Obama is showing that lobbying is fine as long as it is done by people who agree with him.
Some Democrats said on the weekend that Mr. Daschle deserves to be confirmed because they "know" he is "honest." But that isn't the standard Mr. Daschle set for GOP appointees who had no ethical taint. In 2001, he established a new, 60-vote confirmation standard for Eugene Scalia to be Labor Department Solicitor, though Mr. Scalia had been approved in committee and would have won on the Senate floor. He also filibustered Miguel Estrada, a judicial nominee of wide renown, on the trivial grounds that the Bush Administration wouldn't release internal memos when Mr. Estrada had worked as a Justice Department staff lawyer.
We'll be watching in particular to see how Democrats Max Baucus and Kent Conrad handle the Daschle tax mess. Finance Chairman Baucus gave a pass to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, albeit for a lesser offense, and Mr. Conrad also voted to confirm Mr. Geithner though not without saying he wouldn't have done so in "normal" times. We assume by "normal" he doesn't mean when nominees are Republican. If nothing else, a vote to confirm Mr. Daschle will expose the insincerity of Democratic tax populism.
If Mr. Daschle were the stand-up guy his fellow Democrats say he is, he'd withdraw his nomination and spare them the embarrassment of confirming someone who thinks the tax laws apply only to other people.
Tax avoidance and Democratic Party standards.
WSJ, Feb 02, 2009
So Tom Daschle, the erstwhile prairie populist and scourge of multiple Presidential nominees, failed to disclose and pay taxes on hundreds of thousands of dollars of income. He also waited months to pay up and told the Obama transition team about his tax oversights only days before his Senate confirmation hearing to become Secretary of Health and Human Services.
This one is going to be fascinating to watch, less for what it says about Mr. Daschle than what it will reveal about Democratic standards. Every Republican in America knows that if Mr. Daschle were a Reagan or Bush nominee he'd now be headed back to private life faster than you can say John Tower. That's the way Democrats have treated GOP nominees who were accused of far lesser transgressions than Mr. Daschle's tax, er, avoidance. The question is whether Democrats are going to treat Mr. Daschle according to the standard that Mr. Daschle set when he was running the Senate.
And what standard was that? Well, on taxes, you may recall that Mr. Daschle's Senate Democrats led the campaign against "Benedict Arnold corporations" that earn too much income overseas. The companies do this legally, in part to avoid a U.S. corporate tax rate (35%) that is the developed world's second highest, but that hasn't stopped the Daschle Democrats from comparing them to traitors.
Then there was the assault on legal tax shelters, led in the Daschle Senate by Democrat Carl Levin. The Levin hearings encouraged the Justice Department to prosecute employees who sold tax shelters for KPMG, though no tax court had found them illegal. Most of the KPMG charges were later thrown out of court, but not before careers were ruined and life savings spent on legal defense fees. Under political pressure in 2002, the IRS disclosed the names of users of a KPMG shelter, including William Simon Jr., a Republican candidate for California Governor. Democrats cried that Mr. Simon was a tax cheat, and he had to release years of tax returns to show otherwise.
Now we learn that Mr. Daschle failed to report some $255,000 in income from 2005 through 2007 for a car and driver supplied to him for personal use. The chauffeur service was provided by Leo Hindery, a big Democratic donor who also made Mr. Daschle a bundle by making him a limited partner in InterMedia Partners, a private equity shop.
As a legal tax matter, this isn't even a close call. Mr. Daschle says he used the car service about 80% for personal use, and 20% for business. But his spokeswoman says it only dawned on the Senator last June that this might be taxable income. Mr. Daschle's excuse? According to a Journal report Friday, "he told committee staff he had grown used to having a car and driver as majority leader and did not think to report the perk on his taxes, according to staff members." How's that for a Leona Helmsley moment: Doesn't everyone have a car and chauffeur, dear?
The Senate Finance Committee is also reviewing whether certain "travel and entertainment services" provided to Mr. Daschle and his wife Linda, an aviation lobbyist, should also be reported as income. The Washington Post reports that Mr. Daschle has earned more than $5 million over the past two years, including $220,000 from the health-care industry he's been nominated to regulate. Capitalism is wonderful, but at the very least Mr. Daschle's record strips the veneer from President Obama's moralizing that lobbying and special interest pleading are the root of all evil in Washington. In appointing Mr. Daschle, Mr. Obama is showing that lobbying is fine as long as it is done by people who agree with him.
Some Democrats said on the weekend that Mr. Daschle deserves to be confirmed because they "know" he is "honest." But that isn't the standard Mr. Daschle set for GOP appointees who had no ethical taint. In 2001, he established a new, 60-vote confirmation standard for Eugene Scalia to be Labor Department Solicitor, though Mr. Scalia had been approved in committee and would have won on the Senate floor. He also filibustered Miguel Estrada, a judicial nominee of wide renown, on the trivial grounds that the Bush Administration wouldn't release internal memos when Mr. Estrada had worked as a Justice Department staff lawyer.
We'll be watching in particular to see how Democrats Max Baucus and Kent Conrad handle the Daschle tax mess. Finance Chairman Baucus gave a pass to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, albeit for a lesser offense, and Mr. Conrad also voted to confirm Mr. Geithner though not without saying he wouldn't have done so in "normal" times. We assume by "normal" he doesn't mean when nominees are Republican. If nothing else, a vote to confirm Mr. Daschle will expose the insincerity of Democratic tax populism.
If Mr. Daschle were the stand-up guy his fellow Democrats say he is, he'd withdraw his nomination and spare them the embarrassment of confirming someone who thinks the tax laws apply only to other people.
WaPo: The latest salmonella outbreak highlights gaps in the nation's food supply
Peanut Bummer. WaPo Editorial
The latest salmonella outbreak highlights gaps in the nation's food supply.
Monday, February 2, 2009; Page A12
EVEN THOUGH he's not caught up in this mess, Mr. Peanut must want to clobber the geniuses at Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) with his cane. The Food and Drug Administration revealed last week that the company's Blakely, Ga., facility knowingly shipped salmonella-tainted peanut products 12 times between 2007 and 2008 to locations in the United States and abroad. The company, based in Lynchburg, Va., has urged anyone in possession of its products made in the past two years to throw them out.
This is one of the biggest recalls in U.S. history and another example of vulnerability in the nation's food supply. None of PCA's peanut products are sold directly to consumers. But the FDA says that more than 70 firms used the company's goods in all manner of foods, from cookies and pet food to ice cream and cereal. Since the salmonella outbreak was discovered last summer, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention believes that eight deaths and 501 illnesses spread across 43 states and Canada may be linked to the Georgia plant. The FDA alleges that not only did PCA knowingly ship bad merchandise but it went to another testing facility to get a clean bill of health after initially getting test results that were positive for salmonella. The company denies this allegation. The FDA said that the problems that led to the contamination were not fixed.
The FDA uncovered the problems by securing inspection reports done by the state of Georgia, using a special 2002 law meant to prevent bioterrorism. The agency last inspected the Blakely plant in 2001 and then contracted out the inspections to the Georgia Department of Agriculture. While this practice is not uncommon for the FDA, it speaks volumes about the lack of resources the agency has to protect the nation's food supply. According to Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the FDA has lost more than 600 inspectors since 2004. "The fewer inspectors the FDA has, the more it relies on state inspectors," she told us.
Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) has reintroduced legislation that would give the FDA more money and authority over food safety, including the power to issue mandatory recalls of contaminated food. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) will try again to get a bill passed that would require the FDA to devise a system that would make it possible to trace food and produce from the farm to the dinner table. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) has a bill that would give the FDA more money and authority to conduct inspections. As we have learned over the past year, much of the food safety system in this country is based on the trust that manufacturers are introducing products into the food supply that are clean and safe. President Ronald Reagan had a mantra for dealing with Russia that is apt here: "Trust but verify." Congress must give the FDA and other relevant agencies the power to do it.
The latest salmonella outbreak highlights gaps in the nation's food supply.
Monday, February 2, 2009; Page A12
EVEN THOUGH he's not caught up in this mess, Mr. Peanut must want to clobber the geniuses at Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) with his cane. The Food and Drug Administration revealed last week that the company's Blakely, Ga., facility knowingly shipped salmonella-tainted peanut products 12 times between 2007 and 2008 to locations in the United States and abroad. The company, based in Lynchburg, Va., has urged anyone in possession of its products made in the past two years to throw them out.
This is one of the biggest recalls in U.S. history and another example of vulnerability in the nation's food supply. None of PCA's peanut products are sold directly to consumers. But the FDA says that more than 70 firms used the company's goods in all manner of foods, from cookies and pet food to ice cream and cereal. Since the salmonella outbreak was discovered last summer, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention believes that eight deaths and 501 illnesses spread across 43 states and Canada may be linked to the Georgia plant. The FDA alleges that not only did PCA knowingly ship bad merchandise but it went to another testing facility to get a clean bill of health after initially getting test results that were positive for salmonella. The company denies this allegation. The FDA said that the problems that led to the contamination were not fixed.
The FDA uncovered the problems by securing inspection reports done by the state of Georgia, using a special 2002 law meant to prevent bioterrorism. The agency last inspected the Blakely plant in 2001 and then contracted out the inspections to the Georgia Department of Agriculture. While this practice is not uncommon for the FDA, it speaks volumes about the lack of resources the agency has to protect the nation's food supply. According to Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the FDA has lost more than 600 inspectors since 2004. "The fewer inspectors the FDA has, the more it relies on state inspectors," she told us.
Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) has reintroduced legislation that would give the FDA more money and authority over food safety, including the power to issue mandatory recalls of contaminated food. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) will try again to get a bill passed that would require the FDA to devise a system that would make it possible to trace food and produce from the farm to the dinner table. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) has a bill that would give the FDA more money and authority to conduct inspections. As we have learned over the past year, much of the food safety system in this country is based on the trust that manufacturers are introducing products into the food supply that are clean and safe. President Ronald Reagan had a mantra for dealing with Russia that is apt here: "Trust but verify." Congress must give the FDA and other relevant agencies the power to do it.
Don't Push Banks to Make Bad Loans: Contrary to myth, commercial bank lending is up
Don't Push Banks to Make Bad Loans. By Vert Ely
Contrary to myth, commercial bank lending is up. So are standards.
WSJ, Feb 02, 2009
There is a widespread belief that banks are now refusing to lend as much as they should, and that Congress should pressure them to extend more credit to consumers and businesses.
In reality, banks as a whole increased their lending during 2008 -- the notion they haven't is based on a misunderstanding of U.S. credit markets. Pressuring banks to lend more could backfire.
Lost in too many discussions of the financial sector is that banks and other depository institutions account for only 22% of the credit supplied to the U.S. economy (down from 40% in 1982). "Shadow banking" -- notably asset securitization and money-market mutual funds -- now supplies 33% (up from 14%). Insurance companies, other financial intermediaries, nonfinancial firms and the rest of the world provide the balance.
As far as commercial banks go, Federal Reserve data released last week show that their lending increased 2.36% during the last quarter of 2008. For all of 2008, commercial-bank lending rose by $386 billion, or 5.63%, even as the economy slid into recession. Over that 12-month period, business lending jumped $152 billion, or 10.6%, real-estate loans were up $213 billion, or 5.9%, and consumer lending rose $73.5 billion, or 9%. Other categories of bank lending such as loans to farmers, broker-dealers and governments, declined $53.2 billion, or 5.4%.
Fed data also show that during the first three quarters of 2008, the total amount of credit supplied to the economy increased $1.91 trillion, or 3.8%, with $540 billion of that amount coming from foreign lenders.
Nevertheless, Treasury recently demanded that the 20 largest recipients of government capital investments start providing detailed monthly reports about their lending and investment activities. This new requirement could lead to government lending mandates. That would not be a good idea.
In the first place, the drop in stock-market and house prices has made millions of families feel poorer and led them to save more than in recent years. It has also encouraged them (especially Baby Boomers approaching retirement) to pay off debt. They don't need more debt.
More broadly, many of the most creditworthy neither need to nor want to borrow right now. Richard Davis, CEO of U.S. Bancorp, recently said that he is seeing the demand for loans diminish at his and other banks "from people and businesses spending less and traveling less and watching their nickels and dimes."
Lenders moreover have tightened lending standards, correcting an excessive laxness that contributed to our financial mess. Zero or very low down-payment mortgages are out, as are "covenant light" corporate loans. Likewise, lenders have trimmed credit-card limits and cut the amount of money available under home equity lines of credit as home values have declined.
And contrary to the "lend more" message broadcast from inside the Washington Beltway, bank examiners are criticizing weak loans and forcing banks to tighten lending standards. Bankers are caught in a vise between politicians and examiners.
A lot of the credit tightness is a reflection of the near-collapse of loan securitization. Recent Fed plans to buy asset-backed securities may help revive asset securitization, but bankers have no control over the fate of that initiative.
The economy is in recession and working off the consequences of a housing bubble fed by excessive mortgage credit. Given that loan demand typically falls during a recession, it's amazing that bank lending increased as much as it did last year. It was essentially flat during the 2001 recession.
Bankers should always lend prudently, as they are now doing. If they are jawboned or worse by Washington into reckless lending, the U.S. will set itself up for another debt crisis, even before the present mess has been cleaned up.
Mr. Ely, the principal in Ely & Co. Inc., is a financial institutions and monetary policy consultant.
Contrary to myth, commercial bank lending is up. So are standards.
WSJ, Feb 02, 2009
There is a widespread belief that banks are now refusing to lend as much as they should, and that Congress should pressure them to extend more credit to consumers and businesses.
In reality, banks as a whole increased their lending during 2008 -- the notion they haven't is based on a misunderstanding of U.S. credit markets. Pressuring banks to lend more could backfire.
Lost in too many discussions of the financial sector is that banks and other depository institutions account for only 22% of the credit supplied to the U.S. economy (down from 40% in 1982). "Shadow banking" -- notably asset securitization and money-market mutual funds -- now supplies 33% (up from 14%). Insurance companies, other financial intermediaries, nonfinancial firms and the rest of the world provide the balance.
As far as commercial banks go, Federal Reserve data released last week show that their lending increased 2.36% during the last quarter of 2008. For all of 2008, commercial-bank lending rose by $386 billion, or 5.63%, even as the economy slid into recession. Over that 12-month period, business lending jumped $152 billion, or 10.6%, real-estate loans were up $213 billion, or 5.9%, and consumer lending rose $73.5 billion, or 9%. Other categories of bank lending such as loans to farmers, broker-dealers and governments, declined $53.2 billion, or 5.4%.
Fed data also show that during the first three quarters of 2008, the total amount of credit supplied to the economy increased $1.91 trillion, or 3.8%, with $540 billion of that amount coming from foreign lenders.
Nevertheless, Treasury recently demanded that the 20 largest recipients of government capital investments start providing detailed monthly reports about their lending and investment activities. This new requirement could lead to government lending mandates. That would not be a good idea.
In the first place, the drop in stock-market and house prices has made millions of families feel poorer and led them to save more than in recent years. It has also encouraged them (especially Baby Boomers approaching retirement) to pay off debt. They don't need more debt.
More broadly, many of the most creditworthy neither need to nor want to borrow right now. Richard Davis, CEO of U.S. Bancorp, recently said that he is seeing the demand for loans diminish at his and other banks "from people and businesses spending less and traveling less and watching their nickels and dimes."
Lenders moreover have tightened lending standards, correcting an excessive laxness that contributed to our financial mess. Zero or very low down-payment mortgages are out, as are "covenant light" corporate loans. Likewise, lenders have trimmed credit-card limits and cut the amount of money available under home equity lines of credit as home values have declined.
And contrary to the "lend more" message broadcast from inside the Washington Beltway, bank examiners are criticizing weak loans and forcing banks to tighten lending standards. Bankers are caught in a vise between politicians and examiners.
A lot of the credit tightness is a reflection of the near-collapse of loan securitization. Recent Fed plans to buy asset-backed securities may help revive asset securitization, but bankers have no control over the fate of that initiative.
The economy is in recession and working off the consequences of a housing bubble fed by excessive mortgage credit. Given that loan demand typically falls during a recession, it's amazing that bank lending increased as much as it did last year. It was essentially flat during the 2001 recession.
Bankers should always lend prudently, as they are now doing. If they are jawboned or worse by Washington into reckless lending, the U.S. will set itself up for another debt crisis, even before the present mess has been cleaned up.
Mr. Ely, the principal in Ely & Co. Inc., is a financial institutions and monetary policy consultant.
Extraordinary rendition and Human Rights Watch in the era of Hope and Change
Re: Rendition. By Mark Hemingway
The Corner/NRO, Feb 02, 2009
Buried in that LAT article on rendition Jonah linked below is a flip-flop from Human Rights Watch that would impress even the East German judge. Here's Human Rights Watch in April of last year:
The US government should:
·Repudiate the use of rendition to torture as a counterterrorism tactic and permanently discontinue the CIA's rendition program;
·Disclose the identities, fate, and current whereabouts of all persons detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody by the CIA since 2001, including detainees who were rendered to Jordan;
·Repudiate the use of "diplomatic assurances" against torture and ill-treatment as a justification for the transfer of a suspect to a place where he or she is at risk of such abuse;
·Make public any audio recordings or videotapes that the CIA possesses of interrogations of detainees rendered by the CIA to foreign custody;
·Provide appropriate compensation to all persons arbitrarily detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody.
Now here's Human Rights Watch in the era of Hope and ChangeTM:
The Corner/NRO, Feb 02, 2009
Buried in that LAT article on rendition Jonah linked below is a flip-flop from Human Rights Watch that would impress even the East German judge. Here's Human Rights Watch in April of last year:
The US government should:
·Repudiate the use of rendition to torture as a counterterrorism tactic and permanently discontinue the CIA's rendition program;
·Disclose the identities, fate, and current whereabouts of all persons detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody by the CIA since 2001, including detainees who were rendered to Jordan;
·Repudiate the use of "diplomatic assurances" against torture and ill-treatment as a justification for the transfer of a suspect to a place where he or she is at risk of such abuse;
·Make public any audio recordings or videotapes that the CIA possesses of interrogations of detainees rendered by the CIA to foreign custody;
·Provide appropriate compensation to all persons arbitrarily detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody.
Now here's Human Rights Watch in the era of Hope and ChangeTM:
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions,
said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.
"What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to
design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to
be tortured — but that designing that system is going to take some time."
Violence in Pakistan: Trend Analysis December 2008
Violence in Pakistan: Trend Analysis December 2008. By Alok Bansal and T. Khurshchev IDSA, January 31, 2009
Excerpts:
Amidst apprehensions of a conflict between India and Pakistan after attacks on Mumbai on 26 November, as Pakistani security forces ostensibly diverted their attention from the Western to the Eastern borders, terror related violence showed an increase from 372 in November to 388 in December. Although there was no movement of troops from the Western borders to the East, Pakistani security forces allowed vast tracts of land in FATA and Swat Valley go under the control of Taliban. This was probably an attempt to put pressure on the West in the aftermath of Mumbai attacks, but only helped the militants to consolidate their position. As a result besides South and North Waziristan Agencies, the Taliban has established its writ in Orakzai Agency and Swat Valley. As the security forces toned down their operations against the militants, the causality figure of militants reduced significantly from 462 in November to 216 in December. Absence of any major military operations also ensured that the casualties of the security forces also reduced considerably form 56 in November to 23 in December. However, the casualties of civilians rose from 286 in November to 340 in December, as the militants utilized this breather to settle scores with pro-government tribal leaders and secular political activists. Nevertheless, the total number of deaths from violence reduced form 804 in November to 579 in December, but it would be wrong to discern a durable trend from it as the reduced casualties were mainly because of the throwing in of towel by the security forces. In keeping with the militants’ policy of sorting out allies of the government as well as those who dared to oppose their dictats, the kidnapping figure has risen sharply form 65 in November to 271 in December.
NWFP
Continuing the trend of last three months, NWFP continued to witness the most number of violent attacks in Pakistan. The number of violent incidents decreased from 184 in November to 178 in December, averaging almost six a day. During the month 307 people were killed and 209 injured as against 342 killed and 308 injured in the previous month. However, the number of injured are likely to be much more as the exact number of injured were often not reported in the media.
100 alleged militants were killed during the month as against 190 killed and 123 injured in November. The security forces arrested 248 alleged militants including 109 persons from Hangu on December 30, for their alleged involvement in sectarian violence during Muharram. On the other hand 191 civilians were killed and 172 received injuries in December, as against 111 killed and 157 injured in November. Similarly, number of people kidnapped by the militants has also increased to 70 in December from 32 the previous month and the figures include seven security personnel kidnapped in December and three in November. During the month 16 security personnel were killed and 36 injured as against 41 killed and 28 injured the previous month, thereby clearly indicating a marked lull in the security forces’ operations against the militants.
Like in the past, the main targets of the militants remained security posts, police stations, schools and shops selling CDs, wine and cosmetics. However, during the month, the supply convoys to NATO troops in Afghanistan were added to this list. In the biggest assault ever on this vital military supply line, over 300 vehicles and containers vehicles that carry goods from Pakistan for NATO troops in Afghanistan were destroyed. On 7 December, the Taliban torched more than 160 vehicles carrying NATO in Peshawar and the very next day, they again torched in Peshawar 53 vehicles destined for NATO forces in Afghanistan. The impunity, with which the attackers could target these high value targets in the heart of Peshawar city is indicative of state complicity. It appears that the security establishment in Pakistan wanted to use these attacks to ease the US pressure being put on Pakistan to act against the perpetrators of Mumbai attack. The strife between Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other tribal groups remained unabated and its cadres beheaded two followers of rival cleric Pir Samiullah in Gwalerai area of Matta tehsil. Militants operating in the restive Swat valley announced unilateral ceasefire during Eidul Azha. On 26 December, Taliban in Swat district imposed a blanket ban on female education and warned the teachers of ‘severe consequences’. The militants also shot and injured a Chinese engineer and his security guard in Dargai on 24 December.
As against six suicide bombing in November, there were only three such attacks in December in NWFP, but they resulted in greater casualties. As against 28 people killed and 53 wounded in November in NWFP, 56 persons were killed and 71 injured in suicide attacks in December. Two of the three attacks were directed against the security forces and the third attack was at a polling station set up for a by-election in Bunir district.
FATA
Unlike the other parts of Pakistan, there was an increase in the incidents of violence in FATA, which increased from 108 in November to 122 in December. However the casualty rates dropped significantly and as against 337 killed and 109 injured in November, 201 persons were killed and 125 injured in December. 100 militants were killed and 63 injured in December as against 254 killed and 68 injured in the previous month. The security forces also arrested 31 alleged militants including Al Qaeda members as compared to 88 in November. Similarly, 87 civilian were killed and 31 injured as against 111 killed and 57 injured in the previous month. Besides, 185 (including 160 persons who were taken hostage by rival tribes in Kurram Agency on 16 December) civilians were kidnapped by the gunmen as against 23 in November. In the absence of any major operation by the security forces, only four security personnel lost their lives in the region as against eight in November. Besides, 15 security personals were injured and one was kidnapped.
During the month as the security forces halted their operations against the militants, the interregnum was utilized by the militants to exterminate a number of alleged US spies. At least nine such ‘spies’ were killed in five different incidents in North and South Waziristan itself. Each dead body carried a note accusing them of spying for the US. Around four hundred alleged Taliban surrendered to the authorities during the month mainly in Mohmand agency. In accordance with the trend observed in NWFP, lorries and tankers carrying supplies for International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan were attacked while passing through the Khyber Pass and TTP claimed responsibility for these attacks.
The region also witnessed one suicide attack in December as against two such incidents in November. On December 5, seven tribesmen were killed and eight others injured when a suicide bomber blew up an explosive-laden vehicle near a jirga between Baramadkhel and Utmankhel tribes in Kalaya, the headquarters of Orakzai Agency. The tribes had actively participated in anti-Taliban tribal militias set up by the security forces.
Balochistan
The number of incidents in Balochistan remained constant at 30, but the casualties dropped significantly. Barring isolated incidents, the ceasefire announced by the three Baloch nationalist outfits in September was being adhered to. During the month, 11 persons were killed and 17 wounded in violent incidents as against 40 killed and 27 injured in November. Only two militants were killed in December as against 12 killed and 15 injured the previous month. However, the security arrested 40 alleged militants as against 17 in November. Eight civilians were killed and 17 injured as against 23 killed and 11 injured in November. Besides, 14 persons were kidnapped as against two in November. Similarly, only one security personnel was killed during the month as against five killed and one injured in November. Most of the attacks during the month were on pipelines and railway lines, besides a few attacks on security posts.
Other AreasTerror activities in other parts of the Pakistan remained at more or less the same level as in November. There were 58 incidents of violence in December as compared to 60 in November. 60 people lost their lives and 22 were injured in December as against 49 killed and 176 wounded in November. In December, 14 armed miscreants were killed and 96 arrested as against six killed and 37 arrested in November. Similarly, 44 civilians were killed and 20 injured in December as against 41 killed and 175 wounded in November. Two security personnel were also killed and two injured in December as against two killed and one injured in the previous month.
A number of political activists of PPP and MQM were killed in a number of incidents between 16 to 19 December in Karachi. In the recent past, criminal activities and violence in Karachi have shot up. In response a joint team of Sindh Police and Pakistan Rangers arrested more than 60 suspects, including Afghan nationals on 2 December and recovered huge quantity of arms, ammunition. Besides Karachi, in a major crack down, Islamabad police foiled terrorist attacks planned during Christmas, Benazir Bhutto’s death anniversary and the New Year’s Eve by seizing 650 kilograms of explosives and 520 detonators on December 26. Similarly, on December 30, Police in Lahore recovered a gas cylinder packed with 10-kilogram of improvised explosive device (IED) connected to a cell phone and a detonator from bushes.
ConclusionThere has been a significant decrease in violence in Pakistan that can be attributed to the reduced activities by the security forces and a carte blanche given to the militants after the attacks on Mumbai. TTP volunteered to fight against India along side Pakistani army and Baitullah Mehsud declared on December 24, “Despite our differences with the government, the protection of Pakistan and its people is as much our duty as it is of the armed forces” and claimed that ‘hundreds of thousands of suicide bombers’ were ready to defend Pakistan in case of war with India. He further added, “The armed forces and the nation do not need to worry about the western borders in case of an Indian attack”. The statements were meant to win the support of Pakistani public and prove his patriotic credentials and succeeded in its aims to a large extent.
Alok Bansal is Research Fellow and T. Khurshchev is Research Assistant at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi
Full article, with graphs and table, here.
Excerpts:
Amidst apprehensions of a conflict between India and Pakistan after attacks on Mumbai on 26 November, as Pakistani security forces ostensibly diverted their attention from the Western to the Eastern borders, terror related violence showed an increase from 372 in November to 388 in December. Although there was no movement of troops from the Western borders to the East, Pakistani security forces allowed vast tracts of land in FATA and Swat Valley go under the control of Taliban. This was probably an attempt to put pressure on the West in the aftermath of Mumbai attacks, but only helped the militants to consolidate their position. As a result besides South and North Waziristan Agencies, the Taliban has established its writ in Orakzai Agency and Swat Valley. As the security forces toned down their operations against the militants, the causality figure of militants reduced significantly from 462 in November to 216 in December. Absence of any major military operations also ensured that the casualties of the security forces also reduced considerably form 56 in November to 23 in December. However, the casualties of civilians rose from 286 in November to 340 in December, as the militants utilized this breather to settle scores with pro-government tribal leaders and secular political activists. Nevertheless, the total number of deaths from violence reduced form 804 in November to 579 in December, but it would be wrong to discern a durable trend from it as the reduced casualties were mainly because of the throwing in of towel by the security forces. In keeping with the militants’ policy of sorting out allies of the government as well as those who dared to oppose their dictats, the kidnapping figure has risen sharply form 65 in November to 271 in December.
NWFP
Continuing the trend of last three months, NWFP continued to witness the most number of violent attacks in Pakistan. The number of violent incidents decreased from 184 in November to 178 in December, averaging almost six a day. During the month 307 people were killed and 209 injured as against 342 killed and 308 injured in the previous month. However, the number of injured are likely to be much more as the exact number of injured were often not reported in the media.
100 alleged militants were killed during the month as against 190 killed and 123 injured in November. The security forces arrested 248 alleged militants including 109 persons from Hangu on December 30, for their alleged involvement in sectarian violence during Muharram. On the other hand 191 civilians were killed and 172 received injuries in December, as against 111 killed and 157 injured in November. Similarly, number of people kidnapped by the militants has also increased to 70 in December from 32 the previous month and the figures include seven security personnel kidnapped in December and three in November. During the month 16 security personnel were killed and 36 injured as against 41 killed and 28 injured the previous month, thereby clearly indicating a marked lull in the security forces’ operations against the militants.
Like in the past, the main targets of the militants remained security posts, police stations, schools and shops selling CDs, wine and cosmetics. However, during the month, the supply convoys to NATO troops in Afghanistan were added to this list. In the biggest assault ever on this vital military supply line, over 300 vehicles and containers vehicles that carry goods from Pakistan for NATO troops in Afghanistan were destroyed. On 7 December, the Taliban torched more than 160 vehicles carrying NATO in Peshawar and the very next day, they again torched in Peshawar 53 vehicles destined for NATO forces in Afghanistan. The impunity, with which the attackers could target these high value targets in the heart of Peshawar city is indicative of state complicity. It appears that the security establishment in Pakistan wanted to use these attacks to ease the US pressure being put on Pakistan to act against the perpetrators of Mumbai attack. The strife between Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other tribal groups remained unabated and its cadres beheaded two followers of rival cleric Pir Samiullah in Gwalerai area of Matta tehsil. Militants operating in the restive Swat valley announced unilateral ceasefire during Eidul Azha. On 26 December, Taliban in Swat district imposed a blanket ban on female education and warned the teachers of ‘severe consequences’. The militants also shot and injured a Chinese engineer and his security guard in Dargai on 24 December.
As against six suicide bombing in November, there were only three such attacks in December in NWFP, but they resulted in greater casualties. As against 28 people killed and 53 wounded in November in NWFP, 56 persons were killed and 71 injured in suicide attacks in December. Two of the three attacks were directed against the security forces and the third attack was at a polling station set up for a by-election in Bunir district.
FATA
Unlike the other parts of Pakistan, there was an increase in the incidents of violence in FATA, which increased from 108 in November to 122 in December. However the casualty rates dropped significantly and as against 337 killed and 109 injured in November, 201 persons were killed and 125 injured in December. 100 militants were killed and 63 injured in December as against 254 killed and 68 injured in the previous month. The security forces also arrested 31 alleged militants including Al Qaeda members as compared to 88 in November. Similarly, 87 civilian were killed and 31 injured as against 111 killed and 57 injured in the previous month. Besides, 185 (including 160 persons who were taken hostage by rival tribes in Kurram Agency on 16 December) civilians were kidnapped by the gunmen as against 23 in November. In the absence of any major operation by the security forces, only four security personnel lost their lives in the region as against eight in November. Besides, 15 security personals were injured and one was kidnapped.
During the month as the security forces halted their operations against the militants, the interregnum was utilized by the militants to exterminate a number of alleged US spies. At least nine such ‘spies’ were killed in five different incidents in North and South Waziristan itself. Each dead body carried a note accusing them of spying for the US. Around four hundred alleged Taliban surrendered to the authorities during the month mainly in Mohmand agency. In accordance with the trend observed in NWFP, lorries and tankers carrying supplies for International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan were attacked while passing through the Khyber Pass and TTP claimed responsibility for these attacks.
The region also witnessed one suicide attack in December as against two such incidents in November. On December 5, seven tribesmen were killed and eight others injured when a suicide bomber blew up an explosive-laden vehicle near a jirga between Baramadkhel and Utmankhel tribes in Kalaya, the headquarters of Orakzai Agency. The tribes had actively participated in anti-Taliban tribal militias set up by the security forces.
Balochistan
The number of incidents in Balochistan remained constant at 30, but the casualties dropped significantly. Barring isolated incidents, the ceasefire announced by the three Baloch nationalist outfits in September was being adhered to. During the month, 11 persons were killed and 17 wounded in violent incidents as against 40 killed and 27 injured in November. Only two militants were killed in December as against 12 killed and 15 injured the previous month. However, the security arrested 40 alleged militants as against 17 in November. Eight civilians were killed and 17 injured as against 23 killed and 11 injured in November. Besides, 14 persons were kidnapped as against two in November. Similarly, only one security personnel was killed during the month as against five killed and one injured in November. Most of the attacks during the month were on pipelines and railway lines, besides a few attacks on security posts.
Other AreasTerror activities in other parts of the Pakistan remained at more or less the same level as in November. There were 58 incidents of violence in December as compared to 60 in November. 60 people lost their lives and 22 were injured in December as against 49 killed and 176 wounded in November. In December, 14 armed miscreants were killed and 96 arrested as against six killed and 37 arrested in November. Similarly, 44 civilians were killed and 20 injured in December as against 41 killed and 175 wounded in November. Two security personnel were also killed and two injured in December as against two killed and one injured in the previous month.
A number of political activists of PPP and MQM were killed in a number of incidents between 16 to 19 December in Karachi. In the recent past, criminal activities and violence in Karachi have shot up. In response a joint team of Sindh Police and Pakistan Rangers arrested more than 60 suspects, including Afghan nationals on 2 December and recovered huge quantity of arms, ammunition. Besides Karachi, in a major crack down, Islamabad police foiled terrorist attacks planned during Christmas, Benazir Bhutto’s death anniversary and the New Year’s Eve by seizing 650 kilograms of explosives and 520 detonators on December 26. Similarly, on December 30, Police in Lahore recovered a gas cylinder packed with 10-kilogram of improvised explosive device (IED) connected to a cell phone and a detonator from bushes.
ConclusionThere has been a significant decrease in violence in Pakistan that can be attributed to the reduced activities by the security forces and a carte blanche given to the militants after the attacks on Mumbai. TTP volunteered to fight against India along side Pakistani army and Baitullah Mehsud declared on December 24, “Despite our differences with the government, the protection of Pakistan and its people is as much our duty as it is of the armed forces” and claimed that ‘hundreds of thousands of suicide bombers’ were ready to defend Pakistan in case of war with India. He further added, “The armed forces and the nation do not need to worry about the western borders in case of an Indian attack”. The statements were meant to win the support of Pakistani public and prove his patriotic credentials and succeeded in its aims to a large extent.
Alok Bansal is Research Fellow and T. Khurshchev is Research Assistant at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi
Full article, with graphs and table, here.
Conservative views on Deputy Attorney General Nominee David Ogden: Questions on Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution
Deputy Attorney General Nominee David Ogden: Questions on Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. By Steven Groves
Heritage, February 2, 2009
On January 6, Barack Obama nominated David Ogden to be the next deputy attorney general of the United States, the second highest position in the U.S. Department of Justice. Reportedly hanging in Ogden’s office at the time of the nomination was a plaque commemorating his victory in a controversial 2005 death penalty case before the U.S. Supreme Court.[1]
That case, Roper v. Simmons, was controversial not only because it determined the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty but also because, in deciding the case, a narrowly divided Supreme relied in part upon the laws and practices of foreign nations as well as other sources of foreign law and “the opinion of the world community.”
Although Ogden is certainly qualified for the position of deputy attorney general,[2] the views expressed in the brief he co-authored on behalf of the defendant in the Roper case are troublesome and should be explored during his Senate confirmation hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, currently scheduled for February 5.
Relying on Foreign Sources of Law to Interpret the U.S. Constitution
The Supreme Court’s citation to foreign law in cases interpreting the United States Constitution is controversial and has sparked an ongoing debate within the U.S. legal community.[3] The Court’s decision to rely in part on foreign jurisprudence in reaching its decision in the Roper case is part of that debate.
The Roper v. Simmons Case. In 1993 in St. Louis, Missouri, Christopher Simmons, nine months before his 18th birthday, planned and carried out the cold-blooded murder of 46-year-old Shirley Crook. Following a plan that he had discussed in great detail with his friends, Simmons and an accomplice broke into Crook’s home, hogtied her with electrical wire, wrapped her head in duct tape, drove her to a bridge, and threw her into the Meramec River, where she drowned. Simmons subsequently bragged about the murder, explaining to friends that he killed Crook “because the bitch seen my face.” Simmons was subsequently arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death.[4]
Simmons’ case was appealed through the Missouri legal system and ultimately argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, where Simmons was represented by a team of attorneys which included Ogden. Among the arguments made in the brief co-authored by Ogden and submitted to the Supreme Court was that, in making its decision, the Court should look to the laws, legal opinions, and decisions of foreign nations and international organizations regarding the death penalty.[5]
Ogden argued that the laws of foreign nations enjoy a direct cause-and-effect relationship with the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution: “Almost without exception, the other nations of the world have rejected capital punishment of those under 18, confirming that the juvenile death penalty is contrary to Eighth Amendment standards of decency.”[6] In other words, since the “other nations of the world” disfavor capital punishment for juvenile killers, it necessarily follows that the death penalty for juvenile killers in the United States is contrary to the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
United Nations Treaties and International Organizations. In support of this position, Ogden’s brief in Roper cites to the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989, the terms of which bar the execution of persons who commit crimes while under the age of 18.[7] However, the United States did not vote in favor of the CRC in the General Assembly and has thus far—under both the Clinton and Bush Administrations—chosen not to become a party to the CRC.[8] The United States has excellent reasons not to ratify the CRC.[9] And yet Ogden’s brief maintains that since “every [other] country in the world” is a party to the CRC, the United States (including the Supreme Court) should follow its terms and outlaw the juvenile death penalty.
Ogden’s argument turns logic on its head. In effect, the Roper brief maintains that even though the United States has specifically chosen not to join the CRC, it should still be bound by its terms. Moreover, it necessarily follows that the Supreme Court should ignore the U.S. government’s decision not to ratify the CRC and impose upon the nation the CRC’s death penalty prohibition.
Citing to a 2002 report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Ogden’s brief in Roper also arguesfor the proposition that there is a new “international customary norm” barring the juvenile death penalty—a norm to which the United States is now bound.[10] The U.S., however, has never consented to be bound by the recommendation of the Inter-American Commission, which has no jurisdiction over U.S. persons and cannot compel the U.S. government. Moreover, neither that commission nor any other international organization has the authority to declare anything to be a binding, international norm.
In sum, then, Ogden’s brief maintains that the Supreme Court should interpret the U.S. Constitution with deference to (1) a global legal “consensus” allegedly reached by other nations of the world regarding the juvenile death penalty, (2) the provisions of a U.N. human rights treaty that the United States has never ratified and is not party to, and (3) a declaration by an international commission that has no authority over the United States. These three arguments have in common the desire to achieve by judicial proclamation that which could not be attained through the democratic process—either through Senate ratification of the CRC or through the amendment or repeal of the death penalty law in Missouri.
The death penalty is a serious issue for U.S. constitutional law that has been hotly debated in legal, social, cultural, and religious circles throughout America’s history and across the globe. The circumstances under which it should be imposed continue to present vexing moral questions, especially since 1958, when the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment should be interpreted according to “evolving standards of decency.”[11] Regardless of whether one believes that imposing the death penalty on persons who committed heinous crimes while under the age of 18 is cruel and unusual, it is improper for the Supreme Court to rely on arguments foreign to U.S. law such as those made in Ogden’s brief in the Roper case.[12]
Questions for Ogden
If confirmed by the Senate as deputy attorney general, Ogden would be placed in a position of great influence over the policy of the Department of Justice, second only to the attorney general, whom he would “advise and assist … in formulating and implementing Department policies and programs.”[13] Accordingly, Ogden will have a major hand in counterterrorism policy, enforcement priorities, sentencing, and the decision whether to authorize federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in appropriate cases. What role will the decisions of foreign courts and the “opinions of mankind” have on Ogden’s policy recommendations?
Ogden’s co-authorship of the Roper brief does not definitively establish that the arguments in the brief reflect his personal opinion, nor does it dictate how he will advise the attorney general on matters of legal policy. It is right and proper, however, to inquire of Ogden during his Senate confirmation hearing concerning his views on international sources of law and give him an opportunity to explain his beliefs regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Such inquiries could include:
Given the major role that the deputy attorney general will have in determining the criminal legal policy of the United States over the next four years, the arguments advanced by Ogden in the Roper v. Simmons case deserve close scrutiny.
Although the Senate confirmation hearing of Ogden will certainly not determine the propriety of relying on foreign sources of law to interpret the Constitution, the Committee on the Judiciary should not ignore his opinions on such a crucial issue of constitutional interpretation.
Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
Heritage, February 2, 2009
On January 6, Barack Obama nominated David Ogden to be the next deputy attorney general of the United States, the second highest position in the U.S. Department of Justice. Reportedly hanging in Ogden’s office at the time of the nomination was a plaque commemorating his victory in a controversial 2005 death penalty case before the U.S. Supreme Court.[1]
That case, Roper v. Simmons, was controversial not only because it determined the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty but also because, in deciding the case, a narrowly divided Supreme relied in part upon the laws and practices of foreign nations as well as other sources of foreign law and “the opinion of the world community.”
Although Ogden is certainly qualified for the position of deputy attorney general,[2] the views expressed in the brief he co-authored on behalf of the defendant in the Roper case are troublesome and should be explored during his Senate confirmation hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, currently scheduled for February 5.
Relying on Foreign Sources of Law to Interpret the U.S. Constitution
The Supreme Court’s citation to foreign law in cases interpreting the United States Constitution is controversial and has sparked an ongoing debate within the U.S. legal community.[3] The Court’s decision to rely in part on foreign jurisprudence in reaching its decision in the Roper case is part of that debate.
The Roper v. Simmons Case. In 1993 in St. Louis, Missouri, Christopher Simmons, nine months before his 18th birthday, planned and carried out the cold-blooded murder of 46-year-old Shirley Crook. Following a plan that he had discussed in great detail with his friends, Simmons and an accomplice broke into Crook’s home, hogtied her with electrical wire, wrapped her head in duct tape, drove her to a bridge, and threw her into the Meramec River, where she drowned. Simmons subsequently bragged about the murder, explaining to friends that he killed Crook “because the bitch seen my face.” Simmons was subsequently arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death.[4]
Simmons’ case was appealed through the Missouri legal system and ultimately argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, where Simmons was represented by a team of attorneys which included Ogden. Among the arguments made in the brief co-authored by Ogden and submitted to the Supreme Court was that, in making its decision, the Court should look to the laws, legal opinions, and decisions of foreign nations and international organizations regarding the death penalty.[5]
Ogden argued that the laws of foreign nations enjoy a direct cause-and-effect relationship with the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution: “Almost without exception, the other nations of the world have rejected capital punishment of those under 18, confirming that the juvenile death penalty is contrary to Eighth Amendment standards of decency.”[6] In other words, since the “other nations of the world” disfavor capital punishment for juvenile killers, it necessarily follows that the death penalty for juvenile killers in the United States is contrary to the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
United Nations Treaties and International Organizations. In support of this position, Ogden’s brief in Roper cites to the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989, the terms of which bar the execution of persons who commit crimes while under the age of 18.[7] However, the United States did not vote in favor of the CRC in the General Assembly and has thus far—under both the Clinton and Bush Administrations—chosen not to become a party to the CRC.[8] The United States has excellent reasons not to ratify the CRC.[9] And yet Ogden’s brief maintains that since “every [other] country in the world” is a party to the CRC, the United States (including the Supreme Court) should follow its terms and outlaw the juvenile death penalty.
Ogden’s argument turns logic on its head. In effect, the Roper brief maintains that even though the United States has specifically chosen not to join the CRC, it should still be bound by its terms. Moreover, it necessarily follows that the Supreme Court should ignore the U.S. government’s decision not to ratify the CRC and impose upon the nation the CRC’s death penalty prohibition.
Citing to a 2002 report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Ogden’s brief in Roper also arguesfor the proposition that there is a new “international customary norm” barring the juvenile death penalty—a norm to which the United States is now bound.[10] The U.S., however, has never consented to be bound by the recommendation of the Inter-American Commission, which has no jurisdiction over U.S. persons and cannot compel the U.S. government. Moreover, neither that commission nor any other international organization has the authority to declare anything to be a binding, international norm.
In sum, then, Ogden’s brief maintains that the Supreme Court should interpret the U.S. Constitution with deference to (1) a global legal “consensus” allegedly reached by other nations of the world regarding the juvenile death penalty, (2) the provisions of a U.N. human rights treaty that the United States has never ratified and is not party to, and (3) a declaration by an international commission that has no authority over the United States. These three arguments have in common the desire to achieve by judicial proclamation that which could not be attained through the democratic process—either through Senate ratification of the CRC or through the amendment or repeal of the death penalty law in Missouri.
The death penalty is a serious issue for U.S. constitutional law that has been hotly debated in legal, social, cultural, and religious circles throughout America’s history and across the globe. The circumstances under which it should be imposed continue to present vexing moral questions, especially since 1958, when the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment should be interpreted according to “evolving standards of decency.”[11] Regardless of whether one believes that imposing the death penalty on persons who committed heinous crimes while under the age of 18 is cruel and unusual, it is improper for the Supreme Court to rely on arguments foreign to U.S. law such as those made in Ogden’s brief in the Roper case.[12]
Questions for Ogden
If confirmed by the Senate as deputy attorney general, Ogden would be placed in a position of great influence over the policy of the Department of Justice, second only to the attorney general, whom he would “advise and assist … in formulating and implementing Department policies and programs.”[13] Accordingly, Ogden will have a major hand in counterterrorism policy, enforcement priorities, sentencing, and the decision whether to authorize federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in appropriate cases. What role will the decisions of foreign courts and the “opinions of mankind” have on Ogden’s policy recommendations?
Ogden’s co-authorship of the Roper brief does not definitively establish that the arguments in the brief reflect his personal opinion, nor does it dictate how he will advise the attorney general on matters of legal policy. It is right and proper, however, to inquire of Ogden during his Senate confirmation hearing concerning his views on international sources of law and give him an opportunity to explain his beliefs regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Such inquiries could include:
- Reliance on foreign legal norms appears to have led to an incremental erosion of the number of crimes for which the death penalty is warranted. For instance, the death penalty is no longer available in cases where the defendant was a juvenile or mentally retarded at the time of the offense[14] or in cases of rape.[15] What is next? If the “world community” reaches a consensus that the death penalty should not be applied for the crimes of terrorism, treason, or other federal capital offenses, what will you recommend to the attorney general in such cases?
- If confirmed you will be involved in deciding which federal cases are appropriate candidates for the death penalty.[16] What weight will you give to the decisions of foreign courts and other “international norms” in your death penalty recommendations to the attorney general?
- International criminal legal norms are not limited to death penalty issues. For example, 135 nations apparently more “civilized” than the United States currently prohibit the imposition of the sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for juvenile killers, while 44 U.S. states and the federal government currently permit such sentences.[17] Do you respect the sovereignty of each state in the Union to decide appropriate punishments for juvenile killers, including LWOP sentences? In your opinion, does foreign law trump the laws of 44 U.S. states as well as the laws of the very government for which you are seeking to serve as deputy attorney general?
- The legal systems of the world greatly vary from one another and from the U.S. criminal justice system. The criminal laws, social mores, and cultural traditions of other nations are also considerably divergent. Under what circumstances should the United States adopt the normative values and laws of other nations?
Given the major role that the deputy attorney general will have in determining the criminal legal policy of the United States over the next four years, the arguments advanced by Ogden in the Roper v. Simmons case deserve close scrutiny.
Although the Senate confirmation hearing of Ogden will certainly not determine the propriety of relying on foreign sources of law to interpret the Constitution, the Committee on the Judiciary should not ignore his opinions on such a crucial issue of constitutional interpretation.
Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
On BHO's executive orders on detainee treatment
Obama’s Torture Loopholes, by Prof. James Hill
Global Research, January 26, 2009
On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed a number of executive orders purporting to end the Bush administration’s abusive practices in dealing with treatment of terrorism suspects. Before Americans get too elated, however, they should look carefully at the inhumane interrogation practices these orders may still permit.
When first announced, the new president’s executive orders seemed cause for celebration, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union to feature a link on its website encouraging visitors to email the president and “Send Him Thanks!”
The ACLU summarized the new orders:
President Obama . . . ordered the closure of the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay within a year and the halting of its military commissions; the end of the use of torture; the shuttering of secret prisons around the world; and a review of the detention of the only U.S. resident being held indefinitely as a so-called “enemy combatant” on American soil. The detainee, Ali al-Marri, is the American Civil Liberties Union’s client in a case pending before the Supreme Court.
Like many reacting to the president’s orders, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero expressed unbridled enthusiasm:
These executive orders represent a giant step forward. Putting an end to Guantanamo, torture and secret prisons is a civil liberties trifecta, and President Obama should be highly commended for this bold and decisive action so early in his administration on an issue so critical to restoring an America we can be proud of again.[1]
Torture by US officials has long been illegal, but the president’s executive order entitled “Ensuring Lawful Interrogations” seems to clarify, to some extent, what activities are proscribed. Disappointingly, though, this order contains loopholes big enough to drive a FEMA camp train through them.
Loophole 1: Torture is prohibited only of persons detained in an “armed conflict.”
The executive order applies only to “armed conflicts,” not counterterrorism operations.
The order states in part:
Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, . . . the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, . . . the [United Nations] Convention Against Torture, [the Geneva Conventions] Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States [emphasis added].
This sounds salutary: America should not torture people detained in armed conflicts. But are such conflicts the only situations in which the US military, federal agencies, and private security companies can detain people today in the name of the war on terror?
Hardly. Many US and foreign citizens have been detained in counterterrorism operations, which another of Obama’s January 22 executive orders carefully differentiates from armed conflicts.
In that other executive order, entitled “Review of Detention Policy Options,” a special task force is commissioned to review procedures for detention suspects. This order clearly distinguishes between “armed conflicts” and “counterterrorism operations”:
The mission of the Special Task Force shall be to conduct a comprehensive review of the lawful options available to the Federal Government with respect to the apprehension, detention, trial, transfer, release, or other disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations, and to identify such options as are consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.
As the president has made this distinction, so should we.
To date, counterterrorism operations have resulted in hundreds of arrests of persons in America and abroad, having nothing whatever to do with any armed conflict. Does President Obama wish limits on what is done to these people when detained and interrogated? His executive order on torture is silent on the issue.
Moreover, we know that many Guantanamo detainees from Pakistan and Afghanistan were sold to US officials by bounty hunters paid up to $25,000 per detainee, regardless of innocence.[2] Are these persons to be considered “individuals detained in [an] armed conflict”? Or must they be arrested while fighting on the battlefield to fit this qualification? Put differently, are blameless, uneducated goat herders who were sold into detention by warlords and mercenaries exempted from the president’s clarified prohibition of torture, simply because they never stepped foot on a battlefield?
Another concern is the US military’s deployment in American cities, which began on October 1, 2008, according to the Army Times.[3] Perhaps this deployment is in preparation for social unrest in the event of an economic collapse. If martial law were declared in America , how would citizens be treated? What if they were detained in FEMA detention facilities? Could they be tortured under the umbrella of “counterterrorism operations” because that is different from “armed conflict”?
To Americans wishing to remain free of torture, a far greater threat than detention during armed conflict is that resulting from what the federal government labels as counterterrorism operations, conducted both on US soil and overseas. Unfortunately, President Obama has not yet clearly addressed torture in this category.
Loophole 2: Only the CIA must close detention centers.
President Obama has ordered the CIA to close detention centers, except those “used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis,” which can stay open indefinitely. Exactly how long a duration is “short-term” and “transitory” is unclear.
The executive order states:
The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.
This sounds wonderful, but what about other federal agencies? Can the FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, and Defense Intelligence Agency maintain detention facilities where torture may occur? Can private military contractors like Blackwater do so? Under one interpretation of Obama’s executive order on torture, those facilities may still operate and even expand, provided the CIA doesn’t control them. Is it cynical to suspect this could be window dressing?
Loophole 3: Officials may still hide some detainees and abusive practices from the Red Cross.
On the Red Cross’s monitoring of detainees, the executive order reads:
All departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and timely access to, any individual detained in any armed conflict in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States Government, consistent with Department of Defense regulations and policies.
Here again, if a detainee is not one captured on the battlefield by US soldiers in an armed conflict, Obama’s order provides no guidance as to his fate. Government and private thugs may evidently still brutalize detainees obtained in counterterrorism operations and hide them from the Red Cross, unless and until the president issues a further executive order, or Congress passes a law, closing this loophole.
Loophole 4: Abuses not labeled “torture” may continue.
Obama’s executive order on torture does not label any particular practice “torture,” but instead requires that future interrogation practices conform to those outlined in the Army Field Manual. This may be in deference to Bush administration officials who authorized procedures like waterboarding while simultaneously declaring, “ America does not torture.” Debate in some circles will doubtless continue, therefore, over whether waterboarding; deprivation of food, water, and sleep; humiliation; and infliction of severe bodily pain and injury indeed constitute torture.
The executive order imparts the following limitations:
Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (Manual). Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes [emphasis added].
By this language, waterboarding and other harsh interrogation procedures are prohibited by implication because they are not authorized by the Army Field Manual. But like other parts of Obama’s order, this prohibition apparently applies only to persons detained in an armed conflict. As discussed above, we are left to wonder whether detainees grabbed in counterterrorism operations can continue being tortured.
Conclusion
The loopholes in President Obama’s executive order on torture may permit cruel abuses of prisoners to continue, using a legal parlor trick. Labeling detainees the product of counterterrorism operations rather than of armed conflict, or holding detainees in detention facilities operated by entities other than the CIA, may allow government agents and private contractors conforming to the letter of the president’s order to continue practices most would consider torture. The president should close these loopholes or explain to Americans why he won’t.
James Hill is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, and a clinical assistant professor of radiology at the University of Southern California School of Medicine. The views expressed are solely his own.
Notes
[1] ACLU Press Release: President Obama Orders Guantánamo Closed And End To Torture; at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/38455prs20090122.html?s_src=RSS
[2] See: Andy Worthington: The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 759 Detainees in America 's Illegal Prison. Pluto Press, 2007; and: Jeffery Rosen: Voices of Victims (a review of My Guantanamo Diary: The Detainees and the Stories They Told Me, by Mahvish Rukhsana Khan). The New York Times, August 10, 2008, at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/books/review/Rosen-t.html?fta=y
[3] Gina Cavallaro: Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1. Army Times, September 30, 2008, at http//www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w
Global Research, January 26, 2009
On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed a number of executive orders purporting to end the Bush administration’s abusive practices in dealing with treatment of terrorism suspects. Before Americans get too elated, however, they should look carefully at the inhumane interrogation practices these orders may still permit.
When first announced, the new president’s executive orders seemed cause for celebration, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union to feature a link on its website encouraging visitors to email the president and “Send Him Thanks!”
The ACLU summarized the new orders:
President Obama . . . ordered the closure of the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay within a year and the halting of its military commissions; the end of the use of torture; the shuttering of secret prisons around the world; and a review of the detention of the only U.S. resident being held indefinitely as a so-called “enemy combatant” on American soil. The detainee, Ali al-Marri, is the American Civil Liberties Union’s client in a case pending before the Supreme Court.
Like many reacting to the president’s orders, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero expressed unbridled enthusiasm:
These executive orders represent a giant step forward. Putting an end to Guantanamo, torture and secret prisons is a civil liberties trifecta, and President Obama should be highly commended for this bold and decisive action so early in his administration on an issue so critical to restoring an America we can be proud of again.[1]
Torture by US officials has long been illegal, but the president’s executive order entitled “Ensuring Lawful Interrogations” seems to clarify, to some extent, what activities are proscribed. Disappointingly, though, this order contains loopholes big enough to drive a FEMA camp train through them.
Loophole 1: Torture is prohibited only of persons detained in an “armed conflict.”
The executive order applies only to “armed conflicts,” not counterterrorism operations.
The order states in part:
Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, . . . the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, . . . the [United Nations] Convention Against Torture, [the Geneva Conventions] Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States [emphasis added].
This sounds salutary: America should not torture people detained in armed conflicts. But are such conflicts the only situations in which the US military, federal agencies, and private security companies can detain people today in the name of the war on terror?
Hardly. Many US and foreign citizens have been detained in counterterrorism operations, which another of Obama’s January 22 executive orders carefully differentiates from armed conflicts.
In that other executive order, entitled “Review of Detention Policy Options,” a special task force is commissioned to review procedures for detention suspects. This order clearly distinguishes between “armed conflicts” and “counterterrorism operations”:
The mission of the Special Task Force shall be to conduct a comprehensive review of the lawful options available to the Federal Government with respect to the apprehension, detention, trial, transfer, release, or other disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations, and to identify such options as are consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.
As the president has made this distinction, so should we.
To date, counterterrorism operations have resulted in hundreds of arrests of persons in America and abroad, having nothing whatever to do with any armed conflict. Does President Obama wish limits on what is done to these people when detained and interrogated? His executive order on torture is silent on the issue.
Moreover, we know that many Guantanamo detainees from Pakistan and Afghanistan were sold to US officials by bounty hunters paid up to $25,000 per detainee, regardless of innocence.[2] Are these persons to be considered “individuals detained in [an] armed conflict”? Or must they be arrested while fighting on the battlefield to fit this qualification? Put differently, are blameless, uneducated goat herders who were sold into detention by warlords and mercenaries exempted from the president’s clarified prohibition of torture, simply because they never stepped foot on a battlefield?
Another concern is the US military’s deployment in American cities, which began on October 1, 2008, according to the Army Times.[3] Perhaps this deployment is in preparation for social unrest in the event of an economic collapse. If martial law were declared in America , how would citizens be treated? What if they were detained in FEMA detention facilities? Could they be tortured under the umbrella of “counterterrorism operations” because that is different from “armed conflict”?
To Americans wishing to remain free of torture, a far greater threat than detention during armed conflict is that resulting from what the federal government labels as counterterrorism operations, conducted both on US soil and overseas. Unfortunately, President Obama has not yet clearly addressed torture in this category.
Loophole 2: Only the CIA must close detention centers.
President Obama has ordered the CIA to close detention centers, except those “used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis,” which can stay open indefinitely. Exactly how long a duration is “short-term” and “transitory” is unclear.
The executive order states:
The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.
This sounds wonderful, but what about other federal agencies? Can the FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, and Defense Intelligence Agency maintain detention facilities where torture may occur? Can private military contractors like Blackwater do so? Under one interpretation of Obama’s executive order on torture, those facilities may still operate and even expand, provided the CIA doesn’t control them. Is it cynical to suspect this could be window dressing?
Loophole 3: Officials may still hide some detainees and abusive practices from the Red Cross.
On the Red Cross’s monitoring of detainees, the executive order reads:
All departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and timely access to, any individual detained in any armed conflict in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States Government, consistent with Department of Defense regulations and policies.
Here again, if a detainee is not one captured on the battlefield by US soldiers in an armed conflict, Obama’s order provides no guidance as to his fate. Government and private thugs may evidently still brutalize detainees obtained in counterterrorism operations and hide them from the Red Cross, unless and until the president issues a further executive order, or Congress passes a law, closing this loophole.
Loophole 4: Abuses not labeled “torture” may continue.
Obama’s executive order on torture does not label any particular practice “torture,” but instead requires that future interrogation practices conform to those outlined in the Army Field Manual. This may be in deference to Bush administration officials who authorized procedures like waterboarding while simultaneously declaring, “ America does not torture.” Debate in some circles will doubtless continue, therefore, over whether waterboarding; deprivation of food, water, and sleep; humiliation; and infliction of severe bodily pain and injury indeed constitute torture.
The executive order imparts the following limitations:
Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (Manual). Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes [emphasis added].
By this language, waterboarding and other harsh interrogation procedures are prohibited by implication because they are not authorized by the Army Field Manual. But like other parts of Obama’s order, this prohibition apparently applies only to persons detained in an armed conflict. As discussed above, we are left to wonder whether detainees grabbed in counterterrorism operations can continue being tortured.
Conclusion
The loopholes in President Obama’s executive order on torture may permit cruel abuses of prisoners to continue, using a legal parlor trick. Labeling detainees the product of counterterrorism operations rather than of armed conflict, or holding detainees in detention facilities operated by entities other than the CIA, may allow government agents and private contractors conforming to the letter of the president’s order to continue practices most would consider torture. The president should close these loopholes or explain to Americans why he won’t.
James Hill is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, and a clinical assistant professor of radiology at the University of Southern California School of Medicine. The views expressed are solely his own.
Notes
[1] ACLU Press Release: President Obama Orders Guantánamo Closed And End To Torture; at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/38455prs20090122.html?s_src=RSS
[2] See: Andy Worthington: The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 759 Detainees in America 's Illegal Prison. Pluto Press, 2007; and: Jeffery Rosen: Voices of Victims (a review of My Guantanamo Diary: The Detainees and the Stories They Told Me, by Mahvish Rukhsana Khan). The New York Times, August 10, 2008, at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/books/review/Rosen-t.html?fta=y
[3] Gina Cavallaro: Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1. Army Times, September 30, 2008, at http//www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w
How "Child Safety" May Kill NYC Jobs
How "Child Safety" May Kill NYC Jobs. By Jeff Stier, Esq.
American Council on Science and Health, Wednesday, January 28, 2009
If Congress doesn't act quickly, tens of thousands of Americans will lose their jobs -- and several hundred New York businesses will get hit particularly hard.
The problem is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which Congress passed overwhelmingly last year because of fears about lead in toys from China. Bizarrely, the law threatens U.S.-based children's clothing makers as well as toy makers -- and even libraries. Its staggering, unintended consequences have prompted outrage from everyone from "mommy-bloggers" to some environmentalists.
In the name of safety, the law imposes absurd standards and insane testing requirements. These aren't based on science, but on political hysteria -- and they're a major burden on business. In this recession, they could close down countless companies whose products are perfectly safe.
One example: The law not only requires testing of components of children's clothing for tiny levels of lead, but also separate testing of each different style of clothes, even if made from the same materials.
What's worse, the Consumer Product Safety Commission interprets the law to apply to kid's clothing retroactively. So products already en route to stores -- even if they contain no lead -- will be illegal to sell after Feb. 10 if they haven't been tested.
Wal-Mart is telling its suppliers that everything it has in stock that hasn't already been tested must be out of stores by Feb. 1 -- even if that means sending the stuff back to suppliers.
This is creating chaos for everyone involved in making and selling children's items. Unless Congress acts now, tens of millions of dollars worth of safe children's clothing will be destroyed -- and that's from New York City clothing makers alone.
Dozens of small, family-owned New York businesses, already struggling, will shut down and/or lay off their workers. The city could lose a quarter to a half of its 8,000 garment-industry jobs within weeks. Cory Silverstein of Kids Headquarters on 34th Street fears he may have to lay off close to 100 of his 600 employees in the city.
Meanwhile, the test requirements will make children's clothing more expensive.
Opponents of this "safety" law include not just businesses but activists like Chicago writer and environmentalist Manda Aufochs Gillespie, a.k.a. "the Green Mama." She writes that it "has made things much harder than they need to be": Even products that already meet much-stricter organic-certification requirements, as well as European Union standards, are not exempt from the "safety" testing requirements.
Companies like Chapter One Organics are also angry -- because big business can absorb the costs and pass them along to consumers, while smaller companies will be forced out of business.
The law's onerous testing requirements may even apply to children's books. If so, until every single children's book is certified safe, libraries would be off-limits to children. So the American Library Association is lobbying for a quick fix to exempt libraries from the law.
But the law is so fundamentally flawed that it can't just be tweaked -- it must be repealed. Then, Congress can consider a more science-based approach to safety that protects children without destroying whole industries.
The immediate need, however, is for Congress to simply delay the law from taking effect. If it doesn't act now, thousands of small businesses will close and consumers will pay more for everything they buy their kids.
Jeff Stier is an associate director of the American Council on Science and Health.
American Council on Science and Health, Wednesday, January 28, 2009
If Congress doesn't act quickly, tens of thousands of Americans will lose their jobs -- and several hundred New York businesses will get hit particularly hard.
The problem is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which Congress passed overwhelmingly last year because of fears about lead in toys from China. Bizarrely, the law threatens U.S.-based children's clothing makers as well as toy makers -- and even libraries. Its staggering, unintended consequences have prompted outrage from everyone from "mommy-bloggers" to some environmentalists.
In the name of safety, the law imposes absurd standards and insane testing requirements. These aren't based on science, but on political hysteria -- and they're a major burden on business. In this recession, they could close down countless companies whose products are perfectly safe.
One example: The law not only requires testing of components of children's clothing for tiny levels of lead, but also separate testing of each different style of clothes, even if made from the same materials.
What's worse, the Consumer Product Safety Commission interprets the law to apply to kid's clothing retroactively. So products already en route to stores -- even if they contain no lead -- will be illegal to sell after Feb. 10 if they haven't been tested.
Wal-Mart is telling its suppliers that everything it has in stock that hasn't already been tested must be out of stores by Feb. 1 -- even if that means sending the stuff back to suppliers.
This is creating chaos for everyone involved in making and selling children's items. Unless Congress acts now, tens of millions of dollars worth of safe children's clothing will be destroyed -- and that's from New York City clothing makers alone.
Dozens of small, family-owned New York businesses, already struggling, will shut down and/or lay off their workers. The city could lose a quarter to a half of its 8,000 garment-industry jobs within weeks. Cory Silverstein of Kids Headquarters on 34th Street fears he may have to lay off close to 100 of his 600 employees in the city.
Meanwhile, the test requirements will make children's clothing more expensive.
Opponents of this "safety" law include not just businesses but activists like Chicago writer and environmentalist Manda Aufochs Gillespie, a.k.a. "the Green Mama." She writes that it "has made things much harder than they need to be": Even products that already meet much-stricter organic-certification requirements, as well as European Union standards, are not exempt from the "safety" testing requirements.
Companies like Chapter One Organics are also angry -- because big business can absorb the costs and pass them along to consumers, while smaller companies will be forced out of business.
The law's onerous testing requirements may even apply to children's books. If so, until every single children's book is certified safe, libraries would be off-limits to children. So the American Library Association is lobbying for a quick fix to exempt libraries from the law.
But the law is so fundamentally flawed that it can't just be tweaked -- it must be repealed. Then, Congress can consider a more science-based approach to safety that protects children without destroying whole industries.
The immediate need, however, is for Congress to simply delay the law from taking effect. If it doesn't act now, thousands of small businesses will close and consumers will pay more for everything they buy their kids.
Jeff Stier is an associate director of the American Council on Science and Health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
