Human Rights: And I am supposed to care about the UN? Not.

Genocidal Sudanese regime's appointment to UN human rights council all butcertain, watchdog says

By Joshua Rhett Miller

Published August 08, 2012

FoxNews.com

The election of a Sudanese warlord accused of genocide to the United Nations Human Rights Council is now virtually guaranteed, since he has the full backing of the world body's African delegation.

The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for Omar Al-Bashir -- its first ever for a sitting head of state -- for crimes against humanity he allegedly committed in Darfur. Yet, his regime is set to take its place on the panel, in the latest bizarre appointment to make a mockery of the UN's human rights credibility, according to critics.

It's like putting “Jack the Ripper in charge of a women’s shelter,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

Neuer's Geneva-based group is calling on UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay to denounce election of the war-torn North African nation to the 47-member body. Sudan is not technically on the panel, but its election is a certainty because only five African nations are vying for the continent's five seats.

Membership to the Council is open to all member states and secret-ballot elections are held every year, according to a UN website. Upon election, states serve three-year terms and are not eligible for immediate re-election after serving two consecutive terms.

Candidates within the UN’s African Group, which has five vacant seats, include Ethiopia, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and Sudan. The candidacies of Venezuela and Pakistan are also being protested by UN Watch and other human rights groups.

U.S. officials also blasted the development.

"Sudan, a consistent human rights violator, does not meet the Council’s own standards for membership," said Kurtis Cooper, deputy spokesman for the United States Mission to the United Nations. "It would be inappropriate for Sudan to have a seat on the Council while the Sudanese head of State is under International Criminal Court indictment for war crimes in Darfur and the government of Sudan continues to use violence to inflame tensions along its border with South Sudan."

Mark Lagon, a visiting professor at Georgetown University and a former U.S. State Department official, said Al-Bashir’s regime fomented genocide in Darfur and has since returned to terrorizing innocent people in South Sudan.

“It lacks credibility to judge others, and the Council lacks it too with it as a Member,” Lagon told FoxNews.com in an email.

Neuer said Pillay, a South African, should be a “moral voice” and urge other African nations to call for “unequivocal opposition to Sudan’s scandalous” bid for the election that will add 18 member nations in all.

“Just a year after the human rights council sought to exorcise the ghosts of its past by suspending Col. Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya — which infamously chaired the body in 2003, and was reelected a member in 2010 — it is now set to replace him with a tyrant wanted for genocide by the International Criminal Court. For how long must we have the inmates running the asylum?”

Neuer said the reputation of the former human rights commission “never recovered” from making Libya its chair in 2003.

“The UN and the cause of human rights will be severely damaged if and when Al-Bashir’s Sudanese regime wins a seat,” he said.

In its first-ever arrest warrant issued for a sitting head of state by the UN International Crimes Court (ICC) in 2009, al-Bashir was accused of intentionally directing attacks in western Sudan’s Darfur region by “murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing and forcibly transferring” large numbers of civilians.

The “unlawful” campaign allegedly started soon after the April 2003 attack on El Fasher airport — as a result of agreements between Al-Bashir and other high-ranking Sudanese leaders — and lasted until at least July 2008. The warrant of arrests lists seven counts, including five counts of crimes against humanity and two counts of war crimes.

The recent UN process seemingly favors rogue states, including Iran, Zimbabwe and Syria:

—Just last month, Iran was elected to the deputy president role of a 15-member board aiming to thrash out a UN arms trade treaty, despite multiple UN sanctions against the Islamic republic regarding its nuclear defiance and human rights abuses.

—In May, Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe was appointed as a UN tourism envoy for a major UN conference despite allegations of ethnic cleansing and rigged elections by the 88-year-old who has led the southern African nation for more than three decades.

—Syria was elected to a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) human rights committee last fall, despite the ongoing crackdown on opposition protests by Bashar al-Assad’s regime that has reportedly claimed more than 21,000 lives in just 17 months.

When electing states to the council, members are asked to consider the “contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights” and voluntary pledges in that regard, according to a UN website.

“Upon election, new members commit themselves to cooperating with the Council and to upholding the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights,” the website reads. “Members of the Council are reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review mechanism during their term of membership.”

Any member that commits “gross and systematic violations” of human rights can be suspended by a two-thirds majority vote by  the General Assembly.












UN

Nigerian Baby Makers - Make me a Baby as Fast as You Can ...

I totally understand why we need to treat all people the same, all cultures, all values.

Totally.

Also - fails to mention something we should keep in mind.

Nigeria had two presidents, one died and they had an election and now Goodluck is president.  One reason why Goodluck and the now dead guy shared power was ..... [think jeopardy timer] ...

And then we have the missing piece!







Nigerian 'baby factory' raided, 32 teenage girls freed



Wed Jun 1, 10:32 am ET

LAGOS (AFP) – Nigerian police have raided a home allegedly being used to force teenage girls to have babies that were then offered for sale for trafficking or other purposes, authorities said on Wednesday.

"We stormed the premises of the Cross Foundation in Aba three days ago following a report that pregnant girls aged between 15 and 17 are being made to make babies for the proprietor," said Bala Hassan, police commissioner for Abia state in the country's southeast.

"We rescued 32 pregnant girls and arrested the proprietor who is undergoing interrogation over allegations that he normally sells the babies to people who may use them for rituals or other purposes."

Some of the girls told police they had been offered to sell their babies for between 25,000 and 30,000 naira (192 dollars) depending on the sex of the baby.

The babies would then be sold to buyers for anything from 300,000 naira to one million naira (1,920 and 6,400 dollars) each, according to a state agency fighting human trafficking in Nigeria, the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP).

The girls were expected to be transferred to the regional NAPTIP offices in Enugu on Wednesday, the regional head Ijeoma Okoronkwo told AFP.

Hassan said the owner of the "illegal baby factory" is likely to face child abuse and human trafficking charges. Buying or selling of babies is illegal in Nigeria and can carry a 14-year jail term.

"We have so many cases going on in court right now," said Okoronkwo.

In 2008, police raids revealed an alleged network of such clinics, dubbed baby "farms" or "factories" in the local press.

Cases of child abuse and people trafficking are common in West Africa. Some children are bought from their families to for use as labour in plantations, mines, factories or as domestic help.

Others are sold into prostitution while a few are either killed or tortured in black magic rituals. NAPTIP says it has also seen a trend of illegal adoption.

"There is a problem of illict adoption and people not knowing the right way to adopt children," said Okoronkwo.

Human trafficking is ranked the third most common crime after economic fraud and drug trafficking in the country, according to UNESCO.









 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
nigeria

China: Force is never the answer (unless we are the ones using force)

Hu is so right.  History has shown that force ... is very often the answer Mr. Hu.  That point aside, China operates on the same premise - force is necessary to hold on to what it has.  If you didn't use force Mr. Hu, you would be in prison, China would not be raping Africa nor South America, China would not be instigating Middle East problems, and China would be democratic.  And Mr. Hu, when you are in a quiet place, alone, thinking about how things could be different - you know I am right.




China's Hu tells Sarkozy dialogue way out of Libya crisis



Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:35am EDT

BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese President Hu Jintao told visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday that the crisis in Libya can be solved only through dialogue, not force.

"History has repeatedly proved that the use of force is not an answer to problems," Hu told Sarkozy in Beijing, according to Chinese state television news.

"Dialogue and other peaceful means are the ultimate solution to problems," said Hu in their talks about Libya.

China abstained from the United Nations Security Council vote that authorized a no-fly zone in Libya and military action against the forces of Muammar Gaddafi. But since then Beijing has accused Western countries of overreaching in their campaign against Gaddafi.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
china

Pakistan: Pray the way we want you to pray or die.

Sherry Rehman, Pakistan's defiant prisoner of intolerance, vows to stay put'


These death threats won't make me flee', says Rehman, who supports reform of Pakistan's blasphemy laws



Declan Walsh in Karachi
The Observer, Sunday 23 January 2011


Sherry Rehman, a liberal parliamentarian with the ruling Pakistan People's Party who proposed a bill to reform Pakistan's controversial blasphemy laws, at her home home in Karachi. Photograph: Declan Walsh for the Observer

All Sherry Rehman wants is to go out – for a coffee, a stroll, lunch, anything. But that's not possible. Death threats flood her email inbox and mobile phone; armed police are squatted at the gate of her Karachi mansion; government ministers advise her to flee.

"I get two types of advice about leaving," says the steely politician. "One from concerned friends, the other from those who want me out so I'll stop making trouble. But I'm going nowhere." She pauses, then adds quietly: "At least for now."

It's been almost three weeks since Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer was gunned down outside an Islamabad cafe. As the country plunged into crisis, Rehman became a prisoner in her own home. Having championed the same issue that caused Taseer's death – reform of Pakistan's draconian blasphemy laws – she is, by popular consensus, next on the extremists' list.

Giant rallies against blasphemy reform have swelled the streets of Karachi, where clerics use her name. There are allegations that a cleric in a local mosque, barely five minutes' drive away, has branded her an "infidel" deserving of death. In the Punjabi city of Multan last week opponents tried to file blasphemy charges against her – raising the absurd possibility of Rehman, a national politician, facing a possible death sentence. "My inbox is inundated. The good news is that a lot of it is no longer hate mail," she says with a grim smile. "But a lot of it is."

Pakistani politicians have a long tradition of self-imposed exile but 50-year-old Rehman – a former confidante of Benazir Bhutto, and known for her glamour, principled politics and sharp tongue – is surely the first to undergo self-imposed house arrest. Hers is a luxury cell near the Karachi shore, filled with fine furniture and expensive art, but a stifling one. Government officials insist on 48 hours' notice before putting a foot outside. Plots are afoot, they warn.

She welcomes a stream of visitors – well-educated, English-speaking people from the slim elite. But Pakistan's left is divided and outnumbered. Supporters squabble over whether they should call themselves "liberals", and while candle-lit vigils in upmarket shopping areas may attract 200 well-heeled protesters, the religious parties can turn out 40,000 people, all shouting support for Mumtaz Qadri, the fanatical policeman who shot Taseer. "Pakistan is one of the first examples of a fascist, faith-based dystopia," warns commentator Nadeem Farooq Paracha.

Is it really that bad? At Friday lunchtime worshippers streamed into the Aram Bagh mosque, a beautiful structure in central Karachi inscribed with poetry praising the prophet Muhammad. "He dispelled darkness with his beauty," read one line. At the gate a banner hung by the Jamaat-e-Islami religious party offered less inspiring verse: "Death to those who conspire against the blasphemy laws."

Qamar Ahmed, a 50-year-old jeweller, said he "saluted" Taseer's killer, Qadri. "Nobody should insult the glory of the prophet, who taught us Muslims to pray," he said.

A sense of siege is setting in among Pakistan's elite. Hours later, at an upscale drinks party in the city, businessmen and their wives sipped wine and gossiped about second homes in Dubai. One woman admitted she wasn't aware of Rehman's plight because she had stopped reading the papers. "Too much bad news," she said.

Yet Pakistan is not on the verge of becoming a totalitarian religious state. The fervour is being whipped up by the normally fractious religious parties, delighted at having found a uniting issue. Leading the protests is Jamaat-e-Islami, which made the mistake of boycotting the last election and now wants to trigger a fresh poll.

More significant is the lack of resistance from every other party. Rehman is polite when asked about the silence of her colleag ues in the ruling Pakistan Peoples party on the blasphemy issue. "They feel they want to address this issue at another time," she says. The truth is, they have abandoned her.

The party played with fire over the blasphemy issue last November when President Asif Ali Zardari floated the idea of a pardon for Aasia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death on dubious blasphemy charges. According to Rehman, he also agreed to reform the law. But then conservative elements in the party objected, a conservative judge blocked the pardon and, even before Taseer had been killed, the party had vowed not to touch a law that has become the virtual sacred writ of Pakistani politics.

The opposition has also been quiet. "The greater the failure of the ruling class, the louder the voice of the cleric," says politician and journalist Ayaz Amir.

The mess is also the product of dangerous spy games by the powerful army, which propped up jihadi groups for decades to fight in Afghanistan and India. Some of those militants have now "gone rogue" and allied with al-Qaida; others, according to US assessments in the WikiLeaks files, are still quietly supported by the military. "Our establishment, especially the army, is in league with these people," says Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a moderate cleric. "And until they stop supporting them they will never be weakened."

The furore has exposed the fallacy of western ideas about "moderate" Islam. Qadri is a member of the mainstream Barelvi sect, whose leaders previously condemned the Taliban. But after Taseer's death, Barelvi clerics were the first to declare that anyone who even mourned with his grieving family was guilty of blasphemy.

Progressives demonstrate loudly in the English press and on Twitter but lack political support, having largely spurned corruption-ridden politics. Politicians say now is the time to come back. "They will be contemptuous of the politician, but they will not actually soil their hands with politics. But none of them has a constituency from which to stand," says Amir.

And there are signs that extremists do back down when confronted. Qari Munir Shakir, the cleric accused of calling Rehman an "infidel", denied his comments after Rehman supporters filed a police case against him. "It's all been blown out of proportion," he said. "All I did was ask her to take the law back. I can't imagine calling her a non-Muslim or declare her Wajib ul Qatil [deserving of death]."

Rehman is unlikely to attend Pakistan's parliament when it resumes this week. Her progressive credentials are strong, having previously introduced legislation that blunted anti-women laws and criminalised sexual harassment. But critics, including senior human rights officials, say she made a tactical mistake in prematurely introducing last November's blasphemy bill without the requisite political support.

"There's never a right time," she retorts. "Blasphemy cases are continually popping up, more horror stories from the ground. How do you ignore them?" At any rate the bill is a dead letter: clerics are demanding its immediate withdrawal from parliament and the government is likely to comply.

Amid the gloom there is some hope, from unlikely quarters. On a popular talk show last Friday night Veena Malik, an actress who faced conservative censure for appearing on the Indian version of Big Brother, gave an unforgettable tongue-lashing to a cleric who had been criticising her. "You are attacking me because I am a soft target," she railed into the camera, wagging her finger.

"But there's a lot more you can fix in the name of Islam… What about those mullahs who rape the same boys that they teach in mosques?" As the mullah replied, she started to barrack him again.

Hope also springs inside the silent majority. "The blasphemy law should be changed," declared Muhammad Usman after Friday prayers. Clutching his motorbike helmet, the 30-year-old pharmaceutical company representative said he was unafraid of speaking his mind. "It's just the illiterate ones who are supporting Mumtaz Qadri. They don't have any real religious knowledge," he said.

[The problem with the silent majority - it is always those who will cut off your head, blow up your children and otherwise kill you to ensure their right to force everyone to pray in the manner they wish, who will win - not the majority who are quiet and peaceful.]


Some analysts downplay the worst predictions, saying blasphemy is exceptionally sensitive in a country obsessed by religion. They are right. Pakistan will soon return to more concrete worries: Taliban insurgents, economic collapse, the rise of extremism. Yet there is no doubt the aftermath of Taseer's death points to a country headed down a dangerous path.

"We know from history that appeasement doesn't pay. It only emboldens them," said Rehman.

She has no idea how long her self-imposed house arrest will last, but the precedents are ominous. In 1997 a judge who acquitted two Christians accused of blasphemy was gunned down – three years after the judgment.

"It makes me realise that life is pretty fragile," she says. "But we don't want to leave. I see no meaning to a life away from my country. It's my identity, it's everything."

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pakistan

UN: Worlds Joke

A joke or a horror show.





US faces first scrutiny by UN rights council

Oct 31, 2010



The United States will come under the spotlight at the UN's top human rights assembly's for the first time over the coming week along with other countries that face scrutiny by the Human Rights Council.

The 12-day session of the 47 member council starting on Monday will include regular "universal periodic reviews" of 16 members of the United Nations, including the United States on November 5.

Several dozen non governmental organisation are expected to lobby the debate on the US human rights record, while Washington will also defend its record.

Some 300 US civil liberties and community groups in the US Human Rights Network on Monday called on the Obama administration to bring "substandard human rights practices" in the United States into line with international standards.

The United States only agreed to join the Council in May 2009, after the Bush administration had shunned the body which replaced its similar though discredited predecessor, the UN human rights commission, in 2006.

The Network produced a 400-page report criticising "glaring inadequacies in the United States? human rights record," including the "discriminatory impact" of foreclosures, "widespread" racial profiling and "draconian" immigration policies.

"Advocates across America have not only documented substandard human rights practices which have persisted in the US for years, but also those that reflect the precipitous erosion of human rights protections in the US since 9/11," said Sarah Paoletti of the Network.

The United States has also faced widespread criticism by UN rights monitors in recent years over its handling of terror suspects and suspected torture, while concern over the conduct of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been revived in recent months with "Wikileak" reports on leaked confidential documents.

The other UN member states scheduled for review in this Council session will be Andorra, Bulgaria, Croatia, Honduras, Jamaica, Liberia, Libya, Lebanon Malawi, Maldives, the Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Mongolia, and Panama.

Each public, four-year, review is based on a report by the country, a compilation of non governmental organisation assessments and a one day debate with comments by its peers. No action is taken.

















 
 
 
 
UN

Obama and the UN Human Rights Council - Yet another Joke

Pushing to join the HRC as a sign that the US will engage the world community?  What inspidily idiotic idea inspired such an ignorant plan.






Obama battles to save peace plan as fears grow of collapse

From The Times October 16, 2009
Catherine Philp, Diplomatic Correspondent



The threat to the Middle East peace process has sent President Obama’s Administration into a tailspin. George Mitchell, Washington’s special envoy to the Middle East, was close to calling off a trip to the region last week but was reportedly press-ganged into going by the White House — who feared that negotiations might collapse sooner if he stayed away.

The crisis has sharpened the focus on Mr Obama’s decision to join the UN Human Rights Council — a reversal from the Bush-era and hailed as part of the US’s new policy of engagement in multilateral diplomacy.

Critics were savage, noting the council’s history of bias against Israel, the only country it has condemned for human rights abuses. Sudan’s behaviour in Darfur merited only “deep concern”.

There is no lack of irony for America, facing its first vote as a full member of the council. President Obama was only a month into office when he announced that the US would stand for the council as proof of its commitment to work with other nations. Now the panel he embraced may derail his other great foreign policy objective — peace in the Middle East. Critics contend that this was always going to happen, given the council’s peculiar composition and obsessions.

The council was established three years ago to replace its discredited predecessor, the 60-year-old Human Rights Commission. It sank under the weight of international opprobrium after its effort at inclusivity led to human rights abusers like Sudan and Zimbabwe joining together to block criticism of their actions.

The Bush Administration refused to join the council, arguing it was little better than its forerunner. In three years, it has gone a long way to proving that thesis.

Forty-seven countries sit on the council, all with equal weighting. Unlike the Security Council, there are no permanent members, just countries elected to serve a three-year term. And unlike the Security Council, no country wields a veto, making any resolution passable by a simple majority.

A great number of resolutions have been about Israel – many more than any other country. In its first two years, the council passed 15 resolutions condemning it. Its focus on Israel has brought objections from inside and outside the UN — including by Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon, the former and current Secretary-Generals. Mr Annan criticised the council for its “disproportionate focus on violations by Israel” while neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur, which had what he termed “graver” crises.

There was widespread concern in March this year when the council adopted a non-binding resolution — authored by Pakistan and sponsored mainly by Islamic states — calling the defamation of religion “a violation of human rights”. The resolution was derided as a blow against freedom of expression. Human rights groups labelled the council a “disgrace” when, in May this year, it subverted a European resolution calling on Sri Lanka to investigate alleged war crimes in its long-running conflict with the Tamil Tigers into one that praised Colombo for its success in stamping out terrorism. UN sources told The Times that an estimated 20,000 civilians had been killed by Sri Lankan army shelling.

The council has powers of censure and referral but little of the power of its Security Council counterpart in New York.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UN

And it came to pass ... it's all Israel's fault.

Human rights leaders get their priorities in order 

Michael Posner - October 2009



And it came to pass that the venerable leaders of the world’s most important human rights organizations assembled for their annual conclave in Geneva. 

As they sat down to their evening repast of Scottish smoked salmon and duck confit, their faces were drawn and troubled – and understandably so. 
 
Their diligent teams of researchers and investigators had catalogued a long list of grievous human rights abuses, evidence of the persistent cruelty of man to man.  

This high-minded gathering, men and women of unquestioned probity and integrity, had received disturbing reports on the atrocities committed in recent years by Russian forces in Chechnya, and later in Georgia, murdering scores of innocent civilians. 

They had read the shocking accounts of genocide in Darfur, perpetrated by Janjaweed militias, agents of the Sudanese government – hundreds of thousands slaughtered indiscriminately. They had seen the disturbing film footage of Chinese army soldiers killing Muslim Uighur protesters in Xinjiang and in Tibet. 

They were aware that the military junta in Myanmar had deployed troops to assault thousands of protesting monks and students. They knew that tribal warfare was being conducted in Somalia, an anarchic wasteland of gratuitous mayhem, where the death toll, again, climbed into the hundreds of thousands.  

They bemoaned the tales of child soldiers – kidnapped, trained and coerced into warfare in Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and several other countries. By some accounts, there were as many as 300,000 child soldiers fighting in various parts of the world, most of them under the age of 15. 

Yet that was not all. These sober humanitarians, veritably the ethical and moral voice of the human race, knew only too well the heart-breaking stories of Pakistan villagers forced to flee – 1.7 million, according to the United Nations – the violence in Swat province, innocents caught up in the country’s deadly war against Al Qaeda militants. 

They had closely monitored the continuing struggle in neighbouring Afghanistan between Taliban insurgents and a coalition of Western forces trying to stabilize the Afghan president’s tenuous hold on power. 

They had followed the accounts of Iranian bloggers and Twitterers, as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s special forces launched a brutal crackdown on those who dared to protest his landslide win in the 2009 national elections, and the intolerable constraints of a rigid theocratic state. 

And they were scrupulous in gathering statistics on the daily toll of dead from suicide bombings, roadside ordinances and other acts of insurgency in strife-torn Iraq. The swelling archive of dossiers filled these pillars of the international community with concern.  

But as they sipped their goblets of vintage French and German wines in Geneva, these brave men and women of conscience knew something else: that the aggregate suffering of all of these terrible wars, revolts, uprisings and protests paled in comparison to the single most pressing human rights issue of the day – indeed, of the century. 

“Ladies and gentlemen,” began the distinguished chairman of the proceedings, as he took the dais. “We cannot hope to deal with all the abuses that have been documented. Therefore, we must prioritize, must we not, and direct our energies to confronting the most egregious, the most flagrant encroachments: those carried out by the Jews – or rather by the Israelis, though it amounts to the same thing – against their peace-loving neighbours, the peace loving Palestinians. 

“All other infringements of fundamental human rights, pale beside that now being inflicted upon the peace-loving Palestinians. 

“Please raise your hands if you agree that we humanitarians would be derelict in our duties as sentinels of civil liberty if we failed to speak the disturbing truth about the heinous acts perpetrated against the peace-loving Palestinians.” 

And lo, like an obedient army saluting its commander, the delegates promptly raised their hands in unanimous agreement. “Yes, we know that a handful of peasants have complained about Russian fighter jets raining down missiles on towns and villages in Chechnya and Georgia,” the distinguished chairman continued. 

“But can we turn a blind eye to the plight of peace-loving Palestinians, forced to undergo hours of humiliating inspection at Israeli army checkpoints, simply because one or two of them might want to visit a pizza parlour in Jerusalem or a discotheque in Tel Aviv with an unfashionable belt tied around their waist? 

“I think we all know the answer. 

“Yes, the Sudanese government has armed and trained gangs of mercenaries, which have raped, pillaged and murdered tens of thousands. 

I therefore urgently call for a formal commission of inquiry under the auspices of the United Nations to hold hearings that will probe these grievous charges. We must get to the bottom of it. 

“I don’t care if it takes years. 

“But what are the killing fields of Darfur when measured against the injustice of the vast, impersonal separation wall that has been erected along the border between what was once Palestine and the West Bank, and with which peace-loving Palestinians must now sadly contend? 

“I think we all know the answer. 

“Yes, it is said that the Sri Lankan government used disproportionate force in ruthlessly suppressing the Tamil uprising in the north. This claim, too, should be thoroughly investigated, as soon as time and resources permit. 

“But what is this compared to the hardships peace-loving Palestinians must endure, watching a few Israeli settlers on the West Bank turn the arid desert into productive farms and communities, while incessantly singing Hebrew songs in praise of God? 

“I think we all know the answer. 

“Surely the world recognizes the menace – no, let us have the courage to call it by its proper name – the evil that these handfuls of settlers and their wives and small children pose to peace-loving Palestinians. 

“Does anyone doubt that, but for these vexatious settlers – who believe that some hoary deity in a book of transparent fiction, the Old Testament, promised them the land – does anyone doubt that but for their obstinacy and intransigence, peace-loving Palestinians would immediately renounce terrorism, and teach their children to love the Jews? 

“I think we all know the answer. 

“It is not our role as humanitarians to pass judgment on the merits of this political position or that. We must always remain neutral and weigh our words carefully, until all the facts are in. 

“But can there be any doubt that if only Israel would dismantle the settlements, tear down the apartheid wall, remove the checkpoints, return to its original borders, and allow peace-loving Palestinians everywhere to reclaim their ancestral homes that this festering conflict would finally be resolved? 

“I think we all know the answer. 

“If Israel did not unreasonably insist that peace-loving Palestinians finally come to terms with its existence, and grant it formal recognition – clearly an unreasonable demand – can anyone doubt that the elected representatives of Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and other peace-loving organizations would no longer be forced to take the billions of dollars in aid given to them over the past decade by American and European governments to buy guns, set up bomb-making factories, and open Swiss bank accounts for their families? 

“I think we all know the answer to that, as well. 

“And so my friends, I urge you today not to let your focus be diverted as another Shiite suicide bomber blows up a Sunni vegetable market or police training academy in Baghdad. 

“Don’t be distracted when elite forces of the Iranian government charge through the streets of Tehran shooting young Iranians at random. 

“Don’t take your eye off the ball when guns and water cannons are used on protestors in the streets of China and Myanmar. 

“Because what is that compared to having to be searched and verbally assaulted by an Israeli soldier at a checkpoint near Ramallah? 

“Surely we all know the answer. 

“Yes, there are women being genitally mutilated every day in Africa, women prevented from going to school, leaving the matrimonial home without a male escort, forbidden to drive cars, wear sleeveless dresses and vote in elections. 

“Yes, there are newly dead corpses lying in the streets of Somalia and elsewhere. 

“Indeed, as I speak, there are men, women and children dying in unthinkable numbers all over the world, testimony to the rapacious, murderous instinct that seems to reside in all mankind. It is too horrible to even contemplate. “So let us maintain our reason and perspective. Let us be strong and vigilant. Let us be mindful of the greater tragedy, the greater sin, the one that occurs when – on a mere pretext, because a young Arab may have killed a few dozen Jews in a suicide attack – another Israeli settler takes another sharpened axe to another peace-loving Palestinian olive tree and cuts it down, depriving him of his peace-loving livelihood. Think of the consequences of that. 

“Isn’t that, fundamentally the heart of the matter – the settlers, the Israelis, the Jews, if you will? Isn’t that, in fact, the core of all our problems? 

“I think we all know the answer to that.”  
 
And with that, the distinguished chairman stepped back from the lectern, while the sea of delegates rose as one to give him a sustained standing ovation. 

Michael Posner writes for the Globe and Mail













silly people 

Guantanamo: They are all innocent

Even more reason to let them into the US prison system where they can inculcate the truly evil and grossly stupid with their cult of death. Why not. They are all just - misunderstood.



One in 7 who leave Guantanamo involved in terrorism

Tue May 26, 2009


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seventy-four, or one out of every seven, terrorism suspects formerly held at the U.S. detention site at Guantanamo Bay are confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism, the Pentagon said on Tuesday.

Of more than 530 detainees transferred from the U.S. base in Cuba, 27 are confirmed and 47 suspected of "reengaging in terrorist activity," according to a written Pentagon summary.

The total of 74 has more than doubled since May 2007, when the Pentagon said about 30 had gone back to terrorist activity, and increased slightly since January, when the figure stood at 61.
The Pentagon offered no specific reason for the increase.

"I don't know that I could put any one particular reason to it," spokesman Bryan Whitman said.
The figures were released amid intense debate in Washington over the prison opened by the Bush administration, which has been strongly criticized by many nations, including U.S. allies, and rights groups.

Human rights groups have voiced skepticism about previous Defense Department statements on former Guantanamo detainees taking part in terrorism. Some have suggested they are intended to stoke fear among Americans about its closing.

In one of his first acts after taking office in January, President Barack Obama ordered the Guantanamo detention center shut within a year.

Administration officials have said harsh treatment of detainees there and the detention of suspects for years without trial have tarnished America's image and acted as a recruitment tool for terrorists.

But last week the U.S. Senate, controlled by Obama's fellow Democrats, blocked funds the administration sought to shutter the prison, demanding a detailed plan on what would happen to the 240 terrorism suspects still held at Guantanamo.

Citing information from the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon provided the names and brief details of 15 former detainees it said had been confirmed as having returned to terrorism and 14 suspected of doing so.

The list included former detainees accused or convicted of terrorist offenses in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Russia.

Among the more recent cases mentioned were two men repatriated to Saudi Arabia in 2007, Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shihri and Mazin Salih Musaid al-Alawi al-Awfi, said to have announced in a video message in January that they were leaders of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a new group.

Among those accused of the most serious offenses was Said Mohammed Alim Shah, also known as Abdullah Mahsud. Repatriated to Afghanistan in 2004, he blew himself up to avoid capture by Pakistani forces in July 2007, the summary said.

According to a Pakistani official, he directed an April 2007 suicide attack that killed 31 people, it said.

The Pentagon said it required "a preponderance of evidence" such as fingerprints, DNA or photographs, to confirm that a former detainee had been involved in terrorism.

"For the purposes of this definition, engagement in anti-U.S. propaganda alone does not qualify as terrorist activity," the report said.

An ex-detainee was suspected of having engaged in terrorism on the basis of "significant reporting" or "unverified or single-source, but plausible reporting," the Pentagon said.






terrorism

Hillary and China: The Obama Policy [Change]

So the man who campaigned to close Guantanamo because of human rights abuses, who said he would go to the world and tell them we were back in business to work together, who would uphold human rights standards ... ignores the greatest human rights abuses on the planet today, in favor of .... trade.

Don't say it is in favor of global warming - China will never make any appreciative change, however much they may feign the good it could do. They will NEVER abide by the levels Europe or the US already have in place. NEVER.

This is the improved relations Obama spoke of wanting. This is the change Obama spoke of.

You sold out the Tibetans. You sold out your claim to human rights in favor of trade.





How the Clinton's think:





THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 21, 2009


Clinton remarks on rights rile up activists



BEIJING: Human rights groups reacted angrily Friday to comments by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that she would not let thorny issues such as human rights and Tibet prevent the United States and China from making progress on climate change, security and economic matters.

As she began her trip at the beginning of the week, Mrs. Clinton said that human rights are “part of our agenda with the Chinese, as is climate change and clean energy and nuclear nonproliferation and dealing with the North Korean denuclearization challenge.”

But on Friday she told reporters traveling with her that issues of human rights and religious freedom “ can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and security crises. We have to have a dialogue that leads to an understanding and cooperation on each of those.”

The shift in emphasis upset rights organizations.

“The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues,” said T. Kumar, Amnesty International’s advocacy director for Asia and the Pacific. “But by commenting that human rights will not interfere with other priorities, Secretary Clinton damages future U.S. initiatives to protect those rights in China.”

Human Rights Watch said that Mrs. Clinton’s remarks sent “the wrong message to the Chinese government.”

The comments “point to a diplomatic strategy that has worked well for the Chinese government — segregating human rights issues into a dead-end ‘ dialogue of the deaf,’” said Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director for the group. “A new approach is needed, one in which the U.S. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen 8 percent since President Obama’s inauguration.

Regarding rights issues, Mrs. Clinton told reporters that the Chinese already “know what we are going to say.”

[So we don't have to bother do we. What was it that obama said about Bush and Iran or North Korea - that he wouldn't speak to them. Why should he - they knew what he was going to say.]

“We know we are going to press them to reconsider their position about Tibetan religious and cultural freedom and autonomy for the Tibetans, and some kind of recognition or acknowledgment of the Dalai Lama. . . . I have had those conversations for more than a decade with Chinese leaders, and we know what they are going to say about Taiwan and military sales.”

Neither side is likely to change its position soon, so it might be better to focus on areas where both countries agree and can cooperate, she said.

China is the last of four countries Mrs. Clinton was visiting during her first overseas trip since taking office. Before she left Washington, several major human rights organizations, including Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, had urged her to put rights issues at the top of her agenda.

One of Mrs. Clinton’s most memorable speeches as first lady, during her husband’s presidency, was delivered at the U. N. Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. As she recalled during a town hall meeting in Seoul on Friday, she said at the time that women’s rights are human rights. The Chinese authorities were so angered that they cut off live TV coverage of the event.

During her visit to China, Mrs. Clinton plans to attend a church service on Sunday morning. She is also scheduled to meet with President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. She will seek their help in restarting sixcountry negotiations to get North Korea to give up nuclear weapons.

[Isn't that special - she attended a religious service in China, a country where people are prevented from doing so. Brilliant. Don't confront them about anything. The Obama Policy.]







Obama