Thursday, June 11, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Greg Dalton: Sometimes Oil and Water Do Mix Top
The chiefs of Chevron and The Sierra Club sat down in public yesterday for the first time ever and moments into the conversation the audience of nearly 700 people realized something amazing was happening. While many thought they were about to see a smackdown between Big Green and Big Oil, Chevron CEO Dave O'Reilly and Sierra Club Executive Director quickly struck a cordial and respectful tone. Prodded by the moderator, Alan Murray, Deputy Managing Editor of The Wall Street Journal, they both acknowledged the science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which stipulates rising temperatures are in fact happening and are due to human activity. Secondly, O'Reilly said Chevron didn't join the United States Climate Action Partnership because he didn't want to be "hog tied." Pope quickly replied saying The Sierra Club didn't join for "exactly" the same reasons. The climate group, known as USCAP, is an alliance of about 40 large energy producers such as Shell and BP, manufacturers such as Dupont and Ford, and environmental groups including Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defence Council and others. They have been a major force in shaping the Waxman-Markey climate bill. Pope and O'Reilly disagree pasionately about many questions, particularly the cost and pace of the transition from fossil fuels. Pope cited scientific suggestions that carbon pollution must be reduced by 80 percent by 2050 to avoid catestrophic consequences of severe climate change. "We'll be lucky if we can get 20 percent or 25 percent by 2050," O'Reilly countered, saying that pace is determined by turning over captal stock such as refineries. The unprecedented gathering happened as part of Climate One, a leadership dialogue I run in San Francisco at The Commonwealth Club of California. It convenes thinkers and doers in public and private forums to advance the transition to a prosperous low carbon future. The climax occured when they ganged up together on the coal industry. Agreeing with Pope that reducing coal is critical to carbon reduction, O'Reilly bemoaned the "coal lobby getting free handouts" in this "new crazy bill." Pope then invited O'Reilly to go to Washington together to push back against coal. After a pause, O'Reilly shook Pope's hand and nodded his head. But he didn't say a word. "The coal industry sent oil and gas its share of the dinner bill," Pope said, later. As O'Reilly listened intently, he praised the oil industry for greatly improving the technology and methods of drilling for oil and said the problem with oil is not extracting it, but burning it. And getting in one last, irresistible dig, Pope said: "We waste a lot of oil. That isn't your fault. It's General Motors' fault." Oh, how times are a changing. More on Climate Change
 
Rob Cohen: I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! Episode 6 Recap: 2nd Hour Bonus, or 2nd Hour Curse? Top
It's hard to believe that I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! could reach new levels of absurdity and boredom at the same time. Usually something that's absurd is at least entertaining. This is a first for NBC. I'm not sure if the second hour Wednesday night was a bonus or a curse. Either way, here's the (extended) recap: Act One: In the opening montage, it looked like they showed us the women winning, and the announces saying "The women fight back." If the women do end up winning, that was a ridiculous spoiler. Daniel Baldwin's statement that "the opportunity to be immune is the best prize you can win in this competition." Really? I thought they're all trying to revive their sagging careers? Wouldn't that be a better prize? I've finally decided that alcohol is necessary for viewing this show. Consuming beer #1. Act Two: An entire segment on monkeys? Glad I have a beer in me. Janice is making me despise her. "Do I like doing dishes? No. I have been famous since 1974." Fact: famous people should never do dishes. Act Three: Do they really need to recap the second act at the beginning of the third act? We can't remember? Does NBC think they're really getting NEW viewers between each act break who will need to understand what's going on? We're stupid for watching this show, but we're not that stupid. The arrival of Holly Montag is the least interesting surprising thing that's happened yet. And if Janice is now allied with Holly, are we supposed to see Holly as an antagonist as well? Act Four: I love that Holly doesn't care if she shocks Janice a couple times on the path to victory. This show really thinks of great punishments for its villains. The "tie-breaker" round was extremely anti-climactic. They're really just making this up as they go along. Does anyone really care who wins a food trial? Food is something we can't experience as viewers. Why don't the challenges have meaningful consequences for us as viewers? The whole thing is pointless! Consuming beer #2. Act Five: Alright, Patti's trying to garner sympathy for her family again (Helicopters were flying over your house?! Oh no!). I think I need to fast forward. Patti, you're right, it is nice that the people on this show believe the crap you're peddling. It's nice for you. Too bad the viewers aren't buying it. Enjoy the good life in the jungle while it lasts. I shouldn't have stopped fast forwarding. An entire segment on food is pointless. It doesn't matter to viewers at home! How about we design a game with consequences that's interesting to watch? Consuming beer #3. Act Six: This act was spent on emotional stories about loved ones the celebrities knew who have died. Am I a bad person for thinking it's unbearable? I doubt it. I don't buy it for a second. Janice actually redeemed herself a bit when they cut to her sleeping through the whole thing. Act Seven: I really don't need to see Janice taking a piss right next to her bed. Dear God. I can't believe they spent an entire act discussing it and getting revenge for it. I really hope she takes a shit on one of the Baldwin's pillows like she promised. Act Eight: Janice's is a nut job. That comparison to Courtney Love was pretty applicable. I just wish I were actually interested in this conflict. Act Nine: Just finished beer #4 and nothing that's happening on the show is more interesting than that. Act Ten: No surprise that Patti was good with numbers. She must've been in charge of cooking the books somewhere at some time. Why is it not raining in camp when there's a torrential downpour through the rest of the forest? Is there a roof over their heads they haven't been showing us? I guess there must be--and I should've realized it earlier. The lighting designer is very good. Act Eleven: As I listen to this ridiculous argument between Janice and the rest of camp, I can't pull my focus away from Janice: I understanding oiling up your legs, but do you really need the stuff all over your face? I'm strangely intrigued by this final conflict. Janice is absolutely insane to have stolen one of the granola bars. This would be legitimately entertaining if it didn't look so staged. I stopped counting how many beers I was drinking. It wasn't enough. More on NBC
 
16 Previously Unpublicized HIV Cases In Porn Stars Revealed By Health Officials In LA Top
Los Angeles County officials released public health data this afternoon indicating that 16 previously unpublicized cases of HIV had been confirmed in adult film industry performers since 2004 when an outbreak shut down porn production for a month.
 
Jonathan Handel: SAG Resolution Resolves Little for Film Business Top
With the SAG contract ratified, will the film business finally get back to normal? Unfortunately, no. Although we'll see a brief spike in production, the business we once knew may never reappear, for a host of reasons. . . . to read more, see my piece in Variety -------------- Subscribe to my blog ( jhandel.com ) for more about entertainment law and digital media law. Go to the blog itself to subscribe via RSS or email. Or, follow me on Twitter , friend me on Facebook , or subscribe to my Huffington Post articles. If you work in tech, check out my new book How to Write LOIs and Term Sheets .
 
Nuclear Disaster In England Averted By Dirty Laundry Top
A radioactive leak that could have caused Britain's worst nuclear disaster was only averted when a worker in an adjoining room spotted water as he sorted laundry, according to a newly-obtained official report.
 
National Man Day: Organizers Urge "Manly" Activities On Monday Top
CELESTINE, Ind. — Two Indiana men have declared Monday "National Man Day" only to find there's already a romantic holiday that falls on that date. Ninteen-year-old Joel Longanecker of Celestine and his 26-year-old brother Aaron, of Indianapolis, have for months been rallying thousands to their masculine cause on Facebook. More than 260,000 people have pledged to "stand up and do manly things" on Man Day. But it turns out June 15 is also "Sneak a Kiss Day," a day for sweethearts to steal smooches from their sweeties. The Man Day organizers urge participants to take part in "manly" activities such as football, hunting or watching Rocky movies. They claim real men don't "sneak" kisses. ___ On The Net: National Man Day: http://sn.im/jxwsz ___ Information from: The Herald, http://www.dcherald.com
 
Appeals Court Blocks Release Of Detainee Photos Top
NEW YORK — The U.S. government can keep pictures of detainee abuse secret while it asks the Supreme Court to permanently block release of the photographs on the grounds they could incite violence in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, a federal appeals court said Thursday. The one-paragraph ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan came after the Obama administration asked the court to keep the pictures secret so it could appeal to the nation's highest court. The administration last month said the disturbing photographs pose "a clear and grave risk of inciting violence and riots against American and coalition forces, as well as civilian personnel, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan." The appeals court stayed its order supporting a lower court judge's decision to order release of the photographs until the Supreme Court had a chance to consider the case. The administration had indicated it was going to release the pictures until President Barack Obama reversed the decision. To support its arguments, the government filed partially secret statements from two top U.S. generals, David Petraeus and Ray Odierno. In the filings, Odierno, who commands the troops in Iraq, said the 2004 release of photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison "likely contributed to a spike in violence in Iraq" that year. Petraeus, who oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, said the images could also lead to more violence in Pakistan because it deals with Taliban attacks. The American Civil Liberties Union had sought release of 21 pictures, saying the action would make the government more accountable and help bring an end to the abuse of prisoners. "We are disappointed by this ruling," said ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh. "It further delays the disclosure of photographs that are critical to informing the debate about the treatment of U.S. prisoners." Yusill Scribner, a spokeswoman for government lawyers in Manhattan, said the government had no comment. In 2006, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in Manhattan had ordered the release of the pictures once identifying facial features were removed. The color photographs were taken by service members in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. law allows restrictions when images could reasonably be expected to endanger someone's life or safety. Last September, the appeals court agreed with Hellerstein, saying there needed to be specific threats for the pictures to be blocked. "It is plainly insufficient to claim that releasing documents could reasonably be expected to endanger some unspecified member of a group so vast as to encompass all United States troops, coalition forces and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan," the appeals court said. The appeals court noted at the time that the government had earlier used the same argument to try to prevent the release of 87 photographs and other images of detainees at detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, including at Abu Ghraib. International outrage resulted from images in the Iraqi prison showing physical abuse and sexual humiliation of inmates, including a picture of a naked, hooded prisoner on a box with wires fastened to his hands and genitals. After those pictures were released over the Internet, the government dropped its appeal. The appeals court noted in its September ruling that the U.S. championed the release of photographs after World War II that depicted emaciated prisoners, corpses of prisoners and powerless and subjugated detainees. The government believed wide dissemination of the pictures could help hold perpetrators accountable, it said. ___ Associated Press Writer Devlin Barrett in Washington contributed to this story.
 
Derek Flood: Hashoo Bombers Strike Again Top
Late Tuesday night another one of the Hashwani family's hotels was demolished in a well-planned and executed suicide attack in Peshawar, Pakistan. The Pearl Continental (PC) Hotel chain is owned by perhaps Pakistan's most prominent Ismaili family, the Hashwanis. Major cooperations in Pakistan, when not wholly owned subsidiaries of the Pakistani Army, are most often familial enterprises such as the Hashwani's Hashoo Group. The Hashwanis had been in talks with the U.S. government to sell it the PC Peshawar property to be used as its new consular offices in light of war-torn North West Frontier Province's ever growing importance in U.S. foreign policy. There are rumors that the Hashwani's were or are considering getting out of the hospitality industry altogether. Last year's Islamabad Marriott bombing was devastating to the family's investment portfolio though its patriarch, Saddaruddin Hashwani, issued a defiant statement to the press that he would rebuild the Islamabad Marriott and would not bow to terrorist intimidation. While covering the Pakistani elections last year, I often worked out of the PC Lahore's business centre and devoured some incredible international fare at the hotel's excellent restaurant after long days trudging up and down Mall Road looking for stories. Even if I could have afforded to stay there, I wouldn't have because of its obviousness as a high-value target in the wave of jihadist violence that had already engulfed the country by mid-2007. Partly for my safety, I stayed at a low profile guest house down the road. Sadly, it doesn't help that the 5-star hotels in Pakistan are owned by a group of Ismailis, a branch of Shi'ism that holds the Aga Khan in highest esteem as living imam , when considering the militants takfiri ideology. The Sunni extremists that claim to adhere to takfirism believe that individuals may declare those who follow different strains of Islam apostates and can therefore justify acts of previously imaginable terror throughout South Asia and the Middle East. Takfirism is essential in creating a sense of the "Other" in the militant mind which is used to justify attacks against those praying in mosques and eating in hotel dining rooms. Shia Muslims whether the traditional Twelvers or the lesser known Ismaili Seveners are some of the Takfiri militants favored targets. Undoubtedly, the reasoning behind the attack will be attributed to either the PC's international clientele or its possible sale to the Americans. The Ismailis as a cultural subset are extraordinarily successful business people with Shah Karim al-Hussayni, the Aga Khan, chief among them. The Aga Khan and the Hashwanis represent immense wealth in a region wracked by poverty and illiteracy-related militancy. They both provide relatively large investment opportunities and job creation that have become a target of nihilist militants who's ideology has become somehow even more vile. When I was working in Afghanistan last year, the Afghan Taleban targeted the telecom company Roshan's mobile phone transmission towers in the southern provinces after having previously attacked the Aga Khan's Serena hotel in Kabul. The Taleban issued a communique stating they wanted the towers shut down at night because they believed their movements could be tracked by coalition forces and the mobile signals emitted from their phones were being used to target them. Ismaili business interests seemed to be under sustained assault. His charitable work, which often focuses on his Ismaili minority, is underwritten by the for profit arm of his empire with the luxurious Serena chain as its face. Now again, the Taleban's attacks on the Roshan towers and the Serena were very likely of a purely strategic nature but the fact that the towers are owned by the Aga Khan (and his European consortium partners) doesn't exactly help. A major segment of the Aga Khan's charitable work is aiding remote Ismaili communities in Central and South Asia who the Taleban consider to be apostates similar to the Twelver Shia Hazaras they attempted to annihilate in central and northern Afghanistan in the 1990's. I had some of the same thoughts regarding the return of Benazir Bhutto. Though she was still beloved by many, she had neither the strategy nor the credibility to defeat the takfiris who were determined to eliminate her. Not only was she Shia, like her father Zufliqar and Pakistan's founding father Mohammed Ali Jinnah, but she came from the rich and resented zamindar feudal structure in Sindh province that is another post-colonial relict of British divide et impera strategy. As I've written previously regarding Sri Lanka, the Crown's modus operandi was to favor ethnic and religious minorities over the "unwashed masses" in order to maintain control over the populace and extract the natural wealth of their colonies with as little disruption as possible. I'm sure the Pakistani Taleban didn't need Benazir to be a land owning Twelver to declare her an enemy (and therefore punishable by death) but I doubt her lineage and status helped her case. Benzair spent the last morning of her life meeting with Hamid Karzai at the Aga Khan's opulent Islamabad Serena (where a friend of mine photographed the two hours before Bhutto's assassination). People across the region who depend on the Ismaili establishment for employment, sustenance and remittances have suffered enormously from the Taleban's unforgiving insurgency and reconciliation cannot begin soon enough should the kinetic war-fighting cease anytime soon. Inshallah! More on Pakistan
 
Deepak Chopra: In Hopes of the Return of Laura Ling and Euna Lee Top
In light of the recent sentencing of US journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee in North Korea, and the ongoing stalemate in US and North Korean relations, it is vital that we all hold in our hearts and minds the space within which a resolution can be reached so these women can be quickly returned to their families and loved ones. The nine principles of conflict resolution are a good framework upon which we can create that supportive space of consciousness. Let's keep these points in mind as we begin a conversation with the North Korean government for their return. I hope and pray they will be released soon. 1. Speak and treat each party with respect. 2. Understand there is perception of injustice on both sides. 3. Be willing to forgive and ask for forgiveness. 4. Refrain from belligerence. 5. Try to understand each other's value systems. 6. Don't try prove the other side wrong or make them lose face. 7. Refrain from ideological discussions. 8. Recognize that fear is a factor for both sides. 9. Use the principles emotional intelligence to access their feelings as well as those of the other party. More on North Korea
 
Senators Who Opposed Tobacco Bill Received Top Dollar From Industry Top
WASHINGTON - Among the 17 senators who voted against allowing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco are some of the top recipients of campaign contributions from the tobacco industry, which has donated millions of dollars to lawmakers in the past several campaign cycles.
 
Rev. Gregory Seal Livingston: Health Care and Poverty - A Vicious Cycle Top
For the millions of American children who are living below the poverty line, escaping the cycle can seem impossible. Statistics show that children from poor families are more likely to drop out of school before attaining their high school diplomas -- and that individuals without a high school diploma are more likely to be poor. A recent study from the Schott Foundation shows that 7 of 10 black and brown males in major urban centers don't finish high school. They are also exponentially more likely to be incarcerated and unemployed throughout the course of their lives. Quite simply, the odds are stacked against these young people. One of the ways to explain this crippling cycle is as follows: When you feel better , you do better . When you feel bad , you do bad . In my anti-poverty work I have experienced the truth of this statement firsthand. The more than 10 million adolescents who currently live in low-income families are not just denied life's little luxuries. They also are denied basic human rights, such as healthcare and nutritious food. Many of these children are unable to see a dentist because their families don't have insurance, and their parents can't take time off from work to spend the whole day waiting at the public health facility. Many of them have poor vision but do not get glasses since their families don't have insurance for vision care. Furthermore, many of these children are malnourished, which means they are either underweight or overweight. Just because a child's bones aren't sticking out does not mean that his body is well nourished, as obesity has a myriad of health problems that can complicate a child's life. However, many families are forced to rely on cheap, unhealthy sustenance, including fast food and empty candy store calories. Healthy foods such as produce and lean meats are more expensive than fried, fatty foods, and most families don't have the option of buying the fresh food their children need to be healthy. These are just a few of the very basic health problems that can prevent a child from excelling in school. When children's teeth ache from cavities, when their vision is too blurred to see the chalkboard, and when all they had for breakfast was a candy bar and a soda, it is no wonder that their school performance is poor and their behavior is aggressive. We need to help the impoverished feel better so they can do better. We must work on legislative, faith-based, private and public sector solutions. Poverty is much too pernicious to fight over turf. Healthcare is just one area we must acutely address and until we do the poverty cycle will continue to ruin lives and imprison dreams. More on Poverty
 
Andy Worthington: Who Are the Four Guantanamo Uighurs Sent to Bermuda? Top
While everyone was looking at a map, trying to work out exactly where Palau is, following the announcement on Tuesday that Guantánamo's 17 Uighur prisoners were to be resettled there, it now transpires that four of the men have been quietly flown to Bermuda instead. This is rather a surprise, to put it mildly. The Uighurs -- Muslims from China's oppressed Xinjiang province, who were cleared of being "enemy combatants" last year -- have, as I have reported at length, been in a disturbing legal limbo since Barack Obama took office, as the new administration repeatedly failed to find the necessary courage to do the right thing and resettle them in the United States (as ordered by District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina last October). Instead, senior officials cowered in the face of the poisonous -- and, to be honest, libelous -- venom spewed forth by Guantánamo's many defenders in Congress and in the right-wing media, who have popped up to trail around behind Dick Cheney like a zombie reenactment of the Pied Piper of Hamelin. Moreover, the administration also resorted to defending a ruling that overturned Judge Urbina's stout defense of Constitutional values, siding with Judge A. Raymond Randolph in the court of appeals and in a petition to the Supreme Court asking the highest court in the land not to look at the Uighurs' case. This was in spite of the fact that Judge Randolph, who would rather eat his own gavel than allow a judge to order the government to allow wrongly imprisoned men into the United States, defended every wayward proposal put his way by the Bush administration, only to see them all overturned by the Supreme Court. Why Bermuda? What's astonishing about the choice of Bermuda as the new home for four men from north western China is not its location -- it is, after all, not a million miles away from Cuba, and the Uighurs must be used to the climate by now -- but the fact that it is a British Overseas Territory. According to London's Times , the Foreign and Commonwealth Office reacted with ill-disguised fury to the news of the men's resettlement, because Bermuda, "Britain's oldest remaining dependency, is one of 14 overseas territories that come under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, which retains direct responsibility for such matters as foreign policy and security." An FCO spokesman said, "We've underlined to the Bermuda Government that they should have consulted with the United Kingdom as to whether this falls within their competence or is a security issue, for which the Bermuda Government do not have delegated responsibility." He added, "We have made clear to the Bermuda Government the need for a security assessment, which we are now helping them to carry out, and we will decide on further steps as appropriate." According to the Times , potential conflict with China, which has made repeated demands for the return of the Uighurs, means that the Bermuda government "could now be forced to send them back to Cuba or risk a grave diplomatic crisis" -- although I must admit that it seems possible to me that the Uighurs' resettlement may actually have been negotiated between the governments of the U.S., the U.K. and Bermuda, and that the FCO's "fury" is actually a cover for a pretty watertight case of "plausible deniability." Before this apparent spat blew up, news of the men's unexpected move to Bermuda leaked out on Thursday morning, after the Uighurs' lawyers reported that the men had arrived in Bermuda shortly after 6 a.m., and were accompanied on a charter flight from Guantánamo by two of their lawyers, Sabin Willett and Susan Baker Manning. After disembarking, one of the men, Abdul Nasser, who, throughout his detention, was described by the Pentagon as Abdul Helil Mamut, thanked their new hosts for accepting them. "Growing up in communism," he said, "we always dreamed of living in peace and working in a free society like this one. Today you have let freedom ring." As a Justice Department press release explained, "These detainees, who were subject to release as a result of court orders, had been cleared for release by the prior administration, which determined they would no longer treat them as enemy combatants. The detainees were again cleared for release this year after review by the interagency Guantánamo Review Task Force," which, the press release noted, included "a threat evaluation." The DoJ also made a point of stating, "According to available information, these individuals did not travel to Afghanistan with the intent to take any hostile action against the United States." In a statement on the website of the Uighurs' lawyers, who had been tireless in promoting their clients' innocence, Sabin Willett wrote, "We are deeply grateful to the government and the people of Bermuda for this act of grace. Nations need good friends. When political opportunists blocked justice in our own country, Bermuda has reminded her old friend, America, what justice is." Susan Baker Manning, added, "These men should never have been at Guantánamo. They were picked up by mistake. And when the U.S. government realized its mistake, it continued to imprison them merely because they are refugees. We are grateful to Bermuda for this humanitarian act." The lawyers also explained that the men will probably have an easier time adapting to their new life than the five other Uighurs who were rehoused in Albania in 2006. Unlike Albania, Bermuda is a wealthy country, and, in addition, the men "have been approved to participate in Bermuda's guest worker program for foreigners." Who are the four Uighurs? So who are these men, whose proposed release into the United States caused such a virulent response? As the lawyers explained, in addition to Abdul Nasser, they are Huzaifa Parhat, Abdul Semet (identified by the Pentagon as Emam Abdulahat) and Jalal Jalaladin (identified by the Pentagon as Abdullah Abdulquadirakhun). Of the four, Parhat is the only one whose name was known outside Guantánamo. In his Combatant Status Review Tribunal (a one-sided military review board , convened to assess whether, on capture, he had been correctly designated as an "enemy combatant," who could be held without charge or trial), he explained that he arrived at the settlement in Afghanistan's Tora Bora mountains (where the Uighurs had been living until it was bombed by U.S. forces following the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan) in May 2001, and refuted allegations that it was a facility operated by a militant group that was funded by Osama bin Laden and Taliban. He also made a heartfelt statement about the Uighurs' support for the United States, explaining that, "from the time of our great-grandparents centuries ago, we have never been against the United States and we do not want to be against the United States," and adding, "I can represent for 25 million Uighur people by saying that we will not do anything against the United States. We are willing to be united with the United States. I think that the United States understands the Uighur people much better than other people." In addition, he was one of several Uighur prisoners to mention threats made by Chinese interrogators who had been allowed to visit Guantánamo, and also to point out that he had had no contact whatsoever with any members of his family. However, Parhat's story is particularly significant, because last June, after the Supreme Court concluded years of stalling and legislative reversals on the part of the administration by ruling that the prisoners had constitutional habeas corpus rights , his case was finally reviewed by three judges in a U.S. District Court, who demolished the case against him (and, by extension, against the other Uighurs), by ruling as "invalid" the tribunal's decision that he was an "enemy combatant." The judges criticized the government for relying on flimsy and unsubstantiated allegations and associations (primarily to do with the alleged militant group), and in a memorable passage compared the government's argument that its evidence was reliable because it was mentioned in three different classified documents to a line from a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland . This led the government to concede that it would "serve no purpose" to continue trying to prove that any of the Uighurs were "enemy combatants," and, in turn, led to Judge Ricardo Urbina's ruling last October that the Uighurs were to be released into the United States, when he stated, simply, "Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detentions without cause, the continued detention is unlawful" -- although this, of course, was subsequently reversed by the appeals court judges with whom, since coming to power, the Obama administration has maintained an unhealthy judicial alliance. Abdul Semet told his tribunal that he left home "to escape from the torturing, darkness and suffering of the Chinese government," and "wanted to go to some other country to live in peace." He added, "The government, if they suspect us for anything, would torture and beat us, and fine us money. Lately, the young Uighurs would get caught just doing exercising. They would stop us and say it was not our culture, and put us in jail for it." He also explained, "For the females, if they have [more than] one child, they open them up and throw the baby in the trash." Speaking of the Uighurs' settlement in the Afghan mountains, he explained that he spent most of his time in "construction," mending the settlement's decrepit buildings, and indicated that he and his compatriots would have been happy to assist the United States if their home had not been bombed. "If the Americans went to Afghanistan and didn't bomb our camp," he said, "then we would be happy and support America; we would've stayed there continuously. The reason we went to Afghanistan doesn't mean we have a relationship with al-Qaeda or some other organization; we went there for peace and not to be turned back over to the Chinese." Jalal Jalaladin was one of several of the Uighur prisoners to explain that he ended up in the settlement because he had been thwarted in his attempts to get from Pakistan to Turkey to look for work, and where he also believed that the government would give him citizenship. He explained to his tribunal that he got no further than Kyrgyzstan, where he found a job in a bazaar, and that some locals then gave him an address in Pakistan, where a Uighur businessman told him about the settlement. As he was having difficulties getting a visa for Iran, he decided to go to there instead. And finally, Abdul Nasser gave an explanation about the "training" at the settlement that ought to make the fearful politicians and Conservative pundits in the United States ashamed. He explained that he had arrived at the settlement in June 2001, and that, during his time there -- until it was bombed -- he trained on the camp's one and only gun for no more than a few days. "I don't know if it was an AK-47," he said. "It was an old rifle, and I trained for a couple of days." Moreover, Abdul Nasser reinforced what another of the men, Abdulghappar (who is still held in Guantánamo ), had explained, when asked if it had ever been his intention to fight against the U.S. or its allies. "I have one point: a billion Chinese enemies, that is enough for me," Abdulghappar said. "Why would I get more enemies?" Abdul Nasser explained, "I went to the camp to train because the Chinese government was torturing my country, my people, and they could not do anything. I was trying to protect my country, my country's independence and my freedom. From international law, training is not illegal in order to protect your freedom and independence. I did it for my country." While waiting to see how Guantánamo's critics respond to this story of a young man training to protect his freedom and independence (which is something they should surely recognize), and while also wondering if Palau is still prepared to take the other 13 Uighurs (before June 25, presumably, when the Supreme Court is scheduled to meet to discuss whether the courts have any authority to order Guantánamo prisoners to be released into the U.S.), I'd like to wish these four men the best of luck in settling into their new home. For those of us who have studied the story of Guantánamo closely, it has actually been apparent all along that the Uighurs should never have been held at all, and that the Pentagon was only interested in them because of the intelligence that they thought they might provide about the activities of the Chinese government. Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press), and maintains a blog here . More on Barack Obama
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)