It's a question I've often asked myself: Where are the feds when police overstep the bounds in peaceful protests?

WASHINGTON -- The United Nations envoy for freedom of expression is drafting an official communication to the U.S. government demanding to know why federal officials are not protecting the rights of Occupy demonstrators whose protests are being disbanded -- sometimes violently -- by local authorities.

Frank La Rue, who serves as the U.N. "special rapporteur" for the protection of free expression, told HuffPost in an interview that the crackdowns against Occupy protesters appear to be violating their human and constitutional rights.

"I believe in city ordinances and I believe in maintaining urban order," he said Thursday. "But on the other hand I also believe that the state -- in this case the federal state -- has an obligation to protect and promote human rights."

"If I were going to pit a city ordinance against human rights, I would always take human rights," he continued.

La Rue, a longtime Guatemalan human rights activist who has held his U.N. post for three years, said it's clear to him that the protesters have a right to occupy public spaces "as long as that doesn't severely affect the rights of others."

In moments of crisis, governments often default to a forceful response instead of a dialogue, he said -- but that's a mistake.

"Citizens have the right to dissent with the authorities, and there's no need to use public force to silence that dissension," he said.

"One of the principles is proportionality," La Rue said. "The use of police force is legitimate to maintain public order -- but there has to be a danger of real harm, a clear and present danger. And second, there has to be a proportionality of the force employed to prevent a real danger."

Yes, but... hippies!

A just-released U.N. report says that governments may have to intervene to burst the bubbles that have developed in the price of commodities like food staples and oil. The report blames a dysfunctional commodities market, and disputes the conventional economic wisdom that commodity prices went up because of demand:

"The changing role of commodity markets, which are turning into financial markets, has enormous repercussions for the economy," said one of the report's authors – Heiner Flassbeck, a director at the UN conference on trade and development (Unctad).

"The possibility of allowing governments' direct intervention in the physical and financial markets needs to be considered," the study concluded.

Investors are encouraged to behave like a herd, says the report, with few incentives to arbitrage or bet against the tide of rising prices. Without checks and balances in the system, investors create price bubbles that put many basic foodstuffs out of the reach of millions in the developing world.

[...] In April, the World Development Movement blamed Barclays Capital, the investment banking arm of the high street bank, for driving up prices. BarCap is the UK's biggest player in food commodity trading, and one of the top three banking players along with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. BarCap has pioneered the creation of derivatives that allow pension funds and other investors traditionally barred from commodities exchanges to bet on food prices. Nearly $270bn is invested in derivatives that follow commodity prices, up from $90bn in 2005, according to Unctad.

A separate report by the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, argued that the appetite for investments in commodities was even higher. He found that commodity index funds rose from $13bn (£7.9bn) in 2003 to $317bn by 2008. While there are no definitive figures on how those index funds break down, one estimate suggested their holdings in agricultural commodity markets rose from about $3bn to more than $55bn over that period.

Using these new derivative products, pension funds, especially in the US, have invested large slices of their overall portfolio in commodities as it has become more difficult to generate above average returns from more traditional sources of income, such as stock and bond markets.

DOWNLOADS: (1393)

PLAYS: (5019)

Embed

Before U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles began to rain down on Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses, the only conversation that President Obama had to have was with his senior advisers.

They, and they alone would decide whether a country founded as a democratic republic would engage in what George Washington would have likely viewed as a "foreign entanglement" – using 21st-century ordinance against a sociopath with a history of violence and a worse hat fetish than Sammy Davis Jr.

Obviously, in 200 years the United States has evolved from a rebel-with-a-cause into a world power, and additional involvement in world affairs has become part of the cost of doing business.

There is also a good argument to be made that after the terrible mistake of the Iraq invasion, the US can do some good by putting an end to the murderous Gaddafi in Libya, as part of an international coalition made up of Arab and African countries, blessed by the United Nations.

Yet, that does not change the fact that congressional support for this operation was as important as an appendix or a Newt Gingrich marriage vow.

Obama and his people simply knew they could ignore the people's representatives and safely rely upon a militarized culture primed to support an attack on an Arab nation. Particularly one the US had already thrown down with only a generation ago.

It is this fact that makes author, syndicated columnist and talk radio host David Sirota's new book, Back To Our Future, not only a fascinating read about the culture of the 1980s, but a manifestly important work in helping explain why the United States does the things it does today.

From involvement in a civil war in Libya to allowing a madman sans background check to saunter into his local arms bazaar and purchase a high-powered firearm for an attempted assassination of a congresswoman.

The latter being easier than say, finding plutonium for your DeLorean in 1955.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (227)

PLAYS: (1155)

Embed

I'm almost never in favor of going to war, but at least against Libya there is a real lifesaving component involved, and at least this time it's multilateral:

A coalition of American and European forces bombed Libyan targets by air and sea Saturday in the first phase of a military campaign to drive Moammar Gadhafi from power.

French warplanes fired the first shots in the broadest international military effort since the Iraq war, destroying government tanks and armored vehicles in the region of the rebels' eastern stronghold, Benghazi. Hours later, British and U.S. warships and submarines launched more than 110 Tomahawk missiles against Gadhafi's air defenses around the capital Tripoli and the western city of Misrata, which has been besieged by Gadhafi's forces, Pentagon officials said.

The aim of the operation, dubbed Odyssey Dawn, was to enforce a United Nations-sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya and stop Gadhafi from attacking overwhelmed rebel forces in the east.

"This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought," President Barack Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

It doesn't hurt that this mission will prevent certain slaughter of his own people by a madman/dictator.

Libya is saying the airstrikes inflicted considerable damage:

Our thoughts and prayers go out to our men and women serving in the mission.

At a time where most nations haven't even kept their pledges of relief to Haiti, this is very bad timing for the flood-ravaged country of Pakistan.

In the meantime, President Zardari went off on a state visit to France, infuriating Pakistanis:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Sunday that he had never seen anything like the flood disaster in Pakistan and urged foreign donors to speed up assistance to the 20 million people affected.

“I will never forget the destruction and suffering I have witnessed today,” Mr. Ban said after flying over hard-hit areas with President Asif Ali Zardari. “I have witnessed many natural disasters around the world, but nothing like this.”

The secretary general visited Myanmar after Cyclone Nargis struck there in May 2008, killing an estimated 138,000 people. Two months earlier, he flew to Sichuan Province in China, just days after an earthquake killed nearly 90,000 people.

Mr. Ban’s comments also reflected widespread concern about the unfolding disaster in Pakistan. The country is battling militants from Al Qaeda and the Taliban and has a weak and unpopular government, while its anemic economy is propped up by international assistance.

The floods, which began more than two weeks ago in the mountainous northwest, have hit about one-quarter of the country, especially its agricultural heartland. While the death toll of about 1,500 is relatively small, the scale of the flooding and the number whose lives have been disrupted are staggering. On Saturday, the prime minister said 20 million people had been made homeless.

The United Nations has appealed for an initial $460 million to provide relief, but only 20 percent has been given.

The relief effort has had nowhere near the success of aid for Haiti after its earthquake:

ISLAMABAD – The global aid response to the Pakistan floods has so far been much less generous than to other recent natural disasters — despite the soaring numbers of people affected and the prospect of more economic ruin in a country key to the fight against Islamist extremists.

Reasons include the relatively low death toll of 1,500, the slow onset of the flooding compared with more immediate and dramatic earthquakes or tsunamis, and a global "donor fatigue" — or at least a Pakistan fatigue.

If you would like to help, you can give at any the following sites [via Pakistani Perspective].

Another "catastrophic success" for the Bush Regime. USA Today reports that while we've watched Iraq get blown to bits Afghanistan is slowing burning to the ground and stalemated and we've all but forgotten about it.

The adversary faced this year by the Desert Eagles and other American units fighting in Afghanistan has defied military predictions that the Taliban and al-Qaeda were fading. "It's absolutely true that the insurgency has become more effective and the insurgency has moved into more areas," says Peter Tomsen, a former special envoy who helped organize the anti-Soviet Afghan resistance in the 1980s. According to the Desert Eagles: • The insurgency never intended to disrupt Afghan parliamentary elections in September. The plan was to conserve military resources and wait for U.S. and Western allies to withdraw. "They had to deceive us that the elections were successful," Toolan said, "that we would be duped into a false sense of victory and leave earlier, so that they would have that ripe environment to move into open guerrilla warfare." • Candidates linked to the insurgency ran for parliament seats. "We took United Nations candidate lists and we took a list of (insurgent) targets, and we overlaid those," Toolan said. "There were matches."

Bush had the nation pretty much united behind the Afghanistan campaign and if the had stuck to actually completing that mission properly he would reap the political rewards. But nooooooooooooo! He had to launch an imbecilic invasion of a country not at all affiliated with Al Qaeda (until we invaded of course) at the cost of the Afghanistan campaign and the hunt for Bin Laden. Republicans can use the reptilian aspects of their brain for the next three years all they want; but history has already judged Bush over how he has handled the so-called "War on Terror". That judgment will have him fighting it out with James Buchanan for worst President ever. My money is on Buchanan, that crooked-necked boob packed a mean "cockpunch". Posted (hopefully properly "the Radio" is quite aggravating) by Attaturk of www.rising-hegemon.blogspot.com.

The All Spin Zone

The Downing Street Memo might be receiving some serious backup shortly.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock was the U.K. Ambassador to the United Nations at the time the war in Iraq was launched in 2003. After the fall of Baghdad, he was Tony Blair's envoy in Iraq during the days of Proconsul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority. And he has written what is apparently a scathing book on the subject.

In a story published in the Sunday Observer, Greenstock is quoted as saying:

• The American decision to go to war was “politically illegitimate”

• UN negotiations “never rose over the level of awkward diversion for the US administration”

• The opportunities of the post-conflict period were “dissipated in poor policy analysis and narrow-minded execution”

...
The problem is, we may never read the book - at least in a unredacted version. The UK Foreign Office and Downing Street have apparently put a hold on publication.

...The decision to block the book until Greenstock removes substantial passages will be interpreted as an attempt by ministers to avoid further embarrassing disclosures over the conduct of the war and its aftermath from a highly credible source.

Officials who have seen the book are understood to have been 'deeply shocked' over the way in which Greenstock has quoted widely from 'privileged' private conversations with Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and from the private deliberations of the UN Security Council...

It's also a safe bet that the manuscript has made its way around Washington, and that some degree of pressure has been brought on the U.K. government by the U.S. State Department.

Apparently, Sir Jeremy became very disillusioned with the whole process that led up to the war, and then the immediate aftermath when it became clear that post-invasion planning was an afterthought. But if so, that begs the question - where was Sir Jeremy during the U.N. debate, and why didn't he express his reservations during deliberations prior to the war? What good does a mea culpa do two years after the fact, at a time when both the U.S. and U.K. are hopelessly stuck in a quagmire with no end in sight?

Most certainly, this won't be the last such “tell all” book or article from a high ranking memeber of the Bush / Blair inner circle. I suspect we'll see many in the future. But for the moment, allow me to pose a serious question to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who apparently now seeks absolution for his sins of commision and/or omission:

Where were you when it mattered?

...The decision to block the book until Greenstock removes substantial passages will be interpreted as an attempt by ministers to avoid further embarrassing disclosures over the conduct of the war and its aftermath from a highly credible source.

Officials who have seen the book are understood to have been 'deeply shocked' over the way in which Greenstock has quoted widely from 'privileged' private conversations with Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and from the private deliberations of the UN Security Council...

It's also a safe bet that the manuscript has made its way around Washington, and that some degree of pressure has been brought on the U.K. government by the U.S. State Department.

Apparently, Sir Jeremy became very disillusioned with the whole process that led up to the war, and then the immediate aftermath when it became clear that post-invasion planning was an afterthought. But if so, that begs the question - where was Sir Jeremy during the U.N. debate, and why didn't he express his reservations during deliberations prior to the war? What good does a mea culpa do two years after the fact, at a time when both the U.S. and U.K. are hopelessly stuck in a quagmire with no end in sight?

Most certainly, this won't be the last such “tell all” book or article from a high ranking memeber of the Bush / Blair inner circle. I suspect we'll see many in the future. But for the moment, allow me to pose a serious question to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who apparently now seeks absolution for his sins of commision and/or omission:

Where were you when it mattered?

NY Times Covers OSHA Impersonation Story        Confined Space

The story of immigration officers impersonating OSHA officials, has now gone national with a front page article in the NY Times by Steven Greenhouse, who first read the story in Confined Space earlier this week.

The 48 immigrants thought they were attending mandatory safety training by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. But it was not until they showed up to the meeting in Goldsboro, N.C., last week that they discovered they had been summoned for an altogether different reason.

Federal immigration officials had posted

After conflicting stories all night, international media and the Israeli government report now that the Israelis have boarded the Rachel Corrie.

Around 1 a.m. EST, Gaza observers on the beach were still reporting watching the ship headed for port.

In the meantime, the United States yesterday called the Gaza blockade "unsustainable":

(Reuters) - The White House said on Friday Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip was unsustainable and urged a Gaza aid vessel sent by pro-Palestinian activists to divert to an Israeli port to reduce the risk of violence.

"We are working urgently with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and other international partners to develop new procedures for delivering more goods and assistance to Gaza," said Mike Hammer, spokesman for the White House National Security Council.

"The current arrangements are unsustainable and must be changed. For now, we call on all parties to join us in encouraging responsible decisions by all sides to avoid any unnecessary confrontations," Hammer said in a statement.

by Eric Alterman