Social Justice: Current Affairs, Business, Politics, and all the reasons in the world to Thrive on Creative Discontent!
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The Bull Market Defined...
The MSCI All-Country World Index of shares in 45 nations completed a 20 percent rally from its October low yesterday, meeting the definition of a bull market. The S&P 500 yesterday closed 1 percent away from its peak nine months ago of 1,363.61, which was the highest level since June 2008. It had risen 7.3 percent this year through yesterday amid better-than-expected economic data and corporate profits.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Bahrain Vote Erupts in Violence
As the government of Bahrain held parliamentary elections Saturday, hundreds of protesters clashed with security forces while trying to make their way to Pearl Square, the site in the capital where the kingdom’s pro-democracy movement got started early this year and was heavily suppressed.
In the village of Sanabis, where the protest began, the police used tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets against hundreds, perhaps thousands, of protesters, witnesses and human-rights advocates said.
The protest was a main part of the Shiite majority’s response to the election in the Sunni-ruled monarchy, which was boycotted by the mostly Shiite opposition. The aim of the protest was to march to Pearl Square, in Manama, where the government destroyed a 300-foot sculpture topped by a giant pearl in March after forcibly removing the protesters’ tent city.
“Security forces closed all access to Pearl Square today,” Mohammed al-Maskati, president of the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights, said by telephone. “The square is now like an army base. Thousands of protesters turned out in Sanabis and got attacked badly by the security forces.”
He said that dozens of people had been arrested on Friday and that some said they had been beaten badly. Nabeel Rajab, president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, said in a Twitter message sent from outside the country that about 38 women protesters had been ordered detained for 45 days.
Mr. Maskati added that turnout for the election was minimal as a result of the boycott and that the authorities had prevented television crews from shooting inside polling stations to avoid showing the low participation.
Government accounts of the voting said the opposite, that participation was high and that the day was further evidence of the country’s return to normalcy.
Eighteen members of the main opposition Wefaq party quit their posts in the 40-seat Parliament early this year. Saturday’s election was aimed at replacing them and buttressing Bahrain’s contention that it has restored order to a country whose economy, heavily dependent on international finance, relies on a reputation for stability.
Prince Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa, Bahrain’s prime minister, issued a statement on Saturday saying the election was proof that “we are on the right path toward a better future.”
He added, “The massive popular turnout has revealed citizens’ keenness to be partners in building Bahrain, boosting democracy and maintaining national unity and growth.”
Bahrain is more than two-thirds Shiite yet is run by a Sunni royal family. The pro-democracy movement has been heavily defined by that divide. Mr. Maskati said he and other human-rights groups would soon provide evidence of their contention that the voter turnout was low.
In the village of Sanabis, where the protest began, the police used tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets against hundreds, perhaps thousands, of protesters, witnesses and human-rights advocates said.
The protest was a main part of the Shiite majority’s response to the election in the Sunni-ruled monarchy, which was boycotted by the mostly Shiite opposition. The aim of the protest was to march to Pearl Square, in Manama, where the government destroyed a 300-foot sculpture topped by a giant pearl in March after forcibly removing the protesters’ tent city.
“Security forces closed all access to Pearl Square today,” Mohammed al-Maskati, president of the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights, said by telephone. “The square is now like an army base. Thousands of protesters turned out in Sanabis and got attacked badly by the security forces.”
He said that dozens of people had been arrested on Friday and that some said they had been beaten badly. Nabeel Rajab, president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, said in a Twitter message sent from outside the country that about 38 women protesters had been ordered detained for 45 days.
Mr. Maskati added that turnout for the election was minimal as a result of the boycott and that the authorities had prevented television crews from shooting inside polling stations to avoid showing the low participation.
Government accounts of the voting said the opposite, that participation was high and that the day was further evidence of the country’s return to normalcy.
Eighteen members of the main opposition Wefaq party quit their posts in the 40-seat Parliament early this year. Saturday’s election was aimed at replacing them and buttressing Bahrain’s contention that it has restored order to a country whose economy, heavily dependent on international finance, relies on a reputation for stability.
Prince Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa, Bahrain’s prime minister, issued a statement on Saturday saying the election was proof that “we are on the right path toward a better future.”
He added, “The massive popular turnout has revealed citizens’ keenness to be partners in building Bahrain, boosting democracy and maintaining national unity and growth.”
Bahrain is more than two-thirds Shiite yet is run by a Sunni royal family. The pro-democracy movement has been heavily defined by that divide. Mr. Maskati said he and other human-rights groups would soon provide evidence of their contention that the voter turnout was low.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Iran Now the Dumbest Thing to Happen on the Planet = Squirt Gun Crimes!!! ooo scary
Authorities in authoritarian Iran have determined the latest threat to the Islamic Republic: squirt guns.
Agents of the regime fanned out across Tehran late last month to question toy store owners about whether the fake guns had been imported from America. Nope: made right in Iran or imported from China.
Why all this fuss? A water fight among playful youth at a water park.
After heeding a call on Facebook, a group of nearly 800 young men and women were among those who showed up at the park. They were surprised to find others there eager to drench anyone in sight.
They chased strangers around a giant water fountain, screaming and laughing as they splashed each other with water from toy guns, bottles and plastic bags.
"We had a blast. It was a rare chance for boys and girls to hang out in a public place and have fun," said Shaghayegh, a participant who did not want her last name to be used.
Among Iranian authorities, the fun and games triggered a different reaction. Police raided the park, engaging in a four-hour cat-and-mouse game with the youth, who turned their squirt guns on the cops and threw plastic bags full of water on the policemen's heads, according to participants and media reports.
Young Iranian men and women gathered for a day of water war fun at Tehran's new Water and Fire park.
Finally, park authorities cut off the water, rounded up dozens of young men and women, and dragged them to jail. Tehran's police chief vowed to crack down and warned that similar water-war events were planned in other cities.
"These events are a disgrace to our revolution. Our security forces and judiciary must stop the spreading of these morally corrupt actions," said conservative lawmaker Hossein Ibrahimi, according to official media.
Fars News Agency, affiliated with Iran's Revolutionary Guards, blamed Zionists and Americans for corrupting the minds of the youth and coaxing them into water parks.
Pictures of the young women, their tight coats and colorful scarves drenched, squirting water at young men in wet, tight T-shirts surfaced on websites and newspapers, creating an uproar that reached the parliament.
Farzan, a 22-year-old university student who was one of the organizers of the Tehran water war, says police tracked him down through Facebook and raided his house in the middle of the night. He was arrested, held for three days and beaten up, he says. He has a court case pending.
Agents of the regime fanned out across Tehran late last month to question toy store owners about whether the fake guns had been imported from America. Nope: made right in Iran or imported from China.
Why all this fuss? A water fight among playful youth at a water park.
After heeding a call on Facebook, a group of nearly 800 young men and women were among those who showed up at the park. They were surprised to find others there eager to drench anyone in sight.
They chased strangers around a giant water fountain, screaming and laughing as they splashed each other with water from toy guns, bottles and plastic bags.
"We had a blast. It was a rare chance for boys and girls to hang out in a public place and have fun," said Shaghayegh, a participant who did not want her last name to be used.
Among Iranian authorities, the fun and games triggered a different reaction. Police raided the park, engaging in a four-hour cat-and-mouse game with the youth, who turned their squirt guns on the cops and threw plastic bags full of water on the policemen's heads, according to participants and media reports.
Young Iranian men and women gathered for a day of water war fun at Tehran's new Water and Fire park.
Finally, park authorities cut off the water, rounded up dozens of young men and women, and dragged them to jail. Tehran's police chief vowed to crack down and warned that similar water-war events were planned in other cities.
"These events are a disgrace to our revolution. Our security forces and judiciary must stop the spreading of these morally corrupt actions," said conservative lawmaker Hossein Ibrahimi, according to official media.
Fars News Agency, affiliated with Iran's Revolutionary Guards, blamed Zionists and Americans for corrupting the minds of the youth and coaxing them into water parks.
Pictures of the young women, their tight coats and colorful scarves drenched, squirting water at young men in wet, tight T-shirts surfaced on websites and newspapers, creating an uproar that reached the parliament.
Farzan, a 22-year-old university student who was one of the organizers of the Tehran water war, says police tracked him down through Facebook and raided his house in the middle of the night. He was arrested, held for three days and beaten up, he says. He has a court case pending.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Secrets…but secrets about how your being governed…menacing complexity….how very Kafkaesque
If U.S. Rep. Ron Paul accomplishes nothing else in his campaign for the presidency, he has kept a needed spotlight on how quick we are as a nation to trade away our liberties for small measures of additional security.
In Iowa last weekend, where Paul came in second in the Republican Party’s straw poll, he consistently pressed a message that thrilled the party’s libertarian wing but annoyed the rest of them. The Patriot Act, he said — a law passed in a panic just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks that dramatically expands the government’s authority to spy on citizens — is dangerously unconstitutional.
“The Patriot Act is an attack on our liberties and the Fourth Amendment,” he said. “We cannot protect liberty by taking liberty away from the American people.”
Criticism of the Patriot Act at this point might seem a little late, given that Congress and President Barack Obama reauthorized the law in May for another four years. But any debate that thoughtfully addresses the inherent tension in a democracy between personal freedoms and national security is never too little or too late.
Secret interpretation
And while the Patriot Act will remain the law of the land until at least 2015, civil libertarians are pushing the Obama administration to reveal its secret written interpretation of this law and of a related surveillance law. Two U.S. senators with insider knowledge, as members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, warn that Americans would be appalled if they knew how broadly the Justice Department has interpreted what the law allows government snoops to do.
The Patriot Act arguably runs afoul of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights in any number of ways, a particularly good example being the so-called “library records provision.” Under this provision — Section 215 — the FBI can obtain a court order forcing libraries and businesses to produce “any tangible things” that might assist in a terrorism investigation. Examples offered in the law include “books, records, papers, documents, and other items.”
On the face of it, this might not seem objectionable. Of course government needs access to records in terrorism investigations, and grand juries and the police have long had access to such records in criminal investigations. Defenders of Section 215 point to how the grand jury investigating the 1996 bombing in Atlanta’s Olympic Park subpoenaed bookseller records to show that a suspect, Eric Rudolph, bought a book on bombs.
Too wide a net
But unlike in a criminal investigation, the Patriot Act allows the FBI access to private records — “any tangible things” — even if the person targeted has been connected to no illegal activity at all, let alone terrorism. The only requirement is that the materials being sought must be “connected to” or “relevant to” an ongoing investigation. The law allows the FBI to cast too wide a net.
“The government might ask for ‘all the phone records’ of everyone making a call to Saudi Arabia last month or last year, or all the records of computer searches on ‘jihad’ or all records of people flying to Frankfurt,” said James X. Dempsey, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Democracy & Technology. “A judge might approve those requests as ‘relevant.’ ”
In this respect, Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing “probable cause” that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
Section 215 further violates the Fourth Amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union argues, by failing to require that the FBI inform a person — even after the fact — that his or her privacy has been compromised. That is to say, should the feds decide to snoop into the paper trail of your life, you need not be told and may never know.
But if the FBI is checking out, say, the emails you wrote on a computer at your local library, couldn’t the librarian tell you? No. Section 215 places a gag order on the librarian, a fairly obvious infringement on the librarian’s First Amendment’s right to free speech.
“It simply could be a relationship with someone caught up in an investigation,” said Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the ACLU of Illinois.
Our inclination is to see the glass half empty and oppose this potentially dangerous infringement on the First Amendment. We have little confidence that it would not be — or, for that matter, has not been — abused by government agents. We remember too well the guilt-by-association communist witch hunts of the 1950s and the Chicago Police Red Squad surveillance of political organizations during the 1970s.
At the moment, perhaps the most pressing issue with respect to Section 215 is how broadly it is being interpreted by the Obama administration — we just don’t know. But Senators Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, apparently have read the Justice Department’s secret interpretation of the law — possibly written during the Bush administration — and are deeply troubled by it. When Congress returns to Washington in the fall, they vow, they will push to have this document made public. They also will call for making public the Justice Department’s secret interpretation of government powers under the related Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
“When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act,” Wyden warned on the Senate floor in May, “they will be stunned and they will be angry.”
The American people deserve to know, without further delay, how the White House is interpreting these powerful laws that allow spying on law-abiding citizens.
A vigilant knowledgeable public is the best check against government infringements on our liberties.
In Iowa last weekend, where Paul came in second in the Republican Party’s straw poll, he consistently pressed a message that thrilled the party’s libertarian wing but annoyed the rest of them. The Patriot Act, he said — a law passed in a panic just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks that dramatically expands the government’s authority to spy on citizens — is dangerously unconstitutional.
“The Patriot Act is an attack on our liberties and the Fourth Amendment,” he said. “We cannot protect liberty by taking liberty away from the American people.”
Criticism of the Patriot Act at this point might seem a little late, given that Congress and President Barack Obama reauthorized the law in May for another four years. But any debate that thoughtfully addresses the inherent tension in a democracy between personal freedoms and national security is never too little or too late.
Secret interpretation
And while the Patriot Act will remain the law of the land until at least 2015, civil libertarians are pushing the Obama administration to reveal its secret written interpretation of this law and of a related surveillance law. Two U.S. senators with insider knowledge, as members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, warn that Americans would be appalled if they knew how broadly the Justice Department has interpreted what the law allows government snoops to do.
The Patriot Act arguably runs afoul of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights in any number of ways, a particularly good example being the so-called “library records provision.” Under this provision — Section 215 — the FBI can obtain a court order forcing libraries and businesses to produce “any tangible things” that might assist in a terrorism investigation. Examples offered in the law include “books, records, papers, documents, and other items.”
On the face of it, this might not seem objectionable. Of course government needs access to records in terrorism investigations, and grand juries and the police have long had access to such records in criminal investigations. Defenders of Section 215 point to how the grand jury investigating the 1996 bombing in Atlanta’s Olympic Park subpoenaed bookseller records to show that a suspect, Eric Rudolph, bought a book on bombs.
Too wide a net
But unlike in a criminal investigation, the Patriot Act allows the FBI access to private records — “any tangible things” — even if the person targeted has been connected to no illegal activity at all, let alone terrorism. The only requirement is that the materials being sought must be “connected to” or “relevant to” an ongoing investigation. The law allows the FBI to cast too wide a net.
“The government might ask for ‘all the phone records’ of everyone making a call to Saudi Arabia last month or last year, or all the records of computer searches on ‘jihad’ or all records of people flying to Frankfurt,” said James X. Dempsey, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Democracy & Technology. “A judge might approve those requests as ‘relevant.’ ”
In this respect, Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing “probable cause” that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
Section 215 further violates the Fourth Amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union argues, by failing to require that the FBI inform a person — even after the fact — that his or her privacy has been compromised. That is to say, should the feds decide to snoop into the paper trail of your life, you need not be told and may never know.
But if the FBI is checking out, say, the emails you wrote on a computer at your local library, couldn’t the librarian tell you? No. Section 215 places a gag order on the librarian, a fairly obvious infringement on the librarian’s First Amendment’s right to free speech.
“It simply could be a relationship with someone caught up in an investigation,” said Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the ACLU of Illinois.
Our inclination is to see the glass half empty and oppose this potentially dangerous infringement on the First Amendment. We have little confidence that it would not be — or, for that matter, has not been — abused by government agents. We remember too well the guilt-by-association communist witch hunts of the 1950s and the Chicago Police Red Squad surveillance of political organizations during the 1970s.
At the moment, perhaps the most pressing issue with respect to Section 215 is how broadly it is being interpreted by the Obama administration — we just don’t know. But Senators Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, apparently have read the Justice Department’s secret interpretation of the law — possibly written during the Bush administration — and are deeply troubled by it. When Congress returns to Washington in the fall, they vow, they will push to have this document made public. They also will call for making public the Justice Department’s secret interpretation of government powers under the related Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
“When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act,” Wyden warned on the Senate floor in May, “they will be stunned and they will be angry.”
The American people deserve to know, without further delay, how the White House is interpreting these powerful laws that allow spying on law-abiding citizens.
A vigilant knowledgeable public is the best check against government infringements on our liberties.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
UAE Bank Stole Trade Secrets, Orchestrated Arrest of InfoSpan Executive, Boies Schiller Claims in New Suit
2011-07-22
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/20110720infospan.pdf
We've become pretty jaded when it comes to trade secrets litigation, but we've never seen anything quite like the allegations that Boies, Schiller & Flexner made in a recently-filed suit for California technology outsourcing company InfoSpan Inc. InfoSpan accuses the largest bank in the United Arab Emirates, Emirates NBD Bank PJSC, of ripping off its technology, having one of its executives arrested under false pretenses in Dubai, and leaving him penniless and stripped of his U.S. passport after his release.
InfoSpan's 33-page complaint, filed last Friday in Los Angeles federal district court, asserts that Emirates NBD fraudulently seized control of technology InfoSpan developed for mobile banking and then "corrupted the UAE's legal processes" to intimidate the company. The suit seeks unspecified damages for trade secret misappropriation, breach of confidence, breach of contract, and related claims.
Here's the backstory according to InfoSpan's lawyers at Boies Schiller: Beginning in 2007, Emirates NBD had partnered with InfoSpan to use technology the company developed in 2003 to facilitate cross-border fund transfers. Revenues from the project were expected to earn InfoSpan $2.8 billion in fees by 2012. Based on the success of the partnership, the bank even considered buying a controlling interest in InfoSpan.
In May 2008, the complaint alleges, Emirates NBD suddenly suspended user testing of the InfoSpan system. A month later the bank announced that it would independently offer mobile commerce services similar to InfoSpan's. InfoSpan protested, but its fears were allayed when Emirates NBD promised to use InfoSpan's technology if it opened a Dubai data center. By May 2009, InfoSpan had installed the mobile banking system.
But that same month, InfoSpan claims, Emirates NBD informed InfoSpan that it was rescinding its agreement, purportedly because the company had overcharged the bank $1.46 million. The bank also claimed that an InfoSpan subsidiary incorporated in the Cayman Islands had misrepresented itself as existing in the UAE, and that the project was behind schedule and had not met agreed upon standards.
Emirates NBD next filed a criminal complaint with Dubai police alleging that deputy CEO Larry Scudder had defrauded the bank out of the $1.46 million. InfoSpan claims that Emirates NBD had ties with the police and aimed to intimidate the company with "sham" allegations.
In May 2009, according to the complaint, police arrested Scudder at the Dubai airport. They released Scudder the next day but held onto his passport, preventing him from leaving the UAE for the next six months. During that time, InfoSpan claims, Scudder had no income because its offices in the UAE had been closed. "Mr. Scudder survived through the kindness of people at the church he attended in Dubai," according to the complaint.
InfoSpan CEO Farooq Bajwa, who was in California, had tried to cut a deal with Emirates Bank officials to get Scudder's passport released. The complaint claims a bank official told him in substance to sign over the project. In a subsequent call, the same official allegedly told Bajwa that if he ever came back to Dubai, "you'll never leave alive."
The Dubai police finally allowed Scudder to swap his passport for one belonging to someone at his church, permitting him to leave the country. Emirates Bank has meanwhile misappropriated InfoSpan's data center and technology, the complaint claims, and has since marketed InfoSpan's product, including to banks first approached by InfoSpan.
We contacted Emirates NDB for comment via e-mail but didn't hear back, and we were unable to reach a bank spokesperson by phone. InfoSpan counsel William Isaacson of Boies Schiller was not available for comment.
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/20110720infospan.pdf
We've become pretty jaded when it comes to trade secrets litigation, but we've never seen anything quite like the allegations that Boies, Schiller & Flexner made in a recently-filed suit for California technology outsourcing company InfoSpan Inc. InfoSpan accuses the largest bank in the United Arab Emirates, Emirates NBD Bank PJSC, of ripping off its technology, having one of its executives arrested under false pretenses in Dubai, and leaving him penniless and stripped of his U.S. passport after his release.
InfoSpan's 33-page complaint, filed last Friday in Los Angeles federal district court, asserts that Emirates NBD fraudulently seized control of technology InfoSpan developed for mobile banking and then "corrupted the UAE's legal processes" to intimidate the company. The suit seeks unspecified damages for trade secret misappropriation, breach of confidence, breach of contract, and related claims.
Here's the backstory according to InfoSpan's lawyers at Boies Schiller: Beginning in 2007, Emirates NBD had partnered with InfoSpan to use technology the company developed in 2003 to facilitate cross-border fund transfers. Revenues from the project were expected to earn InfoSpan $2.8 billion in fees by 2012. Based on the success of the partnership, the bank even considered buying a controlling interest in InfoSpan.
In May 2008, the complaint alleges, Emirates NBD suddenly suspended user testing of the InfoSpan system. A month later the bank announced that it would independently offer mobile commerce services similar to InfoSpan's. InfoSpan protested, but its fears were allayed when Emirates NBD promised to use InfoSpan's technology if it opened a Dubai data center. By May 2009, InfoSpan had installed the mobile banking system.
But that same month, InfoSpan claims, Emirates NBD informed InfoSpan that it was rescinding its agreement, purportedly because the company had overcharged the bank $1.46 million. The bank also claimed that an InfoSpan subsidiary incorporated in the Cayman Islands had misrepresented itself as existing in the UAE, and that the project was behind schedule and had not met agreed upon standards.
Emirates NBD next filed a criminal complaint with Dubai police alleging that deputy CEO Larry Scudder had defrauded the bank out of the $1.46 million. InfoSpan claims that Emirates NBD had ties with the police and aimed to intimidate the company with "sham" allegations.
In May 2009, according to the complaint, police arrested Scudder at the Dubai airport. They released Scudder the next day but held onto his passport, preventing him from leaving the UAE for the next six months. During that time, InfoSpan claims, Scudder had no income because its offices in the UAE had been closed. "Mr. Scudder survived through the kindness of people at the church he attended in Dubai," according to the complaint.
InfoSpan CEO Farooq Bajwa, who was in California, had tried to cut a deal with Emirates Bank officials to get Scudder's passport released. The complaint claims a bank official told him in substance to sign over the project. In a subsequent call, the same official allegedly told Bajwa that if he ever came back to Dubai, "you'll never leave alive."
The Dubai police finally allowed Scudder to swap his passport for one belonging to someone at his church, permitting him to leave the country. Emirates Bank has meanwhile misappropriated InfoSpan's data center and technology, the complaint claims, and has since marketed InfoSpan's product, including to banks first approached by InfoSpan.
We contacted Emirates NDB for comment via e-mail but didn't hear back, and we were unable to reach a bank spokesperson by phone. InfoSpan counsel William Isaacson of Boies Schiller was not available for comment.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
The Monarch who feared Doughnuts
Bahrain: (proposed Tourist Bureau advert): A small Gulf of Arabia (or is it Persia) state home to mass firings, arrests of peaceful dissidents, destruction of Shia mosques, torture of medics, and blackmailing schoolchildren. And “No” Doughnut giving either!!!!
For the first time in its history, Bahrain has embarked on mass military trials of hundreds of civilians on fatuous charges of crimes against the state. While more than 1,000 remain in detention, the opposition estimates that 400 are going through the process of military trials and 100 have been convicted so far. The swift summary justice churned out in these tribunals are a throwback to early 20th century Stalin show trials, designed to punish and humiliate dissenters.
The Shia’s call the Sunni’s dangerous. The Sunni’s call the Shia’s dangerous. Sounds remarkably like the historic Protestant-Catholic divide – and we Christians all know who is right!
Anyway – a pragmatic view of the world. The Iranian revolution (Shia) has failed to deliver any of its promises to its people. In fact, it’s making the Shah’s regime look like the banner child for Human Rights Watch. So let’s give the people some hope.
The West is working fine with Sunni and Shia regimes around the world. Why not Iran? Let’s get the religion thing off the table and keep the focus on constitutional democracy with a separation of executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Not because it’s perfect but it’s less flawed than the despotism that plaques the Middle East.
If the USA wants a regime change in Iran support democratic reform for the Shia in Bahrain --- what a concept!!!
And realism…the world needs Iran! Iran, however, which has suffered from years of sanctions, is expected to struggle to increase oil supply and its capacity will fall below Iraq's, the IEA said. "An adverse investment climate sees Iranian crude capacity decline by 0.8 million bpd to 3.1 million bpd, falling below Iraq's capacity by 2014." As supplies rise more slowly than demand, OPEC's margin of surplus oil that can be quickly added to the market if needed is "uncomfortably thin" at around 3.3 million bpd.
Let’s not act like a doughnut soaked in coffee – i.e. flaky. Speaking of flaky how do we – the USA – think recalling Mr. Hood is a ballsy move? To catch you all up:
US is "recalling" Ludovic Hood, US diplomat, from Bahrain for the crime of Doughnut Giving!!!
During March, Bahraini protesters agitated for their rights in broad daylight outside the US embassy in Manama. They carried signs that said "Give me liberty or give me death" and "Stop supporting dictators". Ludovic Hood, a human rights specialist in the political section of the US embassy, offered doughnuts to the protesters - American hospitality at its finest. In response, a local cleric opined: "These sweets are a good gesture, but we hope it is translated into practical action."
What would that action look like? Three choices, I think “2” is what most Americans would agree is the right outcome:
1. US pressure on its ally, the Khalifa family-ruling the island kingdom of Bahrain to create jobs; or
2. USA & international community would use its leverage to force Bahrain's government to establish a true constitutional democracy, figurehead monarchy and create jobs for unemployed Shia citizens; or
3. Remove Khalifa.
But those protesters did not expect that, just two months later, Hood would be shipped back to the US from his post in Manama - prematurely, some say - after having been threatened on Bahraini pro-government websites.
US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Hood's boss, reportedly complained to Bahrain's foreign minister in May about the threats.
The Bahraini government declined to comment on Hood's departure.
US state department and Bahraini opposition members have told Al Jazeera that Hood was "just doing his job".
Preserving good relations with the government allows the Fifth Naval Fleet to remain in Bahrain as a counter-balance to Iran across the Gulf.
But I ask who does that counterbalance serve best? Yes our Fleet would have to sail to a different port but Bahrain’s ruler would have to worry about a regime change if Iran moves in. He and his family would be picking out real estate in Mayfair, London.
In short, Bahrain needs the USA far more than the USA needs Bahrain….let’s act that way.
Compromising American values for American’s is not an option. The cloud of diplomacy is an easy distraction to our moral compass – recalibrate!!!
US policy cannot be tied to a specific administration in a foreign country; it must be driven by US and Global Citizen interests (Human Rights). The US is the order state for the globe. What rights many citizens have around the world have been driven in part because of the model (however imperfect) the US and Western democracies represent to people’s around the planet who lack rule of law and a right to fair and equal representation in their government.
The Fifth Fleet provides security not only of the oil consuming nations of the world but also the producing nations of the Arabian/Persian Gulf. The Fifth Fleet carries the hope of civilization that can only be achieved by the US & the West standing behind the Truths “We Hold To Be Self Evident.”
Someday soon we made be joined by the vibrant democracies that flower from Iraq and the Arab Spring…
For the first time in its history, Bahrain has embarked on mass military trials of hundreds of civilians on fatuous charges of crimes against the state. While more than 1,000 remain in detention, the opposition estimates that 400 are going through the process of military trials and 100 have been convicted so far. The swift summary justice churned out in these tribunals are a throwback to early 20th century Stalin show trials, designed to punish and humiliate dissenters.
The Shia’s call the Sunni’s dangerous. The Sunni’s call the Shia’s dangerous. Sounds remarkably like the historic Protestant-Catholic divide – and we Christians all know who is right!
Anyway – a pragmatic view of the world. The Iranian revolution (Shia) has failed to deliver any of its promises to its people. In fact, it’s making the Shah’s regime look like the banner child for Human Rights Watch. So let’s give the people some hope.
The West is working fine with Sunni and Shia regimes around the world. Why not Iran? Let’s get the religion thing off the table and keep the focus on constitutional democracy with a separation of executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Not because it’s perfect but it’s less flawed than the despotism that plaques the Middle East.
If the USA wants a regime change in Iran support democratic reform for the Shia in Bahrain --- what a concept!!!
And realism…the world needs Iran! Iran, however, which has suffered from years of sanctions, is expected to struggle to increase oil supply and its capacity will fall below Iraq's, the IEA said. "An adverse investment climate sees Iranian crude capacity decline by 0.8 million bpd to 3.1 million bpd, falling below Iraq's capacity by 2014." As supplies rise more slowly than demand, OPEC's margin of surplus oil that can be quickly added to the market if needed is "uncomfortably thin" at around 3.3 million bpd.
Let’s not act like a doughnut soaked in coffee – i.e. flaky. Speaking of flaky how do we – the USA – think recalling Mr. Hood is a ballsy move? To catch you all up:
US is "recalling" Ludovic Hood, US diplomat, from Bahrain for the crime of Doughnut Giving!!!
During March, Bahraini protesters agitated for their rights in broad daylight outside the US embassy in Manama. They carried signs that said "Give me liberty or give me death" and "Stop supporting dictators". Ludovic Hood, a human rights specialist in the political section of the US embassy, offered doughnuts to the protesters - American hospitality at its finest. In response, a local cleric opined: "These sweets are a good gesture, but we hope it is translated into practical action."
What would that action look like? Three choices, I think “2” is what most Americans would agree is the right outcome:
1. US pressure on its ally, the Khalifa family-ruling the island kingdom of Bahrain to create jobs; or
2. USA & international community would use its leverage to force Bahrain's government to establish a true constitutional democracy, figurehead monarchy and create jobs for unemployed Shia citizens; or
3. Remove Khalifa.
But those protesters did not expect that, just two months later, Hood would be shipped back to the US from his post in Manama - prematurely, some say - after having been threatened on Bahraini pro-government websites.
US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Hood's boss, reportedly complained to Bahrain's foreign minister in May about the threats.
The Bahraini government declined to comment on Hood's departure.
US state department and Bahraini opposition members have told Al Jazeera that Hood was "just doing his job".
Preserving good relations with the government allows the Fifth Naval Fleet to remain in Bahrain as a counter-balance to Iran across the Gulf.
But I ask who does that counterbalance serve best? Yes our Fleet would have to sail to a different port but Bahrain’s ruler would have to worry about a regime change if Iran moves in. He and his family would be picking out real estate in Mayfair, London.
In short, Bahrain needs the USA far more than the USA needs Bahrain….let’s act that way.
Compromising American values for American’s is not an option. The cloud of diplomacy is an easy distraction to our moral compass – recalibrate!!!
US policy cannot be tied to a specific administration in a foreign country; it must be driven by US and Global Citizen interests (Human Rights). The US is the order state for the globe. What rights many citizens have around the world have been driven in part because of the model (however imperfect) the US and Western democracies represent to people’s around the planet who lack rule of law and a right to fair and equal representation in their government.
The Fifth Fleet provides security not only of the oil consuming nations of the world but also the producing nations of the Arabian/Persian Gulf. The Fifth Fleet carries the hope of civilization that can only be achieved by the US & the West standing behind the Truths “We Hold To Be Self Evident.”
Someday soon we made be joined by the vibrant democracies that flower from Iraq and the Arab Spring…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)