Daisy Girl Ad - Stop Mountaintop Removal!

Global Jihad - Attack? Or Counter-attack? What Osama bin Laden Wrote

by Diane V. McLoughlin

June 30, 2010:   I would take up a New Yorker's challenge to explain the motivation behind the World Trade Center bombings, who asks, rhetorically, what did we do to deserve those attacks? I've got unhappy news for him - we did plenty. For openers, under Presidents Bush I and Clinton, we deliberately killed hundreds of thousands of Iraq's children - 'worth it', according to Secretary of State M. Albright.

Osama bin Laden wrote clearly in his 'Letter to America' why the Muslim world fights against the machinations of the United States; it should be read by every American citizen. To the eternal discredit of the mainstream American press, most Americans have never even heard of it. For the sake of brevity I have shortened the letter to its most central points, adding a few brief comments of my own in square brackets. (The full text of the letter can be viewed here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver)

The crimes against humanity that the U.S. and the West are complicit in committing against the oppressed Palestinian people is Exhibit A in bin Laden's Letter:

'a) You attacked us in Palestine.'

[The U.S. donates in value three billion dollars to Israel each and every year - most of it in the form of military hardware used against the Palestinian people (and also Lebanon), who in truth have languished for fifty years under Israel's racist, barbed-wire Apartheid regime.

[Bin Laden seems less sanguine than Iran's Ahmadinajad on this issue: Ahmadinajad calls for a referendum to be held in Palestine by the people - both Jews and Palestinians - for them to determine democratically for themselves a structure for a just and fair society; bin Laden says that the creation of Israel was a crime that must be erased. I have no idea whether bin Laden would respond positively to Ahmadinajad's democratic proposal.]

'b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

'(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

'(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of your international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

'(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

'(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

'(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque...[for brevity, skipped text...]

'(3) You may...dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

'(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

'(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq...

'...if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back...That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits. You who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war. How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?'

Bin Laden held out a hand of reconciliation: 'We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefit.'
---------------------------------------
- mildly edited from my original comment No. 76 on New York Times blogger Robert Wright's excellent opinion piece: 'The Myth of Modern Jihad'; June 29, 2010

BUSTED! Israel is Raping Gaza of Palestinian Gas Reserves. THOU SHALL NO...

Journalist attacked by police at G20, Toronto

Who is incharge of these Police Men, who gives these orders - Police ope...

G20 Summit - When They Came For Them I Did Nothing...

by Diane V. McLoughlin

June 22, 2010:  The Ottawa Citizen editorial smears anyone with a criticism of the current state of Western Democracy (in essence) - claiming that at the G20 summit protesters were 'incompetent' at getting their messages across - rather than protesters' claims that all alternative views were repressed. (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Empty+protest/3213722/story.html#comments)
The Ottawa Citizen, along with the rest of Canadian mainstream media (MSM), succeeded spectacularly in keeping every single protest message out. No one interviewed; no inconvenient pictures of the consequences of police brutality; no pictures of protest signs; no nothing. The Ottawa Citizen, CBC News, CTV et al - all an abomination and a disgrace.

We might have found that majorities of Canadians would not have agreed with this point of view or that one. But what should profoundly worry all Canadians far more is that they were denied the opportunity to hear these views to weigh and judge each one for themselves. It was a complete media blackout worthy of any totalitarian regime.

As for broken windows and the three burned police cars - interesting indeed to note that the police, numbered in the thousands, were absent entirely from the scene when these events took place, yet peaceful protesters numbering in the hundreds along with accredited journalists were rounded up, in some cases beaten, heads kicked in, bones broken, strip searched, threatened with rape, and even digitally penetrated; McGuinty's cabinet passes vastly expanded police powers that directly contravene our constitutional rights and protections, and he is allowed to refuse to discuss it, by you, the MSM, without even a whimper of journalistic protest.

Where is the cautionary reminder that Canadian security forces were caught red-handed planting agents provocateurs within protest marches at a past meeting held at Montebello, stopped by protesters from throwing rocks which were to be used to smear them all as just violent, no-mind anarchists? Nowhere.
The same allegations are surfacing, again.

Either you have sold your souls to the devil or you are being coerced by the state against your will. If the latter you should commit the ultimate in brave service to the state and its citizens by publicly saying so. The choice is as grim as it is absolute.

What you fail to realize is that you are not part of the inner circle. As it was so sadly and eloquently put in another time and place, when they came for them I did nothing. When they came for me it was too late.

G20 Toronto Police Rape Threats + Strip Searched - Amy Miller

G20 - Canadian news blackout on what the protests are all about

by Diane V. McLoughlin

June 26, 2010:  To All CBC/CTV News Anchors, Journalists, Reporters and Media Top Brass,

Welcome to Totalitarian Police State Canada. And thank you, Canadian mainstream media, for your participation and cooperation. With your acquiesance, free speech has been replaced with, how shall we say?, something more massaged, more comforting to the ruling class.
 
The crime of squelching the truth is not limited to the CBC. Coverage, or total lack thereof, interestingly, is identical at CTV, as well.
 
But most interestingly, although U.S.-based, CNN's brief snapshots look entirely different. There, we are actually privy to see on-screen what some of the protest signs look like, if nothing else.
 
In Canada? The only protest sign that got wide coverage was one - one! - for organized labor. And actually hear what any organization is protesting about? Forget it.
 
Israel-Palestine, oil wars/war crimes, environmental destruction, political corruption, undue corporate influence, foreign government moles, poverty, civil liberties, free speech, the shredding of constitutional rights - and agents provocateurs a la Montebello - thanks to Canada's flacid, timid, cowardly and cowering media we are blind, deaf and dumb; no harm of being exposed to uncomfortable truths.  
 
In Canada, Fascism is a lock.

A Bruise on the First Amendment - Readers' Comments - NYTimes.com#comment25#comment25

Comment in support of the editorial position of the New York Times regarding a disastrous Supreme Court decision affecting free speech and assembly rights, as well as hobbling the ability to resolve conflict - Diane V. McLoughlin

June 22, 2010: From the NYT editiorial:

'The case arose after an American human rights group, the Humanitarian Law Project, challenged the law prohibiting “material support” to terror groups, which was defined in the 2001 Patriot Act to include “expert advice or assistance.” The law project wanted to provide advice to two terrorist groups on how to peacefully resolve their disputes and work with the United Nations...But though the law project was actually trying to reduce the violence of the two groups, the court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. on behalf of five other justices, said that did not matter and ruled the project’s efforts illegal. Even peaceful assistance to a terror group can further terrorism, the chief justice wrote...;'.
[ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/opinion/22tue1.html ]

My comment:

I agree with the New York Times editorial that Congress should step in and rectify this wrong. Not only is free speech now badly hobbled by this latest Supreme Court decision; the ability to seek peaceful resolution between adversaries is, too.

I am mindful of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln's approach to adversaries, war and peace. We took a wrong turn in branding individuals or groups 'terrorist', to the degree that peaceful resolution through dialogue itself is now outlawed; it is as if the aim of terrorism law is to outlaw any prospect of peace itself.

'Combatants find it difficult to live together in peace after they lay down their arms if there is too much to forget. Demonizing is dreadfully difficult to undo.

'He had found a better way. Lincoln was fond of saying that the best way to destroy an enemy was to make a friend of him.

'Thus, Tolstoy could write: "Washington was a typical American. Napoleon was a typical Frenchman, but Lincoln was a humanitarian as broad as the world. He was bigger than his country - bigger than all the Presidents together."

['Lincoln Quotes: The Best Quotes From Abraham Lincoln From The Pages of The Achievement Digest';
http://www.theamericans.us/Quote.html ]

A Bruise on the First Amendment - Readers' Comments - NYTimes.com#comment25#comment25

[Link] funny; shocking - Arrested for Peacefully Passing out FIJA Pamphlets

- Arrested for Peacefully Passing out FIJA Pamphlets

Searching for Hints About Canadian Ken Watkin, One of Two International Observers of Israel's Flotilla Inquiry

I searched for info on Canadian Ken Watkin, Judge Advocate General for the Canadian Armed Forces from 2006 - 2010; on 'June 13, 2010, the Israeli government appointed Ken Watkin to be one of two international observers serving on an Israeli commission of inquiry looking into the events surrounding an Israeli raid on the Mavi Marmara' (Gaza Freedom Flotilla) [Wikipedia]

At the above Wiki bio link for Watkin, interesting link to a CTV news article on the fact that Watkin refused to testify before a Canadian House of Commons inquiry into Afghan detainee abuse and what he knew, arguing solicitor-client privilege between himself and the Government of Canada.  Hmmm.

Here is an excerpt of one interesting document he wrote regarding humanitarian principles in law and the treatment of those not considered by their captors to be legal combatants.  Mr. Watkin's take in it appears to be reassuringly bent towards the humane treatment of anyone in detention, regardless of any legal or illegal status in hostilities.  In my cursory search this afternoon I have not identified a link between Mr. Watkin and Israel, unlike the obvious bias so swiftly identified by the press with regard to the other invited outside investigator, Trimble.

From, 'Warriors Without Rights?  Combatants, Unprivileged Billigerents, and the Struggle Over Legitimacy'; Kenneth Watkin; 2005; PDF; Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research Harvard University

'Conclusion


Combatancy has throughout the history of organized warfare been an
exclusionary concept. To the extent that the separation of combatants
from others in society is linked to the principle of distinction, the
creation of an exclusive group of warriors has a laudable goal.
Unfortunately, the attempt to codify international humanitarian law in
this area has been the subject of a significant struggle between
powerful states and those seeking to recognize a broader ‘patriotic’
reaction to external threats. It is here that the greatest challenges have
occurred in attempting to ensure the law addresses fully warfare in
terms of both its nature and scope.
________________________________________________
326 See Anthony Dworkin, Revising the Law of War to Account for Terrorism: the Case Against
Updating the Geneva Conventions, On the Ground That Changes Are Likely Only to Damage
Human Rights http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030204_dworkin.html
(“reopening the debate will allow groups to push for other changes to the law…that could
set back humanitarian values.”) and Dr. Jakob Kellenberger, International Humanitarian Law
at the Beginning of the 21st Century, Statement at the 26th Round Table in San Remo on the
Current Problems of International Humanitarian Law: The Two Additional Protocols to the
Geneva Conventions: 25 Years Later - Challenges and Prospects (Sep. 5, 2002), available at
www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5E2C8V?OpenDocument. (“[D]o they want to
lower existing standards of protection? As far as this last point is concerned, you will
understand that the ICRC will never be associated with initiatives aimed at weakening
existing standards of protection.”).

73

At the turn of the twentieth century, the attempt to codify international
law reflected a Eurocentric idea of armed conflict in which dominant
states established successfully a preference for the large uniformed
armed forces. However, participation in hostilities has ultimately a
cultural basis that is not limited to either standing armies or the
wearing of uniforms. In order to address warfare comprehensively,
international humanitarian law must address both its direct and
indirect manifestations. To the extent the 1907 Hague Regulations
legitimized primarily the former type of warfare, it was shifting ideas
of legitimacy related to indirect warfare that ultimately led to
fundamental change in the manner in which warfare was to be
regulated.

As far back as the Lieber Code, there were indications that phraseology
used to describe unlawful combatants (e.g. “brigand”) masked a more
complex relationship between the participants in the conflict than its
criminal connotation suggested. For example, captured Confederate
personnel were treated as prisoners of war even though the conflict
was a civil war.327 The failure of the Hague Regulations to address fully
the nature of warfare was demonstrated perhaps most graphically by
the reliance placed by major European states on ‘special’ forces to
conduct guerrilla operations in both World Wars. Although the
drafters of the 1949 Geneva Conventions failed to account realistically
for the participation of organized resistance movements during the
Second World War, it is clear that their use resulted in an altered
perspective on legitimacy in the Hostages Case328 and in scholarship.
The heavier reliance on indirect warfare during the Cold War
increased pressure to broaden the privileged class of warriors as is
reflected in Additional Protocol I. Notwithstanding the reluctance of a
number of states to ratify this mid-1970s effort to broaden
humanitarian law, it is perhaps inevitable that the increasingly
complex nature of modern conflict will bring further pressure to
advance this area of the law in the twenty-first century.
_________________________________________

327 While the Lieber Code refers to prisoners of war it was specifically written in the context
of providing humanitarian protection and not to afford implicit recognition of Confederate
sovereignty “but would not constitute recognition of the rebels as true belligerents in
international law, nor would the United States forfeit the right to try the rebels for treason.”
See Hartigan, supra note 186, p. 9.
328 The Hostages Case, Trials of War Criminals (Washington: Government Printing Office 1950).

74

In humanitarian terms, it is unfortunate that the standard of treatment
applied to captured personell has been – and in many respects remains
– linked intimately to notions of legitimacy. While there are no gaps in
the humanitarian protection offered to the warriors of modern conflict,
it is also not possible to state that there is equality either. The highest
level of protection associated with prisoners of war remains tied to the
concept of lawful combatancy. However, the imprecise criteria for
attaining combatant status and the fact that the determination of
legitimacy rests largely with the detaining power can mean that any
claim to be a lawful combatant is subject to considerable uncertainty.

Even where protection similar to the prisoner of war standard is
provided in the guise of internment under the Civilian Convention, the
entitlement to that treatment is limited by concepts such as nationality
and territoriality. Additional Protocol I maintains a hierarchy of
unprivileged belligerents dependant upon whether a link can be made
to a state or other right authority as a combatant. In introducing
human rights standards of protection for those not otherwise covered
by humanitarian law, Article 75 of Additional Protocol I was designed
to fill any gap in protection.
While this goal has been reached it does
not remove what often appears to be a patchwork of statuses and
protection.

The issue of whether ‘unprivileged belligerents’ would be entitled to
the protection associated with internment was decided fifty years ago.
The remaining question is why that protection should not also be
extended to those who technically may be outside the reach of the 1949
Civilian Convention. In 1951, Richard Baxter stated that “[a]s the
current tendency of the law of war appears to be to extend the
protection of prisoner of war status to an ever-increasing group, it is
possible to envisage a day when the law will be so retailored as to
place all belligerents, however, garbed, in a protected status.”329 Given
the continuing link between prisoner of war status and legitimacy that
goal may not be attainable. However, extending the internment
provisions of the Civilian’s Convention would have a similar effect.
This would ensure a consistent application of international
_________________________________________________
329 Baxter, supra note 11, p. 343.

75

humanitarian law protection based on the treatment standards
associated with prisoners of war without introducing the emotive and
often divisive issue of legitimacy.
----------------------------------------------[next page, 'About the Series'...]

link to proposed U.S. Senate Bill S.3081 - sec. 5 below, indef. detention of U.S. citizens

SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.

An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.

The Goldstone Report

Hasbara Useful Idiot Bill Maher on Israel and Gaza

Regarding Hoyer's Take on the Gaza Flotilla Incident

by Diane V. McLoughlin, June 9, 2010

Fiction, from A - Z.

Israel attacked a flotilla of peaceful humanitarians bearing aid to the starving citizens of Gaza. The IDF fired live rounds before the descent by rope onto the Marmara.

Humanitarians were shot direct hits to the head and back - some multiple times.

The number of dead is not 9. Three were shot and thrown overboard by the IDF. They are listed as 'missing'.

To say that unarmed humanitarians who defended themselves with whatever pathetic sticks were to hand against a lethal military force is patently absurd and an insult to one's intelligence.

Painful to witness anyone continue to defend this most illegal, loathsome crime against humanity - a military blockade and starvation of 1.5 million civilians - 48% of whom are aged 15 years and younger.

95% of the water is completely unfit for human consumption. We will witness what was wrought by the U.S. in the odious and illegal ten-year siege of Iraq - the children will begin to die, dropping like flies from disease compounded by malnutrition preventing their tiny bodies from putting up adequate defense
from microscopic invaders - otherwise known, Mr. Hoyer - as biological warfare.

Hamas is not a terrorist organization, and should never have been classified as such.

Hamas is the duly elected political representation of the people.

Not Abbas and the PA, or Fatah.

Hamas has repeatedly offered long-term ceasefires in exchange for the beginnings of normalization of relations with Israel and a lifting of the criminal siege.

Hamas abided by the 2008 ceasefire with Israel. That ceasefire was to lead to that very normalization - instead, the entire time, and with the complicity of the U.S. government - Israel girded for Gaza's utter destruction with U.S. donated weapons, including illegal ones - white phosphorous Mr. Hoyer, is
a chemical weapon.

The reason, Mr. Hoyer, that the humanitarians did not want Israel anywhere near their donated aid is that Israel would promptly confiscate it and refuse its entry into Gaza - which, of course, is precisely what has happened.

Last, a history lesson. We hear ad nauseum about poor Sderot, and what they have to put up with from those completely useless homemade rockets - one component of which is sugar for heaven's sake.

Well, Mr. Hoyer, the proper name for Sderot is actually Najd. That's what Sderot was called when Palestinian refugees currently languishing in Gaza used to live in peace in their village; before, that is, the IDF ethnically cleansed them out.

Sderot is Najd, occupied by illegal interlopers where Palestinian homes once stood. Those Palestinians
are being starved because they have the temerity to want to go home.

How about doing the right thing, Mr. Hoyer, and read the above on the floor: The truth.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on the Gaza Flotilla Incident

Contact: Katie Grant
202-225-3130

For Immediate Release
June 09, 2010

Hoyer Floor Statement on Flotilla Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON, DC – House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (MD) released the following statement on the House Floor tonight. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

“In the early morning hours of Monday, May 31, Israeli naval forces intercepted six ships, carrying mostly Turkish demonstrators, attempting to break the blockade of the Gaza Strip. While five of the six ships complied with IDF requests, the largest of them, the Mavi Marmara, refused—clearly bent on a violent confrontation—and was boarded by Israeli Defense Forces.

“These IDF troops were violently attacked with knives, clubs, and other weapons. At the end of the skirmish, seven members of the IDF had suffered injuries including gunshot wounds and head trauma, and nine demonstrators on the Mavi Marmara had been killed.

“Those deaths are tragic. The events leading up to them deserve and a full and scrupulous investigation. But this much is already clear: to call all the passengers of the Mavi Marmara nonviolent ‘peace activists’ would be a victory for propaganda, not for fact. Peace activists don’t launch attacks with knives and guns—and they certainly don’t do so while chanting slogans calling for the death of Jews, as an Al Jazeera broadcast showed. However much we lament those nine deaths, the fact is that the IDF was faced with an organized, violent assault and responded in self-defense.

“Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, this incident has renewed international condemnation for Israel’s blockade of Gaza. But that blockade exists for a reason: to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and to random attacks on Israeli civilians. The blockade was launched, with the cooperation of Israel’s neighbor Egypt, when Hamas staged a violent coup to expel its political rivals and seize total control of Gaza; and the blockade could end today, if Hamas recognized Israel’s right to exist, gave up its commitment to murdering civilians, and released the Israeli soldier it holds captive.

“To the extent that life is hard for those in Gaza, the prime cause is the terrorist organization that keeps them hostage, holds power through violence, and monopolizes the food and humanitarian supplies that Israel allows across the border. Indeed, it is Hamas, not Israel, that is currently preventing the humanitarian goods from this very flotilla from reaching the Palestinians in Gaza.

“Finally, the United States should and will resist all one-sided attempts to condemn Israel at the United Nations. The UN, a body committed by its Charter to universal human rights, has for much of its history been sadly fixated on singling Israel out for condemnation, as much more serious crises have gone unaddressed. That biased record extends beyond the infamous 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism. The UN General Assembly has convened in emergency special session ten times: six of them focused on Israel, while no emergency session was ever held on the Rwandan genocide, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, or genocide in Sudan. The 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism neglected racism around the world to again single out, almost exclusively, Israel and Zionism. The UN Human Rights Council—whose members include Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba—has only one permanent topic on its official agenda: Israel. Even Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticized the Human Rights Council for its ‘disproportionate focus on violations by Israel.’

“This troubled history is exactly why I am skeptical that the United Nations will treat Israel justly now. What happened on the Mavi Marmara needs a real investigation—not one colored by years of one-sided bias.

“Mr. Speaker, despite what happened last Monday, the fundamentals of this conflict remain just as they were the day before: the overwhelming majority of Israelis want to live in peace with the Palestinians, side-by-side in two states. So do most Palestinians—but the extremism and hate of groups like Hamas stands in the way.

“Finding a way to peace is fiercely difficult; it should not be made more difficult by those who see more propaganda value than human value in these lost lives.”

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan - Interesting Political Times

A feature-length magazine article

by Diane V. McLoughlin

June, 2010: 

Seasoned politico and writer Pat Buchanan has been taken to task for pointing out that, should Elena
Kagan be confirmed, the Supreme Court would consist of three Jews, six Catholics, and not a
Protestant in the lot of them. [1]

Sounds a bit like an opener to a bad joke, doesn't it? 'So, three Jews, six Catholics and zero
Protestants walk into a bar...' blah, blah, blah and punch-line. For the record I'm an agnostic,
cognizant and supremely tolerant of the fact that most other people are not.

Anyway, I infer from Buchanan's parsing of the numbers that he believes that religion influences the
ways in which a Supreme Court justice might weigh-in on the law, and, by extension, that religious
belief might have a profound effect on the ways in which a Supreme Court justice might leave their
imprint on civil liberties as well as the social fabric of the nation. After all, that is what the justices
are there for - to interpret how legal cases ought to be settled based on the guiding principles of the
Constitution.

I really don't have a problem with Mr. Buchanan's reasoning, but Huffington Post's Keli Goff goes
way out there to smear Buchanan's thoughts as 'dangerous' antisemitism. [2]

Why is it racist to suggest that color, class, social groupings and/or religion might shape one's views
to varying degrees, and that one would hope to have reasonable proportional representation - or,
inversely - not an unreasonably disproportionate over-representation of any identifiable group? Is it
really fair to say that efforts at inclusion are discriminatory?

Power of one group over other groups is sometimes abusive and tyrannical, such as the tyranny of
majority-rule. Sometimes tyranny might take the form of a small elite over the unwitting majority,
instead.

The Founders tried to take into account such threats to the liberty of the individual. They wanted to
maximally protect civil liberties for All. President Barack Obama's successful nomination of Ms.
Kagan would mean that thirty percent of the Supreme Court justices would be Jewish, versus less
than two percent of America's general population. As I say, Ms. Goff seems to feel it is racist even
to bring it up.

The above merely hints at the controversy swirling around this story.

Who is Elena Kagan? What are her qualifications?

For starters, Ms. Kagan does not have a legal record to review from time spent on the bench.
I repeat, because it is so stunning as to be disbelieved - Ms. Kagan has been nominated to serve as
one of only nine individuals who are to determine, judge and personally influence the highest laws
and their philosophical underpinnings, while never having been a judge - not for one day, anywhere,
ever.

Frankly, it boggles the mind. Out of a population of three-hundred and ten-million - how many
talented, brilliant, experienced judges might there be? From that pool, how many did U.S. President
Barack Obama find worthy of interest? Apparently, none.

This raises some rather obvious questions. Why Elena Kagan? Who brought her to Obama's
attention? What overriding considerations were given to nominating her? Why is an inexperienced
judge preferable to an experienced judge? What does it say about Elena Kagan that she would even
agree to be considered, given this lack of experience? What is hoped to be achieved by her
nomination? What are her goals in accepting the invitation to serve?

Elena Kagan held the prestigious post of Dean of Harvard Law School. But the accepted criteria in
qualifications are performance as well as time spent on the bench, along with scholarly legal
publication.

In the view of writer James Petras, Obama's nomination of Ms. Kagan, based on her academic
publication record, 'might give her a fighting chance for tenure at a first rate correspondence law
school in the Texas Panhandle.' [2a]

What really recommended her, in his opinion?

'The evidence points to a purely political appointment based, in part, on social networks...Kagan’s
approval of indefinite detention of suspects squares with the extremist restrictions on constitutional
freedoms first articulated during the Bush Administration and subsequently upheld by President
Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder. It is no coincidence that Kagan appointed a notorious Bush
torture advocate, the genial Jack Goldsmith, to the Harvard Law faculty.

'...Elena Kagan got tenure at the august halls of the University of Chicago in 1995 on the basis of
one substantive article and one brief piece, neither outstanding. With this underwhelming record of
legal scholarship, she became visiting professorship at the Harvard Law School, published only two
more articles (one in Harvard Law Review) and received tenure. Prima facie evidence strongly
suggests that Kagan’s ties to the staunchly Zionist faculty at both Chicago and Harvard Law Schools
(and not her intellectual prowess) account for her meteoric promotions to tenure, deanship and now
the US Supreme Court, over the heads of hundreds of other highly qualified candidates with far
superior academic publication records and broader practical judicial experience.' [ibid]

--------

9/11 and the Constitution

Much of the legal public square has been taken up, after the catastrophic experiences of 9/11, with
questions that go to the heart of human rights and civil liberties.

Are we entitled...to presumption of innocence? Habeas Corpus? Is it still our right to be Mirandized -
that is, to be advised of our right to an attorney and to our right to remain silent? Are we entitled to
any trial at all? A speedy trial? Are we entitled to see the evidence against us? To challenge witnesses
and evidence in an open court? Do we have the right not to be coerced into incriminating ourselves
through torture or threats, and not to have such tainted evidence used against us? Do we still retain
the right not to be locked up indefinitely?

The fact that these questions in law have been torn open to situational interpretation - laws which
were heretofore considered long settled and carved in stone - is a loud alarm sounding for us all.

The recent would-be Times Square bomber was not advised of his rights. He was encouraged to
talk, first. Then he was told he had a right to remain silent. The outline of fascism is there when
some demand we rescind his American citizenship; assume he is guilty; deny him the right to his day
in court or to see the evidence against him. They would encouragingly approve his torture to extract
useless information he thinks they want to hear so that the pain will stop - causing us to drag others
who are innocent into the evil vortex as well.

Let's take the direction of the above to its logical conclusion. Let's bring back the test once used on
unfortunate people accused, by religious idiots and enemies, of being witches. Tie him up in a chair
and throw him in a pond of water. If he sinks and drowns he's human - oh! Too bad! If he manages
to float, he's a witch and we burn him.

Conversely, keep him alive but deprive the suspected terrorist (meaning, the otherwise innocent
person) of their liberty by locking them up indefinitely - a living death.

---------------------

Israel

Israel factors into American politics in a big way. Israel has gotten away with the on-going ethnic
cleansing of the Palestinian people largely through the Israel right-or-wrong political support of the
U.S.

Israel's oppression of the Palestinians was cited as one of the top reasons, by Osama bin Laden, for
the attacks on 9/11. That, and the murderous ten-year military blockade of Iraq which inflicted such
devastating suffering and death amongst the Iraqi people.

The New York Times, in a city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, seemingly
refused to report the Israel angle as they followed the unfolding events of 9/11. Many other
American media outlets reported on 9/11 in the same way, helping to create in the American publics'
mind a false and dangerously misleading case for why 9/11 occurred, and, it follows, in what ways
the country ought to respond.

Israel and 9/11 both became factors in our ongoing war against much of the Middle East. That, and
corporate competition for scarce oil resources. Thousands of young Americans in the prime of their
youth are coming home damaged or dead from these wars never having been told the truth of why
they were sent.

Speaking of Israel and the truth, there is a big push behind the scenes in western countries, Canada
and Great Britain being two notable examples, the United States being another, to make the following
statements thought or hate-speech crimes:

One, to suggest that Israel is an apartheid state; two, to suggest that Israel should be one democratic
state with equal rights for both Palestinians and Jews. [3] [3i]

Surely other states will line up for similar legalized blinkers. Is it not possible that hate speech laws
could be enacted against Americans who criticize American policy itself, if we start down that road?
I believe that it is.

Because American society is so polarized and divided, I think any Supreme Court nominee would, in
fact, come in for the same intense scrutiny as Ms. Kagan should.

One of the most important constitutional protections in troubled political times is freedom of speech.
How do Elena Kagan's views hold up on free speech rights? From the New York Times:

'As a scholar, Ms. Kagan’s interests were narrow, somewhat technical, and steered clear of ideology.
She was interested in questions like when the government could limit free speech. “This is not a
subject about which there is any ideological slant,” Mr. Stone said. “It’s an intellectual puzzle.” ' [4]

From Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine:

'Kagan's understanding of First Amendment law, described most fully in a 1996 University of
Chicago Law Review article, suggests a tolerance for censorship when it is appropriately disguised by
euphemisms. In Kagan's view, the main goal of First Amendment doctrine is not to maximize
freedom or promote robust debate, but to ferret out impermissible motives for speech restrictions.

'While the government may constitutionally restrict speech based on "neutrally conceived harms,"
Kagan says, it may not restrict speech based on "hostility toward ideas." But as she herself more or
less acknowledges, this distinction ultimately collapses because people are hostile to ideas they
consider harmful.' [5]

From Marjorie Cohn, past president of the National Lawyer's Guild:

'In one of her few law review articles, Kagan advocated expansive executive power consistent with a
formulation from the Reagan administration. This is reminiscent of the “unitary executive” theory
that George W. Bush used to justify grabbing unbridled executive power in his “war on terror.”

'As solicitor general, Kagan asserted in a brief that the “state secrets privilege” is grounded in the
Constitution. The Obama White House, like the Bush administration, is asserting this privilege to
prevent people who the CIA sent to other countries to be tortured and people challenging Bush’s
secret spying program from litigating their cases in court.' [6]

In order to continue the rapacious war for Empire - in order for the military-industrial-Congressional-
religious complex to continue unimpeded - laws to suppress dissent should be anticipated.

It may seem like these disparate things do not go together. But what I would argue is that there is an
overlap of aims, desires and purposes at work. The one thing shared in common is that goals will be
reached far easier if they could whack off chunks of the Constitution.

Zealots never seem to consider what risks there might be to themselves in destroying the legal
protections of others.

We depend on the Supreme Court to be a Constitutional voice of conscience. All the most
fundamental protections of the individual from the tyranny of king or state or privileged group are on
life support. Which rights, that Americans hold most sacrosanct, are left? The answer:  few.

Through the quiet machinations of American politicians such as John McCain and Joseph
Lieberman, who, in senate bill S.3081 propose to lock up indefinitely anyone, including American
citizens, merely accused of terrorism, without charge or trial - soon the answer may be that we have
no rights left at all:

S.3081, Sec. 5 Detention Without Trial of Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents:

'An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy
belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention
Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without
trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the
individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent
with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress
pertaining to such hostilities.' [6a]   (It is heartening to note that on the website Open Congress, the
split of readers who voted their judgement of this bill so far is 29 in favor, 433 against, for a mere
6% in support.)

It doesn't matter to me whether Elena Kagan is Jewish. What matters is her philosophy on the fundamentals of constitutional justice.

It matters what a Supreme Court nominee believes. It matters what his or her record is and what
they have stood for. All Supreme Court candidates go through a vetting process where ideas and
beliefs that could profoundly affect decisions in law are hopefully weighed and debated as to the
candidate's suitability.

If there is no record, there is no way to judge a would-be judge. One of the most important jobs of a
Supreme Court justice is the job of telling the state one word - that word is no. No you can't lock up
a person indefinitely without evidence or trial. No you can't torture. No you can't brand a human
being 'terrorist' to deny them the right to be presumed innocent. No you can't be President of the
United States without counting every vote cast. No you can't spy on Americans without real cause
and a warrant. No.

Telling the state no, or any particular power configuration operating within the state no, takes balls.

---------------------------------------

Judicial Independence

To risk being ostracized or shunned from one's group when making pronouncements on issues of
right and wrong takes tremendous moral courage, too. The group might include your friends, family,
neighbors, colleagues, religious community or even most of your whole tribe.

The threat of being shunned is a powerful disincentive to swim against the current of your group's
opinion - regardless of whether or not you are on the side of justice and truth. Studies have
determined that to be ostracized or shunned can have tremendously negative effects on the
individual, both psychologically and physically.

A very recent example of shunning:

South African judge Richard Goldstone is internationally renowned and highly respected in the field
of law. He agreed to conduct an independent review, for the United Nations, of Israel's late 2008 to
early 2009 military assault on Gaza, for evidence of war crimes by both sides.

Goldstone is Jewish. No doubt he had at least an idea of what he would be in for, but he chose to
serve and accepted the assignment, anyway. The Goldstone Report concluded that serious war
crimes were committed by both sides and that these required further investigation.

Israel came in for unaccustomed direct, harsh criticism, weighted in fact:

Paragraph: '1883. The Gaza military operations were, according to the Israeli Government,
thoroughly and extensively planned. While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations
as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self-defence, the
Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the
people of Gaza as a whole.' [6b]

Subsequently, the South African Jewish community threatened to picket Judge Goldstone's
grandson's bar matzvah. Goldstone put out a statement that he wouldn't be attending so that his
grandson's day could proceed unspoiled.

The S.A. Jewish leaders put out word that they would call off their planned picket if Goldstone
agreed to a meeting, which he did.

They used his grandson, and in effect held his family hostage, in order to try to manipulate this judge.

In fact, Judge Goldstone has been smeared, vilified and portrayed as a traitor and a self-hating Jew.

These kinds of attacks by the group against the individual applies an unbelievable amount of
pressure, and it can be extremely effective - which is, of course, why it's done; not everyone is stout
enough of heart, nor independent enough of mind and spirit to withstand it.

----------------------

The Palestinian Equation

Palestinians suffer arbitrary arrest, torture and indefinite detention without trial. They suffer
property and home confiscation as well as home demolition, with little notice or legal recourse.

Twenty-three year-old American peace activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death in 2003, by an
Israeli military Caterpillar bulldozer. She put stood in the path of the Cat to block it from destroying
a Palestinian physician's home. She was at eye level to the driver, standing on a mound of earth;
daylight visibility was good. The Cat drove forward over her and backed up over her again.

Of the Spring 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla, the last boat prevented by Israel from carrying relief
supplies to the people in Gaza - people who continue to endure a life of want and despair under
Israel's continuing military siege - was named after her: the MV Rachel Corrie.

In the Occupied Palestinian Territories, otherwise known as the West Bank, Palestinians suffer life
under military occupation, surrounded by hostile Jewish extremists who believe God gave them the
right to steal Palestinian land and to kill them, if necessary, to take it. There are Jews-only roads and
Palestinian villages surrounded by troops, barbed wire and locked gates that are opened by Israeli
troops for only fifteen minutes, three times per day.

Palestinians live under the constant threat of Jewish violence. Yet Palestinians are not permitted to
defend themselves. The Israeli military passively looks on while Palestinians are brutalized and does
nothing - when, that is - the Israeli military isn't brutalizing Palestinians itself.

Part of what makes the entire situation so bitterly unpalatable is the fact that Jews themselves should
know all too well from their own history how abhorrent and morally wrong it is to be treated this way.

As noted earlier, there is a quiet but powerful push to criminalize criticism of Israel. That requires
fundamental shifts in civil rights law. Bringing us back to Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination
and the questions outlined above.

------------------------

Vet them; protect them

In vetting a Supreme Court nominee, these days it might be prudent to ask whether or not they are
impervious to threats and intimidation in an increasingly polarized society.

From former American Vice President Al Gore's New York Times bestselling book, 'The Assault on
Reason', (Penguin, 2007):

'One of the coalition's "constitutional scholars," Edwin Vieira, echoed [Ann] Coulter's hateful rant at
a conference on the so-called Judicial War on Faith by explaining how he would recommend
handling the Supreme Court. He actually quoted Joseph Stalin, saying that Stalin "had a slogan and it
worked pretty well for him whenever he ran into difficulty: 'No man no problem.'

"The only way to explain an American constitutional scholar endorsing ad hominem attacks on Supreme Court justices is to assume that he has abandoned reason and surrendered to dogma. Moreover, by quoting Stalin - a homicidal dictator whose only peers are Mao and Hitler - he had to realize that people might
interpret this as a vague threat of physical violence against justices whose opinions violated right-wing orthodoxy.' [7]

Obviously, a society based on laws must have a legal community that is able to conduct itself free
from fear and intimidation.

Conclusion

In spite of the tremendous importance to the country that a nomination to the Supreme Court entails,
we are supposed to support the inexplicable nomination of an individual who has no judicial record
of any kind, in an increasingly shaky and unstable democratic environment.

These are some of my concerns with regard to any Supreme Court nominee, and the direction of the
Supreme Court: Restoration and protection of civil liberties; judicial independence from influence, or
prejudice, or religious parochialism; putting the interests of the country and the constitution ahead of
any other consideration of any kind whatsoever.

If a nominee is able to demonstrate that they can foot this bill? Hire them. Then please make sure
the Supreme Court justices are secure.

It's a tough job in tough times. It shouldn't be made any tougher having to worry about wing-nuts
making veiled threats quoting Stalin.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Diane V. McLoughlin is a writer and peace activist particularly focused on the Israel-Palestine
region. Ms. McLoughlin posts editorials of her own along with excellent links to articles and video
she discovers on the web on her website, mcloughlinpost.com and on her blog at mcloughlinpost.
blogspot.com. Follow on Twitter: McLoughlinPost ; Friend on Facebook: Diane McLoughlin;
contact at mcloughlinpost.com'


References:

[1] 'Are liberals anti-WASP?'; Patrick J. Buchanan; worldNet Daily; May 13, 2010;
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=153417

[2] 'Elena Kagan, Pat Buchanan, MSNBC and Me'; Keli Goff; Huffington Post; May 17, 2010;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/elena-kagan-pat-buchanan_b_579623.html

[2a] 'Elena Kagan and the Supreme Court: A Barnyard Smell in Harvard, Chicago and Washington';
James Petras; Information Clearing House; May 13, 2010
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25438.htm#close=1

[3] CPCCA - Canadian Parliamentary Coalition Combating Antisemitism Frequently Asked
Questions; http://www.cpcca.ca/faqs.htm ;

[3i] 'Criminalizing Criticism of Israel'; Paul Craig Roberts; Counterpunch; May 7, 2009 ;
http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts05072009.html ;

[4]'A Climb Marked by Confidence and Canniness'; by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Katharine Q. Seelye
and Lisa w. Foderaro; May 10, 2010; The New York Times;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10kagan.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics

[5] 'Bounds of Silence: Obama's Court Pick Looks Wobbly on Freedom of Speech'; Jacob Sullum;
Creators.com; May 18, 2010;
http://www.creators.com/opinion/jacob-sullum/bounds-of-silence-obama-s-court-pick-looks-wobbly-
on-freedom-of-speech.html

[6] 'Kagan's Dubious Stand on Civil Rights'; Marjorie Cohn; Consortium News; May 15, 2010;
http://consortiumnews.com/2010/051510b.html

[6a] S.3081 Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3081/text#

[6b] HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINE AND OTHER OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES
Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict; Part Five Conclusions and
Recommendations; September 25, 2009; Pg. 406
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf

[7] 'The Assault on Reason'; Al Gore; Penguin Books; Copyright Al Gore, 2007; pgs. 66-7.

Copyright 2010; Diane V. McLoughlin, All Rights Reserved

America: The Silence of a Nation and The Signing of a Genocide

Passengers grabbed Israeli weapons to stop the killing

In God We Trust Mr. President - All Others Pay Cash

Diane V. McLoughlin, comment No. 1 to, 'Don't Get Mad, Mr. President.  Get Even.'; Frank Rich, NYT; June 6, 2010

Hoping Obama reads today's Frank Rich - spot on. (Bob Herbert's on fire these days, too.)
                                                                      ~
Faith, trust, deference - in business or government?! Nuts. As Rich adroitly lays out, in BP's case also unnecessary; there is all kinds of evidence pointing to what kind of animal Obama is dealing with.

Otherwise, as my mother's second husband would sagely impart to me - rather interesting superior country tone - should he find me wailing about this slight or that betrayal, that everyone's an A-hole until they prove otherwise - eyebrow lift - few ever will. Made me feel better, actually.

Time to hang up the basketball shorts. President has the letter 'I' in it; team don't.

I found it most disturbing in his Larry King interview that Obama believes that it is his role not to 'interfere' in the workings of the Department of Justice. Really? You really want to let them get on with shredding what's left of the Constitution, Mr. President? Really? Want to give the faceless levers of the state the perpetual power to lock up anyone, including Americans, indefinitely without charge or trial? That's what's cooking now, in that black box. Hardly worth mentioning I suppose, that the right to assassinate Americans without charge or trial is cooking, too; have to say that I do not support this Presidential hand-washing of such critical Constitutional crimes.

 Found this in a 'shredding the constitution' Google image search, on a site I am unfamiliar with called 'SodaHead' - there was no attribution - brutal editorial cartoon.

As for the BP oil spill, sorry again, shades of Tony Hayward for the President to claim lots is being done. Russell Honore has it right: The U.S. must declare nothing less than war on this - in fact, by his astute assessment, he should immediately be put in charge.

McNamee, Getty Images

War means at least temporary receivership of BP. War cranks up industry to crank out weapons - in this case, materiel such as Kevin Costner's donated centrifuge inventions that are capable of doing the job of separating oil out of sea water on massive scale to something like 97% water purity.

Or the polymers that turn oil into a floating solid mat.

War mobilization. I would add the powers of no and yes, appropriately applied. Oh and thinking for yourself, too. That's a good one.

Don't trust. Expect. Get. Or else.

June 5 - oil spill numbers

From BP Deepwater Horizon Response, by the numbers to date, June 5, 2010:


The administration has authorized 17,500 National Guard troops from Gulf Coast states to participate in the response to the BP oil spill.

More than 20,000 personnel are currently responding to protect the shoreline and wildlife and cleanup vital coastlines.

More than 1,900 vessels are responding on site, including skimmers, tugs, barges, and recovery vessels to assist in containment and cleanup efforts—in addition to dozens of aircraft, remotely operated vehicles, and multiple mobile offshore drilling units.

Approximately 2 million feet of containment boom and 2.3 million feet of sorbent boom have been deployed to contain the spill—and approximately 745,000 feet of containment boom and 2.1 million feet of sorbent boom are available.

Approximately 15 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been recovered.

Approximately 1.02 million gallons of total dispersant have been deployed—765,000 on the surface and 255,000 subsea. More than 450,000 gallons are available.

125 controlled burns have been conducted, efficiently removing a total of more than 3.2 million gallons of oil from the open water in an effort to protect shoreline and wildlife.

17 staging areas are in place and ready to protect sensitive shorelines, including: Dauphin Island, Ala., Orange Beach, Ala., Theodore, Ala., Panama City, Fla., Pensacola, Fla., Port St. Joe, Fla., St. Marks, Fla., Amelia, La., Cocodrie, La., Grand Isle, La., Shell Beach, La., Slidell, La., St. Mary, La.; Venice, La., Biloxi, Miss., Pascagoula, Miss., and Pass Christian, Miss.

Facts on Gaza

by Diane V. McLoughlin

June 5, 2010:  Gaza has been under an illegal military siege by Israel since 2006. Gaza comprises 1.5 million Palestinian people, 48% of whom are 15 yrs. of age or younger. In 2008 Israel entered into a ceasefire agreement with Hamas. There were no rockets fired by Hamas during the months of July, August, September and October. Eleven rockets in total were fired by other splinter groups - Hamas did its best to control them although they continued to be forced by Israel to exist under inhumane conditions.

The Guardian: 'Israel's policy was summed up by Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, earlier this year. 'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger'; this is a crime against humanity othewise known as collective punishment. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/16/israel)

The ceasefire was to lead to a lifting of the siege and a normalizing of relations. Israel girded the entire time with U.S. donated weapons to attack Gaza in 'Operation Cast Lead' - in November. Thousands of Gazans were injured; 1,400 Gazans were killed - most of them civilians. Israel deliberately destroyed 20% of Gaza's productive farm land; chicken production facilities and the chickens; water wells; a third of all schools; thousands of homes; U.N. relief facilities including the main warehouse for humanitarian food and medicine storage; a police training ceremony wherein hundreds of graduates were murdered; Gaza's parliament buildings; destruction and murder conducted with illegal weapons such as chemical weapons and flechettes. Incidences of war crimes up to and including the murder of little children in broad daylight bearing white flags as families were ordered from their homes by Israeli soldiers. Embedded Israeli rabbis instructed soldiers to show no mercy.

 by  Latuff

Today: it takes 400 trucks bearing basic food stuffs per day to keep the Gazans from frank starvation. Israel permits 171 trucks on average to enter Gaza per WEEK.

95% of Gaza's drinking water is contaminated - inviting pandemic, particularly, just as happened in Iraq pre-Iraq war - amongst Gaza's malnourished children.

Why does the humanitarian world try to bring, amongst other things, cement to Gaza? Because Israel, since the ending of their assault on Gaza early in 2009, has refused to allow building materials into Gaza so that the people could begin to rebuild their shattered homes and schools.

Gilad Shalit is a soldier who at the time of his 'kidnapping' was enforcing Israel's illegal military siege. He is not innocent.

Israel has, in contrast, thousands of Palestinian political prisoners in detention, without charge or trial.

Editor, mcloughlinpost.com
-----------------------------------------
Originally a series of comments left to, 'Israel boards Gaza aid ship, blockade criticized'; Ori Lewis; Reuters; June 6, 2010

Oil Spill solution - this turns oil into a floating solid mat

by Diane V. McLoughlin
main website: mcloughlinpost.com
contact at mcloughlinpost.com

Update one, June 5, 2010:  One of the most important questions that would have to be addressed is whether or not wildlife would attempt to eat the polymer.  Even though it is described as non-toxic, we would obviously need to know if ingestion by fish or birds etc. could cause more harm than the benefit of its intended use.  Article posted at this link says the polymer would smell and taste funny and would most likely be avoided by animals - http://www.oillift.net/Oil-Spill-Clean-Up-is-one-big-Proven-Money-making-Conspiracy.html

June 4, 2010: Deeply affected by the on-going oil spill crisis, along with the poor organization and mobilization to stop it.

I reside in Canada but am American-born. I have wonderful memories of a family holiday on the Gulf in years past. It is a magical place.

I have come across interesting information on products called polymers that when sprinkled onto floating oil (and gas, etc.) - turns the liquid into a floating solid mat.

Logic would seem to dictate that solidified oil cannot foul birds and other wildlife.

Win McNamee, Getty Images

The polymer is reportedly non-toxic, EPA-approved, will float indefinitely, absorbs 10X its weight, lessens gas-off that makes workers sick, does not absorb water, can be burned (and apparently even land-filled.)

(*I also love the potential of Kevin Costner's vacuum/centrifuge machines that he is willing to donate to the clean-up effort. The largest machine can process more gallons of sea water per minute, separating the oil from water, apparently, than oil is gushing out of the broken underwater pipe.)

Should mention that I am not affiliated with any company in any way.

When I couldn't find a Canadian inventor story I was looking for, I came across the idea of these polymers, along with U.S.-based RTASCo; I spoke with Mel James (http://www.rtasco.com/; ph.: 405-455-5166).

He says his product- Aqua N-Cap - is/was being looked at by three organizations under contract by BP.

Picking the solidified mats up out of the water would seem to be a challenge to be addressed, along with what you do with it after that.

To dispose of it, James says one idea is to have a lot of floating incinerator barges out on the water
to burn the oil/polymer mats. I say that is a waste of energy that we should be able to recoup - truck it
(or ship by train) to energy-generating plants instead, if possible.

Seeing fouled birds and the fouled habitat so vital to an entire way of life down there, can't help but wonder if this solidifer shouldn't at least be one of the tools in the toolbox.

I filled out one of Deepwater Response's web-based forms for product suggestions today, but that will take way too long to get any kind of response, so, thought to e-mail the above to Billy Nungesser, President of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, along with CNN's Anderson Cooper, too.

Many, many people with you all in spirit.

I am Billy Nungesser's newest fan and cheerleader. 

P.S.: Mr. James requested that I let him know if I write anything about his product, so I CC'd the above to the e-mail address he gave me - sales@rtasco.com - he says so that his sales team can follow. I have no problem with that.

He shared his regret to me that it is unfortunate the circumstances by which his company might end up doing well. Wrong way to look at it.

His and other innovative companies should be feeling up that maybe they can help!

Jon Stewart clip - Freedom Flotilla and also N./S. Korea

TheComedyNetwork.ca - Online Time Well Wasted

Schedule of Canadian cities holding Gaza Flotilla attack protests

GazaFlotilla

Updated oil spill fishing restrictions in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico

From Deepwater Horizon Response Headquarters:

June 1, 2010: Gulf Fishing Restrictions Expanded

NOAA has extended the northern and southern boundaries of the closed fishing area in the Gulf of Mexico to include portions of the slick moving into waters off eastern Alabama and the western tip of the Florida panhandle, as well as some large patches of sheen moving onto the west Florida shelf and southward to Cuban waters—this federal closure does not apply to any state waters. Closing fishing in these areas is a precautionary measure to ensure that seafood from the Gulf will remain safe for consumers.

The closed area now represents 75,920 square miles, which is slightly more than 31 percent of Gulf of Mexico federal waters. This leaves more than 68 percent of Gulf federal waters available for fishing. Details can be found at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
mcloughlinpost donation page

SECOND NYT COMMENT CENSORED ON GAZA FREEDOM FLOTILLA

Second comment in two days censored by New York Times comment editors - 495+ comments otherwise published.

by Diane V. McLoughlin

June 2, 2010:  Author Brian Steltor, sorry, but your stance, and Israel's hasbara (propaganda) brigade, falls square in the addage: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S. - you wonder who started it - by trying to judge via whatever video you can get your hands on. Anything captured on video on the Freedom Flotilla boats between humanitarians bearing charity for the suffering people under Israel's ruthless military siege is after the first move - Israel's millitary piracy invading the boats - armed to the teeth.  They had no right.  How the victims chose to defend themselves is entirely moot.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
'After raid, videos carry on the fight'; Brian Stelter; June 2, 2010; NYT

I am an independent writer, unaffiliated or supported in any way by any publisher or patron or think tank. If you found the above to be something you wish you could read more of, please consider making a non-tax deductible donation. $1, $2, + your donation gives a much-needed boost of practical as well as moral support.

Mr. Ho Demolishes Israel's San Remo Maritime Law Defense

NYT comment No. 247 by Mr. Ho of NJ - intelligent refutation of Israel's claims that the raids on the Freedom Flotilla boats was lawful under maritime law.  This is a must-read for those trying to figure out whether or not Israel's defense holds water, as it were. (Thank you Mr. Ho):

The San Remo manual is not a treaty, it is a manual published by a group of experts in their personal capacity.


http://www.icrc.org...

"The San Remo Manual was prepared during the period 1988-1994 by a group of legal and naval experts participating in their personal capacity in a series of Round Tables convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law."

Supposedly the manual is a restatement of the current law, but a restatement is a secondary work and not a primary source of law like a treaty. Also, if you read it carefully, you will have noticed that the manual restates law applicable to armed conflicts. Whether there is an armed conflict at all is a vastly open question, as "armed conflict" is generally defined as conflict between states by international humanitarian law. That's how the Bush administration tried to argue that the Geneva Conventions do not apply in Afghanistan etc., because Taliban was never recognized by the U.S. as a legitimate government - unfortunately for them, they overlooked something called "Common Article 3" that applies also to internal conflicts. But in this case, whether manual restates law applicable to non-international and possibly even internal conflict is highly dubious. In fact, the Israeli government has long been justifying its practices with its view that the conflict with the Palestinians is not an international armed conflict and thus the Geneva Conventions do not apply, so I doubt that they will suddenly turn abound and announce that the conflict is an international armed conflict. In the unlikely case that they do, a lot of their past actions will become illegal acts, as they have not granted POW rights to Palestinians.

P.S. If you want a primary source, I suggest you look up U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
'Videos carry on the fight over sea raid'; Brian Stelter; NYT; June 2, 2010
 
Note:  My comment: 

CENSORED - NYT COMMENTS ON GAZA, FREEDOM FLOTILLA and ISRAEL

Subtitle: Starving Writer Can't Give Facts on Gaza Away For Free - Comments Censored at New York Times

There were 768 comments accepted by the New York Times comment editors - but not this one - to the article, 'NYT: 'Pressure Mounts on Israel as Activists Vow to Test Blockade Again'; Isabel Kershner, Neil McFarquhar; June 1, 2010.

Censored NYT comment by writer Diane V. McLoughlin:

June 1st, 2010:  Netanyahu uses rocket-fire from Gaza as justification for continuing
the siege of Gaza's 1.5 million men, women and children (a crime against humanity known as collective punishment). He also uses Gaza rocketfire to justify the attack on the Freedom Flotilla which was attempting to bring humanitarian supplies such as wheelchairs, school supplies and building cement to the people of Gaza. I will address his lie following, below.

It is interesting to note the internationally-renowned roster of dignitaries that were counted among the flotilla travellers: It includes a former U.S. Ambassador (Edward Peck); former U.S. Congresswoman (Cynthia McKinney); 85 year-old Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein; an Irish Nobel Peace Prize winner; and multiple artists, politicians, peace activists and humanitarians from around the world.

Perhaps it would be best if the New York Times reporters assigned, sought broader scope for information and analysis than Israel's office of Public Relations.

Mid-2008 there was a mutually agreed-upon ceasefire between Israel and Gaza's duly elected Hamas political leadership. This ceasefire, it was clearly understood, was to have lead to more confidence-building measures including the lifting of the blockade and the normalizing of political relations between the two sides.

Hamas abided by the ceasefire. Rocketfire fell from hundreds a month, to 11 rockets in-total for the months of July, August, September and October combined. Hamas is not the only political faction in Gaza. They did their very best to contain the desperate and suffering people from fighting back against the starvation imposed by Israel.

The entire time, Israel, behind their backs, girded for total destruction of Gaza, with plenty of arms, bombs and chemical weapons donated from the U.S. government, instead.

Israel broke the ceasefire mid-November.

Over 1,400 people were killed - most of them civilians - during Israel's assault, which they code-named Operation Cast Lead. Over 20% of Gaza's farmland, crucially important for Gazans to feed themselves - destroyed; chicken farms - and the chickens - destroyed; water wells - destroyed; a third of schools - destroyed; the U.N.'s main food and medicine warehouse - destroyed - and on, and on, and on.

The above are not acts of self-defense. They are acts of pure racial hatred and genocide.

Israel does not want normalized peaceful relations with the Palestinians. Really. It doesn't matter what the Palestinians do, the results always remain the same.

The two-state 'solution' itself is a trick. Israel has absolutely no intention of permitting the Palestinians to have any actual freedom to rule themselves.

Israel does not want peace. Israel wants to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians out. They have done an admirable job of it.

Do all Israelis support this? Of course not. But obviously, there are not enough who want peace to overrule those who want something else far more.

Isreal's right-wing extremists are not our friends. We have absolutely nothing in common with them. They are violent racists.

(See: PDF document by Israel's intelligence community, pg. six, graph on rocket fire month to month 2008:

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf

*Any problems with above link, the same link, mid-page, can be accessed here:

http://www.mcloughlinpost.com/LinksAndResourcesOnGazaIsraelAndPalestine.html)

- writer, mcloughlinpost.com

````````````````````````````````````````````````
I am an independent writer, unaffiliated or supported in any way by any publisher or patron or think tank. If you found the
above to be something you wish you could read more of, please consider making a non-tax deductible donation. $1, $2, + your donation gives a much-needed boost of practical as well as moral support.