January 20, 2013

Getting Burned in Pakistan: Report Finds Acid and Burn Attacks Against Women on the Rise

In Pakistan, like in many other South Asian countries, honor is a virtue that is not only valued but demanded from society, especially from women. Women who “dishonour” their families face severe consequences at the hands of a strongly patriarchal society who continues to see women secondary to men.

A new report from the AGHS Legal Cell has found that violence against women in the form of burning and acid attacks is on the rise in the country. Women who are seen as dishonoring their families are often the targets of these attacks.

Walking in public with a man who is unrelated to you could elicit an attack for it is often presumed that the woman is committing adultery. Fleeing an arranged marriage or a relationship where a woman is unhappy or being abused is another common reason for the attacks.

According to the report, from April to June of this year more than 220 women reported being burned, 40 of whom died as a result of their injuries which can be extensive. When acid is thrown in a person’s face, skin tissue melts on contact exposing the bone below the flesh that may also dissolve from the acid. If acid reaches the eyes, they are permanently damaged often leaving survivors with the use of only one or no eyes.

What’s worse? According to the report women are not being given appropriate medical care and few seek legal action after being attacked. Many cases are also not even reported to police so the actual numbers of victims are far worse than we think.

“Violence against women in Pakistan is endemic,” Nisha Varia, deputy director of women’s rights division at Human Rights Watch told The Media Line.” “We try to apply pressure so that the government recognizes these crimes, prosecutes the perpetrators and provides services to the victims.”

Acid and burn attacks are also not only isolated in Pakistan. It is also common practice in Bangladesh, India, and other South Asian countries. In Bangladesh, the Acid Survivors Foundation has been working for nearly ten years to eliminate acid violence in the country where there is currently an acid attack every two days. A similar organization also exists in Pakistan.

Violence against women exists everywhere. We know this. I also know that I can no longer sit idly as governments around the world fail to protect these victims.

Source: http://www.care2.com/causes/getting-burned-in-pakistan-report-finds-acid-and-burn-attacks-against-women-is-on-the-rise.html#ixzz1gJRZ9ghY

White House Targets Domestic Extremism

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House on Thursday laid out a plan to implement a government strategy to combat homegrown domestic terrorism and any attempts by Al-Qaeda to seek to radicalize American Muslims.

The initiative commits the federal government to work closely with local authorities and communities that may be targeted by extremist groups, particularly Al-Qaeda as it reels from a US onslaught abroad.

“Protecting our nation’s communities from violent extremist recruitment and radicalization is a top national security priority,” said the document, known as the Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP).

It is an effort that requires creativity, diligence, and commitment to our fundamental rights and principles.

“Although the SIP will be applied to prevent all forms of violent extremism, we will prioritize preventing violent extremism and terrorism that is inspired by al-Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents.”

The strategy was released a day after US officials warned that the US military was under threat as homegrown Islamic extremists, including “radicalized troops,” pose a risk to military installations.

The only deadly terror strikes on US soil since those of September 11, 2001 have been against the military, with three separate attacks that left 17 people dead, most of them soldiers, according to a report released Wednesday at the first joint House-Senate hearing on homegrown terrorism.

The SIP plan commits a task force of senior officials from a wide range of departments to ensuring the federal government engages closely with local communities. It will report to the president annually.

The plan is a spin-off of a new National Counterterrorism Strategy released in June which warned the government must be vigilant for new efforts by Al-Qaeda to infiltrate US communities and inspire homegrown terrorism.

Senior officials said Thursday that as Washington had been successful in degrading Al-Qaeda overseas, the group and its adherents were becoming increasingly interested in recruiting followers already in the United States.

The document also calls for new efforts to analyze the impact of the Internet and social networks on radicalizing Americans from outside the country.

“This direct communication allows violent extremists to bypass parents and community leaders,” the plan said.

“Because of the importance of the digital environment, we will develop a separate, more comprehensive strategy for countering and preventing violent extremist online radicalization.”

 

Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/white-house-targets-domestic-extremism.html

What if Freedom Were Temporary?

What if our rights didn’t come from God or from our humanity, but from the government? What if the government really thinks we’re not unique individuals with immortal souls, but just public property? What if we were only entitled to our natural rights if it pleased the government? What if our rights could be stripped away whenever the government considers us to be its enemy?

What if this could all be accomplished with the consent of the people? What if the people’s own representatives subverted the Constitution? What if the people were so afraid that they accepted the subversion? What if the government demonizes an external enemy and uses fear of that enemy to suppress our freedoms? What if people are afraid to protest?

What if the government knows this, and thus chooses enemies that are easily demonized, whether they pose real threats or not? What if threats become imminent dangers precisely because the government allowed them to happen? What if government scapegoating of an external enemy is as old as the government itself? What if the government has used scapegoating again and again to scare people into giving up their freedoms voluntarily? What if the government has relied on this to perform the same magical disappearing-freedom act time and again throughout history?

What if the government could lock you up and throw you in jail indefinitely? What if that jail was in Cuba? What if the government has written laws to let it keep you detained forever without letting you see a lawyer or a judge? What if you were just speaking out against the government and it came to silence you? What if the government could declare you its enemy and then kill you? What if your elected representatives did nothing to stop the government from doing this? What if the government claimed that your words made you a warrior, even though there never were any armed hostilities in your neighborhood and you never threatened anyone? What if the government could classify the entire country as a battlefield and, ultimately, a prison? What if the government’s goal was to be rid of all who disagreed with it?

What if the government is always the greatest threat to freedom because only the government can constitute a monopoly on the use of force? What if, in fact, at its essence, government is simply a monopoly of force? What if, in fact, at its essence, government is simply the negation of freedom? What if the government monopoly incubated, aided and abetted enemies’ freedoms? What if, when the danger got more threatening, the government told you to sacrifice more of your liberties for safety? What if you fell for that?What if the real war was a war of misinformation? What if the government constructs its own reality in order to suit its own agenda? What if civil liberties don’t mean anything to the government? What if the government just chooses to allow you to exercise them freely because you don’t threaten it at the moment? What if the government released a report calling you a domestic terror threat, just because you disagreed with the government? What if the government coaxed crazy people into acting like terrorists, just to keep you afraid? What if the government persuaded you to believe that the greatest threat to your freedom is an impoverished and uneducated Third World population 10,000 miles away? What if the real threat to your freedom is a rich, powerful and all-seeing government? What if that government thinks it can write any law, regulate any behavior and tax any event no matter what the Constitution says?

What if those who traded liberty for safety ended up in internment camps? What if the greatest threat to freedom was not any outfit of thugs in some cave in a far-off land, but an organized force here at home? What if that organized force broke its own laws? What if that organized force did the very same things to those it hates and fears that it prosecutes people for doing to it? What if I’m right and the government’s wrong? What if it’s dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if government is essentially wrong and always dangerous?

What if these weren’t just hypothetical or rhetorical questions? What if this is actually happening to us? What if the ultimate target in the government’s war on terror is all who believe in personal freedom? What if that includes YOU? What do we do about it?

 

John F Kennedy Warning For Us All

Secret Government Will Tear Us Apart

 

Six Shocking Revelations About Wall Street’s “Secret Government”

Top officials willfully concealed the true extent of the 2008-’09 bailouts from Congress and the public.

We now have concrete evidence that Wall Street and Washington are running a secret government far removed from the democratic process. Through a freedom of information request by Bloomberg News, the public now has access to over 29,000 pages of Fed documents and 21,000 additional Fed transactions that were deliberately hidden, and for good reason.

These documents show how top government officials willfully concealed from Congress and the public the true extent of the 2008-’09 bailouts that enriched the few and enhanced the interests of giant Wall Streets firms. Here’s what we now know:

  • The secret Wall Street bailouts totaled $7.77 trillion, 10 times more than the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) passed by Congress in 2008.
  • Knowledge of the secret bailout funds was not shared with Congress even while it was drafting and debating legislation to break up the big banks.
  • The secret funding, provided at below-market rates, gave Wall Street banks an additional $13 billion in profits. (That’s enough money to hire more than 325,000 entry level teachers.)
  • The secret loans financed bank mergers so that the largest banks could grow even larger. The money also allowed banks to step up their lobbying efforts.
  • While Henry Paulson (Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury) was informing Congress and the public that only minor reforms were needed to protect Fannie and Freddie from collapse, he met secretly with leading Wall Street hedge fund managers — among them his former colleagues at Goldman Sachs — to alert them that he was about to nationalize the giant mortgage companies – a move that would eradicate nearly all the stock value of the companies. This information was enormously valuable because it allowed these hedge funds to short Fannie and Freddie and thereby make a fortune.
  • While Timothy Geithner was head of the NY Federal Reserve, he argued against legislative efforts by Senator Ted Kaufman, D-Delaware, to limit the size of banks because the issue was “too complex for Congress and that people who know the markets should handle these decisions,” Kaufman recalls. Meanwhile, Geithner was fully aware of the enormous secret loans while Senator Kaufman was kept in the dark. Barney Frank, who was authoring key bank reform legislation was also not informed of the secret loans. No one in Congress was told.

So what does this all mean?

1. The big banks and hedge funds were in much more trouble than we were led to believe.

As many of us suspected, all the big banks were on their knees begging for help – secretly – while telling their investors, the public and Congress that all was well. They had gambled and lost. Under the rules of ideal capitalism, they should have suffered some “creative destruction,” and seen their shareholder value eliminated through bankruptcy, and their managers replaced. The entire banking system should have been reorganized from top to bottom as well. Instead, these colossal failures were secretly rewarded.

2. Wall Street’s secret government made sure the largest banks would grow even larger, aided by the secret funding.

While Congress was debating legislation to break up the large banks and reinstitute Glass Steagall (to separate risky investment banking from insured commercial banking,) the secret government was using public funds to grow even larger through mergers and acquisitions. Because Congress and the public were unaware of the secret funding and ill-health of all the banks, the legislation was easily defeated. As the chart below makes painfully clear, too-big-to-fail banks grew even bigger.

3. The bigger Wall Street becomes, the more government it can buy.

This part isn’t secret. As the top six banks grew larger, they spent more funds lobbying to make sure that they wouldn’t suffer any unprofitable impacts from banking reform legislation. So after the biggest banks received hundreds of billions in secret loans, they upped their lobbying funds to maintain their size and power. Read ‘em and weep:

4. Wall Street’s secret government protects its own.

At first, it’s not easy to understand how Treasury Secretary Paulson, the former head of Goldman Sachs, could risk attending a secret meeting with giant hedge fund managers, many of whom used to work at Goldman Sachs. How could the nation’s highest ranking financial official dare to tip off these hedge fund elites about the imminent government takeover of Fannie and Freddie before Congress and the public were informed? Well, one answer is that Paulson felt obliged to warn his old comrades of the impeding nationalization. Maybe, he wanted to get them out of harm’s way just in case they were heavily involved in those markets. Or maybe he also wanted to give them a very valuable tip to profit by. But the deeper explanation, I believe, is that Wall Street’s key government officials – Paulson, Summers, Geithner, Orszag (the former Obama OMB chief who now makes millions working for CitiGroup), etc. truly believe the following:

  • Wall Street banks are the best in the world and are the cutting-edge of the American economy. They are our future.
  • Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers are enormously smarter and sharper than the rest of us. They deserve our admiration.
  • Helping Wall Street to grow and prosper is precisely the same thing as helping all Americans and the entire economy. They deserve our support.
  • Secret meetings to provide insider information are normal on Wall Street. There’s nothing wrong with warning your friends about upcoming policy decisions that might impact their profits.
  • There’s also absolutely nothing wrong with providing trillions of dollars of secret loans to the best and the brightest and not telling Congress about it.

It’s all a closed loop of self-justification and self-deception: Wall Street is brilliant. What Wall Street does is for the good of the country. Helping Wall Street profit is good for the country. Hiding the truth from democratically elected leaders is also for the good of the country because Wall Street is brilliant and knows better.

And all this is deeply believed by Wall Street and its secret government, even though Wall Street, and Wall Street alone, took down the economy and killed 8 million jobs in a matter of months. Simply brilliant!

5. Wall Street is a clear and present danger to democracy.

Usually, I am not an alarmist. In fact, I often argue against facile conspiracy theories. I want to believe that our democracy still has promise. But, the Wall Street-induced crash and the government’s response to it has me very worried. The Bloomberg News revelations suggest that Wall Street’s secret government has enormous disdain for what remains of our democracy. The financial elites obviously believe that Congress cannot be trusted to do the right thing even when it is bought and paid for by the very banks it supposedly regulates. As for the rest of us? We’re just a financially illiterate mass to be manipulated through the mass media. Our minds too can be bought and sold through careful marketing.

This financial arrogance and corruption is enormously corrosive to our democratic values. Already, many Americans, and for good reason, no longer trust their government. Already, many Americans, and for good reason, no longer vote. Already, many Americans, and for good reason, believe that democracy as we know it is a sham. Wall Street couldn’t have written a better script to maintain its domination.

6. Occupy Wall Street is fundamentally correct, but we need more.

The occupiers dramatically attacked Wall Street elites and captured the country’s imagination with their 1 percent, 99 percent framework. And the idea is sticking and spreading. But that’s only the start. To reclaim our country from Wall Street’s secret government we will need to develop an enormous movement among the 99 percent. Although we hope it just happens spontaneously through Twitter and Facebook, we all know it will require hardcore organizing involving millions of us.

At the moment, no one knows what form it will take. But we do know this: great concentrations of power and wealth do not give up their power and wealth without an enormous fight. Wall Street’s secret government is more than ready to protect itself, even if it means subverting democracy.

Our occupiers have shown great courage in helping us reclaim our democratic rights. Let’s hope it spreads…and soon.

Source:

http://www.alternet.org/economy/153274/6_shocking_revelations_about_wall_street’s_%22secret_government

Legal for U.S. Govt to Execute Citizens Without Trial Abroad, Coming to U.S. Soil? (Video)

Islamists And Secularists In Tunisia Stand-Off

TUNIS (Reuters) - Thousands of Tunisian Islamists and secularists staged parallel protests outside the interim parliament on Saturday in a dispute over how big a role Islam should play in society after the country’s “Arab Spring” revolution.

Tensions have been running high between the two camps since the revolt in January scrapped a ban on Islamists and paved the way for a moderate Islamist party to come to power at the head of a coalition government.

The latest round of protests was sparked when a group of hardline Islamists occupied a university campus near the capital to demand segregation of sexes in class and the right for women students to wear a full-face veil.

About 3,000 Islamists gathered outside the constitutional assembly in the Bardo district of the Tunis on Saturday, separated by a police cordon from a counter-protest by about 1,000 secularists.

The Islamists say the secularist elite which has run the country since independence from France is still restricting their freedom to express their faith. Their rivals say the Islamists are trying to impose an Islamic state in what has been one of the Arab world’s most liberal countries.

The Islamist protesters at the rally carried placards saying: “We support the legitimacy of the majority!,” “Islamic Tunisia is not secular!,” and “No to secularist extremism.”

An Islamist protester, Nourdine Machfer, said the Tunisian people had expressed their will when they handed victory to the moderate Islamist Ennahda party in an election in October.

“It’s bizarre. Today in Tunisia we are living in a dictatorship of the minority,” Machfer told Reuters. “They should respect the will of the people, who have made their views known.”

Ennahda issued a statement saying that it did not support the Islamist protest outside parliament.

ISLAMIST POWER

However, secularist opponents said they believed Ennahda’s true agenda was to create an Islamic state by stealth.

“The Islamists … want to use the constitution to take power, and stage a coup d’etat against democracy,” said one of the secularist protesters, Raja Dali.

“They want to give all the power to the prime minister,” she said, referring to senior Ennahda official Hamadi Jbeli who is his party’s nominee to lead the coalition government.

Tunisia’s struggle to reconcile the rival camps is being watched closely in Egypt, where an Islamist-affiliated party performed strongly in the first phase of a parliamentary election.

Tunisia became the birth-place of the Arab Spring when a vegetable seller, Mohamed Bouazizi, set fire to himself in protest at government repression. His suicide prompted a wave of unrest which forced president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali to step down.

Tunisia’s revolution inspired revolutions which ousted entrenched rulers in Libya and Egypt, as well as upheavals in Syria and Yemen.

Saturday’s protest was the first time that both Islamists and secularists had staged simultaneous protest. Shouts and jeers were exchanged between the two groups but there were no clashes.

Ennahda is in an awkward position because it wants to be seen to be defending the rights of Muslims to express their faith but at the same time it is wary of alarming secularists and Western governments by appearing too close to Islamist hardliners.

The latest flare-up of tension is complicating efforts by Ennahda and its two secularist coalition partners to agree on the make-up of a coalition government.

It is also distracting the country’s new rulers from addressing the high unemployment and low incomes that are the main preoccupation for ordinary Tunisians.

One young man on Saturday stood between the rival crowds with tape over his mouth, a loaf of bread in his hand, and a placard which read: “I am with neither of you.. I am in favour of jobs and dignity.”

 

Source: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/islamists-secularists-tunisia-stand-off-133221035.html

Arab Revolutions Choose Islam

First post-revolution elections in Arab countries turn out to be pro-Islamist. In Tunisia and Egypt, the majority of the people voted for Islamist parties.

The first round of Egypt’s elections is led by the Freedom and Justice Party (ex-Muslim Brotherhood which had been banned by Mubarak for decades). It was supported by 40 percent of the voters. Next comes Al-Nour, a radical Salafi party. None of the democratic movements except The Egyptian Bloc have made it into the coalition government. Although the final results will only be known on January 13, the general election trend is already quite clear.

Observers report a similar, pro-Islamist choice prevalent in Tunisia which was the firestarter of Arab revolutions. Tunisian Islamists won the elections but have to share the power with secular parties. Now, the victorious Islamists claim that they’re not radical at all and pledge to retain all the democratic values, including women’s rights, which is a serious issue in Islamic countries. Arab countries have two scenarios – a radical or a democratic one, depending on the country’s specific circumstances, an expert in Oriental Studies Sergei Demidenko believes:

“The domestic and foreign policies of Arab countries will depend on the historical circumstances in which they have found themselves. Turkey’s leading Justice and Development Party took the helm as a moderate Islamist movement and now it’s not Islamist at all. So we shouldn’t jump to conclusions.”

Professor of the Moscow State Institute of Foreign Relations Veniamin Popov explains the success of Islamist parties:

“The Arab revolutions were secular but Islamists were active in the revolutions’ final stages, which is natural as they had been the most persecuted groups under the previous regimes and they were more organized than young rebels who were brought together by social networks only and had no parties or factions. That’s why the Islamists were more efficient.”

Popularity of radical movements is also inspired by external pressure, which can be seen in Syria. The country’s opposition, which is supported from abroad, rejects any dialogue and therefore, unrest continues, which creates a vicious circle.

Although experts find talks about total islamization premature, they nevertheless warn that the rise of political Islam could affect the whole of the Middle East, and mainly the Arab-Israeli conflict. 6 mln Jews in Israel are surrounded by about 400 mln Arabs and the latter may be tempted to attack the country, having gained support from other 1,5 mln Muslims from all over the world. Thus, the global community needs to encourage the settlement of the conflict right now, mainly in Palestine and Israel, as radical Islamic sentiments may be slowed down by the creation of an independent Palestinian state and the protection of Israel.

 

Source: http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/12/02/61398611.html

White House Repeats Threat To Veto US Defense Bill

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House on Friday reaffirmed its threat to veto the Pentagon budget after the Senate passed a funding bill that requires military detention for terrorism suspects and indefinite detention without trial in some cases.

White House spokesman Jay Carney accused the Senate of engaging in “political micromanagement” by including provisions that he said would restrict US flexibility in the fight against Al-Qaeda.

“Any bill that challenges or constrains the president’s critical authority to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation will prompt his senior advisors to recommend a veto,” Carney said.

The provisions were in a $660 billion 2012 defense bill that passed the Senate on Thursday in a 93-7 vote.

It would require that terrorism suspects be held by the military, and either be tried by US military commissions or in some cases be held indefinitely.

The White House sees the provisions as a constraint on the administration’s ability to transfer prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the United States, try them in civilian court, or even transfer them to foreign countries.

“Counterterrorism officials from the Republican and Democratic administrations as you know have said that the language in this bill would jeopardize the national security by restricting flexibility in our fight against Al-Qaeda,” Carney said.

“By ignoring these non-partisan recommendations, including the recommendations of the secretary of defense, the director of the FBI, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general, the Senate has unfortunately engaged in a little political micromanagement at the expense of sensible national security policy,” he added.

 

Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/white-house-repeats-threat-to-veto-us.html

Portugal Is Latest Country To Go “MF Global”, Raid Pensions Funds To Delay Fiscal Death

About a year ago, we discussed the very troubling moves by insolvent countries such as Ireland and Hungary to “raid” their pensions funds for various fungible purposes, a move which in virtually every way a was a progenitor to the MF Global capital commingling, if not outright bankruptcy, and was explained as reflecting ” a willingness by governments to use long-term assets to fill short-term deficits, including Ireland’s announcement last week that it would use the country’s €24bn National Pensions Reserve Fund “to support the exchequer’s funding programme” and Hungary’s bid to claw $15bn of private pension funds back to the state system.”

While it was unclear precisely what the use of funds was, back then FN speculated that it pension funds were being tapped to boost sovereign debt bids. Which if true means that Europe’s peripheral pensioners have seen about a 20% drop in the NPV of their retirement assets. Today we add Portugal to the list of countries committing an MF Global type crime on a global scale: the Telegraph writes: “Portugal has raided €5.6bn (£4.8bn) of pension fund assets in a controversial scramble to meet its deficit targets.” And since the money is once again implicitly and explicitly used to patch broken fiscal models, it is as good as gone.

Which in a paradoxical way is almost welcome, as the true Arab Spring will not come to Europe (and America) until the citizens don’t read, in clear writing, that their welfare state entitlement benefits are gone…. They are all gone. And at that point there will be truly nothing left to lose.

From Telegraph:

The cabinet agreed to transfer the assets from four of Portugal’s biggest banks to the state balance sheet.

The assets will be used to bridge a gap needed to meet the fiscal deficit target of 5.9pc of GDP set by the terms of the country’s €78bn bail-out from around 10pc in 2010.

“This measure is more than sufficient to meet the budget deficit goal in 2011,” said Helder Rosalino, secretary of state for central administration, on Friday.

Portugal said it had informed the EU and IMF and assured them it would be a “one-off”. However the 2010 budget was met by shifting three pension plans from Portugal Telecom on to the public social security system. The liabilities don’t count, yet.

There have been no complaints from Eurostat but Raoul Ruperal from Open Europe said: “This can’t be seen as a future revenue stream in any way.”

We wonder if “one-off” in this case is the same “one-off” that was supposed to happen when the Fed bailed out the world’s banks in a “one-off” event… over and over and over.

 

Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/portugal-latest-country-go-mf-global-raids-pensions-funds-delay-fiscal-death