Showing posts with label U.S.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S.. Show all posts

Friday, February 12, 2016

Controversy over church to mosque plan in Chicago

 

Proposals to convert an abandoned Christian church into a mosque have met opposition from residents of a suburb outside of Chicago, evoking bitter memories of two prior battles in which Muslims sought to get local community support for new mosques - one in nearby Palos Heights in 2000 and another a few miles away in Orland Park in 2004. 
Officials from the Muslim American Society (MAS), which has chapters across the United States, bought the vacant First Church of Christ, Scientists, on 12300 S 80th Avenue in Palos Park, Illinois, and said they hope to open in the summer.

Although Muslims in the southwest suburbs of Chicago have several mosques to choose from, MAS officials say that the community is expanding rapidly and another mosque is needed to serve it.

But it seems that not everyone agrees.

'American, just like them'
Anonymous flyers distributed to homes near the proposed Palos Park site warned that an Islamic centre in the area would undermine home values and create traffic congestion.

The flyers, left in mail boxes and in some cases on doorsteps, perplexed MAS officials, who said that their goal was merely to utilise a building that already has government approval to be used as a religious centre.

"We are surprised because we are so involved and engaged in the local community," Oussama Jammal, a spokesman for MAS and a vice president of the Bridgeview Mosque Foundation, told Al Jazeera.

"I think it is just one or two people who are distributing these flyers trying to stir things up. We have no problem with people expressing their opinions and welcome the opinions. We want to meet with our neighbours, though, and explain who we are and what we want to do. We're American, just like them."

Jammal explained that MAS chose the building because it was vacant and for sale, but also because it was already "zoned" - government approved - to be used for religious purposes. Religious institutions get special government benefits.

"We have been working together for years to fight for the rights of American people. We supported the healthcare. We worked with Kid Care which helped children get insurance in the state," added Jammal, who explained that he works with United Power for Action and Justice, a non-partisan community organisation.

"The group includes Christians, Muslims, Jews ... and many other groups who live in this region and we have been involved in many social issues to make our communities safer in fighting street gangs, to fight for better education, to obtain healthcare, and support legislation to help the disabled. This isn't about a religion. It's about being a part of the this country."

At a public meeting on February 8, local government officials denounced the flyer and described Muslims as "neighbours". But some of the local residents in attendance seemed to share the concerns expressed on it. Despite these complaints, Village of Palos Park officials have said that the municipality will not block the opening of the mosque.
Jammal said he does not believe this is an issue the local government should interfere with.
"We are part of the larger community to protect our streets, protect our youth. This is what the Muslim community is about. Unfortunately, the people don't know what we do."

 
In 2000, when hundreds of local residents opposed the opening of a mosque in Palos Heights, officials blocked the sale of a church property that had been on the market for five years.

The Palos Heights mayor at the time, Dean Koldenhoven, had supported the proposal to open the mosque but was overruled by the City Council. Despite being elected with a strong majority in 1997, he was voted out of office in 2001 after the mosque controversy, drawing only 14 percent of the votes.

"I am not surprised by some opposition to the mosque but it is not anywhere near what it was 16 years ago," Koldenhoven told Al Jazeera English.

"These complaints are the same complaints we always hear. They have no basis."

Koldenhoven said that he believes residents of the Chicago suburbs have become more accepting of Muslims and blamed the controversy on a handful of anti-Muslim activists.

Koldenhoven was awarded the prestigious "Profile in Courage" Award in 2002 by the John F Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston, in acknowledgement of the position he took over the mosque.

John Mahoney, the current Palos Park mayor, criticised the flyer and its accusations as "cowardly".
The Orland mosque, which was opened in 2004, received support from the Village of Orland Park, but the property has been vandalised many times, and on several occasions in 2014 and 2015 shots were fired at its golden dome as worshippers prayed inside.
Opposition to mosques has been documented across the country, in part fuelled by political attacks and comments by public figures including, most recently, presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ben Carson.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a report noting that 2015 had the highest number of reported cases of vandalism against mosques and Islamic centres in the country.
Last year, residents of Sterling Heights, near Dearborn, which has a large Arab and Muslim population, blocked the building of a mosque. Among those who opposed the mosque were many non-Arab Christians (Chaldeans) from Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq.
Chicago's southwest suburbs have two large domed mosques. The Mosque Foundation in Bridgeview was built in the 1980s in what was then an industrial zone. Today, it has become a magnet for Muslim worshippers and some homes in the area have the Muslim shahadah, the declaration of faith, in cement by the entrance. 

As well as warning about traffic and reduced property prices, the flyer opposing the opening of the Palos Park mosque highlights the possibility of people from outside of the community coming in, of "large Muslim families moving into your neighbourhood - some of these ... have 20 people living in a single family home" and "more women at the Palos Heights Pool with burkas, these women go in the pool with their garments on".
The former church is, however, located in a remote area near to one of the region's largest hospitals and just a few blocks from a train station.

Jammal says he believes the conversion of the vacant church into a mosque will proceed without government interference and is hopeful that Muslims there will be able to work with residents to help them better understand that "we are no different than they are: just Americans who wish to practise our faith".


 

Thursday, February 11, 2016

US Intelligence Chief: We 'Might Use the Internet of Things' to Spy on You
 

 
"In the future, intelligence services might use the IoT for identification, surveillance, monitoring, location tracking, and targeting for recruitment or to gain access to networks or user credentials," James Clapper, US director of National Intelligence told the Senate, Sputnik reported.
What Clapper is basically saying is that smart devices connected to a wireless network in your home, like a baby monitor, a television, a speaker system, a fridge and even a thermostat can be infiltrated by intelligence officers to collect data in real time. 
Vulnerabilities in the Internet of Things have already been exposed. A recent report, "The Internet of Things: Privacy & Security in a Connected World", warns that wearable technology, web cams, 'smart' home hubs and Internet-connected cameras can be vulnerable to hack attacks.
Nick Pollard, of Guidance Software told Computer Business Weekly that cybercriminals see IoT as an easy target.
"As the vast scope of the IoT broadens as well as the security risks associated with the IoT, manufacturers of IoT devices perhaps do not have resources available to ensure that every loophole or flaw has been covered. The potential therefore exists for successful security breaches to be exploited on a black market."
Another report titled "Don't Panic, Making Progress on the 'Going Dark' Debate" takes the debate over the vulnerability of the IoT one step further, suggesting that it "has the potential to drastically change surveillance", offering opportunities for surveillance through an alternative channel if encrypted channels are blocked.
"The still images, video, and audio captured by these devices may enable real-time intercept and recording with after-the-fact access. Thus an inability to monitor an encrypted channel could be mitigated by the ability to monitor from afar a person through a different channel."
So, while privacy campaigners battle against government demands for access to encrypted data — intelligence agencies could just use another channel, provided by the IoT to gather the desired data.
The report says the IoT market is forecast to grow into a multitrillion dollar industry within the next decade, incorporating everyday items.
"Appliances and products ranging from televisions and toasters to bed sheets, light bulbs, cameras, toothbrushes, door locks, cars, watches and other wearables are being packed with sensors and wireless connectivity," the report states.
"Phillips, GE, Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Tesla, Samsung, and Nike are all working on products with embedded IoT functionality, with sensors ranging from gyroscopes, accelerometers, magnetometers, proximity sensors, microphones, speakers, barometers, infrared sensors, fingerprint readers, and radio frequency antennae with the purpose of sensing, collecting, storing, and analyzing finegrained information about their surrounding environments."
The report concludes — and concurs with the statement made by US intelligence chief James Clapper, that:
"These forces are on a trajectory towards a future with more opportunities for surveillance."
And it appears government agencies are ready to take them.
Pain Threshold: Saudi Economy Reels Due to Low Oil Prices
 

 
"The pace of execution on some of the existing projects has slowed down, so a project that would take six months to complete may now see an extended execution time line. Moreover, government payments have slowed down. As a result, contractors which normally rely on short-term funding for projects are feeling an impact on their working capital, so their ability to repay debt is not as strong as it was before," Murad Ansari, an analyst at EFG-Hermes in Saudi Arabia, told Reuters.
The Saudi Ministry of Labor has also issued a statement this week, claiming that the employees at some unnamed "major institution" complained that they haven’t been paid in months. The ministry pointed out that these claims have already been verified and appropriate measures have been enacted.
According to Reuters, the company in question is a construction enterprise, and that several other construction companies are currently dealing with similar issues.
As falling oil prices and the ongoing campaign against the Houthi rebels take their toll on the Saudi economy, the kingdom’s leadership seeks to reduce its dependence on oil and shrink the public sector where two thirds of local workers currently work, in a bid to "switch from simple quantitative growth based on commodity exports to qualitative growth that is evenly distributed," as Saudi Arabian Health Minister Khalid al-Falih put it.
According to the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency’s 2016 budget, total revenue in 2015 was 608 billion Saudi riyals ($162 billion), 73 percent of which was from oil revenue. The budget projects spending of 840 billion riyals ($224 billion) in 2016, down from 975 billion spent in 2015, and a fiscal deficit of 326.2 billion riyals in 2016.
Lavrov: ISIL Leaders Remain in Close Contact with Ankara
 

Moscow has intelligence that ISIL command continues to hold backdoor negotiations with the Turkish leadership, Lavrov told Russian newspaper MK in a vast interview in honor of Diplomats’ Day, RT reported.
The airstrikes of the Russian Air Force in Syria have severely disrupted “traditional smuggling routes,” so the Turks are discussing in all seriousness creation of “ISIL-free zones” in Syria.
“Of course [such zones] would be a violation of all principles of the international law and also escalate tensions, substantially and fundamentally,” Lavrov said, adding the Turks are constructing tent camps and some kind of “engineering structures” on the Syrian side of the border, some 200 meters inside the country’s territory.
At the same time the Russian FM does not believe that a full-scale Turkish invasion into Syria is possible; Ankara is expected to limit its actions to “small provocations.”
“I do not believe that the US-led [anti-ISIL] coalition, which includes Turkey, would allow such desperate schemes to take shape,” Lavrov said.
According to Lavrov, Moscow was “astonished” by the position voiced by the German Chancellor Angela Merkel during Turkey voyage about Russian airstrikes being to blame for the growing influx of refugees from the Middle East to Europe.
The German leader did not say a word about terrorists in Syria being supported by the trafficking of arms, munitions and other necessary supplies from Turkey, which openly blackmails the EU over the refugee problem, Lavrov said.
Lavrov called attention to the fact that the growing tide of asylum seekers rushed to Europe after the elimination of the Libyan state, which took place well ahead of the Russian warplanes being deployed to Syria.
“I’d like to note that we had called attention to Turkey’s actions becoming inappropriate… long before our Air Force became operable in Syria,” Lavrov said, recalling incidents with Turkey creating obstacles with international projects and scandalous statements made by the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan during his 2015 visit to Moscow.
“Of course we paid attention to that incongruity, but assumed that common sense would prevail and Turks realize we’re neighbor and had done nothing wrong to them,” Lavrov said, quoting President Vladimir Putin’s words about Moscow putting a blind eye on many of Ankara’s escapades.
Lavrov agreed that probably that position was a mistake, since it ended up with the “Turkish leaders falling out of the real world completely.”
The veteran foreign minister does not exclude attempts to put the boots on the ground in Syria from some countries of the Persian Gulf.
“If the [Syria peace] talks bring no fruit or are not allowed to begin, then it is possible that some countries, directed by personal hatred towards [President Bashar] Assad, would go for a head-on solution by force,” Lavrov acknowledged, recalling some countries of the region “empathetically rejecting Russia-US-EU initiative to declare the Syrian crisis “militarily unsolvable” in a UN Security Council resolution.
“So this [a military intervention in Syria] is quite possible,” Lavrov said, mentioning Saudi Arabia’s openly declared plans to send troops to Syria should an international coalition invade.
The developments of the Turkish-Syrian border serve proof that Ankara’s primary concern is making direct contacts between the Syrian and Turkish Kurds possible.
The ISIL-free strip along the border is called to prevent that Kurdish reunion Ankara finds totally unacceptable, as it would disrupt Turkish supplies to ISIL terrorists and getting oil and other contraband goods once and for all.
In this light, Ankara, as well as some other capitals in the region, believes Russia to be the biggest problem in the Middle East.
“I can understand that,” Lavrov said, “The Turks say openly that we have blown their plans [for Syria] wide open and now are trying to nail the Americans to the barn door, too,” the Russian FM commented on Ankara’s recent demarche towards Washington, which was thrown into a dilemma to “choose between Turks and Kurds.”
Ankara also insisted on expelling Kurds from the Syria peace talks, which is “Turkey’s arrogant position not seeing eye-to-eye by anybody else,” Lavrov stressed, noting that Washington has already, though anonymously, proclaimed the Kurds being allies against ISIL.
“We work with them [Kurds], too,” the minister mentioned.
“Honestly speaking, I do not consider the situation as irretrievable one,”Lavrov said, adding that at present close cooperation between Washington and Moscow in Syria is not possible due to a “restrain factor” of the US relations with allies in the Middle East region perceiving Russia as being a threat to their plans for Syria.
 
'Dawn of the Brain Dead': US Media Blasts Trump's NH Victory as Sanders Rides Wave
 

 



Senator Bernie Sanders and billionaire Donald Trump blew away their opponents in yesterday’s poll to claim the respective top spots for the granite state’s Democratic and Republican nominations, RT reported.
In the most dramatic front page we’ve seen for some time, the New York Daily News splashed with ‘Dawn of the Brain Dead’ in response to Trump’s success.
Meanwhile, the Huffington Post went into virtual meltdown over the Republican Party result.
Twitter reactions to the NH results largely focused on the surprising margin of Trump’s success at taking 35.13 percent of GOP votes - and what the result means going forward to South Carolina this weekend.
Politico took a different perspective on last night’s results, moving on from the Trump and Sanders shock to point out a Republican Party "race to the bottom" among Trump’s rivals.
Meanwhile, Arianna Huffington chose to approach yesterday’s primaries from a historical perspective.
Sanders' rival for the Democratic candidacy Hillary Clinton chose to focus on the next stage of the primary campaign in her post-results tweet.
Trump’s leading rivals John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio were quick to look beyond NH and on towards Saturday’s South Carolina primary - and beyond.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

US Supreme Court Blocks Obama Carbon Emissions Plan
 

The court voted 5-4 along ideological lines to grant a request by 27 states and various companies and business groups to block the administration's Clean Power Plan, which also mandates a shift to renewable energy away from fossil fuels, Reuters reported.
The highly unusual move by the justices means the regulations will not be in effect while a court battle continues over their legality.
The White House said it disagrees with the court decision but said it expects the rule will survive the legal challenge.
We remain confident that we will prevail on the merits," the White House said, adding that the Environmental Protection Agency will continue to work with states that want to cooperate and that it will continue to take "aggressive steps" to reduce carbon emissions.
The plan was designed to lower carbon emissions from US  power plants by 2030 to 32 percent below 2005 levels. It is the main tool for the United States to meet the emissions reduction target it pledged at U.N. climate talks in Paris in December.
A senior administration official told reporters that despite the court's "procedural decision," the United States can deliver those commitments and take "new and additional steps" to lead internationally on climate change.
The Supreme Court's action casts doubt on the long-term future of the US  Environmental Protection Agency's rule because it increases the chances that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would take the case after a lower court issues a decision on the legality of the regulations and ultimately would strike it down.
 
Military Expert: US Fooling Saudi Arabia into Another Quagmire in Syria
 

"The US is pushing the Arab countries into a long-term war to destroy them," Egyptian army's former war intelligence officer Major General Nasr Salem told FNA.
Major General Salem underlined that like in Yemen, Saudi Arabia has been deceived by the US to send infantry troops to Syria only to get caught in a new quagmire there.
He warned that Saudi Arabia's military adventurism in Syria on the pretext of fighting the ISIL can result in clashes between the Saudi and Syrian armies with very negative repercussions.
"Attacking Syria is not the solution to combat ISIL because Syria is an independent Arab country," Major General Salem added.
The prominent military expert reiterated that Saudi Arabia is going to fight a proxy war on behalf of the US in Syria.
On Thursday, the Saudi Defense Ministry said it stood ready to deploy ground troops to Syria to allegedly aid the US-led anti-ISIL, also known as Daesh, coalition.
Riyadh has been a member of the US-led coalition that has been launching airstrikes against Daesh in Syria since September 2014, without the permission of Damascus or the United Nations. In December 2015, Saudi Arabia started its own Muslim 34-nation coalition to allegedly fight Islamic extremism.
ISIL is a Wahhabi group mentored by Saudi Arabia and has been blacklisted as a terrorist group everywhere in the world, including the United States and Russia, but Saudi Arabia.
Syria, Tehran and Moscow have issued stern warnings to Riyadh, stressing that the Saudi intruders, who in fact intend to rescue the terrorists that are sustaining heavy defeats these days, will be crushed in Syria.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said any ground operation without Damascus' approval is an "act of aggression", warning that the Saudi aggressors "would go back home in coffins".
In Tehran, Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari said Saudi Arabia doesn't have the guts to send its armed forces to Syria.
"They claim they will send troops (to Syria) but I don’t think they will dare do so. They have a classic army and history tells us such armies stand no chance in fighting irregular resistance forces," Jafari told reporters in Tehran on Saturday.
"This will be like a coup de grâce for them. Apparently, they see no other way but this, and if this is the case, then their fate is sealed," he added.
Jafari said this is just cheap talks, but Iran welcomes the Saudi decision if they decide to walk on this path.
 
Report: US Blackwater to Withdraw Mercenaries from Yemen
 

The Blackwater security company decided on Tuesday to take out its strike forces from Al-Amri Front in Ta'iz province, the Arabic-language Bemanioun news website reported on Wednesday.
The Blackwater's decision came after its forces sustained heavy losses in al-Amri front.
Seven Blackwater mercenaries were killed and 39 others were injured in Al-Amri front.
Meantime, the Arabic-language Sahafa24 website reported that 49 percent of the US Blackwater company belongs to the UAE's ruling family.
The UAE government has sent five airplanes to Aden to take out the Blackwater forces.
On January 31, tens of Blackwater mercenaries, including their US commander, were killed in the Yemeni army and popular forces' attacks on their positions in the Southwestern province of Lahij. Several Apache and Typhoon helicopters were also destroyed in the Yemeni attack.
The Yemeni forces' Tochka missiles hit a gathering of the Saudi forces at al-Anad military base in Lahij province, killing 200 Sudanese Blackwater mercenaries and their new commander US Colonel Nicolas Petras.
Several Apache and Typhoon helicopters as well as several oil tankers were also destroyed in the Yemeni missile attack.
The Blackwater forces' military operations room and the houses of the Blackwater forces were also destroyed in Yemen's attack.
In a relevant development in December, a Yemeni Tochka missile hit the Saudi-led coalition's command headquarters in Sha'ab al-Jen region near Bab al-Mandeb in Ta'iz province, and killed over 150 coalition servicemen, including 23 Saudi troops, 9 UAE officers and soldiers.
Also on January 17, the Yemeni forces' missile attacks on a Saudi-led command center resulted in the death of over 120 mercenaries, including the Saudi, UAE and US officers.
"The Yemeni army missile unit fired a Tochka missile at the operations room of the Saudi-led forces in Ma'rib and killed over 120 mercenaries with different nationalities," Ali al-Houthi, an Ansarullah Movement Leader, told FNA at the time.
"46 Saudi mercenaries, 11 UAE and 9 Saudi officers and 11 foreign commanders of the US Blackwater company were among those killed in the attack," he added.
Houthi said that 6 Apache and 4 Black Hawk helicopters and 4 drones armed with missiles were also destroyed in the attack.
The command room of communications with the spying satellites and airplanes was also destroyed completely.
Al-Houthi had also said earlier that the missile had hit al-Bairaq military base which hosts the headquarters of the Saudi army's operations.
"The Tochka missile hit the target with high precision and killed tens of the Saudi-led forces, including a senior Saudi commander, who had arrived at the base just yesterday," he said.
Houthi added that in addition to the heavy toll, a large volume of state-of-the-art weapons and military equipment were destroyed in the attack.
He described the missile attack against the Saudi's headquarters in Ma'rib as a major intelligence and military achievement for the Yemeni army and popular forces.
The terrorists have been pounding the two towns all throughout the last 9 months.
 
US to Send More Troops to Afghanistan
 

It will be the largest deployment of US troops outside major bases in Afghanistan since the end of the NATO combat mission in 2014, the Houston Chronicle reported.
Though the military insists that the soldiers will not take active combat roles, US Special Operations forces have increasingly been drawn into the fighting in Helmand as one important district after another has fallen or been threatened by Taliban.
Col. Michael T. Lawhorn, a spokesman for the US military in Afghanistan, said in a statement that the new deployment would provide protection for the current Special Operations troops in Helmand and give extra support and training for the 215th Corps of the Afghan National Army.
Afghan forces in Helmand have taken heavy casualties in recent months and have been cut off by the Taliban in many places.
"Our mission," Lawhorn said, "remains the same: to train, advise, and assist our Afghan counterparts, and not to participate in combat operations."
He would not detail the number of troops or the unit involved in the deployment, citing Pentagon policy. But a senior US military official speaking on the condition of anonymity said the unit being sent to Helmand, the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry, was slightly smaller than the usual battalion size of 700 to 800 soldiers.
The new troops will replace another unit that was already in Afghanistan, the official said, and will not add to the total number of US troops in the country, which stands at roughly 9,800 service members.
 
US Spy Chiefs: Saudi, UAE Lack Capacity to Fight Against ISIL
 

“I do not assess that the Saudi ground forces would have the capacity to take this fight on,” Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency told the Senate Armed Services Committee, The Hill reported.
He continued to say that the Emiratis had already taken on a heavy burden fighting rebels in Yemen, and said “their capacity to do more is limited.”
Last week, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE offered for the first time to send ground troops to help fight the terror group.
But on Tuesday, Lt. Gen. Stewart and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that while the offers were welcome, they were not certain the countries’ troops would be effective.
“I certainly appreciate and value the Saudi willingness to engage on the ground, I think that would be a challenge for them if they try to take that on,” Mr. Clapper said.
Saudi Arabia has also been leading its own coalition in Yemen, which has drawn its military attention away from the conflict.
Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia made their offerings contingent upon US leadership, a condition which Mr. Clapper says he took to mean the countries want the Pentagon’s command and control capabilities, The Hill reported.
Lt. Gen. Stewart said he interpreted the condition as a request for more “US skin in the game.”
A decision on the matter could be made at the NATO summit this week.
 
Saudis Want Washington to 'Fight Their War in Syria for Them'
 

"The Saudis are 'inviting' the US to put [American] soldiers at risk to advance their goals in Syria because they can't do it for themselves and probably wouldn't even if they could," he noted. They are essentially "trying to sucker the US into agreeing to fight their war for them."
Riyadh's military campaign in Yemen, which has been largely condemned as a humanitarian disaster, could serve as an indication of what the Saudis are willing to do. The operation has primarily been conducted through airstrikes. In fact, the Saudi-led coalition conducted some 1,200 airstrikes in the first three weeks of the intervention (which is incomparable to Riyadh's feeble efforts in Syria).
"Considering how unwilling the Saudis have been to commit large numbers of ground forces to their appalling war in Yemen, it was never credible that they would be willing to do more than that in Syria," Larison observed.
Even if the Saudis send their forces to Syria as part of a larger US-led ground efforts, US troops would likely do all the heavy lifting. Journalist Andrey Polunin recently pointed out that Saudi special forces are quite limited in their capabilities.
Saudi officials first mentioned that the oil kingdom was ready to participate in a US-led intervention in Syria last week, raising questions as to what Riyadh's intentions truly are. Numerous rebels groups, who are trying to overthrow al-Assad, have received financial support and weapons from Saudi Arabia. In addition, Riyadh has apparently tried to undermine the Syrian peace process in Geneva.
 
Against Russia? Saudi Invasion in Syria ‘Would Be Beneficial to US'
 
 
Washington is happy about such move as it would give US a good opportunity to curb Russian influence in the region, German newspaper Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten (DWN) reported.
According to the newspaper, the US government wants to prevent Russia from playing a dominant role in the Middle East.
How many soldiers Riyadh is ready to deploy, remains unclear. A certainty is, however, that the invasion of Saudi Arabia would aggravate the situation in the region, the article said.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem earlier stated that any invasion by the Saudis would be considered an act of aggression. Saudi soldiers would return home in coffins, the minister said at a conference in Damascus.
"In fact, the Saudis who support several terrorist groups in Syria together with the US are especially interested to overthrow President Assad. The Americans, in turn, want to prevent Russians from playing the main part in the reorganization in Syria," the newspaper wrote.
Russians and Syrians have recently achieved a major breakthrough in Aleppo. Their joint efforts resulted in the elimination of hundreds of terrorists and their infrastructure.
However, German Chancellor Angela Merkel blamed Russia for a new wave of refugees: the German leader accused Moscow of bombing civilian objects, however, without providing any concrete evidence.
According to DWN, many people indeed have started to increasingly leave the combat zones in the last few months. However, such a tendency is related to the brutality of various terrorist groups, rather than Russia's military operation in the country.
 

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

US Attorney: No Outside Influence on FBI Probe into Clinton Emails
 

She said that the FBI investigation is independent and is being conducted by career lawyers looking at the facts and evidence, the Associated Press reported.
Republicans have been critical of the Democratic presidential candidate's use of personal email when she led State.
In a letter filed in federal court Monday as part of a Freedom of Information lawsuit, FBI general counsel James Baker said the probe is "ongoing." He said the FBI has not publicly commented on the focus, scope or potential targets of the investigation. Baker wrote the letter Feb. 2 to the State Department's acting legal adviser.
 
Source: Yemen's Fugitive FM Seeking More US Aid for Mansour Hadi
 
 

"The Riyadh government has asked Al-Makhlafi to meet the US envoy in Yemen in a bid to find a way to hold talks with other Yemeni political parties," a Yemeni diplomatic source told FNA today.
He noted that Al-Makhlafi fully briefed the US ambassador on the Saudi-led Arab coalition's military operations against the Yemeni forces.   
"The US ambassador also told Al-Makhlafi he will do his best to help those who are on the same side with Saudi Arabia on Yemen within a military, intelligence and strategic framework," the source added.
In a relevant development in late January, media reports said that Mansour Hadi was planning to leave the city of Aden for Riyadh.
"Hadi will travel to Riyadh to meet Saudi King Salman and review the latest battlefield conditions in the war," the Arabic-language Okaz newspaper quoted Hadi's press secretary Mokhtar al-Rahbi as saying.
This is the third time that Hadi leaves Aden for Riyadh over past few months.
In a relevant development in late December, the Hadi's palace in Aden became under the siege of his opponent forces and he was most likely to flee Yemen.
A newly-formed militant group calling itself 'Southern Yemen's Resistance Forces' have besieged Hadi's place of residence in Aden, Arab media outlets reported on December 23.
Political analysts speculate that the siege of Hadi's palace had taken place with the green light of the United Arab Emirates as a result of a row between the UAE and Saudi Arabia over Hadi and his Prime Minister Khaled Bahah.
The speculations came as the UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed had recently met the leaders of Southern Yemen, including a senior Yemeni Salafi leader Hani bin Barik, in Abu Dhabi.
Political observers believe that the quarrel between Hadi and his prime minister derives from the underlying row between Saudi Arabia as supporter of Hadi and UAE as supporter of Bahah.
Aden province has been the scene of numerous attacks against pro-Hadi forces; the latest case was assassination of Aden governor Ja'afar Saeed.
Hadi and Bahah have been running a feud for the past several months, and their differences grew noisy when a number of Saudi officials worked out a plan to replace the former president with his premier - who had both fled to Saudi Arabia then - in order to encourage the revolutionary forces back in Yemen to work with him and allow him to start a new government.
 
US Position on Syria Tilts in Favour of Russian Intervention

 


Since the Russian military intervention in Syria upended the military balance created by the victories of the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra Front and its allies last year, the Obama administration has quietly retreated from its former position that "Assad must go". 
These political and military changes have obvious implications for the UN-sponsored Geneva peace negotiations. The Assad regime and its supporters are now well positioned to exploit the talks politically, while the armed opposition is likely to boycott them for the foreseeable future.
Supporters of the armed opposition are already expressing anger over what they regard as an Obama administration "betrayal" of the fight against Assad. But the Obama policy shift on Syria must be understood, like most of the administration’s Middle East policy decisions, as a response to external events that is mediated by domestic political considerations. 
The initial Obama administration’s public stance on the Russian air campaign in Syria last October and early November suggested that the United States was merely waiting for Russia’s intervention to fail.
For weeks the political response to the Russian intervention revolved around the theme that the Russians were seeking to bolster their client regime in Syria and not to defeat ISIS, but that it would fail. The administration appeared bent on insisting that Russia give into the demand of the US and its allies for the departure of President Bashar al-Assad from power.  
But the ISIS terror attacks in Paris focused the political attention of Europeans and Americans alike on the threat from ISIS terrorism and the need for cooperation with Russia to combat it. That strengthened the position of those within the Obama administration – especially the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA - who had never been enamored of the US policy of regime change in the first place. In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, they pressed for a rethinking of the US insistence on Assad’s departure, as suggested publicly at the time by former acting CIA director Michael Morell. 
The political impact of the Paris attacks has now been reinforced by the significant gains already made by the Syrian army and its allies with Russian air support in Latakia, Idlib and Hama provinces.
The bombing and ground offensives were focused on cutting the main lines of supply between the areas held by ISIS and the Nusra-led coalition and the Turkish border, which if successful would be a very serious blow to the armed opposition groups. 
Dramatic successes came in late January, when Syrian government troops recaptured the town of Salma in Latakia province, held by al-Nusra Front since 2012, and the strategic al-Shaykh Maskin, lost to anti-Assad rebels in late 2014, thus regaining control of Daraa-Damascus highway. Even more significant, the Syrian army has cut off the lines of supply from Turkey to Aleppo, which is occupied by al-Nusra and allied forces.
By the time Secretary of State John Kerry met with the head of the Syrian opposition delegation, Riyad Hijab, on 23 January, it was clear to the Obama administration that the military position of the Assad regime was now much stronger, and that of the armed opposition was significantly weaker. In fact, the possibility of a decisive defeat exists for the first time in light of the Russian-Syrian strategy of cutting off the supply lines of the al-Nusra front.
What Kerry told Hijab, as conveyed to the website Middle East Briefing, reflected a new tack by the administration in light of that political-military reality. He made it clear that there would be no preconditions for the talks, and no formal commitment that they would achieve the departure of Assad at any point in the future. He was unclear whether the desired outcome of the talks was to be a "transitional government" or a "unity government" – the latter term implying that Assad was still in control.
The armed opposition and its supporters have been shocked by the shift in Obama's policy. But they shouldn’t be. The administration’s previous Syria policy had been based in large part on what appeared to be a favourable political opportunity in Syria. As described by Washington Post correspondent Liz Sly’s official US source, the policy was to put "sufficient pressure on Assad’s forces to persuade him to compromise but not so much that his government would precipitously collapse...."  
The Obama administration had seen such an opportunity because a covert operation launched in 2013 to equip "moderate" armed groups with anti-tank missiles from Saudi stocks had strengthened the Nusra Front and its military allies. American Syria specialist Joshua Landis estimated last October that 60 to 80 percent of the missiles had ended up in the hands of the Nusra Front in Syria. 
Those weapons were the decisive factor in the Nusra-led Army of Conquest takeover of Idlib province in April 2015 and the seizure of territory on the al-Ghab plain in Hama province, which is the main natural barrier between the Sunni-populated area inland and the Alawite stronghold of Latakia province on the sea. That breakthrough by al-Nusra and its allies, which threatened the stability of the Assad regime, was serious enough to provoke the Russian intervention in September.
But given the new military balance, the Obama administration now recognises that its former strategy is now irrelevant. It has been supplanted with a new strategy that is equally opportunistic. The idea now is to take advantage of shared US-Russian strategic interests regarding ISIS – and downgrade the objective of forcing a change in the Syrian regime. 
A signal fact of the war against ISIS in Syria that has been ignored in big media coverage is that the United States and Russia have been supporting the same military forces in Syria against ISIS. The Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) the leading party in Syrian Kurdistan, controls a large swath of land across northern Syria bordering Turkey. Its military force, the Peoples Defence Units (YPG), has been the most significant ground force fighting against ISIS.
But the YPG has also fought against al-Nusra Front and its allies, and has made no secret of its support for Russian air strikes against those forces. Moreover, the PYD has actively cooperated with the Syrian army and Hezbollah in northern Aleppo province. It is both the primary Syrian ally of the United States against ISIS but also a strategic key to the Russian-Syrian strategy for weakening al-Nusra and its allies.
US NATO ally Turkey has adamantly opposed the US assistance to the PYD, insisting it is a terrorist organisation. The United States has never agreed with that, however, and is determined to exploit the strategic position of PYD in the fight against ISIS. But that also implies a degree of US-Russian cooperation against the main armed opposition to the Assad regime as well.
The Obama administration is no longer counting on a military balance favourable to the armed opposition to Assad to provide a reason for concessions by the regime. Whether military success against the armed opposition will be decisive enough to translate into a resolution of the conflict remains to be seen. In the meantime, the Syria peace negotiations are likely to be at a standstill. 
 

India blocks Facebook's Free Basics app


ndian regulators have effectively blocked Free Basics, a controversial Facebook online service that sought to bring free access to a limited version of the social network and other sites to the country's poorest people.


The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on Monday outlawed charging different prices for downloading different kinds of internet content.
The ruling, which regulators said was guided by the principles of net neutrality, is a major setback for Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook chief executive, who had lobbied hard for the programme as part of a campaign to expand Internet access to billions of people around the world.
Yet, it is a victory for critics who argued that Facebook's Free Basics programme gave an unfair advantage to some internet services over others.
The ruling essentially bans programmes such as Free Basics that are based on what is known as "zero rating" in industry jargon, because they do not charge for downloading certain kinds of data. In a policy memo, Indian regulators warned that such programmes raise the risk that users' "knowledge and outlook ... would be shaped only by the information made available by those select offerings".
Critics of Free Basics have argued that the free service effectively steers users towards Facebook and its partners, while making it harder for other Internet services, including homegrown startups, to build their own audiences.
They also say that the project will only make Facebook's founder Zuckerberg and his partners richer, while activists have described the service as "a poor internet for poor people".
Free Basics is a key pillar of Facebook's ambitious Internet.org programme, which looks to deliver internet access to billions of people globally.
The app, offered through Facebook's mobile operator partner Reliance Communications since last year, provides free access to a stripped-down version of Facebook and certain other websites - including some that provide information such as weather forecasts, health education and job listings.
While Zuckerburg has acknowledged that his business would benefit from gaining more users around the world, he has also argued that internet access is a powerful tool for economic development in low-income regions.
On Monday, Zuckerberg posted on Facebook that he would continue to campaign for Free Basics.
"While we're disappointed with today's decision, I want to personally communicate that we are committed to keep working to break down barriers to connectivity in India and around the world," Zuckerberg said.
"We know that connecting them can help lift people out of poverty, create millions of jobs and spread education opportunities. We care about these people, and that's why we're so committed to connecting them."
Only 252 million of India's 1.2 billion people have access to the internet. Facebook has about 130 million users in India and sees a huge opportunity to expand by reaching those without internet access.

Violent Protests At Hong Kong NY Celebrations 




Lunar New Year celebrations in Hong Kong turned violent as protesters clashed with police over a street market selling fishballs and other holiday foods.
Problems began when officials tried to shut down unlicensed street food sellers on Monday night in the working-class district of Mong Kok.
Protesters supported the street vendors, who have become a traditional part of Lunar New Year celebrations, quickly gaining a social media following under the hashtag #FishballRevolution.
The protesters say that Hong Kong's culture is disappearing as Beijing exerts more power and some people are still angry at the lack of concessions from the Chinese government after the pro-democracy protests of 2014.
More than 100 protesters set fire to rubbish bins and threw paving stones, bottles and other debris at police who fired warning shots into the air.
Hong Kong TV showed officers lying on the ground being beaten with sticks and poles, along with pictures of protesters and police with blood on their faces.
In a statement, Hong Kong police said a "large number of people" had been found gathering on the road and causing "serious disturbances to public safety".
Police said that, despite warnings, the protesters refused to move and "shoved" officers, adding: "To ensure public safety and public order, police took resolute actions, including using baton and pepper spray, to stop the unlawful violent acts."
One woman and 23 men, aged between 17 and 70, were arrested on suspicion of assaulting and obstructing officers, resisting arrest and public disorder, according to Acting District Commander Yau Siu-kei.
Hong Kong's leader Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said that more than 80 officers and four journalists were injured.
The violence is the worst since pro-democracy protests shut down parts of the city - including Mong Kok - for about 11 weeks in 2014.
Mr Leung said: "I believe the public can see for themselves from TV news reports the seriousness of the situation. The (Hong Kong) government strongly condemns such violent acts. The police will apprehend the mobs and bring them to justice."

 

Why All Americans Should Support the Trans-Pacific Partnership



Quick question: could you manufacture all by yourself the computer on which you’re reading this opinion piece? Could you source and create the thousands of inputs that go into what on its face is fairly simple? If so, you’re in possession of superhuman mechanical skills.

At the same time, the act of literally constructing a computer from scratch with no parts “imported” from across the street or around the world would be a tragic waste of your time. It would be because it would likely require all of your years on this earth to build what would be an unattractive, slow and poorly performing version of the sleek, fast, and endlessly capable machine in front of you.
What your use of a computer should tell you about yourself is that whether you know it or not, you’re an ardent free trader. Your life without open trade would be horribly bleak. But thanks to the globalized division of labor that defines free trade, you have the world’s abundance before you at prices that continue to fall.
Not more than 5 or 10 years ago the computer on which you’re reading this piece would have qualified as a supercomputer (this describes your smartphone too), with a multi-million dollar price tag reflecting its super status. Thanks to open trade and the global cooperation among specialized producers, odds are what’s “super” cost you as little as $200 brand new.
Whether produced one city over, or on the other side of the world, imports are the sole purpose of our production. They’re also the surest sign of our wealth. We trade products for products, so the more one produces the more one imports. Donald Trump acts as though imports are a sign of Americans “losing” to the Chinese, Japanese, and Mexicans, but since we can’t consume (import) without producing (exporting) first, the abundant inflow of goods from around the world is the surest sign of enormous economic strength in the United States. Imports are the clearest indicator that we’re “winning.” It’s only in impoverished locales that imports are light to non-existent.
With trade, the focus is often understandably on the raise we all get for being open to the production of others. In the U.S. alone this means that we have the most talented producers in all of the United States competing to serve our needs at lower and lower prices. Looked at globally, the unrelenting beauty of the U.S.’s largely open borders to the world’s plenty is that we have the most talented people on earth competing to give us bargains too.
But even the wide range of worldly goods that expand our paychecks doesn’t truly speak to the incomparable wonders of free trade. What makes it unquestionably brilliant is that it maximizes the possibility that we as individual actors in what is called an “economy” will get to pursue the kind of work that most animates our individual talents. Let’s face it, when we can import what we’re not good at doing from others, we’re then free to focus our energies in areas where we thrive.
What this should remind us is that open borders to trade don’t impoverish us as much they’re the easily one of the quickest paths to much greater wealth. The U.S. is a rich country not despite its openness to foreign production; rather the openness to foreign production is an essential source of staggering American wealth. Because our tariff barriers are generally very low, Americans are increasingly able to pursue the kind of work that most amplifies their talents.
All of which brings us to the economic importance of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), not just to the U.S., but to the rest of the world. Without getting into the weeds, the TPP intends to reduce barriers to trade among twelve different countries including the U.S., Canada, Australia, Peru, Japan, and Vietnam. American voters should hope the pact passes.
They should simply because the abundantly wealthy U.S. economy is already almost totally open to foreign production. The latter is once again a certain feature of the U.S. economy, not a bug. Across all foreign goods the average U.S. tariff placed on them is 1.4 percent. What this should tell those who mistakenly abhor more open trade is that the agreements signed by U.S. trade negotiators are generally about reducing tariffs placed on American exports.
To provide but one example, Vietnam presently slaps a 70 percent tariff on U.S. made cars, and a 50 percent tariff on American machinery. Important for the purposes of this piece is that Vietnam is extraordinarily poor relative to the U.S., and one reason is because its markets aren’t as open to imports. Reduced tariffs will not only expand global markets for U.S. producers to sell to, they’ll also enrich the Vietnamese by virtue of open trading lanes maximizing the possibility that its people will get to do as Americans have long done: migrate toward the work that most magnifies their talents.
A major reason the U.S. is rich is because it’s open to the production of others regardless of country. Conversely, countries like Vietnam are quite a bit less prosperous thanks to barriers to trade pushing its people into the kind of work that is less commensurate with their talents. Imports are the gift that keeps on giving for them freeing us from the work we despise. Imagine once again being forced to construct the computer on which you’re reading this piece. The act of doing so would impoverish you.
So while in a perfect world global trade would be wholly untouched by politicians, the TPP is advantageous to American producers for it reducing taxes on their exports. It’s then hugely advantageous to the other countries involved simply because imports by their very name speed the path to economic specialization.
An economy is just individuals, and the individual is best off economically when able to import as cheaply as possible thanks to production that is as specialized as possible. That’s what open trade is all about. While not close to perfect, the TPP brings the world closer to the kind of free exchange that is the certain source of rapidly expanding wealth.


Elizabeth Warren’s critique of Hillary Clinton’s 2001 bankruptcy vote


 

“You will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received.”
–Hillary Clinton, in the fifth Democratic debate, Feb. 4, 2016
Moments after the former secretary of state (and N.Y. senator) made this statement, the Bernie Sanders campaign issued a news release titled “Elizabeth Warren on How Wall Street has influenced Hillary Clinton.”  The news release recounted how Sen. Warren (D-Mass.), in a 2003 book, blamed campaign contributions from banking interests for why Clinton flipped from being opposed to an overhaul of bankruptcy laws as first lady – calling it “awful”– to voting to advance the bill as a freshman senator.
Warren noted that Clinton had received $140,000 in campaign contributions from banking industry executives as she sought a Senate seat. “Big banks were now part of Senator Clinton’s constituency. She wanted their support, and they wanted hers—including a vote in favor of ‘that awful bill,’” Warren wrote.
In an interview on ABC’s “This Week” on Feb. 7, Clinton offered a lengthy explanation. She said that she had sought a provision to protect “vulnerable women and their children” receiving child support if their spouse went into bankruptcy. She explained that in exchange for receiving the provision, she agreed to support passage in the Senate.
“I didn’t like the bill any more than I had liked it before. It still had very bad provisions. But I also pushed hard for a deal to protect women and children. So okay, I held my nose. I voted for it,” she said. A final version never emerged that year, but in 2005, when a similar bankruptcy bill neared final passage, Clinton voted against it.
Clinton added: “You can look at what I said in 2001. You can look at what I said in 2005. And so I’m glad to set this record straight.”
There’s a lot of complicated legislative maneuvering going on here. Let’s explore.

The Facts

Warren’s book, “The Two-Income Trap,” devoted four pages to her interaction in 1998 with Clinton, at the time first lady. Warren then was a Harvard University professor who had written an opinion article in The New York Times critical of the pending bankruptcy legislation, and Clinton had sought to learn more.
Warren praises Clinton for quickly grasping the issues. “I have taught bankruptcy law to thousands of students — some of them among the brightest in the country — but I never saw one like Mrs. Clinton,” Warren wrote. “Impatient, lightning-quick and interested in all the nuances.”
Hillary Clinton pledged to help stop the bill and Warren writes that she later learned the Clinton White House — which had been poised to approve the legislation — turned on a dime after the first lady’s concern became apparent. Bill Clinton vetoed the bill after it passed Congress in his waning days in office.
Warren blames Clinton’s about-face as senator on the impact of campaign contributions. “The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not,” she wrote. “Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. Campaigns cost money, and that money wasn’t coming from families in financial trouble.”
Warren also recounted this perspective in a fascinating 2004 interview with Bill Moyers.
Hillary Clinton pledged to help stop the bill and Warren writes that she later learned the Clinton White House — which had been poised to approve the legislation — turned on a dime after the first lady’s concern became apparent. Bill Clinton vetoed the bill after it passed Congress in his waning days in office.
Warren blames Clinton’s about-face as senator on the impact of campaign contributions. “The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not,” she wrote. “Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. Campaigns cost money, and that money wasn’t coming from families in financial trouble.”
Warren also recounted this perspective in a fascinating 2004 interview with Bill Moyers.
It is interesting to note that virtually every Democratic female senator at the time voted to advance the bill, even though it was opposed by liberal warhorses such as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Paul Wellstone (D-Wis.).
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), for instance, said: “While I have concerns over many of this bill’s provisions, I hope they can be dealt with in conference or in future legislation. This bill should be strengthened in conference, not weakened as has happened to other versions of bankruptcy legislation. I will closely examine a conference agreement with this in mind before voting to send this legislation to the President.”
Still, as Warren noted, virtually every consumer group opposed the bill at the time. The news media also portrayed the vote as a triumph for well-heeled financial lobbyists. “Money interests prevailed over the public interest,” wrote columnist David Broder in The Washington Post. Former senator Howard M. Metzenbaum, at the time head of the Consumer Federation of America, was quoted as saying: “The cries, claims and concerns of vulnerable Americans who have suffered a financial emergency have been drowned out by the political might of the credit card industry.”
The bill actually never came back to the Senate for a final vote in that Congress. But Republican victories in the 2004 elections gave the bill new momentum, and when it came up for a final vote in the Senate, Clinton (as well as almost all of the other female Democratic senators) were in opposition.
Clinton missed the vote because her husband was in the hospital but she issued a statement decrying it. In particular, she said the bill did not take into account “significant changes that have taken place in our national economy” since the Senate had last considered the bill in 2001, because Republicans had joined together to reject Democratic amendments. At least one of the amendments she had won in 2001 was also dropped from the bill.
Let’s unpack some of the politics. In 2001, the Senate was evenly split, with 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats, so Republicans needed to work with Democrats such as Clinton to advance legislation. After the 2004 elections, Republicans had 55 seats in the chamber, making compromise less necessary. Thus Clinton had less incentive to back a bill that was being rammed through Congress.
Warren, of course, made her comments and wrote her book before Clinton’s 2005 vote against the bankruptcy bill—and before she became a Senator herself and had to cast votes on legislation. Warren has remained studiously neutral in the race between Sanders and Clinton, and her office said she declined to comment.

The Pinocchio Test

We face a conundrum here. Clinton laid down a marker–that she did not change a vote because of financial contributions — but the example provided by the Sanders campaign does not quite disprove Clinton’s statement.
One could suspect, as Warren did in 2003, that contributions made Clinton more sympathetic to the financial industry as a newly elected senator. But Clinton argues that she voted to advance the bill — “held my nose” — as part of an agreement to make the bill better. Warren says the main provision touted by Clinton was only a fig leaf, but we have no idea of how Clinton might have voted on final passage in 2001 because the bill did not come up for a final vote that legislative session.
In the end, however, Clinton was against the bankruptcy bill at the moment it really counted — final passage in Congress. (In all, 26 Democrats opposed the bill and 18 supported it, along with all 55 Republicans.)
So for the money the financial interests contributed to Clinton’s campaign, she did not give them the support they desired. At the same time, however, the vote was so lopsided that Clinton’s support was not needed.
In light of subsequent events, Warren’s comments from 2004 at this point appear out of date. We would be curious to know if Warren’s experience as senator has changed her perspective on Clinton’s actions in 2001.






Unordered List

Sample Text

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Text Widget