WORLD NEWS TREND

“Michael Dean Eaton”

Michael Dean Eaton Wanted for Jasmine Warr Hit-and-Run Death

Last night, an automatic accident on 270 of a state to another in Rockville, Maryland took the life of the Warr jasmine 11 years. It was run up against parents ‘car by behind in one Range Rover dispatching SUV. The SUV continued with the drive, and maintaining the police force seek Eaton senior of Michael who it belief was behind the wheel.

The police force thinks that Eaton senior of Michael led one thousand after the site of the accident when it left his car and continued on food. It had a certain minor number to lead violations including/understanding to dispatch, not to pay and the drive with an expired recording. Eaton is always on the coward and the police force of state of Maryland encourages no matter whom with the knowledge of her place to call 301-424-2101.

The Warr jasmine marked was died in the ombreux hospital of plantation where another passenger in the car, Cortavia Harris, 11, was also treated for damage. Maintain the order closed all the files expreses of 270 of a state to another whole while studying the accident and by seeking Eaton senior of Michael. The road is now reopened.

Muhammad married Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine. His example in all things is considered normative in the Islamic world. Sharia Alert: “Court to consider divorce for 8-year-old girl,” from Agence France-Presse, August 24 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A SAUDI court will next month hear a plea for divorce from an eight-year-old girl married off by her father to a man in his fifties, the Arabic-language daily Al-Watan reported today.

It said the girl’s mother had filed the divorce case with the court at Unayzah 220km north of Riyadh, and cited lawyer Abdullah Jtili as saying the father had arranged the marriage without telling the girl….

But the daily also reported that the husband had refused to renounce the marriage, saying that he had not done anything illegal.

And of course, he hadn’t.

Arranged marriages involving pre-adolescents are occasionally reported in the Arabian Peninsula, including in the ultra-conservative Saudi kingdom where the strict conservative Wahabi version of Sunni Islam holds sway and polygamy is common.

In Yemen in April, another girl aged eight was granted a divorce after her unemployed father forced her to marry a man of 28.

Now that Obama has made his momentous choice, here is a blast from the past: “Biden wages war on ‘war on terror,’” by Ben Smith for Politico, May 4, 2007 (thanks to JCB):

John Edwards won praise on the left and criticism from the right when, at the first Democratic presidential candidates debate last month, refused to raise his hand to say he believed in the existence of a “global war on terror.” The man to Edwards’ immediate left on the stage, Senator Joe Biden, didn’t raise his hand either.

And while Edwards’ opposition to the phrase crystallized recently — references to the terror war were removed from his own website only after the debate — Biden has been waging what has appeared, at times, to be a quixotic war on “the global war on terror” for years.

“The President continues to talk about ‘the war on terror.’ That is simply wrong,” Biden, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said in a speech at the National Press Club last September.

“Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. If we can’t even identify the enemy or describe the war we’re fighting, it’s difficult to see how we will win.” [...]

“Terror is a tactic. Terror is not a philosophy,” Biden said. “The war in Chechnya is a war of liberation — it engaged in terrorist activities, but it it is fundamentally different.”

In a certain sense, of course, Biden is right. I have been repeating ad infinitum for years that terrorism is a means, not an end, and a tactic, not a philosophy. I’ve also been saying that if we can’t even identify the enemy or describe the war we’re fighting, it’s difficult to see how we will win. However, Biden himself has never shown any sign of being aware of the global jihad agenda, and has to my knowledge never said anything about the jihad or Islamic supremacism. When he says we have to identify the enemy, he apparently means that we have to define them as various insurgent and nationalist movements, and find the right mix of concessions and aid to offer them in order to pacify them. Given the Islamic jihad agenda, of course, this is short-sighted, and time and events will demonstrate just how short-sighted it is.

More on Biden comes from “Breaking News: Joe Biden, Friend of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,” by W. Thomas Smith, Jr. at Family Security Matters, August 23:

Sen. Joe Biden – Barack Obama’s eagerly anticipated running mate – should be named an honorary soldier in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). We’re all familiar with the IRGC: Iran’s unique corps of Islamist fighters who have been directly involved in deadly attacks against U.S. soldiers in Iraq – even Afghanistan – threatening our ships in the Persian Gulf; and organizing, training, equipping, funding, and providing direct operational support to Lebanon-based Hezbollah (perhaps the most dangerous terrorist army on earth). And that’s just for starters.

Also known as the Pasdaran, the IRGC is not Iran’s conventional territorial armed force, but the military force of the Khomeinist-inspired Islamic Revolution. The organization fields an army, a navy, and an air force, as well as an extranational special-operations force known as the Quds (Jerusalem) Force.

Iran, of course, is a “state sponsor of terrorism,” so-designated by the U.S. State Department back in 1984. And the IRGC and its Quds Force were both designated “supporters of terrorism” in October 2007. Though the latter two designations would not have been so had Biden had his way.

On September 26, 2007, Biden voted “Nay” to Senate Amendment 3017 (S. Amdt. 3017) – a piece of legislation amending S. Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 – “to express the sense of the Senate regarding Iran.”

In a nutshell, S. Amdt. 3017 called on the Senate to: “Support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy … with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.”

And most importantly – for the sake of sanctions and the unequivocal denial of any form of support to terrorists and terrorist supporters – the amendment said, “the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization … and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists.”
Thanks Jihad Watch

Robert Spencer

Not two hours ago I said I wouldn’t be inundating this site with election news, but that could change if some interviewer or debate moderator had the good sense and chutzpah to ask Obama, McCain, Biden, or the Republican Vice Presidential nominee these questions: 1. What would you do to deal with the national security aspect of immigration? With plans afoot to bring large groups of Iraqis, including Iraqi Muslims, into the United States, what kind of screening will you implement to try to ensure that we are not importing jihad terrorists into the country? Will you reevaluate immigration levels from Muslim countries based on recognition of the fact that there is no reliable way to distinguish a peaceful Muslim from a jihadist sympathizer or potential jihadist?

2. Forty percent of the foreign jihadists fighting against American troops in Iraq come from a putative ally of the United States, Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom is also one of the world’s leading bankrollers of terror. A Treasury Department official who tracks terror financing, Stuart Levey, recently remarked: “If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia.” What will you do as President to work toward ending the absurd situation we find ourselves in today, of helping to finance by means of oil revenue our own destruction by means of jihad terrorism? What steps would you take to put our relationship with Saudi Arabia on a more realistic footing than it is on today?

3. The Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies have adopted guidelines forbidding U.S. government analysts and spokesmen from speaking about jihad or Islam in connection with Islamic jihad terrorism. Given that the terrorists themselves consistently use the language of classic Islamic jihad theology to explain their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims, doesn’t this policy create the risk that we will not understand our enemy’s motives and goals, and not be able to combat them as effectively as we otherwise could? And wouldn’t that be true even if the jihadist use of Islamic texts and teachings were, from an Islamic standpoint, improper and incorrect?

Also, there is evidence that this policy was adopted on the recommendation of Islamic scholars who are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is engaged, in its own words, in “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Is this not reason enough in itself to reevaluate these new guidelines, if not to scrap them altogether?

4. Terrorism expert Stephen Emerson has called Hesham Islam, a top aide to the deputy secretary of defense, Gordon England, “an Islamist with a pro-Muslim Brotherhood bent who has brought in groups to the Pentagon who have been unindicted co-conspirators.”

If that is true, it raises serious questions about the extent of jihadist infiltration within the highest levels of our defense apparatus.

If you are elected President, what will you do to root out possible Muslim Brotherhood operatives and other jihadist sympathizers from sensitive government positions? What kind of screening will you institute for Muslim military and intelligence officials in order to try to ensure their loyalty to the United States and their rejection of the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism?

5. Last week, a torture chamber was discovered in a mosque in Baghdad. This revelation follows a large number of other incidents in which jihadists used mosques to plot terrorist attacks and to recruit. As President, would you favor the monitoring of mosques in the United States in order to ensure that there is no terrorist activity and no seditious, Islamic supremacist activity going on in them? What other steps would you take? Would you call upon the Muslim community in America to institute comprehensive and transparent programs in mosques and Islamic schools, teaching against the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism, and extolling the virtues of American pluralism, democracy, and the non-establishment of a state religion?

If not, why not?

Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Alawsat

It’s assumed that the least members of the Awakening Council can expect for their sacrifices in fighting and expelling the Qaeda Organization, and their efforts in maintaining security in hell-like areas for the Americans and the Iraqi government, such as Fallujah, is recognition and inclusion in the ranks of Iraq’s security forces, making the matter an opportunity to achieve Iraqi reconciliation. The survival of the Awakening Council’s Commanding Officer from a suicide car bomb assassination attempt a week ago in Kirkuk is just an example of what they face in their fight against the Al-Qaeda Organization.

However, what is happening is contrary to that. The Iraqi government is now forcing out and arresting elements of the Awakening Council and their leadership, despite the warnings of American military officials and their fear of an escalation of violence in Iraq.

However, it seems that al Maliki government and its affiliates have other things in mind. Jalal al Din al Saghir, a member of Iraq’s parliament and the Shia bloc stated that, “The State can not accept the men of the Awakening; their days are coming to an end.” While, Brigadier Nasser al Haiti, the commander of Al Muthanna brigade in the Iraqi army, goes further in describing the Awakening Council’s members as a, “cancer”, and that they must be “uprooted.”

Out of a hundred thousand Iraqi fighters who are members of the Awakening Council, only an approximate five thousand have been recruited by the Iraqi government into to the Army, despite the Council’s members being Iraqi, and having the upper hand in their fight against al Qaeda, while also maintaining stability in Iraq.

Acting deceitfully towards the elements of Council affirms the conviction that al Maliki’s government is not concerned with national reconciliation; otherwise, why would it use the cancer analogy and call for the Council’s uprooting?

If the Council’s leaders had decided to form militias to intimidate civilians, then there would have been just cause in stopping them and dividing their ranks. However, if the Awakening Councils are defending Iraqi unity and pursuing the terrorists’, then why are they being repressed instead of supported?

The transformation of the Awakening Council into a peaceful political force is naturally expected, since the democratic process is about collective participation under an umbrella of civil institutions. It is unnatural to deprive the Council from the right to peaceful political action and in the process suppressing, expelling and arresting its members.

Does the al Maliki government want to deal a blow to the fighting efforts against al Qaeda, or is it worried about seeing the emergence of a strong Sunni bloc in a similar way to Tehran’s worries about the rise of the Awakening Councils’ positive role in Iraq?

If suppressing the Awakening Council is what al Maliki wants, the Americans should be cautious. This simply constitutes a threat to their plans to stabilize the security situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is a dangerous message to whoever works for the stability of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Shiite parties’ deceit of the Awakening in Iraq is a message to whoever is keen on stabilizing security in Baghdad and Kabul; Beware of cooperating with the Americans, or you will share the Awakening Councils’ fate.

If al Maliki’s government is acting from a narrow sectarian approach against the idea of a new Iraq, both the Iraqis and Washington should be more aware. Furthermore, acting with deceit against the Awakening Councils will be a real blow to the efforts of stabilizing security in Iraq.

Ali El-Saleh in London

Q) Does Hamas hope to reestablish ties with Jordan?

A) The meetings in Amman were supposed to lay the foundations for new relations between the Jordanian government and the Hamas Movement. It is to be recalled that relations between the two parties were severed in 1999, and remained cool for approximately a decade. During that time, attempts were made to activate ties, but they failed. That state continued until the latest Hamas’s members visit to Amman and meetings with the Jordanian General Intelligence Department [GID] officials. So it can be said that the visit by a Hamas delegation to Amman will, God willing, usher in a new stage in relations free from the tension that marred (relations with Jordan) over the past few years.

Q) What developments led to this get-together? Which party initiated first contact?

A) In fact, the initiative came from the Jordanian GID, and was met with prompt response from Hamas; to be more exact, it can be said that both parties had a common desire to meet with one another.

Q) Have you reached an agreement or some sort of understanding with Jordan?

A) I can say that during the meeting some understandings were reached. We discussed some pending security files in an amicable atmosphere, and we are currently trying to solve them. We also discussed political issues relating to the core political position of Jordan and Hamas in particular. This is because there are common issues, and the Palestinian issue is for Jordan a domestic issue. We discussed these political files frankly, openly, and transparently.

Q) In your view, will Khalid Mishal, the Hamas Movement’s Political Bureau chief, visit Jordan in the near future?

A) In fact, nothing can be ruled out. While the talk of Mishal’s visit to Amman was reported by the media, in fact, this issue was not discussed during the meetings with the GID officials.

Q) Do you expect Hamas to open an office in Amman soon?

A) No, this issue was not discussed. We certainly wish the Hamas Movement to have some presence in Jordan, but the form and mechanism of such presence were not discussed with the Jordanians.

Q) Did Jordan set specific conditions? It was reported that Jordan asked Hamas not to intervene in the affairs of the Islamic groups in Jordan and not to carry out any security activities, such as recruiting people, and so on and so forth?

A) Neither party set any conditions. But, as I have said, we discussed numerous political and security issues and ways of strengthening bilateral relations, not on the basis of conditions, but on the basis of what each party clearly wants from the other.

Q) In your opinion, does the Jordanian move toward Hamas have anything to do with developments in the region?

A) We in the Hamas Movement are not concerned with the motives behind this shift in Jordan’s stand or move toward relations with Hamas. We viewed this move as a positive development and that we must respond positively and support it. Frankly speaking, we are not concerned with discussing the background or motives of the Jordanian move; the talk of motives and background concerns political analysts. In political activity, it is said that one must not look for intentions but results. We want practical and positive results of relations between Hamas and Jordan.

Q) Does this rapprochement have anything to do with Hamas’s apprehensions and its leaders’ search for a safe haven in case indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel may lead to a peace agreement between the two countries?

A) This is absolutely not true because we are not looking for havens for the Hamas Movement. We are looking for accord with all Arab and Islamic parties, particularly the neighboring countries, notably Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. These countries are neighboring Israel and relations with them must be of a strategic nature. So we are looking for accords and points of agreements with these countries, not for a haven. We do not feel any concern over the presence of the Hamas Movement in Syria because, based on our reading of the current political situation, we believe that a Syrian-Israeli agreement is still not close at hand.

Q) In your view, will relations between Jordan and Hamas have a negative impact on other countries, like, Egypt for example?

A) Rapprochement in relations with Egypt and Jordan must not be at the expense of other Arab countries, especially Egypt. We do not establish relations with one party at the expense of other parties, but we seek balance in relations among all Arab and Islamic parties. We are opposed to the policy of axes in the first place, and we are against the policy of taking sides with one party against another. We always seek balance in Arab relations whether with Hamas or with the Fatah Movement and the Palestinian presidency. So our rapprochement with Jordan must not be at the expense of relations with Egypt.

Q) In your meetings with the Jordanians, did you discuss Hamas’s relations with the Palestinian Authority and Fatah? In other words, is Jordan intending on bringing the two parties closer together?

A) In fact, all political files were discussed, including Hamas’s relations with the Palestinian presidency and the Fatah Movement. We explained our viewpoint that the intransigent party is the other party, and that there is a US veto which President Mahmud Abbas appears to be unable to bypass. Therefore, all attempts at rapprochement, dialogue, and reconciliation between the two parties come up against a US Brick wall. This is what we told the brothers in Jordan.

Q) Did Jordan react positively to this?

A) The Jordanian party realizes the difficulty of intra-Palestinian dialogue under the US veto. This is why we did not place any role for Jordan regarding this issue on the agenda of our meetings, though we welcome any Jordanian or Arab role in bringing about rapprochement between Hamas and the Fatah Movement. We know that the regional and Arab parties realize that these attempts would come up against a US brick wall. So in my view, these parties will not try to get involved in any intra-Palestinian reconciliation process unless there is a green light, specifically from the US Administration.

Q) Is this the same US brick wall you came up against and which led to your deportation from Jordan along with Khalid Mishal and Musa Abu-Marzuq in 1999? Wasn’t there US pressure at the time to deport you from Amman?

A) Certainly there was US pressure, but I think there was also Israeli and Palestinian Arafatist (the late President Yasser Arafat) pressure, as well as Jordanian considerations. All these factors combined played a part in harming our relations with Jordan and led to what happened in 1999. But we have to understand that the world has changed and that the situation cannot remain the same. There is nothing impossible in politics, and states, political parties, groups, and movements all look for their interests. So Jordan found that its interest does not lie in continued rupture of relations with Hamas, but in openness to Hamas and to other groups. This stand serves Jordan’s political interest. Openness to Hamas is a positive Jordanian step forward which we must appreciate, develop, encourage, and push forward. We must not question or have any suspicion about Jordan’s move, as this would only bring us back to square one. We are required to look forward and to read the Jordanian political step as a positive adjustment to the changes and circumstances that the region is going through.

Q) When did contact with Jordan begin and when did you agree to meet?

A) The first meeting took place on 21 July and the second meeting took place on Wednesday, 13 August.

Q) Did the shift that led to this rapprochement begin with Jordan or Hamas?

A) In my opinion, the question is not a shift in the Jordanian or in Hamas’s stand; it is an accurate and enlightened reading of the changes our region is going through. These changes impel all parties to look for equations that strengthen their position and achieve their interests. So I do not think this development should be reduced into a question of which party shifted its stance or which party initiated this step. This issue must be considered in a comprehensive way and from all angles. Regional developments require that all parties deal with them flexibly and wisely.

Q) Since rapprochement between Jordan and Hamas and their finding of a common ground between them has been possible, isn’t it more appropriate for Hamas to find a common ground with the Fatah Movement and the Palestinian presidency?

A) This rapprochement with Jordan will inevitably impel the other party to read the issue differently. In my view, when a party makes a mistake in exercising policy, this mistake could be the result of this party’s erroneous assessment of the realities on the ground. It could also be the result of lack of political will. I think that the Palestinian presidency and the Fatah Movement were erroneous in reading the situation when Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip. They believed that Hamas ’s control of Gaza would be a predicament for Hamas and that Hamas would sooner or later fall down along with the authority it established in the Gaza Strip. This reading of the situation proved wrong, for Hamas has remained steadfast one and a half years since its control of Gaza. If the [Palestinian] presidency and the Fatah Movement now read the situation differently, what remains has to do with political will. The Palestinian presidency and the Fatah Movement do not have the political will to hold a real and serious dialogue with the Hamas Movement, or to hold a comprehensive Palestinian national dialogue. I am speaking frankly of the official Palestinian will, which is contingent upon US-Israeli will. There is no US-Israeli will for a serious dialogue between Hamas and Fatah that would result in rapprochement or agreement between them. So if we ask why rapprochement has been brought about between Hamas and Jordan and not between the friends who stand in the same trench — the comrades in the Fatah and Hamas movement — I think this has to do with political will.

Q) I gather from your argument that steps made to bring about an agreement between Hamas and Fatah would be futile in the absence of a political will?

A) I think the intra-Palestinian dialogue will be postponed until after the US presidential elections. The parties that want to unleash intra-Palestinian dialogue are waiting for the results of the US elections, because under the current US Administration there is a veto which the parties cannot bypass. So what is at issue is not an intra-Palestinian dialogue, but awaiting the results of the US elections, and whether (Democratic candidate) Barack Obama will be able to defeat (Republican candidate) John McCain. It would then be possible to bank on a Democratic administration to unleash a national Palestinian dialogue. This is the reading or the situation that the other party is waiting for.

Q) So you think that the talk of sending Egyptian invitations to the Palestinian groups to hold bilateral talks in preparation for a comprehensive dialogue is in this context?

A) First of all, Cairo has not addressed an invitation for an intra-Palestinian dialogue. It sent a paper containing a host of questions to learn the views of the Palestinian groups of the mechanism through which the Palestinian split can be addressed. Egypt is currently awaiting the response of these groups and on the basis of which it will decide whether or not to continue its efforts to unleash a national Palestinian dialogue. So it can be said that what is happening in this respect is no more than marking time, because Egypt will not take any step before the results of the US elections appear. So the Palestinians are being made busy discussing the issue of dialogue, but no real, serious steps have been taken to begin a dialogue. I do not think that the climate is now favorable for unleashing an intra-Palestinian dialogue.

Q) Have you conveyed his viewpoint to the Egyptian authorities?

A) Yes. We sent a message to the Egyptian authorities in reply to theirs expressing our viewpoint on Palestinian dialogue and the basis on which it may start.

Q) Let us go back to the issue of Jordan; while in Amman did you meet with other political figures?

A) No. Our meetings were confined to the GID director and a number of senior GID officers.

Q) Why?

A) Because we did not have enough time, and because we went to Amman to discuss a specific issue.

Q) Egypt has accused Hamas of stalling in reaching a deal regarding the Israeli captive soldier Gilad Shalit before getting Israeli guarantees that it will not attack Hamas leaders in Gaza, is this true?

A) This is absolutely not true. These are false and unfair accusations. We are eager to release Shalit because his release would mean the release of hundreds of Palestinian POWs. I do not think Hamas has an interest in keeping Shalit. However, Hamas does not want to release him for a cheap price as the Israelis want. We are clear in our stated position that we will not respond positively to any pressure to release Shalit in a deal that is not honorable. We are looking for an honorable deal that will achieve the objective for which we took him prisoner. So we reject any accusations that we hamper a deal. It is regrettable to hear statements condemning the Hamas Movement and acquitting Israel, which is the intransigent party that hampers a deal by setting impossible conditions that no honest Palestinian movement could accept.

Q) Do you think we will see an end to the Shalit and the POW issue soon?

A) I think solving this issue needs time because I believe that the Israeli leaders are not yet ready to pay the price for releasing Shalit. So unless some dramatic change occurs in the Israeli stand, his release will not come about in the near future.

Q) Are the reports that Hamas is looking for a new mediator instead of Egypt true?

A) We are not looking for a substitute to Egypt. Egypt remains the mediator, but other parties have contacted Hamas and asked to intercede. We said that the issue needs the agreement of all the parties concerned. We also said that we will not stand in the way of any party the wants to exert efforts to help release the POWs. The field is open to all to make moves, but we will not look for a new mediator other than Egypt.

Q) Are the parties that asked to intercede in this issue Arab or European?

A) Arab and foreign parties have offered to intervene and they expressed readiness to exert efforts in this respect.

Q) Was Qatar one of these parties?

A) I do not wish to elaborate further regarding these parties.

Al Jazeera

Viktor Yushchenko, the Ukrainian president, has called for his country’s bid to join Nato to be speeded up, following the conflict between Russia and Georgia. The call was made on Sunday in a speech marking the 17th anniversary of Ukraine’s independence from the former Soviet Union.

“We must intensify our work to win membership in the European security system and strengthen the defence capabilities of our country,” said Yushchenko.

“Anyone who cares about Ukraine must openly declare that entry into the Euro-Atlantic security system is the only way to protect the lives and ensure the well-being of our families, children and grandchildren.”

Nato leaders decided at a summit in April against rapidly granting membership to Ukraine and Georgia, but the alliance said it would consider the prospect of taking in the ex-Soviet republic in the future.

Georgian offensive

Moscow has opposed the Western military alliance’s expansion eastward, arguing that it is aimed at containing Russia.

Ukraine, which has a large ethnic Russian minority, has sided with Georgia in its confrontation with Russia over the breakaway region of South Ossetia.

Kiev watched with concern as Russia sent tanks and troops deep into Georgian territory in response to a Georgian offensive on August 7 to retake South Ossetia, whose separatist leadership is backed by Moscow.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, this month underscored the fact Nato’s offer to Ukraine and Georgia to eventually join the alliance was still valid, despite the conflict in the Caucasus.

Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/24/chinas_totalitarian_games/

China, the world’s largest dictatorship, ruthlessly represses freedom at home while abetting the vilest tyrannies abroad. Letting such a regime host the Olympic Games, many people warned, would prove a mockery of the Olympic charter, which is dedicated to the goal of “promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.” But Beijing and its supporters insisted that the Olympics would make China better. The Games would “foster democracy, improve human rights, and integrate China with the rest of the world,” promised Liu Jingmin, Beijing’s vice mayor and a senior member of its Olympic organizing committee. “By allowing Beijing to host the Games, you will help in the development of human rights.”

The International Olympic Committee repeatedly seconded that motion. “We are convinced,” IOC president Jacques Rogge assured one interviewer, “that the Olympic Games will improve human rights in China.” He told another: “We believe that the Olympic Games will have definitely a positive, lasting effect on Chinese society.”

Well, the Games have certainly had a lasting effect on one segment of Chinese society — the 1.5 million men, women, and children expelled from their homes in Beijing to make room for the construction of Olympic facilities and urban beautification projects. To clear them out, the Geneva-based Center on Housing Rights and Evictions found, Chinese authorities resorted to “harassment, repression, imprisonment, and even violence.” Demolitions and evictions frequently occurred without due process — sometimes with no advance notice. Many dispossessed residents were not compensated; those who were usually received a fraction of the amount needed to make them whole.

In America, you can fight an eminent-domain taking all the way to the Supreme Court, and protest publicly if you don’t like the outcome. In China, you suck it up and keep your mouth shut. Otherwise you end up like Wu Dianyuan and Wang Xiuying, two former neighbors who were unhappy with the compensation they received when their homes were demolished. Rather than suffer in silence, they sought permission to demonstrate during the Olympics in one of Beijing’s three official “protest zones.” Permission was denied. Instead they were charged with disturbing the public order and sentenced to a year of “re-education through labor.” Wang, who is nearly blind and walks with a cane, is 77. Her friend is 79.

The two elderly women weren’t the only Chinese citizens locked up for seeking permission to protest peacefully. “Gao Chuancai, a farmer from northeast China who was hoping to publicize government corruption, was forcibly escorted back to his hometown . . . and remains in custody,” The New York Times reported. “Two rights advocates from southern China have not been heard from since they were seized last week at the Public Security Bureau’s protest application office in Beijing.” Relatives of Zhang Wei, another Beijinger upset about the demolition of her home, were told she would be locked up for a month.

All told, at least 77 people filed applications to demonstrate during the Games. Not one was approved.

A million and a half residents expelled. Free speech strangled. Elderly women jailed. That’s what it means when a police state like China hosts the Olympics. That’s what you get when the IOC and its corporate supersponsors care more about television ratings and market share than about the values of the Olympic movement. That’s what happens when the free world cons itself into believing that China’s Communist rulers, who have no scruples about sustaining genocide in Sudan and torturing nuns in Tibet, will refrain from doing whatever it takes to turn the Olympics into a vehicle for totalitarian self-glorification.

The cruelty and deceit were on display right from the start, from the digitally faked fireworks to the last-minute yanking of a 7-year-old singer because a Politburo member decided she wasn’t pretty enough. To produce the synchronized pageantry of the opening extravaganza, thousands of performers were forced to endure horrendous rehearsal conditions. The ceremony’s 2,200 martial artists, for example, drilled 16 hours a day, seven days a week, for months, and were forbidden to leave the army barracks where they were quartered. Prolonged exposure to the relentless summer sun “resulted in heatstroke for some students,” AP reported; one grueling, rain-drenched rehearsal lasted 51 hours, “with little food and rest and no shelter from the night’s downpour.”

When thugs host the Olympics, thuggish behavior can be expected. According to Reporters Without Borders, 22 foreign journalists were attacked or arrested during the Games. At least 50 human-rights activists were arrested, harassed, or forced to leave Beijing. Scores of websites related to human rights, Tibet, and Darfut were blocked or digitally attacked. Far from easing up, Beijing turned the Olympics into an opportunity to intensify its crackdown on dissent.

As in 1936 and 1980, the 2008 Games were a showcase for a dictatorship. In such a travesty, Americans should have played no part.

Leave comments, post links to YouTube videos, chat, shoot the shit, whatever, do it her, do it now, pay less…

Don’t miss tonight’s “Jihadi Killer Hour”. It’s actually two hours, or if you’re in a bar, it’s a double. The phone number to call in about anything under the sun is (646) 652-2357. Call. Click on the button and listen and also join in the chat session.

It’ll be just sick, twisted, nasty…all the things you have to be in order to take the proper journey down river into the heart of darkness that is the war on terror, and the war on the Marxist, Socialist Left. It’s just real ugly shit, man, but we’re there to do it, and we’re here tonight to give you the full report on the sit rep of the front lines.

The only requirement is to know that you would absolutely, unequivocally kill any fuckin’ Jihadi you had the opportunity to. Even if you had to, like, watch his brains fly out of his skull and get on your face maybe. If you’re down, down with the sickness, then you’ve finally found home.

Click on this button to listen and call or use as a soundtrack to fall asleep to or torture someone nearby you hate. Join the chat!

And how can you talk about war without talking about it’s drunken, often times rapist, used car salesman father, politics? We cover that.

And the darkest force behind all the demons that rage in the night, and skulk in the shadows during the day…women. I’m not talking bad about them by saying that, mind you, cos it’s for that very reason I remain obsessed, and as caring and protective of them as any man could be. Yeah, I’m a sick fuck, but if you’re gonna beat the devil, you better know him better than he knows himself. This ain’t no playtime, Chuck. This is slay time.

So anyway fair ladies and gents, showtime has been expanded two hours since a couple of weeks ago, and as always, we begin tonight at 11 PM Eastern, which is to say 8 PM Pacfic Time, and of course, in my favorite part of America, the damn straight this is Middle America, Middle America, 10 PM. Middle being center being Central Time.

Again, the phone number to call in about anything under the sun is (646) 652-2357.

It’s toll free. No it’s not. If you’ve got a burning desire to talk but can’t afford it, just call in and then send me, I mean Bash, the bill. Of course, Bash will just tell you dial 10-10-987-1-646-652-2357 and it’ll only cost you a penny a minute or some ridiculous thing like that. Along with a credit card number, expiration date, 3 digit security code on the back and your social security number, just to verify your identity, of course.

Biden: Rumsfeld should step down

Democratic senator restates call, this time over Haditha killings Read more… »