Silverwolf believes, due to the continued Human Rights violations going on in Red China including the occupation of Tibet, that the United States Government, and the People of America, should repudiate all U.S. Treasury Debt owned by either the Red Chinese Government, or by individuals residing in Red China or Hong Kong. This would send a clear and stinging message throughout the Totalitarian World, that there is a price to be paid for continuing to ignore the essentials of Judeo-Christian morality.

But additionally, it would relieve the American Public of their guilt in facilitating the occupation of Tibet, as well as the trafficking in body parts, and the other well-known Human Rights violations that go on in Totalitarian China. The interest that American taxpayers have excised from their estates to pay Red-Chinese bondholders, not only sickens those estates, but goes towards the continued oppression of the Tibetan People, and their Right to practice their traditional form of Tibetan Buddhism. Therefore, just in the name of plain-old American decency, we have an obligation to not pay interest on those bonds.

And, additionally, since those bonds were purchased in part by the cozenage perpetrated on the Tibetan People by the Chinese Reds, the money used to buy them was the result of theft, and we, as Americans, have a duty to reconfiscate that money, and eventually redirect the part stolen from the Tibetans back to those unfortunate people.

Therefore, Silverwolf and the Wolfmen’s Free-Market Advisory Consistory due hereby urge Secretary Geithner and Chairman Bernanke to repudiate the Chinese-held debt, and wipe it off the books of the Treasury,  thereby solving 10% of our debt problem at one blow.

Repudiate the Chinese Debt, And Stop Oppression in Tibet!

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

Pew poll finds a larger portion of Americans believe the U.S. “should “mind its own business internationally” than ever before.

A recent poll by the Pew Research Center found Americans are growing more non-interventionist in international affairs, increasingly believe the policies of the U.S. should not be swayed by those of other countries and see the role of the U.S diminishing on the global stage with China as the primary economic power.

The Center stated in its report: “In the midst of two wars abroad and a sour economy at home, there has been a sharp rise in isolationist sentiment among the public. For the first time in more than 40 years of polling, a plurality (49%) says the United States should ‘mind its own business internationally’ and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.”

Though 63% expressed the view the U.S. is the “world’s leading military power” and 57% “that U.S. policies should try to maintain America’s role as the world’s only military superpower”, the percentage of people who agree that the U.S. “mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own” rose to its highest mark at 49%. Four years ago, 42% agreed, compared to only 30% in December 2002.

The survey also found 41% say “the United States plays a less important and powerful role as a world leader today than it did 10 years ago—the highest percentage ever in a Pew Research survey”, now seeing China as the global economic power.

“In a reversal of opinion from the beginning of last year,” the report states. “44% of the public now says China is the world’s leading economic power, while just 27% name the United States. In February 2008, 41% said the U.S. was the top economic power while 30% said China. Somewhat fewer people now say China is the top economic power than named Japan as the leading economic power in the late 1980s (58% in 1989).”

The same questions were posed to members of the Council on Foreign Relations (C.F.R.), who disagreed with the American people on many fronts. For instance, 63% of polled Americans “approve of the use of U.S. military force against Iran if it were certain that Iran had produced a nuclear weapon”, as opposed to 33% of the C.F.R.; and 43% “are somewhat more accepting of another country or the Eurpean Union becoming as militarily powerful as the U.S.”, as opposed to just 29% of polled Americans.

These numbers refute the reckless use of “isolationism” throughout the report to describe the feelings of those polled. There’s actually no indication of “isolationism” anywhere in the report. No views Americans should be less inclined to engage in international trade agreements and—though, the amount of those who believe “should fully cooperate with the United Nations” has fallen to 51%—70% favor “a shared leadership role for the United States” on the global stage.

This isn’t a trend toward isolationism, but of unilateral policy making that doesn’t issue the respect of others’ sovereignty to a level which they expect in return as 52% say the use of the pre-emptive use of military force by the U.S. can often (16%) or sometimes (36%) be justified. Only 41% said it is rarely (24%) or never (17%) justified, compared to just 31% of C.F.R. members saying such actions can often (4%) or sometimes (27%) be justified and about a vast majority (66%) saying they can rarely (55%) or never (11%) be justified.

Also, only 32% believe so-called ‘free trade’ is a bad thing for the U.S. It’s the ‘really existing free trade’ policies by government people say leads to job losses (53%), lowers U.S. wages (49%).

That said, there is increasing stupidity from those polled to display a very successful propaganda campaign by the State:

• Iran (21%) is viewed as the “greatest danger” to the U.S. with Iraq and Afghanistan’s U.S.-puppeteered governments tied in second at 14%. Only 5% said “the U.S. itself” with China (11%), the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (10%), Pakistan (3%), Russia (2%), and terrorist groups (2%) rounding up the list;
• A majority (58%) believe the world is “now more dangerous for the United States since the end of the Cold War”, as opposed to 30% of C.F.R. members;
• Only 23% believe the U.S. should cut back on military sending with a vast majority (72%) supporting it increase (26%) or stay the same (46%);
• An overwhelming majority (51%) “sympathize with” Israel over the Palestinians (12%);
• A majority (56%) still believe the “initial decision to use force” in Afghanistan was “right” and 51% either agree with increasing U.S. troop presence (32%) or keepng them at the current levels (19%), with only 40% support a decrease;
• With more U.S. troops still in Iraq than Afghanistan, 15% are still believe President Obama is withdrawing troops from Iraq “too quickly”;
• Only 36% agree that “government anti-terror policies have gone too far in restricting civil liberties”

Read the full report here.

The Power of Secondary Rules of International Law to Connect the International and the National Legal Orders
working paper

Letter to Ban and Bar Nuclear Weapons from Naval Base Kitsap/Bangor
under International Law.

Disarm Now Plowshares

November 2, 2009
Hand Delivery

Captain Mark Olsen
Commander US Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor
120 South Dewey St
Bremerton, WA 98314

YOU have been involved in the housing, deployment and threatened use of immoral and illegal nuclear weapons on Naval Base Kitsap/Bangor. These weapons and their delivery systems include Trident submarines, Trident II D-5 missiles, and W-88 and W-76 nuclear warheads. These weapons, and their delivery systems, threaten the destruction of other nations and people and as such constitute violation of International Law and of Ruling of the International Tribunal of Justice of 1996.

You are hereby notified that effective upon receipt of this letter that the disarmament of all nuclear weapons at Naval Base Kitsap/Bangor is to begin immediately and continue until all nuclear weapons are disarmed and removed.

You are further informed that delay or failure to begin disarmament will lead to the prosecution before the International Tribunal of Justice of all naval and civilian personnel responsible for the delay.

This barment letter is issued for the protection and security of people, animals, and all creation of our world.

Any compelling reason for naval or civilian exemption from prosecution by the International Tribunal can be entered with the secretariat of the International Tribunal.

(Address; International Tribunal, International Court of Justice, The Hague, Netherlands)

Steve Kelly, S.J.,
Lynne Greenwald,
Anne Montgomery, RSCJ,
Susan Crane,
Bill Bichsel, S.J.

Roger Hollander, December 5, 2009

I remember from my studies in political science many years ago coming across a study with respect to the opinion of Americans about the provision of the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments to the Constitution).  Although when asked if they support the Bill of Rights most answered in the positive, when asked about the views on the contents of the rights contained in the individual Amendments (without identifying them as rights contained in the Bill of Rights), most were not in favor.  And this was before the hijacking of the political discourse in the United Sates by the religious radical right.

Some shocking statistics have emerged recently in a study conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.  Two thousand adults 18 years of age or older living in the continental United States were asked between October 28 and November 8, 2009 their opinions about torture.  A majority, 54% opined that torture was often (19%) or sometimes (35%) justified.

I doubt if these figures would have been nearly as high prior to 9/11.  There is no doubt in my mind that they are to a large degree a product of the fear-mongering and misinformation that we have been subjected to from the extreme right, the majority of Republican and Democrat politicians, and the lapdog corporate mainstream media.

I would like to see the results of this survey if the respondents were fully informed of the overwhelming opinion of experts in the field that torture is counter-productive in eliciting reliable actionable information and reminded that the victims of torture are “suspects,” not convicted terrorists and that a policy of torture makes American prisoners of war more vulnerable to torture.

I would like to see the results of this survey if the respondents were shown these photos:

I would particularly like to see the results of this survey if the respondents were able to be present in the torture sessions depicted in these photos (of course I would not advocate such an experiment).

More than anything, I would like to see a revolution in thought and action in the United States that reflects a turn from racism, violence, intolerance and greed, away from religious bigotry and twoards truly human values.

A report released today by the International Human Rights Law Clinic and the Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and the Center for Law & Global Justice at the University of San Francisco School of Law finds that climate change policies may unintentionally increase global inequality and human suffering and would be strengthened by incorporating a “do no harm” principle guided by human rights.

The report, “Protecting People and the Planet: A Proposal to Address the Human Rights Impacts of Climate Change Policy,” reviews current approaches to addressing the social impacts of climate change and argues that a human rights framework is an essential tool in designing and implementing climate change policies.

There is growing awareness that policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions may have the unintended effect of creating or exacerbating human rights concerns and neglect the benefits of applied human rights. However, currently there is no coordinated effort to address the human rights impacts of climate change policies and to use human rights standards to improve the resiliency of populations.

The report recommends that states establish a program for action within the international climate change regime to work with all relevant stakeholders to clarify existing human rights standards and their application, facilitate information sharing, and provide technical assistance so that all states develop and implement sustainable climate change policies.

The trial of American student Amanda Knox has finally come to an end in Perugia, Italy and her fate, as well as that of her Italian boyfriend, Rafaelle Sollecito, rests in the hands of the Italian jurors. Knox and Sollecito were arrested and charged 2 years ago with the murder of Knox’s roommate, British Meredith Kercher. Both women were studying abroad in the small town in central Italy when the murder took place. During the past two years, the case has grabbed the attention of the Italian press, which has called her “Foxy Knoxy” and portrayed her as a “devil with an angel’s face” and a man-eater who brutally killed her roommate in a satanic sex game. Knowing the salacious nature of the Italian press and having seen some of the reporting on Knox, I can only wonder how the jurors, who saw and were familiar with Knox’s portrayal in the media, have remained impartial.

The case also brings to light the glacier-speed of the Italian judicial system. The murders took place two years ago, and Knox and Sollecito have spent the past two years in jail. The trial has taken place over the past year. Italy has routinely been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights for the average length of its trials, in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees a right to a speedy trial. The length of civil cases in Italy can reach even 15 years. In fact, the Italian court system ranks a lowly 156 out of 181 countries.

The Italian system also has a different burden of proof than the American “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The defendant can be convicted even if some doubts remain; however these doubts then become grounds for appeal, causing the case to take even more time. This is a link to a good article on the Knox case.

The video is of Knox giving her final appeal to the Italian judges before the jury renders the verdict.

I also found this site (in Italian) that says that mugs and t-shirts have even been made with Knox on them and with the writing “Free Amanda.” The posting also says that profits from the sale of the gadgets is going to Knox’s parents to help with the cost of their trips to Perugia to support their daughter through this ordeal.

As I noted a while ago, there seems to be an increasing interest in U.S. jurisprudence in the notion of a “death row phenomenon.”   That interest was reflected yet again in a denial of certiorari in the case of Cecil Johnson, who spent 29 years waiting to die (11 on death row) before being executed early today.  In a statement [PDF] accompanying that denial, Justices Stevens and Breyer both expressed great concern about the length of Johnson’s stay on death row:

[There are] two underlying evils of intolerable delay. First, the delay itself subjects death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehumanizing conditions of confinement.  Second, “delaying an execution does not further public purposes of retribution and deterrence but only diminishes whatever possible benefit society might receive from petitioner’s death.”  Thus, I find constitutionally significant both the conditions of confinement and the nature of the penalty itself.

[snip]

One does not need to accept the proposition “that the imposition of the death penalty represents ‘the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes,’” in order to agree that the imposition of the death penalty on these extreme facts is without constitutional justification.

(citations omitted)

Justice Thomas responded with a concurrence in the denial [PDF] that directly rejects any notion of death row phenomenon and mocks the philosophy’s implicit reliance on international law:

It has been 14 years since JUSTICE STEVENS proposed this “novel” Eighth Amendment argument.  I was unaware of any constitutional support for the argument then.  And I am unaware of any support for it now.  There is simply no authority “in the American constitutional tradition or in this Court’s precedent for the proposition that a defendant can avail himself of the panoply of appellate and collateral procedures and then complain when his execution is delayed.”

[snip]

[Justice Stevens's view] deviates from the Constitution and . . . proponents of his view are forced to find their support in precedent from the “European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, the Supreme Court of India, or the Privy Council.”

[snip]

At bottom, JUSTICE STEVENS’ arguments boil down to policy disagreements with the Constitution and the Tennessee legislature.  There are, of course, alternatives. As Blackstone observed, the principle that “punishment should follow the crime as early as possible” found expression in a statute decreeing that “in case of murder, the judge shall in his sentence direct execution to be performed on the next day but one after sentence passed.”  I have no doubt that such a system would avoid the diminishing justification problem JUSTICE STEVENS identifies, but I am equally confident that such a system would find little support from this Court.

(citations omitted)

This is a great articulation of both sides of the argument.  Frankly, I don’t know which way to come out on this one, but it should be interesting to see what role international law plays in a debate over the proper interpretation of the Eighth Amendment.

-Michael

Everyone loves a good piece of fried chicken, but is it possible that Colonel Sanders (of KFC fame) is an international criminal?  No, I’m not referring to the fact that KFC and its kin have probably caused more deaths than history’s most terrible genocides.  Rather, Colonel Sanders might be guilty of violating international law as a result of some recent shenanigans at the United Nations.

As noted over at Opinio Juris, Colonel Sanders recently breached security at the United Nations and gained access to a number of restricted areas.  Sanders (ok, technically an actor playing Sanders) was even able to pose for a picture with new UN General Assembly president Ali Treki.  There’s no suggestion that the Colonel was engaged in any malicious activity like espionage (although he is very good at keeping secrets).  Even so, one might argue that he violated international law when he started sneaking around the UN complex.

The United Nations complex and the area surrounding it is called the “headquarters district.”  Under Article III, Section 7(a) of the Headquarters Agreement governing the district, that area is “under the control and authority of the United Nations as provided in the agreement.”   Admittedly, the same agreement also provides (in Article III, Section 7(c)):

Except as otherwise provided in this agreement or in the General Convention, the federal, state, and local courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over acts done and transactions taking place in the headquarters district as provided in applicable federal, state, and local laws.

This provision suggests that Sanders might only have to worry about anything more than a common trespass conviction.  But note that the provision does not vest exclusive jurisdiction in U.S. courts.  Thus, the United Nations may argue that, given the international character of the headquarters district, Colonel Sanders might also be subject to international liability for sneaking into the “inviolable” district.  See Art. III, Sec. 9. 

Still, there are other obstacles that would have to be overcome before we could see the Colonel in the dock at any international court.  First, what international crime did he commit?  Strangely, there would not seem to be any well-established notion of “international trespass” on internationally-held lands.  (I say strangely only because it would seem to be a crime of international concern if other extraterritorial outposts were trespassed upon, like CERN or NATO headquarters.)  It would also be extreme to resort to any prosecution of the basis of international “aggression.”  Lacking a crime, there can be no trial.  Second, where could the Colonel be tried?  The International Criminal Court certainly would not have jurisdiction.  An ad hoc tribunal would be out of the question.  Third, it is unclear whether the United Nations could independently impose any penalty for any violation of “international law” under Section 10 of the Headquarters Agreement:

Persons who violate such regulations [of the United Nations] shall be subject to other penalties or to detention under arrest only in accordance with the provision of such laws or regulations as may be adopted by the appropriate American authorities.

In sum, it looks like the Colonel will escape international prosecution.  Still, I think there’s some chance that KFC’s new “grilled chicken” is an international human rights violation in the making.

-Michael

Today’s Top Headlines

Setting Up Our Military to Fail

A Reason to be Skeptical

Climategate: Dissent on Ice

The Racial Divide, Again

- UPDATE – LATEST CLIMATEGATE HEADLINES:

PAPER: CLIMATE CHANGE ‘FRAUD’…
CLIMATEGATE: Scientist at center of e-mail controversy to step down…
Penn State Professor also under investigation…
Inhofe Asks Boxer to Probe Potential Scientific ‘Conspiracy’…
Obama science officials defend warming research…
Australia’s Parliament defeats global warming bill…
‘It’s all unravelling now’…
North Texas Wakes to Big Snowflakes…

(courtesy of the Drudge Report)

Lorie Graham has posted “Trade Trumps Basic Human Rights?: Why the United States Should Endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

The recent uprising in the Peruvian Amazon highlights why the time is right for the United States to endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. One might wonder how the endorsement of this Declaration by the United States could affect a crisis thousands of miles away in the Peruvian Amazon.

The latest crisis results from investment concessions made by Peru to various extractive industries without any consultation or consent from the Indigenous Peoples of the area. The Chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues recently issued two emergency statements expressing her “deep concern” on “the reports of atrocities committed… against indigenous peoples in the Amazon region.” The Chair noted in particular the Peruvian Government’s obligations under international human rights law to consult and respect indigenous peoples’ rights to their lands and resources. As reported by the New York Times on June 12th, Peruvian officials attributed their recent concessions without consultation as a necessary step to bringing “Peru’s rules for investment… into line with the [U.S.-Peru] trade agreement.”

Whether the 2007 United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA) requires such action is a questionable point. The agreement gained House and Senate approval after the Bush administration agreed to insert provisions relating to workers’ rights and the environment. At the time, scholars and indigenous groups voiced concerns over the lack of express protections on matters impacting Indigenous Peoples’ lands and culture (such as the potential for illegal trading of timber and wood products that Indigenous Peoples rely on for their livelihood and survival, or the failure to adequately protect the traditional knowledge of indigenous communities in areas such as medicines and seeds, to name a few). Of course there is nothing in the agreement that allows a State to ignore its basic human rights obligations, including those at issue in the current crisis, from rights of consultation and consent to the rights of life and security.

Two themes central to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are the rights of consultation and prior and informed consent. For instance, under Article 32, States have an obligation to “consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous Peoples concerned… in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources… ” These basic rights of consultation and consent are woven through many aspects of international human rights law and are particularly important for Indigenous Peoples given the history of unilateral land and resource deprivation. Of course the question remains how the U.S. endorsement of this Declaration would help to prevent or resolve this type of crisis. There is a host of reasons, some legal some ethical, as to why the U.S. should endorse a Declaration that was adopted by the General Assembly by a huge margin, some 144 affirmative votes. Only four countries – the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand – voted against the declaration, with 11 more abstaining. However, just this past March, Australia officially endorsed the Declaration as a step toward “re-setting” its relationship with the Indigenous Peoples of Australia.

The U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly in 2007 after years of negotiation. It followed on the heels of a host of U.N reports, most notably the Cobo report, documenting a long history of forced assimilation, discrimination, and oppression against Indigenous Peoples. According to one United Nations official, the rights recognized in the Declaration “constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world.” While the Declaration is a non-binding text, in U.N. practice it is considered a formal and solemn instrument, with which maximum compliance is expected. It contains many rights that are already part of international conventional and customary law, such as the right to culture and language, economic and social development, and collective protection of lands and resources.

If the U.S. were to join Australia in its recent endorsement of the Declaration, it would be an important step forward in strengthening its government to government relationship with its own Indigenous Peoples. On a broader note, an endorsement by the United States of the Declaration would send a clear message to the world that respecting and supporting the rights of Indigenous Peoples to live as distinct communities is the appropriate framework from which to view agreements such as the PTPA. As Professor Mick Dodson of Australia recently noted, governments should not be concerned with the contents of this human rights declaration: “Human rights do not dispossess people. Human rights do not marginalize people… Human rights do not cause poverty… It is the denial of rights that is the largest contributor to these things.”

Lorie Graham is a Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School in Boston MA, where she teaches courses on International Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples Rights and U.S. Law.

The Seventh Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation in what is known as the  Doha Development Round is currently taking place in Geneva. This is the first round of re-negotiations since the creation of the World Trade Organisation in 1995.  Ireland is member of the WTO both as a state and as a part of the EC (The EC and not the EU is a signatory, though with the passage of the Lisbon Treaty this may change) which is a signatory to the Marrakesh Agreement. (the institutional charter of the organisation) as well as a signatory to the various agreements such as GATT, GATS (Services) and TRIPS (Intellectual Property). This Round, which is supposed to focus on the needs of Developing and Least Developed States in order to improve their basic economic standards and to realign the system to make is more favourable to them, has dragged on since 2001 and has so far failed to come to any substantial agreement.

One of the main stumbling blocks has been agriculture. Countries in the Global South together with Australia and New Zealand (known as the Cairns Group but there are also many other alignments ) have been pushing for Europe and the US to reduce their subsidies and open up their markets to agricultural products of the Global South. Europe and the US have been countering that if they open up their agricultural markets, then the Global South will be required to open up their Services markets and legislate for better intellectual property protection and enforcement.

The discussion in Ireland is usually dominated by the IFA and other farming bodies seeking to retain the Common Agricultural Policy and the protection it affords to Irish farmers at the expense of the farmers of the Global South. Though as the Rural Ireland 2025: Foresight Perspectives clearly states, Ireland’s rural economy can survive and thrive without the protection currently afforded to it and without the harm caused to farmers in some of the poorest countries in the world. ( I have written extensively about this with Anna-Louise Hinds of NUI, Galway, see Ireland and the WTO: Dancing at the crossroads (2008) 19 Irish Studies in International Affairs 169,  The results of the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference- Part I: Little  More than an agreement to agree? (2006) 13 (3) Commercial Law Practitioner 67,The results of the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference- Part II: Ireland – Ignoring Reality? (2006) 13 (4) Commercial Law Practitioner 92 – 98).

The coverage in the Irish media of these crucial talks has been patchy, though the Examiner has reported that Japanese farmers are in agreement with Irish farmers on the future of agricultural policy. These reports tend to focus, even now with the current crises, on agriculture, while the potential repercussions for the wider Irish economy, possibly far more significant, are all but ignored. This has also been the case for the Irish Government, which at previous important meetings has sent the Minister for Agriculture instead of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the natural choice for a trade conference and the practice of most other states. Though at this conference junior minister Billy Kelleher TD has gone to Geneva.

There will probably be little decided at the Conference, but it if it truly is to be a Development Round, the richer members of the WTO will have to decide if they actually are willing to take the steps that will enable Developing Countries to emerge from poverty or if they will continue to place barriers in their way.

These past few days are the most enjoyable time of my stay here in Miag-ao. It all started last Friday night. My friends and I ate at OMP’S one of the “classic” restobar near in UP.  Then we stay for a while there doing “bang bang”, “this is one..two” and “kung siya ay ako at ako ay siya sino ung isang yan?” It was really funny and brain-twisting game. Meron pala ako nyan. joke! I thought I was the only one who did not get it. It turned out Pao and Jeemon also did not grasped it. I would say those people who knew the game enjoy tormenting us. Before Sunday, Am and I did our outline for Polsci 185. Our topic is about the abortion on the high seas. It’s really hard to think about the resolution. So hard to the point that we were not able to sleep until 8 am. And the interactive classroom wherein we supposedly to submit our outline is experiencing error.

It’s hot. I thought they just turned off the fan so I get out of bed to turn it on but my second hypothesis was true. It’s brown out. That’s so cool. I don’t have a choice but not to go to bed again. It’s just so hot. I just slept for 4 hours. To think that I did not got enough sleep the other night.

We ate and then we saw our other classmates at the CDH. They continued to play “bang bang.” We stayed for a while to chat. The original plan was to go to OWL for a swim but the sun is scorching hot. So we stayed at the dorm’s lobby to watch a movie “Tropic Thunder.” The movie was hilarious. The movie starred Ben Stiller and Robert Downey. There was a scene in the movie wherein the man was shot in the head and the blood keeps on squirting. I really laugh my heart out. Another scene was a man was stabbed and then all of his intestines go out of his tummy and still he can talked! Imagine that? Oh my! In the end, it was all in the setting of a movie. My gosh! I thought it’s for real that they’re in the middle of a war in Vietnam.

When it was already 4pm, we went to OWL. The water is clear. I went straight to the gate but suddenly the guard asked me where my id is. I was kind of irritated. I don’t usually bring my id when I swim you know. In the end, the guard can’t do anything. The water is clear and cold. We took pictures of the sunset. It was beautiful. Am even told Ate Ayn to paint it. If I just know how to paint I would paint it.  I even wanted to make a poem about this sunset. The sunset is an ideal background view for lovers who walk along the shores. Sadly, right now in our group there’s no lovers. When we’re about to go home, out of the blue we planned to go to vineyard to drink. Everyone agreed. Pao sent a message to Badeth but she didn’t reply. I bet she’s sleeping.

After we’re finish drinking, we went to Bentoy’s. We wanted to eat chicken skin. While on the way, some of us, I think that includes me according to them, were dancing. When we reach Bentoy’s I heard that Yeye was calling me a “loser”. I don’t know why. Maybe because the way I walk? For me, I can still walk. When we’re waiting for our order, I did lie down because people around me seems to go round as if I just finish doing the “ikot thing” in MTB. Although I heard them, I don’t really know what they’re talking about. Effect of the alcohol? Maybe.

Pagkatapos nun di ko na alam ang nangyari talaga. Sabi nila dumiretso daw ako sa canal malapit sa OMP’S. Gusto ko pa daw kumanta. May narinig ako na pumutok tapos wala na talaga. Or maybe I’m doing these things unconsciously. Meron bang ganun? I don’t know.

But this is our trip. After all the pressures from academics, we still find time to relax and bond with each other. I just love Polsci pipz. Also Ate Ayn and Ate Lala. Sometimes, it’s really nice to go with young people…Like us!Lol.



the intruder should be hanged!peace out!

posing to our heart's content...

feeling sexy...don't dare object..LOL

pao and me...

naka-ilang pitsel na tayo?LOL...kaya pa...

tsk tsk...jeem you look like a seven-year old..cute Lol..peace out!

Hasta La Proxima Vez!

If you haven’t been following this case—an interesting story of international justice and the challenges inherent to tribunals–you should.  Previous reportage of accusations against Duch and the Khmer regime are horrifying, fascinating, and will make your soul feel heavy with the “man’s inhumanity to man.“

After admitting his guilt and asking for forgiveness, Duch (pronounced DOIK) seemed on the final day of the trial on Friday to think that he had done enough, asking the court to set him free.

Duch’s plea seemed to contradict a carefully constructed strategy to seek leniency by admitting guilt, apologizing and cooperating with the court. He faces a possible term of life in prison for crimes against humanity and other crimes. Prosecutors are seeking a sentence of 40 years, taking into account his cooperation and the five years he already spent in a military jail. The judges are expected to announce a verdict early next year.

via News Analysis – Moving Beyond Khmer Rouge’s Ghosts – NYTimes.com.

The U.S. Special Operation Forces continues to detain prisoners in torture centers in Afghanistan and disallowing them access to the Red Cross. Rachel Maddow’s summary at msnbc – 30 Nov 09 (1:30):

A U.S. military detention center run by the Special Operations Forces at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, known as a “black jail” to detainees, “is still holding inmates, sometimes for weeks at a time, without access to the International Committee of the Red Cross”, according to human rights groups and former detainees, Alissa Rubin reported at The New York Times last weekend. The jail “consists of individual windowless concrete cells, each illuminated by a single light bulb glowing 24 hours a day. In interviews, former detainees said that their only human contact was at twice-daily interrogation sessions”.

President Barack Obama ordered the closure of all secret prisons, known as “black sites”, used for the interrogations of detainees by the Central Intelligence Agency, but not those used by the military.

“Military officials said as recently as this summer that the Afghanistan jail and another like it at the Balad Air Base in Iraq were being used to interrogate high-value detainees,” Ms. Rubin reports. “And officials said recently that there were no plans to close the jails.”

In August, the Obama Administration limited the military to hold prisoners in its jails for longer than two weeks. A man known as Hamidullah alleges he was held for five to six weeks before the order, Ms. Rubin reports, but two others detained this year relay similar accounts.

“All three detainees were later released without charges. None said they had been tortured,” she continues. “Though they said they heard sounds of abuse going on and certainly felt humiliated and roughly used. ‘They beat up other people in the black jail, but not me,’ Hamidullah said. ‘But the problem was that they didn’t let me sleep. There was shouting noise so you couldn’t sleep.’”

Two Afghan teenagers—Issa Mohammad, 17, and Abdul Rashid, who said he is younger than 16—said they were detained this year and “were beaten by American guards, photographed naked, deprived of sleep and held in solitary confinement in concrete cells for at least two weeks” at the ‘black jail’, Joshua Partlow and Julie Tate report at The Washington Post.

“That was the hardest time I have ever had in my life,” Mr. Rashid said of his interrogation. “It was better to just kill me. But they would not kill me.”

WaPo reports of an interview with the young woodcutter, last Wednesday:

At the beginning of his detention, he was forced to strip naked and undergo a medical checkup in front of about a half-dozen American soldiers. He said that his Muslim upbringing made such a display humiliating and that the soldiers made it worse.

They touched me all over my body. They took pictures, and they were laughing and laughing,” he said. “They were doing everything.”

He said he lived in a small concrete cell that was slightly longer than the length of his body. Food was tossed in a plastic bag through a slot in the metal door. Both teenagers said that when they tried to sleep, on the floor, their captors shouted at them and hammered on their cells.

When summoned for daily interrogations, Rashid said, he was made to wear a hood, handcuffs and ear coverings and was marched into the meeting room. He said he was punched by his interrogators while being prodded to admit ties to the Taliban; he denied such ties. During some sessions, he said, his interrogator forced him to look at pornographic movies and magazines while also showing him a photograph of his mother.

“I was just crying and crying. I was too young,” Rashid said. “I didn’t know what a prison looks like or what a prison is.”

Last month, Human Rights Watch released a 53-page report on “black jails” in China. Congratulations, President Obama, for giving China a run for their money in something.

Despite international law, basic morality and international wink-wink rhetoric to the contrary, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has approved the construction of 25 new housing units in an Israeli occupied West Bank settlement.

Israel Constructs 25 New Units in West Bank

1 Dec 09 | Press TV

Israeli Prime Minister Binjamin Netanyahu has okayed the construction of 25 new housing units in the West Bank settlement of Keidar despite international calls to the contrary.

During a phone conversation with Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Monday, Netanyahu instructed Barak to stop preventing the construction of the new units in the West Bank, claiming the units do not fall under the cabinet’s decision to halt settlement construction activities for 10 months.

Tel Aviv had earlier agreed to freeze all settlement activities, except in Jerusalem Al-Quds, for 10 months in a bid to re-launch stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Israeli officials hope that the official declaration of a settlement freeze in the occupied West Bank would enable the renewal of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, which has refused to engage in peace talks until Israel implements such a measure.

Tel Aviv is, moreover, currently under intense pressure from the international community to halt the construction of illegal settlements in the West Bank. Israeli settlements are widely considered the main obstacle in the way of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Under the 2002 Roadmap for Peace plan brokered by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia, Israel has to ‘dismantle settlement outposts erected since 2001 and freeze all settlement activities’.

There are currently 121 Israeli settlements and approximately 102 Israeli outposts built on Palestinian land occupied by Israel in 1967. All of these settlements and outposts are illegal under international law and have been condemned by numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions.

These settlements and outposts are inhabited by a population of approximately 462,000 Israeli settlers. Some 191,000 Israelis are living in settlements around Jerusalem Al-Quds and an additional 271,400 are spread throughout the West Bank.

All such Jewish settlements are deemed illegal under international law because they have been erected on occupied lands that the Palestinians claim for a future state.

Tuesday, gold hit $1,199.30/oz. as Japan moves toward metals, away from being a tit of the U.S. The record high of gold’s value displays the record low of the U.S. dollar.

Spot gold hit a record high of $1,199.30 per ounce in the European markets, today, “as the dollar weakened and worries over Dubai’s debt woes eased”, Matthew Walls reports at The Wall Street Journal. “A weaker greenback tends to boost gold, as it and other commodities are priced in dollars around the world,” Julianne Pepitone adds at CNN.

“Other precious metals rose, as well. Spot silver rose 1.25% to $18.68 an ounce, spot platinum was up 1% at $1,464.50 an ounce and spot palladium surged 4% to $377.50 an ounce,” he adds, showing the continuing tailspin of the value of the U.S. dollar (USD).

“The [USD] weakened against a basket of currencies in the wake of policy comments from the Bank of Japan, adding to strong investment demand for the metal”—Jan Harvey reports at Reuters—following a Monday where “U.S. gold futures for February delivery on the COMEX division of the New York Mercantile Exchange were up $14.10 at $1.196.40 an ounce, having earlier hit a record $1,200.50″.

“China’s manufacturing grew at the fastest pace in five years,” Claudia Carpenter and Millie Munshi report at Bloomberg, also contributing to the fall in the USD. They add that China, Russia and India have all recently increased their holdings in gold.

Dubai World says it’s talking over $26bn of its near $60bn debt, “easing worries it would default on all of its debt”, Mr. Walls reports.

“With investor sentiment having quickly recovered from the Dubai World scare, gold should continue to draw investors seeking a hedge against inflation and a weaker [USD], analysts said,” he adds.

Last month, gold hit a then-record high when India replaced billions of U.S. dollars with gold. India and China have formed an economic alliance (BRIC) with Brazil and Russia to begin dumping U.S. monopoly money from their reserves toward hard reserves like gold. The USD’s saving grace, Middle East oil, is wearing thin as Middle East members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries are conspiring with Japan and other countries to abandon the U.S. dollar. Iran has completely abandoned the dollar from the its reserves. Nine Latin American powers have approved a document to replace the dollar with a new intra-regional currency. Japan has neither the financial nor the political capital to further enable the losing proposition of the U.S. warfare-welfare State.

“Spot gold prices have jumped around 45% this year as of Friday’s close. In the past 5 years, gold has risen around 160%,” Brandon Clay writes at Seeking Alpha.

“So why is this important?” he adds. “The future of the global economy is in the East. Instead of multiple-trillion dollar debts, China, Russia, and India have currency reserves. These governments are slowly moving their reserves from fiat currencies like the dollar to more stable stores of value like gold. At the least, it’s a temporary sign that BRIC confidence is waning in the U.S. government’s ability to pay off debt. They are, in essence, shorting the U.S. economy and exploring other stores of value besides the dollar.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Fmr. Sen. Rick Santorum on “On the Record” at FOX News discussing the prolonged Afghan occupation, which will be announced by President Barack Obama tonight. Mr. Kucinich does a good job of smashing down the ‘those on the left-those on the right’ stupid-people rhetoric – 27 Nov 09 (6:28):

There is some hypocrisy to Mr. Kucinich, which shouldn’t be ignored. Odious debt and generational theft is always immoral and authority asserting itself to do so delegitimizes itself and the individuals within that authoritative body should be held liable for their damages.

Odious debt is a crime of the Afghan occupation, but pales in comparison to the crimes against humanity and the crimes of aggression committed by the Bush and Obama Administrations against the Afghan people and their natural resources.

An additional crime against people outside of Afghanistan is the ‘world leaders’ violating their oath to protect civilians of the territories they govern when the inevitable blowback occurs in the cycle of violence. Cheerleaders of the Afghan occupation point to 9/11, but their warmongering displays that 9/11 taught them nothing.

(h/t: Marc Parent)

Next week, the European Court of Human Rights will hear arguments about whether Ireland’s abortion laws violate women’s human rights. Current Irish law outlaws legal access to abortion, making an exception only to save a pregnant woman’s life. Because of this strict law, thousands of women have had to travel to the neighboring United Kingdom to obtain the abortions they need.

The case will be brought before the court by three women who say that their health was endangered by having to make the trip to the UK. The health issues that were implicated by their pregnancies included ectopic pregnancy, where the fetus develops outside of the uterus, and undergoing chemotherapy for cancer.

As the map above shows (click it to enlarge), legal access to abortion varies greatly in different regions of the world. While individual countries make their own laws about the procedure, it is essential to women’s equality. Banning the procedure doesn’t reduce the number of abortions; it increases the number of unsafe abortions which can lead to infection or death. We hope that the court will recognize that abortion is a fundamental right and that Ireland’s law will adjust accordingly.