Rejecting the Oncoming River

This is an article I've already written for my campus newspaper called The Vanguard. You can see the Vanguard here.

At 12:00 am on Tuesday Sept. 20, theDon’t Ask Don’t Tell policy of the United States military officially expiredfollowing a repeal after Congressional, Executive and military approval lastDecember.

Since the Obama administration waselected, there have been significant victories for the gay equality movement:government extension of benefits to gay couples, U.S. Census 2020 introductionof counting same-sex marriages, and probe into housing discrimination towardgay couples.

In addition, passport parental genderneutrality was introduced to the State Department and now gay soldiers canserve openly and proudly in the military. Finally, the Justice Department willno longer support the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage between aman and woman.

On the state level, over the past 4years Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York have all passed legislation orcourts have decided that marriage discrimination is immoral and should beillegal (although these victories are not attributable to the Obamaadministration).

These changes represent the momentumthat the movement is gaining especially as the majority of Americans (a slimone) support gay marriage.

The most recent state to passmarriage equality was New York which did so rather half-handedly. Today the lawthat was passed is being hailed as a possible framework for a national law onthe issue. This, one must solidly reject.

The main concession by pro-gay rightspoliticians was to allow an exemption for religious institutions andorganizations whereby they could discriminate against gays in job placement inorder to protect their religious beliefs.

This brings to light the religiousnature of the largest aggressors against gay equality. Since no respectablescientist would denounce homosexuality (the evidence is overwhelmingly in thefavor of gay rights advocates), religious protection is the only stance left totake.

It is also important to realize thatthe fight isn’t just related to marriage. We live in a country where it isstill legal to discriminate against someone in an interview based on theirsexual orientation, and the list goes on.

With this stance, deniers argue thatyou can’t force a church to accept a gay couple, or a religious organization tohire a gay person because their religious beliefs teach them that homosexualityis immoral.

It bears the question that alwaysfosters circumlocution by opponents of gay equality: Is religious hatred morejustified than secular hatred? To this, the answer is undeniably: No.

A fundamental aspect of ourconstitution, moral system, and judicial precedent holds that everyone isentitled to their own freedoms, so long as they don’t infringe on the freedomsof others; that is where the line is drawn. In this case, this is where it mustbe drawn.

If a religious book teaches someoneto hate or discriminate, it is immoral to apply it beyond the breadth of yourmind and unconstitutional to institutionalize it through personaldiscrimination.You are allowed your religiousconvictions so long as they don’t restrict the rights of others.

The EEOC should be suing an employeror even a priest if he won’t hire a gay person into his religious organizationbecause of the applicant’s sexual orientation. Religious homophobia should beas quickly denounced as secular anti-Semitism.

Marriages today only have a 50%chance of lasting, and yet we find millions of people across this countryfighting for just that; fighting equity in marriage, what straight people haveas an option and throw away ½ the time.

This fight for marriage and jobequality as well as suicide prevention and couple benefits is cemented in thefoundations of this country. In a world of innumerable one night stands and theJersey Shore, gays and allies are fighting for nothing less than love.

Love for themselves to preventsuicide, love to each other to be recognized by the government, and love for expressingtheir passion through a job. If that sounds corny, the so be it.

Gay equality is inevitable, andopponents are rejecting what is bound to come. The poetic lyrics of Bob Dylancome to mind: “Then you better start swimmin’, or you’ll sink like a stone, Forthe times they are a-changin.” This time around, the river is colored withstreaks of the rainbow.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Libya is Free

As I write this post, tens of thousands of people are celebrating in Benghazi as hundreds of rebel fighters win neighborhood after neighborhood in the capital of Libya, Tripoli. In the last two days, the opposition began a new push to the capital to try to end the 6 month old conflict after civilians, inspired by regional democratic protests, marched on their streets demanding that the longest ruling dictator in the region finally step down.

For more on the background of the conflict, Mother Jones explains it well. My regular readers know that I've always stood by international military support for the rebels in Libya; typing in "Libya" in the search bar on the home page will show you a list of my articles on the subject. 

The international media is already declaring the end of the conflict. here and here and for good reason. Reports have come in that Qaddafi's sons have been captured and the presidential guard has officially surrendered. Unless he flees, it won't be long before the tyrant himself, Mohammad Qaddafi will be captured. 

With the end of the conflict, let's reflect on the players. Fearing accusations of turning a blind eye, France helped lead the way for Euro support for intervention in Libya. Although slower to react, Obama did do his part to support and build the international consensus to intervene. Even more impressive, he had to stave off anger back in the U.S. about another U.S. war.

As with other uprisings, the Libyans' rebel government will have to organize better to help lead a nation. A new constitution, new election and new kind of leader will have to emerge from the smoke to give Libyans a voice in their government. This is never easy and there will be great fluctuations, but as long as the Libyans remember why they fought, they can always realign themselves to the long term goal of the most democratic state. 

The Libyan victory is also likely to re-inspire the protesters in Yemen, Syria and perhaps even Bahrain to take to the streets with even stronger conviction that overthrowing a leader is possible. Who can survive if not the longest ruling tyrant named Qaddafi?

As celebrations fill the capital, it is also important to remember a key fear of non-intervention: not intervening would allow Qaddafi to send the message that all a tyrant must do is kill his people and he can support himself easily. There is little doubt that the rebels had any chance without UN and NATO support; their gains hinged on international support. Their victory is a message to the protesters of the region, that in the second wave of the Arab Spring, although more violent and drawn out, can be successful in uprooting longtime dictators. To the tyrants, it sends a clear message that the international community can be effective at supporting local uprisings, and that cracking down on dissidents from the ground, air and water won't end the will of protesters. 

Syrians, Yemenis, Bahrainis, Algerians, and Morrocans must all take note. Now, it's about time international support concentrate on guiding Libya to an easier transfer of power but more importantly, on ending the massacre of civilians by Bashar Al-Assad in Syria. Indeed, moral standing always lies with the protesters. 

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Syria, Libya and Morality

In late March, I wrote a piece about the international community's intervention in Libya as Qaddafi, a dictator for almost 40 years, ordered his troops to advance to the protester's stronghold of Benghazi. Hoping to stop nothing less than a massacre with the possibility of genocide, the U.S. and many European nations pushed for action. 

The decision outraged some who denounced it as another Western advancement into an oil rich country. Others, like myself defended the resolution for many reasons however, one stood out above the rest: it was our moral obligation to intervene. 

Through a Security Council Resolution  a coalition of nations intervened, stopped, and helped push back the Libyan army from the protesters' capital in the east of the country. The no-fly zone was included in the resolution after many reports that the Libyan Airforce was being used to crush protesters. As a result, the protesters and fighters celebrated and today constantly make pleas that they need international support to establish a democratic state. 

In the case of this conflict, it is difficult to get solid death toll numbers of civilians because of the fighting as well as government/coalition propoganda, however, I wouldn't doubt that they are in the hundreds. The rising death toll is commonly cited by anti-interventionists as proof that the use of force backfired; rather than Qaddafi killing Libyans, we are. For supporters like myself, it is difficult to guestimate the number of possible deaths had we not intervened. Benghazi has tens of thousands of people living in it with the overwhelming majority of them standing against their dictator. An invasion of the city could easily have killed several thousand in the first few weeks. 

That being said, we now have a real world example of what happens if we don't intervene: Syria (and Bahrain for the record). Granted that Syria's regional dynamics are far more complex than that of Libya, protesters there are being killed as the death toll rises over 2400. Interestingly enough, the fact that Bashar Al-Assad's father killed 10 thousand people the last time they rose up against him, seems to have completely gone over the heads of most. 

With such deaths, the international community is only beginning to come together and work out a resolution on Syria. It is unlikely to have military involvement since the political capital isn't there, and Bashar is still popular in some areas of the country. For non-military international resolutions to work, a country must be greatly ingrained in the global economic environment; Syria isn't. We will have to wait and see the details of such a resolution, however, it is unlikely to be very effective. 

How exactly does morality tie into this? Easy. Sitting aside and watching thousands of people being killed, while not taking action, is inherently immoral. Hence the intervention in Libya can be judged as moral. Staying quiet on the crackdown in Bahrain is disgusting, while spewing meaningless words and press releases on Syria by governments is not right.

We can debate how to fund such interventions, however, morality should never be undermined because of our unwillingness to pay the proper price. I've already addressed many of the arguments months ago in a previous post and many still apply today. 

Syria gives us a relatively good preview of would have happened in Libya, except we should maximize it ten fold since Benghazi has more people in it than some of the rebelling Syrian cities and there is more widespread discontent with Qaddafi's rule. Juxtaposing it next to the 10 thousand killed several decades before in Syria would give us a more accurate, and dreadful understanding of what our intervention avoided. Today, the same anti-interventionists of Libya are outraged at the fatal quiet nature of the international community. Their shouting is only dwindled by the hypocrisy that is shouting along with them.   The fighting continues in Libya and protests are growing in Syria. Preventative measures are always the best choice when it comes to the lives of our fellow man. Let's not fail to prevent another thousand from dying. 

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Realities of Freedom

Almost a week ago I posted the gruesome picture you see here on my Facebook wall. I knew that I would get some interesting responses since you don't usually have this kind of content in your news feed but the discussion that ensued was far deeper than I thought. 

Underneath the picture, I wrote this note:

"NOT for the squeamish. I literally yelled after seeing this. Unfortunately I feel like today's wars and fighting in the world is sugarcoated. All we get is statistics, numbers that keep on running. Force yourself to look at the picture to get a better sense of what war really is like."

If you couldn't handle looking at the picture for long, you aren't alone. Unfortunately, we don't see these kinds of images about conflicts around the world because they display a reality that we don't want to see. This is the picture of a protester in Syria who was, reportedly, shot by Syrian military forces in the lower jaw. As you can see, there isn't much jaw left as his tongue hangs next to his blood stained and flapping inner cheek. 

This sugarcoating of struggles and wars isn't more evident than in the United States. Although other issues now transfix the media's attention, 5 -6 years into the war in Iraq almost all major news networks had running stats on the number of dead soldiers.

The numbers are historically low when juxtaposed near other wars that the U.S. is involved in. In the past 30 years, Americans have never been so protected from the effects of war than in any other time in history. All wars up to the Vietnam war, were all ones that directly affected people beyond just the military families; think  all wars including and before the World Wars and Vietnam. Today, it is easier than ever to ignore what is going on.

With hundreds of channels on TV overwhelmingly comprised of movie, gossip, and show content, multiple media platforms from your laptops, slates, smart/feature phones, and advanced music players, and social networking that builds small filter bubbles of our own worlds that actively keep everything else out, it is easier than ever to chose not to watch what's going on in any of our wars. The future of the internet seems to be location based social networking and apps will also help to make things worse.

The time of 6 o'clock news is truly over.

Don't get me wrong, these changes are welcome indeed. I think I would die if I could only get my news at one nightly news channel at a time. The problem is, that most other people aren't trying to get more amounts of news because they are trying to avoid it.

This is where the numbers come in. Ten thousand dead here, One hundred thousand troop surge, three thousand plus injured, etc. Combine this number count with the public's ability to be distracted by Snookie's latest fist fight and you have an audience horribly intentionally segregated from reality.

This is why I felt the need to show such a picture. Although not of a U.S. war, the fight for freedom throughout the the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) has been documented by news organizations world wide with terminology such as "Intense fighting"  and "military crackdown."

This picture is what they mean by "military crackdown" and a blown off leg from a rebel in Libya is what they mean by "intense fighting." I will never deny the importance of statistics especially in making policy decisions, but we must not let them distract us from the reality and stories behind those numbers. What are the numbers but another list of the dead in a fight? Here we learn the numbers are broken jaws, pierced skulls, and raped bodies. The next time you speak of some conflict in the world, consider this picture. 

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

My Analysis: Obama's Middle East Speech

Today, President Obama gave his much anticipated speech about the quickly changing nature of the Middle East.  Here it is:

If you want to read a transcript of the speech, click here.

I expected much out of the speech (as anyone should from their leader) but find myself with mixed feelings.

The President does well in pointing out recent positive development that are crucial to the region:

1. In Iraq, "We've removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there."
2. "In Afghanistan, we've broken the Taliban's momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a transition to Afghan lead."
3. "We have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader, Osama bin Laden."

He continues by telling us the obvious:

1. Bin Laden is evil.
2. How the Mideast uprisings began.
3. People are fighting for their rights in the region.

The President makes a point that he has made before:

"The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism."

On this point I take issue. Yes, colonialism has ended for some time, but not foreign power intervention and influence in the region. He is right to say that we can't keep blaming others and our tribalism, religion, and sects have all doused the fire with fuel but U.S. and European intervention didn't cease politically, socially, economically, financially or militarily. At some point, we must stop blaming others, of course, just as soon as negative material involvement ends from "the West."

Next he lays out the question at hand; as the narrative rapidly changes:

"The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds."

 and concludes:

"--a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and the Arab world."

Of course, this is just an eloquent way of saying: It is against U.S. interests to stay with the status quo; something I've preached about since it all began! It is also evident that repressive dictatorships and oppressive king only generate a temporary illusion of stability.

I'm glad that the president also pointed out that the work in Egypt and Tunisia isn't complete. With the short time spans (something even I am guilty of), many people tend to think that the democratization of those two nations is complete. 

After reiterating his stance to support intervention in Libya, Obama establishes that Qaddafi will leave Libya either by force or through a deal that would have him willingly leave. Obama describes the opposition by calling it a "legitimate and credible Interim Council" yet the administration refused to endorse the rebels as the recognized government of Libya. 

I was very glad to hear Obama recognize the repressive actions of the governments of Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain. The speech follows the U.S.'s strongest sanctions against the Syrian regime. The government's slow reaction to the 1000 deaths comes as a bit of a surprise to me. One would assume with its opposition to Syria's funding of organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine that the administration would move quickly to support the protests of the Syrians to remove this leader, for the chance of another one. 

Of course, the issue is more complex than that; Syria maintains a peaceful border for Israel and any replacement may choose to change things (a claim also made in Egypt; we have yet to see the extent of those results). After taking all this into consideration, the President lays out his -- strongest yet- message which can be best summarized with this sentence:

"President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way. "

So far, it seems that President Bashar Al Assad is taking the route his father took decades ago by massacring his own people.  I highly recommend "liking" this Facebook page: The Syrian Days of Rage. The activists post content several times a day with very graphic video and images. No other outlet I know shows such direct video of the events on the ground. 

From Syria, the president moves to Iran by highlighting Iranian aid to the Syrian regime in suppressing protesters. This is similar in style to how Iran suppressed its own political protests years ago. This is an obvious move by the President to channel attention to Iran and its suppressive practices. Over the past months, it is obvious that the governments takes any chance it can to point out Iran's oppression (rightfully so) but it doesn't do so out of the kindness of its heart, rather, it wishes protests would be re-ignited to de-stabilized its regional nemesis. 

I'm glad to see Obama's public statement that the President of Yemen should sign the agreement and stop delay, a move I believe falls into what I've written about previously: the government should use whatever resources it has with the weight of its influence to help the protesters create a better government. 

On Bahrain, two paragraphs were dedicated, which seems to fall in line with the typical attention span of the government toward the widespread crackdown on Bahrainis by the suppressive dictatorship. Al Jazeera has an entire series dedicated to coverage of all the protests from Tunisia to Yemen to Bahrain, Syria, Jordan and more. It seems to be the only organization to detail the widespread crackdown of the Bahraini government. See here. They've covered mass allegations of torture, the governments crackdown on protesting football players, medical professionals, students, and religious centers. 

Of course, I will always support the President's call for the enforcement of universal rights, because morality is, well, universal. The president presses on:

" The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential." 

Soon afterwards, Obama details a plan to invest in Egypt and Tunisia to help alleviate the people and their grievances. 

Finally, the last issue addressed is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that has been going on for more than 60 years. I like the President's characterization of Israeli troops in the West Bank as an occupation (because that is what it is). He continues with rigid but clear language:

"For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure."

This is certainly true, as even Hamas and other Islamist organizations must be blood-drunk or simply deranged to think that Israel will ever end or cease to exist in the manner they want it to.  He goes on to denounce the effort by the Palestinian Authority to gain recognition of a Palestinian state. Here I strongly disagree as I've stated by a previous blog post titled "The Wiser Palestinian Fight." This seems odd despite the president's support of a Palestinian nation within the 1967 borders (give and take some land swaps).  I believe that with the inevitable recognition of a Palestinian state, the Palestinians enter the negotiations not as leaders of a land, but leaders of a nation; a nation that is being illegally occupied by foreign troops. It helps make Israel look worse, and Palestinians better. It doesn't add chips to play at the table, but it helps build legitimacy for a people that are far too often neglected. 

On Israel, the President clarifies:

"...we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums."

 Iran is singled out for criticism as is Sudan, Egypt, Libya, and any other nation that commits horrible actions so why not Israel? If a nation isn't criticized in international forums, where should it be? All nations should be criticized on all levels.

The President, as all previous presidents, establishes that with a two state solution: "Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people." Of course, I'm completely opposed to a "Jewish State" because of my opposition to any religiously based government; a Jewish one included. His statement also neglects the fact that Palestinians can be Jewish, and Israels can be Muslims and Christians. 

All-in-all, the speech contradicts itself at several points, but it certainly makes some good ones. If a strong policy follows suit, I can find myself in support of it, with just a few changes here and there namely the following:

1. Support of the recognition of a Palestinian State in the UN, regardless of the situation of negotiations. 
2. Introduce UN sanctions against the Syrian government to take stronger action to stop the killing.
3. More strongly move to push Saleh to sign the agreement. 
4. Push for the withdrawal of Saudi troops from Bahrain and for government reform in Bahrain. 
5. Push for economic development (not oil related) to the entire region. 

What do you think of his speech? the introduced actions? My suggestions? and more~!

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

The Implications of Bin Laden's Death

When word came out last night that the United States had killed Osama Bin Laden, I had to wait for the President's confirmation of the event:

Afterwards, I found an in-depth chronology of the operation by the Telegraph, see here.

Images began to show up as people in NY, Washington and around the world celebrating. I couldn't watch for long because nearly the entire student body at my university, Bentley University, came out to celebrate, here is some of the videos I took:

After the confirmation I began to think about the implications of his death; they are in fact, very complex. 

Its obvious that Osama Bin Laden's influence over the years was greatly waning as U.S. efforts (alongside with begrudging Pakistani help) to break up the global network he built gained ground. As the crackdown continued, the Al Qaeda's network weakened and it began to rely more on smaller, 1 to 2 person operations strapped with bombs, instead of the bombastic attacks like those in New York, London, Spain, and India. 

His second hand man, Ayman Al Zawahiri is still thought to be alive, however, most analysts realize that few hold the same inspirational power that Bin Laden did. Yet that was probably the deceased leader's greatest strength: inspiration and respect. He's been more of an inspiration to young radical fighters than a financier, fighter, or even organizer.

If just a symbol, is his death important at all? Yes, of course it is, and for good reason. First, his death came at the hands of U.S. Navy Seals, an important signal to the world (but especially Americans) because two wars and 10 years later, the very man who started it all, always seemed to be able to escape the clutches of the U.S. Army. He didn't just die from natural causes, which would have been his eternal act of defiance and escape from his enemies, his death was a result of a direct order by the President to kill. This gives Americans and all those affected by Sept. 11, a feeling of justice for a decade of sacrifice in lives, debt, and political chaos. 

Although an important symbolic death, it does have even larger logistical importance, not for Al Qaeda, but for NATO forces. For years, Bush set the standard of victory: nothing less than dismantling and disrupting the terrorist organization's network but more importantly, killing Osama Bin Laden. With its organization financially stressed, low on people power, and becoming more and more obsolete in regional ideology, the death of Osama was the last criteria for victory. It was the reason were were still in Afghanistan; even Obama has said so. 

It is very convenient, politically and militarily, that Osama's assassination comes as the Obama administration and NATO forces planned on beginning a gradual withdrawal from Afghanistan. With him out of the picture, the U.S. can come out more victorious than with a withdrawal without his murder. This will serve as another reason to call for withdrawal from Afghanistan for more troops to head back home. 

His death is symbolic, but it will lead to real world results, the least of which is a possible retaliation attack against some Western targets. The attack isn't likely to be large-scale given Al Qaeda's new style of operation, however, it can be deadly. The likely targets will be in the Middle East or Pakistan and Afghanistan. This shows that Al Qaeda is not crippled by Osama's death, but not because he wasn't important, because in today's world, more attacks are organized by a few people with a handful of chemicals than the large scale attacks waving Al Qaeda's banners. As I type this, there is a man somewhere planning an attack to hurt people and get their message across; this fight isn't over, but it has progressed. 

___________________________________________________________________

Arab Americans in Dearborn, Michigan Celebrate upon hearing the news!

On a more personal level, Bin Laden's actions have helped destroy the reputation of my faith, helped create Islamophobia, and destroy the lives of too many. I'm glad he is dead and I know that he won't be rewarded for his horrendous acts; Muslims have much reason to rejoice. 

"Simply put, there has been no single person in nearly a millennium and a half of Muslim history who has ever hijacked our beloved religion of Islam more than bin Laden.

Muslims have been the greatest numerical casualties of al Qaeda and bin Laden. The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point released a stunning report that said Muslims have accounted for the vast majority of the total number of casualties from al Qaeda attacks between 2004 and 2008 throughout the world. 

From 2006 to 2008, 98 percent of al Qaeda's victims were from Muslim-majority countries."

With his death is a stab against terrorism, however, we must never forget that we can never diverge our 

attention from the REAL pacifier of terrorism and violence: the democratic uprisings in the Middle East!

I have consistently said that the only way to truly fight terrorism is to promote democracy. We can see today that the uprisings in the Middle East directly contradicts a teaching by Osama Bin Laden, that democracy was comparable to idolatry and worthy of a death sentence.

In its anti-terrorism campaign, the U.S. needs to help the people in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen and more establish democracies so they can voice their concerns; without those channels to express their joy or grief, violence becomes the only option. Democratic reform should always be the foreign policy of the United States, it is always in our best interest. 

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Global Review: Secrets and Changes

Wikileaks:

This week, Wikileaks has released what it calls "The Gitmo Files." These documents have an in-detail account of everything about prisoners include health reports, treatment and overall conditions of the infamous prison. 

So far as I can see, the only media outlet that has caught up on it so far is a Wikileaks former-partner: The NYTimes. Their direct relationship seems to have ended after a feud between the two organizations, but the NYTimes was able to get the documents through an "anonymous source." Since putting up its paywall, I viewed by 20 free articles, in the first ten days of the month and have since been banned or asked to pay. 

The documents also detail the governments guide for rating the threat level of detainees, in what they call the "Threat Matrix."

When I have the time, I'll delve deeper into the documents but some important highlights include:

• military analysts sometimes ignored serious flaws in the evidence, 
• releasing some wrongly judged a minimal threat and 
• holding others who were no threat.

The Times has also posted a Note for the Reader that I think everyone should read. Also posted (and more importantly) is a public government letter from the Pentagon about the release of the information, that you should also read before following the topic further. You can read it here. 

With time constraints and limited media look-in so far, I'll post on it as soon as I can with my own looks into the files. If you are a loyal reader, then you should know that I'm an avid supporter of what Wikileaks does and have defended them many times in the past, see here and here. Let's hope these documents reveal important things!

Obama and Syria:

U.S. officials have confirmed to Haaretz, that it is considering possible sanctions against Syria  as a response to its crackdown on democracy protests. This following the administrations intentional ignorance of the crackdown of protests in the small capital of Bahrain.

The administrations influence on Syria is limited, however such a move is obviously based on Syria's alliance to Iran (and its ties to Hamas and Hezbollah). There have been several reports that show Iranian fighters and officers aiding Syria in its crackdown.

I think that something must be done to stop the crackdown and help promote democracy in a nation where a minority (the Alawites, a branch of Shia Islam) rule over the majority (87% of the population is Sunni Muslim).

The move by the U.S. comes days after President Saleh of Yemen agreed to step out of office in a deal to end his country's civil strife, due to regional meetings with Gulf nations (most likely pressured by the United States).

Although I support any move to help protesters establish a democracy in the region, I also think (as I've said before many times) that the U.S. needs a more even handed approach with the goal of promoting democracy as a central tenet of its foreign policy (using different means in different countries).

There is much to be said about the geopolitics of the region, and one that deserves more than half a post! I'll be on it in no-time!

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

France's Niqab Ban

Today France's law banning the concealment of one's face in any public space is being put into effect. Inspired by French fear of fronts to their "way of life," and a strong political effort by President Sarkozy to regain support on his popular stance, anyone intentionally concealing their face with just their eyes showing will be subject to the equivalent of a 200 dollar fine, and/or be forced to attend French "Citizenship" classes (aimed to teach them how to be better citizens).

Italy has a similar law, however, France's is unique from similar anti-Muslim laws in different European nations because it bans the Niqab in all public places, from the sidewalk to the mall. Much is being said about it, as groups of protesters in France (some wearing their Niqab) demand it's nullification because they believe it is an affront to their religious beliefs. 

Even so, French police have voiced how difficult it will be to enforce saying

"The law will be infinitely difficult to apply, and it will be infinitely rarely applied, unfortunately," Emmanuel Roux of the police union SCPN said on France-Inter radio.

He said police have been instructed not to use force to remove the veils, and that if a woman refuses to remove it, the police officer is meant to call the prosecutor for further legal action. Only in very extreme cases, he said, would a woman be jailed for refusal to remove a veil.

Allow me to break through the noise with some common sense:

Although a ban of the Niqab, France is famous for it's extreme interpretation of secularism. For example, state teachers are not allowed to wear a cross pin on their clothing, and Jewish men aren't allowed to wear the yammukah. 

The latest ban comes from a law that never uses the words: women, Niqab, or Islam but has politically been its purpose. President Sarkozy began pushing for the law for nearly two years, saying that it was a sign of repression that would not be welcome in France.

The President and others have also continued by describing the Niqab as an attack to French way of life, despite the fact that no more than 2000 women wear it out of France's 5 million Muslims. 

With such a small amount of women that choose to wear it, it hardly seems like an attack on anyone's way of life.

Quite possibly the worst argument, but most used on to destroy the rights of others, is that of safety: The Niqab poses a direct threat to public safety. Opponents argue that terrorists can use the Niqab to hide bombs, and convicts use it to mask their faces while they steal or kill, but how many instances have their been? Terrorists: Never. They more often choose backpacks. Robbery: Once. Clearly not a threat to society or anyone's safety. 

The ban represents an odd ideology in Western philosophy of freedom: That everyone should have the freedom to not wear what they want. This makes sense given that societies over time have become less conservative, and in their effort to break with tradition, younger generations endorsed more nudity: First with short sleeved shirts, then tighter shirts for men and women, then women's choice to wear jeans or anything they wanted, or nothing at all. It all seemed like the freedom in a country was measured by the level of nudity. 

Rarely is a women's (or man's) desire to cover herself seen as a form of empowerment. Choosing to wear more clothing seems counter-revolutionary. As societies keep pushing the lines of nudity, led my massive industries where "sex sells," covering oneself can easily become a sign of individuality and rebellion. It seems here that France believes that nudity equals freedom, but clothing is a sign of repression. 

I understand that the debate is deeper than that, as even Muslims disagree about the purpose of the Niqab, but it shouldn't matter if they do. Everyone should have the right to wear whatever clothing they want as an expression of their cultural or religious beliefs. THAT is the sign of truly free societies. In a sex-crazed world, the ability of any woman to demand respect based on her thoughts and not her looks should be applauded. Some may disagree with the extremity to which the Niqab does this, but different women have different means and interpretations of how to reach this goal. 

A creative protest by Non-muslim French women. It is meant to show that France will tolerate women freedom to show off legs, but not their choice to cover their faces. How would France react to these? Free enough to show their legs, but not to show their face?

We may not like what they wear, but they should always have the right to wear it. The Niqab is not a sign of repression as any Muslim women will tell you. Muslim women wearing it are not subconsciously oppressed into thinking that they should wear it (if they were the number of women who wear them in France wouldn't be so minute). As an LA Times article on the subject points out, of the veiled French women surveyed 28 out of 30 said that they were the first in their family to wear the Niqab.

Yes, there are women out of those 2000 in France that were probably forced to wear it, but how does a ban help in any way but restrict more women to their homes? For those forced to wear it, there should be more options of outreach to get government help aimed at getting them out of a possibly abusive house and more. A ban for all is useless and just part of the larger (misconstrued) ideology of what freedom is all about.

As the dynamics of a free society have changed (meeting the demands of earlier generations for less restrictions on enforcing dress code policies for women), so should the measure of freedom --As I like to say: 

Freedom should never be measured by how much thigh a woman can show, but by how much thigh she refuses to show for your lingering eyes.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Government Shutdown

 ***UPDATE***  Government Shutdown averted, however, as I point out, this article still applies.

 I didn't want to comment on all that is going on in the budget debate, until I saw the results since I consider a lot of the back-and-forth to be very childish. With the deadline for a budget due today, my post could very quickly become outdated, however, there are a few things that won't change as a result of either a government shutdown or a last minute budget agreement: The debate has been focused on all the wrong things. 

Everyone in government is raising the fiscal responsibility flag, while accusing the other of not "being serious about cutting funding." We've seen in by the White House, House Republicans and Senate Democrats. Despite the need for a more fiscally responsible government, the argument is just an illusion. The reason we are in this last mind bind today is because our elected representatives didn't reach an agreement a year ago; now they are rushing to meet the deadline. 

With such small time, we can't expect to meet the deadline and also do much needed major reform to Medicare and Social Security (two of the largest social programs); it just isn't plausible. What we are left with is a budget battle over the small programs that will have an effect on the deficit. To be more blunt, we aren't going to achieve fiscal responsibility through this budget regardless of which version is passed. The only rational thing to do is pass a budget similar to years past, and live to fight another day on the larger fiscal issues (and more politically threatening).

Our leaders haven't made the decision yet. Some representatives have included massive amendments that radically change programs like Medicare, that they expect to be passed in a few days despite how polarizing they are. The bill came from Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan. I certainly give him credit for taking the leading and proposing a bill to end the stalemate, however, the bill is clearly just a show. Don't get me wrong, the bill includes major  cuts mostly by a complete reformation of Medicare. The proposal cuts out most of the government involvement and instead replaces it with a voucher system where people get money from the government to go buy private insurance. The Rep. knows that a voucher system is extremely controversial and that Medicare reforms needs similar time that healthcare reform had, a year's worth of debate. Yet here we are, introduced a few days ago, and where is the outcry of reform being "shoved down our throats?" 

The proposal with Medicare reform won't pass, and it just aims to fill the void since the President hasn't taken the initiative to introduce a WH supported bill. There are other discussions going on, most notably between Senator Harry Reid, Speaker of the House, John Beohner, and President Obama. All three have mentioned that all major issues have been resolved, except one. The sticking issue? a social one: Planned Parenthood. 

Before delving deeper into the debate, let's get rid of some misunderstanding of the program:

The division over this program is an ideological battle and is the reason why there hasn't been an agreement. Neither side is going to convince the other side to change their beliefs and agree to fund or de-fund Planned Parenthood. Republicans argue that Planned Parenthood should be defunded because enough small measure cuts will lead to larger deficit reduction. As I look into it more, the argument is just a cover for the conservatives' real intention: undermining institutions that support abortion. Conservative distaste of NPR and PBS is also the reason why they want to cut all funding for public media, not fiscal responsibility. 

I make the claim because Planned Parenthood's budget, is completely and utterly tiny. If a conservative wants to cut federal spending, they should go to the bigger programs, programs that can't be dealt with over the next few hours and instead should be debated over a year's time.Here is the debate in a short video, listen specifically to David Gergen, an adviser who worked for Democratic and Republican Presidents.

 As Anderson pointed out, the ideologically dividing issue of abortion was brought up by Republicans to either try slip it in to a difficult budget, or to intentionally place an issue that Dems would never vote for. I'm not just trying to take a hit at Republicans because I believe that there should be a party that watches for overspending, however, they are doing so in all the wrong ways.

I won't bother discussing the political ramifications for either party because that is all irrelevant. The fact remains that the basis of the debate is along ideological lines, lines that haven't changed for decades since the modern conservative movement. We won't solve them today, or in a week, or even a year. Pass a bill (without this controversial parts), that will do some basic cutting here and there. After it is passed, we can get down to the "meat and potatoes" of government overspending: entitlements.

The reason we haven't reached an agreement is because both sides expect the other side to cave in and adopt their measures. Let's put off the controversial amendments and deal with them when the deadline isn't as imminent. It is against the law for federal funds to fund abortions, so conservatives can rest at ease, but if they are still anxious about Planned Parenthood, we will address it Monday morning, but not tonight.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Change in Goldstone Report

 Recently Judge Richard Goldstone of South Africa has retracted an important part of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, otherwise called the Goldstone Report. 

For those that aren't aware, in April of 2009, after the Israeli IDF invaded the Palestinian Gaza Strip which killed around 1,400 people, the United Nations wanted to investigate the conflict for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. The team was led and the report written by a famous South African Judge, Richard Goldstone. 

When released, the highly anticipated report accused both the Israel Defense Force and the Palestinian Militants (mostly Hamas) of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. It recommended that both sides investigate their conduct; if they failed to do so, they would bring up the allegations to the International Criminal Court. Both sides initially denounced the report, however Hamas began to embrace it along with much of the Arab world. The Report also found major support in all those who opposed Israel's Operation Cast Lead (including myself). The Final Report to the UN  found that Israel conducted major internal investigations and Hamas none at all. 

The UN supported the report and especially the allegations that Israel "intentionally targeted Palestinian civilians"  during the battle. As of a few days ago, Richard Goldstone seems to show doubt about the allegations. 

In the Washington Post, the judge has now reconsidered the most pointed of accusations saying that Israel did not in fact, intentionally target civilians. Stating in the piece that their incorrect conclusion was a direct result of the Israeli government's refusal to participate in the fact finding mission.

Although I never condone such horrible killings of more than a thousand people and have talked about the Wiser Palestinian Fight, the change is a vital one. More often than not, I find myself standing directly against Israeli policy, be it their internal racist laws or their oppressive policies toward the Palestinians (under the guise of security), however, I can not push aside reason to blindly accuse them of intentionally killing civilians.

The deaths are surely tragic and Israeli policy surely negligent in killing so many. For that, the report doesn't retract its claims, however, Israel moves from a murderous nation intentionally killing civilians to a bumbling fool who kills A LOT of people in order to kill a few others here and there (militants). It is certainly no reason for celebration on Israel's side, and the report can still stand on its own (though they are pushing that the UN retract its support for it), however, we can not continue to attack it for purposefully killing the civilians.  With this in mind, I still stand against it's Operation Cast Lead because it led to the deaths of thousands of people, mostly civilians with little added benefit to the state or security. The call to war is becoming too redundant in the region and it leads to too many innocent lives lost. Israel nor Palestine gain more than they lose from these battles.

I'm glad the truth has come out, and let's pray for a Palestinian state this September.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Obama's Libya Speech.

If you missed the speech, it was being broadcast on Youtube live as well as all news stations (that I know of) and even internationally. Here is PBS's post on Youtube, it was a short 26 mins:

 You can get the full transcript here:

Most of the analysts after the speech seemed to conclude he made a good case for Americans to support the cause. Although I don't like showing highlights because I want people to read or watch the whole speech, there were several points that stood out to me.

(You can read my opinion on Libyan intervention (and what I want to see from U.S. foreign policy) here.)

 He established actions his administration had taken before the invasion: 

We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Qadhafi's aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of Gadhafi's regime's assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Qadhafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes.

Next, he pointed out the conditions on the ground: 

Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. ...Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misrata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed and apartment buildings were reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.

As Qaddafi advanced to Beghazi, full of 700,000 people opposed to the dictator, genocide was bound to occur. In the face of this, military action became the appropriate response: 

We knew that if we wanted - if we waited one more day, Benghazi - a city nearly the size of Charlotte - could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world...... [When speaking of international action] To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.

 He then called out the anti-interventionist and directly responded to them:

It's true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country, Libya, at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qadhafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

He believed that passing UN resolutions that didn't do much were just "empty words" and would have led to a massacre. He also continued by addressing the argument of those that say military action should expand, directly calling such a move a "mistake."

The President ended his speech, by what most consider, the new "Obama Doctrine." This will be the basis for a consistent policy in dealing with these uprisings, every other president for the past 30 years has established a doctrine, here is what he said: 

I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests....There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security - responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security; and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

This will now be the basis for his administrations doctrine so long as he is president. You can see a list of previous doctrines here all the way back to Reagan.  One key component of the doctrine that differs from the Bush Doctrine is that, U.S. action can not be alone. The Bust Doctrine established, that the American government will work alone if it has to to attack the enemies of the nation, Obama's stands in direct contrast to than.

I think the president makes a good case for intervention in Libya, however, there will always be skeptics. I think that his integration of international coalitions is a positive change from previous doctrines because it decreases the burden on the U.S. and helps build consensus toward any action. It sends a message that the U.S. is part of the world, not alone in it.

To those opposing Libyan intervention because of your concerns for the U.S.  you need not worry since our involvement will begin to decrease (militarily). To those who don't care about the U.S. and oppose intervention, who are you to stop this intervention when the Libyan people were calling for action to save their lives? The coalition reduced the stress on the U.S. and helped stop massive killing. It would have also told Arab leaders that with enough force, they can stay in power. The Obama doctrine is not perfect, and there are some key areas that it doesn't meet up with my expectations for U.S. foreign policy, however, it is a welcome change.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!