http://www.dailymail.co.uk/A Saudi Arabian court sent three lawyers to prison for terms of between five and eight years on Monday for criticising the country's judiciary and justice system in messages on Twitter, the Saudi Press Agency reported. Since the 2011 Arab uprisings, the U.S. ally has grown increasingly intolerant of any dissent or criticism aimed at the government, the country's ruling Al Saud family or the official clergy which provides judges for its Sharia Islamic courts. The three lawyers, who were not named by local media, were convicted of prejudicing public order through tweets which contained opinions against the ruler, and expressed contempt for the judiciary and undermined it, SPA reported. Reform of the kingdom's judiciary and legal system is a main battleground between arch conservatives and relative liberals. It is seen as important by both human rights activists who want to improve legal safeguards for defendants and foreign investors who want sentencing to be more predictable. King Abdullah announced changes to the judicial system in 2007, including non-Sharia training for judges, the introduction of specialised criminal courts and a means of officially recording verdicts, a prelude to establishing precedent. Conservative judges, clerics and some officials in the Justice Ministry have strenuously attempted to block the reforms, however, because they see them as undermining Islamic law, liberal lawyers and other legal sources say. Saudi judges have this year passed death sentences on five members of the country's Sh'ite Muslim minority for their part in anti-government protests and riots. They also handed a 15-year jail term to rights activist Walid Abu al-Khair for criticising the authorities. The rulers of the world's top oil exporter fear any public expressions of dissent could evolve into direct anti-government protests, which they see as a security risk at a moment of such high regional tension, say analysts. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-2809746/Saudi-Arabia-jails-three-lawyers-tweets-criticising-judiciary.html#ixzz3HNFbHOGc Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Monday, October 27, 2014
Saudi Arabia jails three lawyers for tweets criticising judiciary
Assad's warnings start to ring true in Turkey
When Sunni rebels rose up against Syria's Bashar al-Assad in 2011, Turkey reclassified its protégé as a pariah, expecting him to lose power within months and join the autocrats of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen on the scrap heap of the "Arab Spring". Assad, in contrast, shielded diplomatically by Russia and with military and financial support from Iran and its Shi’ite allies in Lebanon's Hezbollah, warned that the fires of Syria’s sectarian war would burn its neighbors. For Turkey, despite the confidence of Tayyip Erdogan, elected this summer to the presidency after 11 years as prime minister and three straight general election victories, Assad’s warning is starting to ring uncomfortably true. Turkey’s foreign policy is in ruins. Its once shining image as a Muslim democracy and regional power in the NATO alliance and at the doors of the European Union is badly tarnished. Amid a backlash against political Islam across the region Erdogan is still irritating his Arab neighbors by offering himself as a Sunni Islamist champion. The world, meanwhile, is transfixed by the desperate siege of Kobani, the Syrian Kurdish town just over Turkey’s border, under attack by extremist Sunni fighters of the Islamic State (IS) who are threatening to massacre its defenders. Erdogan has enraged Turkey’s own Kurdish minority – about a fifth of the population and half of all Kurds across the region – by seeming to prefer that IS jihadis extend their territorial gains in Syria and Iraq rather than that Kurdish insurgents consolidate local power. The forces holding on in Kobani are part of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), closely allied to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has fought a 30-year war against the Turkish state and is now holding peace talks with Ankara. BIG RISKS Meanwhile, Turkish tanks stood idly by as the unequal fight raged between the PYD and IS, while Erdogan said both groups were "terrorists" and Kobani would soon fall. It was a public relations disaster. It drew criticism from NATO allies in the US-led coalition, which has bombed jihadi positions around the town in coordination with the PYD. It also prompted Kurdish riots across south-east Turkey resulting in more than 40 dead. At the same time, Turkey's air force bombed PKK positions near the Iraqi border for the first time in two years, calling into question the 2013 ceasefire declared by Abdullah Ocalan, the jailed PKK leader. PKK commanders warned that if Turkey let Kobani fall, they would go back to war. Yet now that the United States has dropped arms to Kobani’s defenders, Erdogan has been forced to relent and open a Turkish corridor for Peshmerga fighters from Iraq to reinforce Kobani. Turkish officials fear this will provoke reprisals in Turkey by IS, activating networks it built during the two years the Erdogan government allowed jihadi volunteers to cross its territory to fight in Syria. Almost anything Turkey does now comes with big risks. POLARIZED NATION The polarization within Turkey along sectarian and ethnic lines - which analysts say Erdogan has courted with his stridently Sunni tone as communal conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite rages to Turkey’s south - is easy to detect in the poor and deeply conservative district of Fatih in Istanbul. “I prefer to have IS than PKK in control of Kobani,” says Sitki, a shopkeeper. “They are Muslims and we are Muslims. (But) we as Muslims should be ruled by the Koran under Sharia law." Another local shopkeeper, Nurullah, 35, broadly agreed: “The only mistake the government has made is to open the door to Kurdish refugees. PYD and PKK are the same, both terrorists. How do (the Americans) have the nerve to ask us to help PYD?” “Of course Islamic State has sympathizers here because they are wiping out the PKK,” Nurullah continued. Nearby, a bearded Arabic-speaking man who declined to be named said it made sense that “Turkey as a Sunni nation supports IS over the crusaders”, a hostile reference to the US-led coalition against IS of which Turkey looks an unwilling party. ZERO NEIGHBORS The increasingly overt Sunni alignment of Erdogan’s Turkey is, paradoxically, contributing to its isolation, at a time when the United States has won the support of the Sunni Arab powers, led by Saudi Arabia, in the campaign against IS. Partly, that is because Erdogan and his new prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who as foreign minister was the architect of Turkey’s eastward turn away from the EU, continue to champion the pan-Islamic Muslim Brotherhood, ousted in Egypt last year and banned across the Gulf. But it is also because of Ankara’s ambivalence towards IS, which some in Turkey’s government saw as a bulwark against its three main regional adversaries: the Assad regime, the Shi'ite-led government in Iraq, and the Kurds. “Their policy is making Turkey look completely isolated”, says Hugh Pope of the International Crisis Group. Yet there is a wide consensus that Erdogan and his Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) tried and failed to take a leadership role as the turmoil of the Arab Spring swept across the region and have ended up by infecting Turkey’s secular republic with the sectarianism plaguing the Levant. "From a zero problems policy (with neighbors) to zero neighbors,” said a headline in the leftist Evrensel newspaper in reference to the AKP policy of entente with neighboring states. IS FIGHTING TURKEY'S ENEMIES Behlul Ozkan, a political scientist at Istanbul’s Marmara University, says the Erdogan government has supported Islamist movements in the Middle East to establish a sphere of influence and play a leadership role. “When the Arab Spring started, Davutoglu saw it as an opportunity for his imperial fantasy of establishing the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) belt from Tunisia to Gaza. "They are obsessed with destroying the Assad regime. They see IS as an opportunity for Turkey since it is fighting its enemies on three fronts: against Baghdad’s Shi’ite-dominated leadership, against Assad, and the PYD, which is an affiliate of the PKK.” Soli Ozel, a prominent academic and commentator, said the Erdogan government's initial expectation was that the Muslim Brotherhood would come to power in Syria. “Turkish officials believed a year and a half ago they could control the jihadis but they played with fire. This was a policy of sectarianism and they got into something ... they couldn’t control, and that is why we are here”. Other commentators and Turkish officials say Western and Arab powers that called for Assad to be toppled but refused to give mainstream Syrian rebels the weapons to do it are to blame for the rise of Jihadis in the resulting vacuum. “They (Turkish officials) bet on Assad to fall and when they lost, instead of backing off they are doubling down,” says Hakan Altinay of the Brookings Institution. “They are not the only culprits. The international community is also a culprit in this affair”. CAUGHT BETWEEN TWO FIRES But uppermost among Ankara’s fears is the prospect that Syrian Kurds led by the PYD -- newly legitimized by their alliance with the United States -- will establish a new Kurdish entity on Turkey’s frontiers, which will incite Turkey's Kurds to seek self government. “In the realpolitik of all this, IS is fighting all the enemies of Turkey -- the Assad regime, Iraqi Shi'ites and the Kurds -- but the spillover effect is that it is now paying the price in terms of its vulnerability on the Kurdish question,” says Kadri Gursel, a prominent liberal columnist. Cengiz Candar, veteran columnist and expert on the Kurdish issue adds: “If Syrian Kurds are successful and establish self-rule they will set a precedent and a model for Turkey’s Kurds, and more than 50 percent of Kurds in the world live here”. Turkey is thus caught between two fires: the possibility of the PKK-led Kurdish insurgency inside Turkey reviving because of Ankara’s policy towards the Syrian Kurds; and the risk that a more robust policy against IS will provoke reprisal attacks that could be damage its economy and the tourist industry that provides Turkey with around a tenth of its income. Internationally, one veteran Turkish diplomat fears, IS “is acting as a catalyst legitimizing support for an independent Kurdish state not just in Syria but in Turkey” at a time when leading powers have started to question Turkey’s ideological and security affiliations with the West.BY SAMIA NAKHOUL
Hong Kong society loses most from Occupy Central
The student groups of Occupy Central such as the Hong Kong Federation of Students had planned to hold a "referendum" but suddenly canceled it yesterday. Wang Dan, an activist during the 1989 political incident, openly supported the protesters, while saying that he was not so positive that the campaign would have its demands met. It seems that the Occupy Central movement will continue for some time and the mayhem in Hong Kong will continue.
The Chinese government attaches great importance to the movement, as Beijing holds responsibility for Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. Wherever in China there is mayhem, the central government needs to shoulder the responsibility.
Most Chinese mainlanders don't have to worry about Hong Kong's future. Many mainlanders go to Hong Kong to sightsee and shop because it is a developed society and belongs to China.
However, Hong Kong is now in a mess, thanks to the confrontation with the central government initiated by some forces with the backing of the West. When the central government refuses to accept their demands, they will become a joke. Gradually, the mindset of mainlanders has changed.
The mainland public has a new understanding of Hong Kong through these recent developments. The mainland has previously suffered from the chaos brought by the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) and the 1989 political incident and has gained some immunity to it. Now it is Hong Kong's turn.
The mainland public does not hope for a tumultuous Hong Kong, but people don't fear that Hong Kong may become a mess. Its economic importance to the mainland is not irreplaceable.
Look at how mainland audiences launched a boycott of Hong Kong actor Chapman To. Occupy Central has made the mainlanders realize that social chaos is the root of all evils. In the eyes of many, celebrities who support Occupy Central oppose the country.
Occupy Central has generated an unexpected impact. It has united mainlanders once again. People are more convinced that Western forces are trying to intervene and there are people willing to serve them at the cost of our national interests.
In the mainland, there are some who place high demands on Hong Kong while worrying about it, but at the same time more people feel indifferent. They didn't impose much pressure on the central government to resume order in Hong Kong. But if the chaos in Hong Kong results in the central government losing control over it, the mainland public will never give their consent.
For every day Occupy Central lasts, the bigger loser is Hong Kong society, not Chinese society. If the Occupy Central forces want to confront the central government, they don't have advantages in terms of strength and time. Perhaps it is for mainstream Hong Kong society to decide how long the current turmoil will last.
2MN UK homes in fuel poverty, Energy Rights Bill launched
On Monday the House of Commons will launch the Energy Bill of Rights, advocating both fair pricing and sustainable energy sources. The campaign, pioneered by Fuel Poverty Action, aims to make energy “fairer, affordable” and “sustainable”.
The Annual Fuel Poverty report by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) suggests the inability to afford energy bills killed 10,000 Britons in 2013. It also found over 2million UK households are living in fuel poverty. This accounts for 10.4 percent of the population.
While the figures for 2014 constitute a reduction of almost 5 percent since 2011, fuel poverty still affects 30 percent of unemployed households.
The eight point manifesto launched on Monday tackles prominent issues surrounding fuel poverty. Most significantly, campaigners wish to hold the government responsible for the provision of environmentally friendly energy and the continued supply for those living in poor conditions.
No Dash for Gas said the Bill “unites what politicians have tried so hard to pull apart” – the need for affordable energy and the environmental concerns surrounding fossil fuels.
“As we face another freezing winter, millions are preparing to self-disconnect, and ration heat and food, while the big energy companies rake in eye-watering profits from burning expensive and climate-destroying fossil fuels,” a Fuel Poverty Action spokesperson told RT.
The manifesto states that the standing charge for energy should be abolished, together with calls for a complete boycott of fracking and other unsustainable practices.
It further claims that access to energy is a basic right and that consumers who are unable to pay their utility bills should not be immediately disconnected. They believe power should be shifted from the provider to the consumer.
“Countless [men and women’s] physical and mental health paid the price of living in fuel poverty,” the Fuel Poverty Action spokesperson told RT. “With the government seemingly disinterested in taking any serious action on the issue, we are seeking to establish Energy Rights as a way to protect ourselves from fuel poverty and the brutal for-profit energy system.”
According to the Annual Fuel Poverty report, the overall number of people living in fuel poverty is forecast to rise in 2014, largely due to the expected increase in fuel prices.
The worst affected areas in the UK are the West Midlands and East Midlands 15 percent and 13 percent respectively live in fuel poverty. The South East and East have the lowest proportion, with 8 and 9 percent.
The bill has won the sponsorship of Green MP Caroline Lucas and Labour left-wingers Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnel.
Lucas, the main sponsor of the bill, is a staunch advocate of renewable energy, and on October 22 called for MP’s pensions to be divested from fossil fuels.
Former Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has voiced concerns, however, that committing to more environmentally friendly forms of energy will constitute an unsustainable level of investment.
The Bill has already been endorsed by groups such as Climate Revolution, Campaign Against Climate Change, Quakers, UK Uncut and the World Development Movement.
U.S : - How congressional hawks plan to kill Obama’s Iran deal
Negotiations with Iran over the future of its nuclear program have not even concluded yet some members of Congress are preparing to manufacture a political crisis over a deal. Their beef? President Barack Obama may initially bypass Congress and suspend sanctions imposed on Iran to make a deal possible and only later ask lawmakers to end them permanently when it is determined that Iran has complied fully with its obligations under the deal. Of course, many of the lawmakers complaining about the potential presidential end run voted to give him the right to waive sanctions when they passed sanctions legislation in 2010 and 2011. And, of course, only Congress can lift the sanctions permanently, so there wouldn’t be any circumventing to begin with. So what’s really going on? It’s very simple: If you prefer war with Iran over a deal with Iran – even one that would prevent it from building a bomb — your best and possibly last opportunity to kill the deal is immediately after the nuclear talks have concluded. That’s when distrust of Iran’s intentions will remain pervasive and when its commitment to carry out its side of the deal will still have to be demonstrated. Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor pursued this tactic in January after an interim agreement was reached in November last year. Ironically, Iranians, too, seek an immediate vote on lifting the sanctions, though for reasons quite different from hawkish lawmakers in Congress. The hawks want a quick vote the better to kill the deal. The Iranians want a quick vote the better to get permanent sanctions relief sooner. In the middle is the Obama administration, which is seeking a path that would make the deal durable by offering Tehran reversible economic relief at the outset of the deal with a promise to make it permanent once Iran has fully delivered on its end of the bargain. And that is precisely what congressional opponents fear: Obama’s strategy will persuade the Iranians to accept significant limits to their nuclear program, allow inspectors to roam its nuclear facilities and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency on compliance — paving the way for a final nuclear deal and permanent sanctions relief for Iran. Such a scenario would undermine congressional opposition because the Iranians would be allowed to prove over at least the course of a year that they are a trustworthy partner living up to their commitments under the deal. A vote soon after a deal is struck in November would keep distrust alive. The taming effect of Obama’s diplomacy with Iran on Congress was visible in July. When the nuclear talks failed to reach an agreement, negotiators extended them for four months. Most lawmakers expected the extension would open the door for the hawks to derail the process by pushing new sanctions. But unlike the sanctions gambit in January, the new legislation was designed so as not to violate the interim accord, which would have given Tehran a pretext to exit the negotiations and undermine the ongoing diplomacy. Yet contrary to expectations, the four-month extension did not generate a political showdown over diplomacy and sanctions. Three factors explain why the hawks ended up losing the fight even before it began. First, the focus of the hawks was divided between the interim deal and defending Israel over its war with Hamas. Second, supporters of the president’s diplomacy had prepared the ground in Congress and mobilized resources in defense of it. And third, and perhaps most important, the interim nuclear deal had been a success. According to all accounts, the Iranians had delivered on all their promises and commitments. They had not dragged their feet. They had not tried to cheat. Six months of continued good news had cleared much of the poison out of the atmosphere in Congress and rendered anti-Iran measures far more difficult to pass. The hawks in Congress have learned their lesson. They now fear more good news coming out of the nuclear talks in Vienna. To kill these negotiations and pave the way for war, they need a vote now. Not later.By Trita Parsi
U.S. - White House warns Christie and Cuomo over Ebola quarantine rules
White House officials warned the governors of New York and New Jersey of the “unintended consequences” of quarantining all medical workers returning from west Africa, as a political crisis deepened on Sunday over how to counter public fears about the spread of Ebola in the US. Amid a barrage of criticism from aid organisations, medical experts and the mayor of New York, the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, and his New York counterpart, Andrew Cuomo, have defended their plans, which provide for the mandatory 21-day quarantine of anyone returning from west Africa after direct contact with people suffering from Ebola. But on Sunday evening Cuomo struck a less hardline tone, saying returning healthcare workers could be quarantined at home and receive twice-daily monitoring from medical professionals. The state will also compensate for any lost wages. Cuomo also referred to healthcare workers returning from Africa as “heroes”, and said his administration would encourage more to volunteer. Earlier in the day in New Jersey, Kaci Hickox, a nurse who was detained on Friday despite testing negative for Ebola, described her treatment as “inhumane” and said she had been made to feel like a criminal. The White House made it clear that it objected to the hurried introduction of “policies not grounded in science”. The tougher rules were introduced hurriedly on Friday by Christie and Cuomo after it emerged that a New York doctor, Craig Spencer, had moved widely around the city in the days before he tested positive for Ebola. Spencer, who worked for Doctors Without Borders in Guinea, is now in isolation at Bellevue Hospital. Hickox was stopped at Newark airport in New Jersey just as the new rules were announced. On Sunday evening Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York City, hit out strongly against her treatment. “The problem is this hero, having come back from the front, having done the right thing, was treated with disrespect, was treated with a sense that she had done something wrong when she hadn’t,” he said. De Blasio, who was speaking at a press conference at Bellevue, added: “We respect the right of each governor to make decisions that they think are right for their people. But we have to think how we treat the people who are doing this noble work and we must show them respect and consideration at all times. And we owe [Hickox] better than that and all the people who do this work better than that.” The White House indicated that it was urgently reviewing the federal guidelines for returning healthcare workers, “recognising that these medical professionals’ selfless efforts to fight this disease on the front lines will be critical to bringing this epidemic under control, the only way to eliminate the risk of additional cases here at home”. “We have let the governors of New York, New Jersey, and others states know that we have concerns with the unintended consequences of policies not grounded in science may have on efforts to combat Ebola at its source in West Africa,” an administration official said. The governors’ moves created another political crisis for the Obama administration, which is already facing criticism of its handling of the Ebola crisis in the run up to the midterm elections. Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the United Nations, on Sunday became the highest-ranked administration official to officially comment on the crisis. She told NBC: “We need to make sure [returning healthcare workers] are treated like conquering heroes and not in any other way.” Power, who was in Guinea’s capital Conakry on the first leg of a tour through the three West African nations hardest hit by the epidemic, said: “All of us need to make clear what these health workers mean to us and how much we value their services, how much we value their contribution.” In New Jersey, Hickox, who returned from a stint working for Doctors Without Borders in Sierra Leone, appointed a lawyer to free her and called her treatment “inhumane” and “poorly planned”. Dr Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Disease, said quarantining health workers could have the unintended consequence of stopping US aid workers from tackling the disease at its source in West Africa. “There’s a big, big difference between completely confining somebody so that they can’t even get outside and doing the appropriate monitoring based on scientific evidence,” he said on CNN. “The harm is that it is totally disruptive of their life. We want them to go because they are helping us to protect America to be over there.” Ebola cannot be transmitted until someone with the disease begins to display symptoms; even then it is only transmitted through direct contact with bodily fluids. A spokesman for Doctors Without Borders said a total of 52 people from the US had worked with the organisation in west Africa on the Ebola response since it began in March. The spokesman said 31 Americans were currently working in West Africa, with 20 due to return sometime in the next four weeks. A spokesman for SIM, Palmer Holt, said the international missionary organisation had one American doctor in Liberia, “who is planning to return to the States soon, but if he has to undergo mandatory quarantine, he may not be able to do that, as his plan is to do a brief visit and then quickly return.” Christie has so far defended his position, believing he has public opinion on his side. Illinois followed New York and New Jersey in introducing a 21-day quarantine on Friday and on Saturday Florida announced three weeks of testing for aid workers returning from affected areas. On Sunday, Christie said he expected quarantine of workers to become “national policy sooner rather than later”. The new policies infuriated city officials in New York, who had drawn up meticulous plans to deal with potential Ebola patients in the wake of criticisms of the way Dallas officials handled the case of Thomas Eric Duncan, the first person to be given a diagnosis of Ebola in the US, whose treatment was widely seen to have been bungled. Duncan died on 8 October; two nurses who treated him contracted the disease and have since recovered. New federal rules were also set to come into force Monday. Those plans and those prepared by New York have been thrown into disarray by the governors’ surprise moves. De Blasio said New York was “fully prepared to handle the crisis”, and added: “There is no reason for New Yorkers to be alarmed. This is a very difficult disease to contract. “It takes an extraordinary amount of direct and physical contact to contract this disease.” From Monday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will require any traveler returning from the affected West African countries to report their temperatures to their local health authorities. Travelers from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone will be required to report every day for the 21 days following their departure from West Africa, the length of time in which Ebola can remain dormant. They will also be required to tell officials where they will be staying in the three weeks after they arrive and to hand over a list of relatives.Dominic Rushe and Lauren Gambino
Pakistan: We have forgotten IDPs: ANP chief
War amputees in Afghanistan face harsh lives of discrimination and poverty
No one knows how many there actually are. Decades of conflict have made tallying Afghanistan’s war-related amputees — the victims of land mines, unexploded ordnance and roadside bombs — essentially impossible, health officials say. But as the battle between Afghan security forces and Taliban fighters rages, humanitarian workers also say potent improvised explosive devices laid by insurgents are contributing to a significant rise in traumatic limb amputations for Afghan civilians and combatants. And even as the population of Afghans who are missing limbs grows, amputees face discrimination and the harsh stigma of being disabled. Their families, too, often cannot cope with the strain of caring for severely disabled relatives in a country crushed by poverty and high rates of illiteracy. “Socially and financially, their lives are destroyed,” Emanuele Nannini, program director at the Italian nonprofit Emergency, which operates health-care centers across Afghanistan, said of Afghan amputees. From January to June this year, Emergency’s Center for War Trauma Victims in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province in southern Afghanistan, performed 69 amputations. The fiercest fighting between the two sides usually takes place in the warmer summer months. Emergency then sends the amputees to the nearby International Committee for the Red Cross orthopedic facility for long-term rehabilitation. The patients receive vocational training and other support to reintegrate them into society. The ICRC said that between April and June this year, it admitted 351 amputee patients to its facilities across Afghanistan. But for the most part, amputees “are completely dependent on their families, and they become a huge burden,” said Nannini, who is based in Kabul. “The real tragedy starts when they go home. If they don’t have a strong family, they become beggars.” Indeed, the hardship that comes with the loss of a limb — or limbs — in a country that relies so heavily on agriculture and manual labor is particularly acute. Farmers can no longer toil. A mechanic without an arm loses his ability to tinker. A policeman cannot go out on patrol. When limbs are torn apart, livelihoods are mangled with them. Mohammad Dawoud is a 22-year-old farmer from a village in southern Afghanistan’s Helmand province — and his father’s only son. He was walking past a police checkpoint on the dirt road near his home this summer when he stepped on a buried IED, he said. Doctors at Emergency’s hospital in Lashkar Gah amputated both of his legs above the knees. His fiancee knows what happened to him, but he has not yet heard from her, he said. Dawoud knows it is unlikely she will marry him now that he is handicapped. “Life will pass somehow,” Dawoud said from his hospital bed in Lashkar Gah. “Maybe I will get some money and open a shop for tea and sweets in my village.” “I used to grow pomegranates,” he said, recalling his life as a farmer. “But I never learned to read or write, because I never imagined I would end up like this.”By Erin Cunningham
Afghanistan’s Unending Addiction
Over the last dozen years, the United States has poured $7.6 billion into combating Afghanistan’s opium production, and the results are now clear: The program failed.
The narcotics program embraced multiple strategies, including interdicting drug traffickers, eradicating poppy fields, strengthening the Afghan legal system to prosecute drug dealers, persuading farmers to grow alternative crops and establishing treatment programs for addicts. The Pentagon, one of the lead agencies in the effort, has pinned the failure to reduce cultivation largely on a lack of support from the Afghan government.It must also be said, however, that American, European, Afghan and United Nations officials at times sabotaged their own mission by bickering over how the money should be spent and where best to focus resources. It seems unlikely that the new and still fragile Afghan government will soon do better on poppy eradication than the United States and its allies, whose forces in Afghanistan are expected to be reduced to 15,000 by the end of the year. The one bright spot is that Mr. Ghani seems to have a vision for what needs to be done. His campaign platform frankly acknowledged that legal farming in Afghanistan is less profitable and less efficient than the drug trade because it lacks an organized system of markets, financing, skilled workers and irrigation equipment. He has pledged to modernize farming and develop new markets for legitimate crops and other products. The American embassy in Kabul has said that the United States will help him in these efforts. The allies must pitch in as well. But one early order of business is to figure out where the counternarcotics strategy went wrong — why so much investment over the years has produced so little. An honest evaluation is a necessary first step to constructing a strategy that works and gives the new government a realistic shot at a building a productive economy and a stable nation.
Islamic State and Taliban flags in Kabul University demonstration
Dozens of university students participated in a demonstration in capital Kabul to protest against the alleged the blasphemy by a local English newspaper.The majority of the rally participants were students of Islamic studies who condemned the newspaper for publishing a blasphemous article. The protesters were shouting slogans against democracy and were carrying flags of the Islamic State and Taliban group. They urged for the implementation of Sharia law through the real caliphate and insisted that the Kabul university students and lecturers are fed up of democracy. A group of individuals were also arrested by Afghan security forces last week who were apparently supporting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in capital Kabul. According to the security officials, the individuals were writing slogans in support of Islamic State in the walls of Kabul university. Though, the security officials are saying that the Islamic State has not managed to infiltrate in Afghanistan so far. However, insurgents belonging to a faction of the Hezb-e-Islami led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar said earlier in September that they consider to join the Islamic State militants who are currently fighting in Syria and Iraq. ٰٰThere have been growing concerns regarding the growth of extremism in educational institutes, specifically in Kabul university amid fears that the insurgent groups have infiltrated among the university students to hire them for insurgency activities in the country.
Pakistan: Militants blow up school in Khyber
ISI shifts underworld don Dawood Ibrahim to Pakistan-Afghanistan border
Sustained joint efforts by Indian and US security agencies seem to have driven underworld don Dawood Ibrahim into hiding close to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
ISIS And Pakistan
shiapost.comThe so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is also known as al Dawlah al Islamiyah fi al Iraq wal Shâm or DAISH. This arrangement is also referred to as the Islamic State or IS in line with their aspirations to create a transnational geographical entity ostensibly on the basis of religion. The state was declared on June 29, 2014. Not surprisingly, its proclaimed leader, al-Baghdadi, quoted extensively from the writings of Maududi, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), when he declared himself caliph of the entire Muslim world. Based on his unique interpretation of citizenship in Islam, Maududi put forward the idea of the universal citizen transcending nation or history. Maududi deliberately ignored the saying of the Prophet (PBUH): “Love for your country is part of faith.” Maududi thus took his cue not from religion but from the French Revolution that sought to create a state that in turn created its citizens. This flawed concept formed the basis of Maududi’s argument that full citizenship of an Islamic state was only available to Muslims and this principle has been adopted by ISIS, which kills and beheads in the name of Islam. Their mistreatment and oppression of religious minorities and extermination of dissenting Islamic theology also stems from this flawed deduction. ISIS humiliates when it kills and dishonours the bodies of its victims. It captures through videos or photographs practices like mass executions and public crucifixions that it carries out in the name of religion, making a mockery of Islam. It uses religion as a tool to gain political weight that it cannot gain otherwise. Its hatred for democracy is therefore not camouflaged, intelligently branding it as a western idea. ISIS’s inception in a sham democracy like Iraq therefore holds no surprise as previously violent pseudo-religious extremists converged in places like Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan’s tribal areas and northern Nigeria. Pakistan was created as a separate state for Indian Muslims from British India in 1947 and followed a parliamentary form of democracy. In 1949, contrary to the ideals of Jinnah, the country’s founder, the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan passed the Objectives Resolution that envisaged an official role for Islam as the state religion. Yet, despite this, the state retained most of the laws that it inherited from the secular British legal code that had been enforced by colonial British authorities. It, therefore, qualified as a target for local extremist organisations. The emergence of ISIS with global aspirations opens up room for not just an alliance of these terrorist organisations but also paves the way for the former’s physical presence through assimilation of local outfits. The recent teaming up of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP’s) Shahidullah Shahid with ISIS is a step in this direction. The TTP’s declaration was preceded by news that a local group by the name of Islami Khilafat had distributed pamphlets in Peshawar that were also sent to Afghan refugee camps and to eastern Afghanistan. These pamphlets purportedly came from Kunar province in Afghanistan. The pamphlet was titled Fatah (victory) and published in Pashto and Dari. The logo of the pamphlet has the kalma (the most prominent testament of faith), the historical stamp of the Prophet (PBUH) and a Kalashnikov assault rifle. A Pakistani security official was quoted as saying: “We came across them 22 days ago and we are aware of their presence here…Pakistani security agencies are working on the Pakistan-Afghan border and have arrested a number of Taliban fighters and recovered CDs, maps, literature in Persian, Pashto and Dari. We will not permit them to work in our country and anyone who is involved in this will be crushed by the government.” However, marking an increased ISIS presence here, just days ago, the local news showed an ISIS wall chalking in Karachi. This is disturbing; ISIS may very well view Pakistan with its strategic assets as a priceless target. A Taliban splinter group, Jamaatul Ahrar, has declared its support for ISIS. Reuters quoted Jamatul Ahrar’s leader, Ehsanullah Ehsan, as saying: “We respect them. If they ask us for help, we will look into it and decide.” The formation of ISIS with its transnational ambitions may have been the tipping point for the Pakistan army to initiate Operation Zarb-e-Azb. The Pakistan army appears to have acted wisely and tried to eliminate prospective ISIS allies before they made a move here. Zarb-e-Azb was imperative in destroying TTP bases and infrastructure here. This operation has, however, opened up the possibility that terrorists who flee to Afghanistan and further to Central Asia may tie up with ISIS and provide it inroads into Central Asia, India and even China if they support the Uighur living in Xinjiang. ISIS is a real threat to the entire region, not just Pakistan. Recalling Baghdadi’s frequent quoting of Maududi, the JI’s stance on ISIS should be an eye opener. The JI’s (India) bi-weekly Dawat carried in its August 22, 2014 publication an editorial note titled ‘DAAISH (ISIS): some points to ponder’. The note says: “Some people say that they are the agents of the US while some others are of the opinion that they are a tool in the hands of the enemies of Islam to drive a wedge between Sunni and Shia Islam. There are few others who call it a manifestation of predictions in the hadith (sayings of the Prophet [PBUH])…Objectively speaking, it will not be wise for Muslims to form a final opinion on the basis of speculations…Still, it is very necessary to welcome the announcement of the establishment of Islamic caliphate by the ISIS because Islamic caliphate is the aspiration of every Muslim and there has never been a disagreement on the issue among the Muslims in any period of history.” JI’s love for ISIS and Baghdadi’s love for Maududi points to the presence of an organisation in our political mainstream that can provide recruits to this menace. Should we allow such an organisation whose father figure can be rightly labelled the father of ISIS, to continue to operate, is a question that our security agencies must ask. The mutual love of Maududi, Hasan al-Bana and the Ikhwanul Muslimoon (Muslim Brotherhood) is another reason for worry. The JI, which worked against the creation of Pakistan, is launching the so-called ‘Pakistan Movement’ from Minto Park on October 21 of this month, which may well be the start of a discreet campaign to galvanise support from unsuspecting innocent Pakistanis for any future DAISH action here. We need to be on guard. The country is already unstable due to incompetent governance and political agitation. The JI’s entry has more to it than is apparent. http://en.shiapost.com/2014/10/21/isis-and-pakistan-mohammad-ahmad/
Pakistan: Murder of Daniel Pearl - Anti-terrorism lacunae
Pakistan: Flaws in vaccination campaign contribute to worrying polio spike
Pakistan: Unicef warned of polio funding cut
Pakistan: Muhajir Or Native?
Pakistan: Malik urges Nawaz to order inquiry into London rally incident
Bilawal Bhutto attends Million March in London to pledge solidarity with Kashmiris
http://mediacellppp.wordpress.com/
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Punishment for sexual assault in Iran: Execution of victim!
Iran hanged Saturday a woman convicted of murdering a former intelligence officer she claimed had tried to sexually assault her, defying international appeals for a stay of execution. Reyhaneh Jabbari, 26, who had been on death row for five years, was put to death at dawn, the official IRNA news agency quoted the Tehran prosecutor's office as saying. A message posted on the homepage of a Facebook campaign set up to try to save her noted the "sad news" of her death, adding the words "Rest in Peace" alongside pictures of Jabbari as a young child. Amnesty International said in a statement issued late Friday that the young Iranian woman, an interior designer, was due to be executed for the 2007 stabbing of Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi. Iranian actors and other prominent figures had appealed for a stay of execution, echoing similar calls in the West. Iran's judiciary had given several deadlines for Sarbandi's family to spare Jabbari under an Islamic sharia law provision that allows a death sentence for murder to be commuted to a prison sentence with the agreement of the victim's family. But relatives of Sarbandi, a 47-year-old surgeon who earlier worked for the intelligence ministry, refused to grant clemency, demanding, according to Iranian media, that Jabbari tell "the truth." A UN human rights monitor said the killing came in self-defence after Sarbandi tried to sexually abuse Jabbari, and that the condemned woman's trial in 2009 had been deeply flawed. But a medical report, prepared for the judiciary and quoted by IRNA in its Saturday dispatch, said Sarbandi was stabbed in the back and that the killing had been premeditated. Efforts for a commuted jail sentence had intensified in recent weeks but Sarbandi's family and Jabbari remained at loggerheads over the circumstances of the killing. According to Jalal Sarbandi, the victim's eldest son, Jabbari testified that a man was present in the apartment where his father was killed but she had refused to reveal his identity. He told two of Iran's reformist daily newspapers, Shargh and Etemad, in April that his family "would not even contemplate mercy until truth is unearthed," about her alleged accomplice. Jabbari's mother was allowed to visit her for one hour on Friday, Amnesty said, a custom that tends to precede executions in Iran. According to the United Nations, more than 250 people have been executed in Iran since the beginning of 2014. The UN and international human rights groups have said that Jabbari's confession was obtained under intense pressure and threats from Iranian prosecutors, and that she should have had a retrial. Ahmed Shaheed, the UN's human rights rapporteur on Iran, said in April that Sarbandi had offered to hire Jabbari to redesign his office and took her to an apartment where he sexually assaulted her. However, Sarbandi's family dismissed her account and said Jabbari had confessed to buying a knife two days before the killing.By Arthur MacMillan
Should the West stop intervening in the Middle East?
By Nahlah Ayed
Is military intervention only provoking more radicalism, or have we passed the point of no return?Is it right for Western nations to intervene abroad using military force? There are few questions in our time that are as incendiary. There are also few questions where both a yes and no answer can lead to comparably catastrophic consequences. No need to look beyond Iraq for a particularly tragic example. A misguided intervention there not only set a war-torn country on a destructive path, it also played its part in creating the space for extremist organizations to thrive and recruit supporters, including alienated, radicalized youth from the West willing to sow destruction at home. But the question of intervention still comes up repeatedly, and one way or another the tough choices are made. Canada, for one, chose not to participate in George W. Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. But it did sign on for Libya in 2011, sending in a squadron of six F-18s as part of a NATO-led coalition. And now Canada's planes are back again in the region, to join the U.S.-led campaign against the murderous group known as ISIS, which has created a so-called Islamic state straddling Syria and Iraq, and which at least partly grew out of the mess in Iraq — and, indirectly, Libya. Back up three years, what would you have done? How to respond when the rebels of Benghazi, freedom fighters as the West saw them, begged the world to come to their aid, as forces loyal to the notorious Moammar Gadhafi regime, bent on a bloodbath, closed in. Many world leaders, including Canada's Stephen Harper, agreed that leaving these Libyans prey to a regime that had long oppressed them simply wasn't an option. These leaders also felt that an oil-rich nation such as Libya couldn't be left to tear itself apart. Mission creep At the time, the case for intervening in Libya appeared compelling. What the participants may not have known was how it would later limit their ability to intervene in even more compelling situations, such as Syria's civil war. The stated mission in Libya was to create and enforce a no-fly zone to protect civilians from the regime's air attacks. But it went beyond that. And it ultimately encouraged the revolutionaries and led directly to regime change. Three years ago this week saw the gruesome, desert execution of Gadhafi. Most Western capitals were happy to see the last of him, and so was much of the Middle East, even if it was done with the help of the much-despised "foreign intervention." So none of the Western participants were particularly threatened for taking part. There were no calls for attacks abroad in retaliation. But Russia was outraged. President Vladimir Putin called it a "planned murder." Among the litany of Putin grudges against NATO and the West, this would rank close to the top. That mistrust would harden Putin's position, and make it virtually impossible for the West to intervene in the affairs of his remaining allies. No need to look further than his staunch support for Syria's Bashar al-Assad. Russia always supported Syria’s Baathist regime, but the Libya experience meant Putin's support for Assad would be total, even in the face of all the death, displacement and destruction — including the use of chemical weapons. So the options for the West — save for engaging in a proxy war by helping anti-Assad forces — were narrowed from the start. Even Barack Obama's "red line" on the use of chemical weapons failed to lead to intervention, because Moscow stood in the way. "Once chemical weapons were used with impunity, and there was still no confrontation, the conflict reached the point of no return," said Payam Akhavan, a renowned Canadian human rights lawyer. “Now there is a situation that will destabilize the region for many years," he says, because of the extremists forces that have emerged. He called the unwillingness to intervene a “gross failure of leadership.” In short, the Syrian civil war has cost tens of thousands of lives, and the resulting mess ultimately made it possible for ISIS to flourish. Soon, the question for the Western powers became, should war be declared on ISIS in the so-called Islamic state it claims to have created? The answer has been a resounding yes. Some 60-plus countries have signed up. And that has been effectively used by ISIS and its supporters to argue that the West continues to wage war against Islam. In an audio recording last month, a spokesman called for attacks on members of the anti-ISIS coalition, specifically mentioning Canada. This week, just as Canada's CF-18s left to join the fight, we saw two attacks on Canadian soldiers on home soil, with at least one of them directly inspired by ISIS recruiting. A trail of radicalization No Western country has been immune from the radicalization that the so-called war on terror has left in its wake. Even Canada saw its first high-profile examples in Xristos Katsiroubas and Ali Medlej, two young friends from London, Ont., who joined in an Islamist-led plot against foreigners at an oil refinery in the Algerian desert a year ago. Today, a number of Canadians are known to be fighting with ISIS in Syria; many more trying to get there, and others presumably are inspired and might act at home. Some 500 Britons have also left to join ISIS. Belgium apparently boasts the highest per capita number of citizens who now call the Islamic State home. All of these adherents make the same argument: That attacks on the West are justified because the West insists on intervening in their affairs. They consider it war. Should that dissuade Canada or other nations from intervening? A few countries over from ISIS's so-called Islamic state, Libya is a right mess, thanks in part to the armed rebels NATO helped, but who now refuse to disarm, and constantly clash with each other and the new government. Awkwardly, Canada's F-18s could soon be targeting some of those same rebels they helped out in Libya, who turned out to be natural recruits for ISIS. Within view of those cockpits will also be parts of Syria where innocent people are being killed with impunity by Assad's loyalists. For them, there has been no intervention nor will there be. Much of Iraq, the birthplace of the precursor to ISIS, remains wracked with violence. Of course, today's harsh realities feel graver than what could have been had there been no intervention. We don't know how many more would have died in Benghazi. How many more disappeared in Baghdad. So, is it right for Western nations to intervene abroad using military force? Especially in a region that has a long history of being allergic to it? Could there have been a better way? Though all these options are debatable, we are now almost beyond the question. The West has intervened, and is intervening, and the pushback has now touched Canada at home. Agree or not, we have entered an indeterminate period of turbulence. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/should-the-west-stop-intervening-in-the-middle-east-1.2811177
Bahrain: Free Activists Facing Free-Speech Charges
Bahrain authorities should drop all criminal charges against two prominent human rights activists, and immediately release them, Human Rights Watch and the Gulf Center for Human Rights said today. The charges clearly violate their right to free expression. Bahrain should also immediately revoke all laws that violate freedom of speech, including those that criminalize insulting or defaming state institutions or the monarch.
Nabeel Rajab, one of Bahrain’s most prominent human rights defenders, is due in court on October 29, 2014, to face charges that he offended national institutions, and a possible three-year jail sentence. Zainab al-Khawaja, another leading human rights campaigner, could receive an even heavier sentence of up to seven years when she stands trial on October 30 on charges that she insulted the king of Bahrain. Among Bahrain’s main international allies, only the United States has called on the Gulf state’s government to drop the charges against Rajab and al-Khawaja and release them.
“These two courageous activists face years in jail for their peaceful criticism of a deeply repressive government, yet only the United States and Norway have made explicit calls for their release,” said Joe Stork deputy Middle East and North Africa director. “A lot of influential governments that vociferously champion free speech elsewhere seem to have become shamefully coy where rights violations in Bahrain are concerned.”
Rajab is the president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, a director of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights, and a member of the Human Rights Watch advisory committee. On October 19, he appeared in court for the first hearing of his trial on charges that comments he made on social media violated article 216 of Bahrain’s penal code.
Rajab criticized the government for using counterterrorism laws to prosecute human rights defenders and accused Bahraini security forces of fostering violent beliefs similar to those of the Islamic State, noting that a former Interior Ministry employee had joined the extremist Islamist group. In court, Rajab’s lawyer submitted evidence to support his claims, including a YouTube clip showing Mohamed Isa al Binali, a former security officer for Bahrain’s Interior Ministry, urging other security force members to join the Islamic State.
Sources who were at the hearing told Human Rights Watch that the prosecutor urged the court to convict Rajab because he had acknowledged making the comments that form the basis of the charge. The prosecutor accused Rajab of lying when he said he did not intend to offend anyone, and also accused him of hating Bahrain, the sources said.
Bahrain authorities have previously prosecuted Rajab on charges that violated his rights, including to free assembly. In July 2012 a criminal court sentenced him to three years in prison for organizing and participating in three demonstrations between January and March 2012. The authorities presented no evidence that Rajab advocated or engaged in violence. Rajab was released on May 24, 2014, after serving two years in prison.
Al-Khawaja, who is eight months pregnant, faces six charges, five of which, according to information provided by her lawyer, clearly violate her right to free expression. The other charge arises from her action in ripping up a photo of the king on October 14 during a court hearing at which she faced charges that related to two previous incidents when she tore up photographs of the king. In September 2012, she was sentenced to two months in prison for ripping up a photo of King Hamad. In early February 2013, she was imprisoned on charges that included illegal gathering and insulting police officers. She was released in February 2014.
On October 3, the UN’s Office of the High Commission for Human Rights called for Rajab’s immediate release. On October 14, Norway became the first country to call for Rajab’s immediate release. Two days later, a US State Department spokesperson made the same demand and on October 20, the US State Department also called for al-Khawaja’s immediate release.
France has urged the Bahrain government to respect freedom of expression and called for “clemency” in Rajab’s case but has not explicitly called for dropping the charges. Ireland has expressed its concern. The EU has made no public call for the release of either activist. The UK, a close ally of Bahrain, has made no unilateral calls for the release of any human rights activists or government critics there since the anti-government protests of 2011.
In April 2014, Hamad ratified law 1/2014, which amends article 214 of the penal code to provide for a maximum jail term of seven years and a fine of up to 10,000 Bahraini Dinars (US$26,500) for anyone deemed to have offended the king, Bahrain’s flag, or the national emblem. Article 216 of the penal code states that “A person shall be liable for imprisonment or payment of a fine if he offends by any method of expression the National Assembly, or other constitutional institutions, the army, law courts, authorities or government agencies.” Article 54 of the penal code provides for a maximum three-year sentence for these offenses, except where other penalties are specified.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which reviews state compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, concluded in relation to article 19, on freedom of expression, that:
The mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties, albeit public figures may also benefit from the provisions of the Covenant. Moreover, all public figures, including those exercising the highest political authority such as heads of state and government, are legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition.
The committee also stated that “States parties should not prohibit criticism of institutions, such as the army or the administration.” Bahrain has ratified the covenant.
“The silence of the UK, the EU, and others may result in Nabeel Rajab and Zainab al-Khawaja paying a further heavy cost for their activism,” said Khalid Ibrahim, co-director of the Gulf Center for Human Rights. “Bahrain and the Gulf region in general are quickly becoming the litmus test when it comes to states’ support for freedom of expression.”
Pakistan: PTI local leaders offended after Gujrat rally
Local leaders of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf from the district are offended by the senior party leadership over treatment they received in the Oct 24 public meeting as half of the total 12 ticket holders were not allowed to sit on the main stage with Imran Khan while those present there were not allowed to even shake hands with the party chief before, at, or after the rally. Sources in the party said before the arrival of the party chief at the Zahoor Elahi Cricket Stadium a senior party leader had issued special instructions to the PTI men from Gujrat, present at the main stage, regarding protocol which they did not like. This had earlier been decided that most of the party ticket holders would take the main stage with Imran Khan but the district president reportedly changed the list at the eleventh hour by eliminating some names, including that of district secretary general Sharafat advocate, who was also a ticket holder from PP-113 Dinga. Former Caretaker Chief Minister Mian Afzal Hayat, Chaudhry Saleem Sarwar Jaura, Raja Naeem Nawaz, Afzal Gondal and Nasir Chappar were the only ticket holders that were present on the stage. One of the former ticket holders of the PTI, on condition of anonymity, said the callous attitude of the senior party leadership had disappointed local cadres of the party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)