By Brian Rohan
BERLIN | Sun Oct 3, 2010 10:58am EDT
BERLIN (Reuters) - German President Christian Wulff said Sunday that Islam had a place in Germany, during a speech celebrating two decades of reunification.
The president, who holds a largely ceremonial position but is considered a moral authority for the nation, used the televised ceremony to wade into a debate over immigrant integration that has captivated public attention for weeks.
"First and foremost, we need adopt a clear stance: an understanding that for Germany, belonging is not restricted to a passport, a family history, or a religion," he told an audience in the northern city of Bremen.
"Christianity doubtless belongs in Germany. Judaism belongs doubtless in Germany. That is our Judeo-Christian history. But by now, Islam also belongs in Germany," he added.
Wulff's speech was part of nationwide festivities marking reunification in 1990, after Germany spent a half-century divided into two countries following defeat in World War Two.
His comments came after a sustained public discussion on the role of immigrants, most of whom were seen until a decade ago as "guest workers" who would eventually return to other countries.
The issue had been simmering for years as blood-based citizenship laws gave little recognition to the country's newer residents, 4 million of whom are Muslim.
Positions hardened however last summer after an outspoken board member of Germany's central bank accused Muslim immigrants of sponging off the welfare state, refusing to integrate and lowering the nation's intelligence.
After publishing his ideas in a book that went on to be a bestseller, Thilo Sarrazin was forced out of his job at the Bundesbank, leaving Germany split over his views and how he was handled by the political establishment.
Chancellor Angela Merkel, who nominated Wulff for the presidency, came under fire for her handling of the row from both conservative elements of her own Christian Democrat (CDU) party and far-right groups.
Since then, she has tried to accommodate both ends of the debate, saying police should not have to fear entering immigrant-heavy neighborhoods, but also that "mosques will be a somewhat larger part of our cityscape than before."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69218Z20101003
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Aafia Siddique Gets 86 Years for "Trying to Kill US Soldiers in Afghanistan"
Pakistani given 86 years for firing at US troops
NY judge gives 86 years in prison to Pakistani scientist who shot at US troops in Afghanistan
TOM HAYS and LARRY NEUMEISTER
AP News
Sep 23, 2010 15:37 EDT
A U.S.-trained Pakistani scientist convicted of trying to kill U.S. agents and military officers in Afghanistan was sentenced Thursday to 86 years in prison after she delivered a message of world peace and forgave the judge.
"I am a Muslim, but I love Americans too," Aafia Siddiqui said during one of several rambling statements delivered in a lilting voice at the behest of U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman.
"Forgive everybody in my case, please," she added. "Also forgive Judge Berman."
During a three-hour hearing in federal court in Manhattan, Siddiqui claimed she had evidence Israel was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and warned more plots were in the works.
"I do not want any bloodshed. I do not want any misunderstanding. I really want to make peace and end the wars," she said.
Siddiqui rolled her eyes, shook her head and threw up her hand in frustration as her lawyers tried to convince the judge she deserved leniency because she was mentally ill.
"I'm not paranoid," she said at one point. "I don't agree with that."
She also tried to dispel rumors she was being tortured while in New York, and urged calm over her plight.
"Tell the Muslims, please don't get emotional," she said, addressing reporters in the audience. "I'm OK. ... I do not want any violence in my name."
News of the harsh sentence still touched off protests in Pakistan.
In the northwestern city of Peshawar, dozens of people took to the streets, burning tires and shouting "Down with America!" and slogans against Pakistani's president and prime minister. Some hit a portrait of U.S. President Barack Obama with their shoes.
"This sentence is a slap in the face of our rulers who have pledged and made promises to bring back Aafia," Siddiqui's sister Fauzia said at her home in the southern city of Karachi.
The Pakistani government, which helped bankroll Siddiqui's defense, was "disappointed at the sentence and sad that our efforts to get her back to Pakistan did not succeed," said foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit. "We are in touch with the U.S. administration to see what possible options are available. We are not giving up."
The sentence imposed on the mother of three capped a strange legal odyssey that began two summers ago, when the 38-year-old Siddiqui turned up in Afghanistan carrying notes referencing a "mass casualty attack" on New York City landmarks and a stash of sodium cyanide.
At trial earlier this year, jurors heard eyewitnesses describe how, after she was detained by Afghan police, Siddiqui grabbed a rifle and tried to shoot U.S. authorities who had gone to interrogate her. They said she yelled, "Death to Americans!" before she was injured in return fire and subdued.
At trial, Siddiqui testified in her own defense. Charges that she purposely shot at soldiers were "crazy," she said. "It's just ridiculous."
Prosecutors argued for a life sentence, saying Siddiqui's crimes were premeditated and intended to harm Americans.
"This was not some random act," Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher La Vigne. "On that day, she saw her chance and she took it."
The defense had asked the judge for a sentence closer to 12 years behind bars. Her lawyers argued in court papers that their client's outburst inside a cramped Afghan outpost was a spontaneous "freak out," born of mental illness, not militancy.
"All she wanted to do was get away because she was afraid," said defense attorney Dawn Cardi.
Calling Siddiqui an "enigma," Berman started the sentencing by outlining Siddiqui's history, noting that she was educated in the United States at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brandeis University in the early 1990s.
Berman said she returned to her native Pakistan in 2003 and married a purported al-Qaida operative, a nephew to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Both are held at Guantanamo Bay.
He said it was not clear where she was from 2003 through 2008, though Siddiqui tried to clear that up when she spoke, saying she was held in a secret prison in Afghanistan for many years.
When the judge announced that he planned to sentence Siddiqui to 86 years in prison, someone in the courtroom shouted: "Shame! Shame! Shame on this court!" The judge warned the woman she would be removed if she made another outburst.
Just before she was sentenced, Siddiqui said she was at peace. Afterward, she insisted that her lawyers not appeal.
"It's useless, pointless," she said. "I appeal to God."
___
Associated Press writers Ashraf Khan and Chris Brummitt in Pakistan contributed to this report.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
The Myth Of A 'Christian Nation'
By A. James Rudin
Religion News Service
(RNS) The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is credited with saying that "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
Some leaders of the religious right would have us believe that America was founded as a "Christian nation." The facts, however, say otherwise.
While the Founding Fathers, with their diverse Christian backgrounds, had every opportunity to make the fledgling United States into a "Christian nation," the factual record reveals they consciously refused to do so.
And it was not, as some opine, a mistake or an oversight.
Their reasons were a combination of history, demography and the Founders' shared belief they were creating something unique in the world.
They remembered the Church of England's persecution of religious minorities, including the Pilgrims and Quakers. The Founders were also haunted by the ghosts of Europe's Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) when huge numbers of Protestants and Catholics killed each other in the name of God.
The text of the Declaration of Independence contains just four theological references: "nature's God," "Creator," "Supreme Judge of the world," and "Divine Providence." There is not a single specific mention of either Jesus or Christianity. The Declaration, reflecting the signatories' collective thinking, was carefully written and edited; words were included, or not, for a reason.
The U.S. Constitution, written in 1787, has only this religious wording: "in the year of our Lord," a common phrase still used on some legal documents and diplomas.
There is not, however, any constitutional authorization for the establishment of any religion in the U.S. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Article Six rejects a "religious test" for public office, and the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion while at the same time providing for its free exercise.
There were demographic factors at work, as well. By 1776, the U.S. was already religiously diverse, with several Protestant groups, minority Catholic and Jewish populations, and a large number of African-American slaves, some of them Muslim.
James Madison, a Presbyterian attorney from Virginia and a future president, predicted a "multiplicity of sects" in the U.S., similar to diverse political parties. We see now that Madison was, and remains, correct.
Even so, the question of whether the U.S. would officially become a "Christian nation" was in doubt until a titanic struggle was waged in Virginia between Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry in 1785.
Patrick, the state's governor and an Anglican (today he'd be known as an Episcopalian), wanted residents to pay a church tax to support religious institutions. Because of Virginia's population at the time, most taxes would have gone to the Anglican Church. Supporting the tax was John Marshall, another Anglican and a future Chief Justice.
Jefferson, who was also raised in the Anglican tradition, strongly opposed the proposal, and he enlisted Madison and Baptist minister John Leland as allies in the bitter campaign to defeat the bill in the Virginia Legislature.
Thanks to the efforts of Jefferson and his allies, Henry's tax legislation failed, and the following year, 1786, the Legislature adopted Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom by a vote of 74 to 20.
The Statute has had an extraordinary influence upon American history for 225 years. It provided that:
" No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever ... nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Muslims already pray on sacred 9/11 ground: the Pentagon
By Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Inside the Pentagon 9/11 Memorial Chapel, a female Air Force sergeant unlaced her combat boots, set them under the pews and slipped her black veil around her hair and over her camouflaged uniform.
The men pushed back the altar for Christian services to make room for their large green prayer rugs; then moved the podium from one side of the room to the other so that the congregation would be facing Mecca.
"Allahu Akhbar," called out Ali Mohammed, a contractor who works at the Pentagon, raising his hands to his face as he chanted the call to prayer. "Allahu Akhbar."
While politicians across the country in an election year may be debating the appropriateness of building a Muslim center, including a mosque, two blocks from the World Trade Center site in New York, there's no such debate at the Pentagon.
Instead, roughly 400 worshipers attend Muslim prayer services every week in the chapel, a non-denominational facility built over the rubble left behind when American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon.
Opponents of the New York mosque, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, say it would be disrespectful of those killed on Sept. 11, 2001, to allow Muslims to pray near the World Trade Center site.
That's never been an issue at the Pentagon, where 125 people who worked there died that day. Muslims have been praying at the Pentagon's 9/11 chapel since 2002, gathering every day at 2 p.m. around the time of the second of five prayers Muslims are supposed to offer daily.
In the chapel, it's impossible not to think of the terrorist attack. A memorial leading to it lists the names of the victims. Light streaming through a stained glass memorial illuminates the congregation. The memorial reads, "United in memory, September 11, 2001." A poster of a flag with the names of all those killed on Sept. 11 hangs on the wall on the other side of the room. The chapel's windows look out over a much larger 9/11 memorial outside.
Worshippers trickle in, placing their Pentagon badges in their shirt pockets as they walk toward the front, open the palms of their hands and begin to pray.
According to Army statistics, of the more than 1 million serving in the Army, there are 1,977 active duty Muslims, 603 Muslim reservists and 464 National Guardsmen. But there are only six Muslim chaplains to serve them.
To provide an imam on Friday, Islam's holy day, the Army Chaplain's office contracts an imam to speak to worshippers. On this Friday, it was Imam Ghayth Nur Kashif, leading 17 worshippers during the 40-minute service.
"We are challenged to do the best we can during Ramadan," Kashif told the congregation, referring to criticism of the proposed New York Islamic center. "It's not pleasant, but listen to some of the complaints."
The chapel, which was dedicated in November 2002, allots time for nine faiths to worship, including Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus.
Army officials said no one has ever objected to Muslims worshipping at the Pentagon chapel. Before the chapel was dedicated, those of any faith who wanted to pray at the Pentagon gathered in various conference rooms because there was no chapel.
On 9/11, 184 people were killed at the Pentagon, 64 of them on Flight 77. More than 2,700 were killed at the World Trade Center. At least 27 people killed in New York were Muslim. Pentagon officials don't think any Muslims, other than the hijackers, were killed at the building.
Officials say that more Muslims have been worshipping at the chapel during Ramadan, the Muslim holy month marked by fasting and abstention from smoking. On Tuesday, the Pentagon held an iftar, the banquet that marks sundown, when the daily fast ends.
Worshippers Friday said that Muslims are routinely under fire and the latest controversy saddened them but didn't surprise them.
"Obviously I have my own bias. I am Muslim," said Mohammed, the Pentagon contractor. "But if I had heard that Jewish organizers wanted to build there, I would be equally open to that."
Mohammed said he finds he can't help but think of where he is when he prays at the Pentagon chapel. He said he tries to focus on why he's there.
"It's just you and God," Mohammed said. "That is why you are there."
After the service, the men picked up their rugs, moved the altar back to the front of the pews, and put the podium back at the other side of the room for the Christian worshippers who'd follow them.
MORE FROM MCCLATCHY
Facts don't calm debate over New York Islamic center
Obama: Group has right to build mosque near ground zero
Commentary: A mosque near ground zero? It's the wise choice
Follow McClatchy on Twitter.
McClatchy Newspapers 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Book of Signs Foundation Counters 'International Burn a Quran Day' Event in Florida Church
Press Release Source: Book of Signs Foundation On Thursday August 19, 2010, 4:21 pm
ADDISON, Ill.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In response to the International Burn a Quran Day event taking place in the Dove World Outreach Center on Sept. 11, the Book of Signs Foundation is distributing 50 free Qurans for every Quran burned.
Though the Book of Signs Foundation, a non-profit, regularly delivers free copies of the Quran all over the U.S., the Foundation, as part of their campaign, will send out 50 more in an attempt to educate the community.
“In protest of this unconscionable act, the Foundation will neither tolerate nor participate in spreading Islamophobia and hate. To burn a Quran is offensive to Muslims and serves no purpose but to polarize our communities even more,” said Wajahat Sayeed, President of the Book of Signs Foundation.
“What the church fails to realize is that unlike other books, even if all the Qurans in the world were to be burned, there are millions of Muslims, some as young as 7 years old, who have committed the entire Quran to memory and can rewrite it cover to cover. This is the Miracle of the Quran as the only book that cannot be destroyed,” said Sayeed.
In addition to distributing 50 free Qurans for every Quran burned, the Foundation is refusing to sell Qurans to those who are involved in the Quran burning and are urging other bookstores to do the same. The Foundation will also have facts about the Quran listed on the website, along with the awareness campaign.
“We are urging people of conscience around the U.S. to take part in the Foundation’s efforts to counter the Quran burning. Though the church in Florida is attacking Islam by burning Qurans, we will not mimic their tactics by burning the Bible. The Quran [6,108] teaches us not to attack the religion of others, which is why we, as Muslims, are positively countering this event by distributing Qurans,” said Sayeed.
For those who are interested in finding out more about this campaign, please visit www.bookofsigns.org.
The Book of Signs Foundation is a non-profit based in Illinois that aims to deliver free copies of the English Translation of the Message of the Quran to educate the residents of the U.S. on the Quran, Islam and Muslims by making the Quran widely accessible.
Contact:
Book of Signs Foundation
Wajahat Sayeed, (630) 620-0801
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Book-of-Signs-Foundation-bw-3222143602.html?x=0&.v=1
ADDISON, Ill.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In response to the International Burn a Quran Day event taking place in the Dove World Outreach Center on Sept. 11, the Book of Signs Foundation is distributing 50 free Qurans for every Quran burned.
Though the Book of Signs Foundation, a non-profit, regularly delivers free copies of the Quran all over the U.S., the Foundation, as part of their campaign, will send out 50 more in an attempt to educate the community.
“In protest of this unconscionable act, the Foundation will neither tolerate nor participate in spreading Islamophobia and hate. To burn a Quran is offensive to Muslims and serves no purpose but to polarize our communities even more,” said Wajahat Sayeed, President of the Book of Signs Foundation.
“What the church fails to realize is that unlike other books, even if all the Qurans in the world were to be burned, there are millions of Muslims, some as young as 7 years old, who have committed the entire Quran to memory and can rewrite it cover to cover. This is the Miracle of the Quran as the only book that cannot be destroyed,” said Sayeed.
In addition to distributing 50 free Qurans for every Quran burned, the Foundation is refusing to sell Qurans to those who are involved in the Quran burning and are urging other bookstores to do the same. The Foundation will also have facts about the Quran listed on the website, along with the awareness campaign.
“We are urging people of conscience around the U.S. to take part in the Foundation’s efforts to counter the Quran burning. Though the church in Florida is attacking Islam by burning Qurans, we will not mimic their tactics by burning the Bible. The Quran [6,108] teaches us not to attack the religion of others, which is why we, as Muslims, are positively countering this event by distributing Qurans,” said Sayeed.
For those who are interested in finding out more about this campaign, please visit www.bookofsigns.org.
The Book of Signs Foundation is a non-profit based in Illinois that aims to deliver free copies of the English Translation of the Message of the Quran to educate the residents of the U.S. on the Quran, Islam and Muslims by making the Quran widely accessible.
Contact:
Book of Signs Foundation
Wajahat Sayeed, (630) 620-0801
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Book-of-Signs-Foundation-bw-3222143602.html?x=0&.v=1
Thursday, June 17, 2010
US opposes ICC bid to make 'aggression' a crime under international law
The Obama administration has resisted efforts by the International Criminal Court to include 'aggression' as a crime, mainly because it could impact US military operations abroad.
Washington
The United States under the Obama administration has developed an increasingly close working relationship with the International Criminal Court in The Hague. But that growing engagement with a controversial institution of international law was unable to prevent the ICC from expanding the scope of its work to include the murky crime of “aggression,” a move the US had vehemently opposed.
At the 111-nation ICC’s first review conference that wrapped up last week in Kampala, Uganda, delegates decided to expand the international court’s purview to include the crime of aggression – a crime that only the US has successfully tried, in the post-World War II tribunals in Nuremburg and Tokyo.
State Department officials say the US, which is not a signatory to the ICC, was able to mitigate the drawbacks of such an expansion of the court’s reach, primarily by putting off any prosecution of the newest international crime until at least 2017.
But some critics say the US failure to stop the enshrining of “aggression” as an international crime demonstrates the limits of President Obama’s multilateralist vision – and sets the US on a collision course with the ICC when the issue comes up again later in the decade.
“The fact remains that the Obama administration’s vaunted ‘engagement’ strategy was only able to check the ICC’s move towards defining ‘aggression,’ not stop it entirely,” says Brett Schaefer, an expert in international institutions at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. “And it sets the US up for another battle in 2017 when the ICC’s advocates will make another push to activate the ICC’s jurisdiction over ‘aggression.’”
The US confirmed its new footing with the world’s first permanent court for trying war crimes and crimes against humanity, US officials say, although they acknowledge that the US did not get everything it wanted in Kampala. The Rome Statute establishing the ICC was finalized in 1998, but the court did not begin to function until 2002, when the minimum 60 countries ratified it.
US participation in the Kampala conference “reset US relations with the court from hostility to positive engagement,” says State Department legal adviser Harold Koh. He says the US focus at the review conference was on efforts to “strengthen justice on the ground” in countries so that eventually their judicial systems will be strong enough to take on the kinds of human-rights work the ICC addresses.
Mr. Koh says that focus was particularly well-received in Africa, “where there is a strong desire to have these cases tried at the national level.”
Some ICC critics have also noted that the court has only taken up two cases so far, both involving African countries – one involving the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, and the other regarding Sudan – and they dismiss the largely European-Union funded court as a colonial institution pressing Western interests.
But the US increasingly sees the value of the ICC, especially as it has tried cases that begged for international intervention.
“If it weren’t for the ICC [in cases like Sudan or Uganda] you would have had to set up a special tribunal,” says Stephen Rapp, the State Department’s coordinator for war crimes issues.
One of the main US concerns in seeing “aggression” added to the ICC’s jurisdiction was the impact it could potentially have on US military operations abroad. But Koh says the US successfully negotiated the “aggression” statute’s wording so that US forces won’t be susceptible to it.
“No US national can be prosecuted for ‘aggression’ while the US is not a signatory” to the ICC, he says.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Israeli Warships Seize the ‘Rachel Corrie’
Everyone Arrested as Irish Aid Ship Captured
by Jason Ditz, June 04, 2010
At approximately 10:50 PM eastern time, Israeli warships captured the MV Rachel Corrie, an Irish aid ship bound for the Gaza Strip. Israeli troops are said to have boarded the vessel and arrested everyone on board, which included a high ranking former UN official, Assistant Secretary General Denis Halliday, and a Nobel laureate. No violence or injuries were reported so far.
Reports from the Rachel Corrie, named after a US-born peace activist who was slain by the Israeli military in the Gaza Strip in 2003, were available right up to 10:35 PM, when they reported that their radar was being jammed. The ship had hoped to reach the Gaza Strip early Saturday morning.
Israel’s military launched a high profile attack on a Turkish aid ship earlier this week, killing at least nine aid workers and sparking international outcry. Ireland had warned Israel against a repeat performance against the Rachel Corrie.
Israel had demanded that the ship divert to Ashdod, but said it would forward the cargo to the Gaza Strip after it was searched. Crew on the Rachel Corrie suggested that Israel search the ship at sea but allow it to dock in Gaza, a proposal which Israel rejected. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised that never again will an aid ship reach the enclave.
The ship is said to be carrying upwards of 560 tons of cement as well as CAT scanners, wheelchairs and other aid, and around 20 activists. It was organized by the Free Gaza Movement, a privately funded aid group which has gotten a large donation from the Perdana Global Peace Organization in Malaysia.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/06/04/as-rachel-corrie-nears-another-israel-clash-looms/
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Special polls set, Sulu is No Longer in the List
Special polls set in 7 Lanao Sur towns, 6 Basilan, Iloilo villages
By Kristine L. Alave
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 20:50:00 05/18/2010
Filed Under: Safety of Citizens, Elections
MANILA, Philippines -- The winners for many national and local races in the May 10 automated polls have been proclaimed, but for a handful of towns in Visayas and Mindanao, the elections hasn't happened yet.
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has declared special elections to be held within 30 days in seven Lanao del Sur municipalities and in villages in Basilan, Iloilo, and Western Samar after these areas did not join the nationwide automated elections last May 10.
Comelec commissioner Lucenito Tagle said the election officers in the provinces have been told to prepare for the polls. No date has been set yet, he said.
The elections body, Tagle said, could still use the Precinct Count Optical Scanner machines and the machine-readable ballots in the special elections there.
In a May 14 resolution, the commission en banc declared a failure of elections in the towns of Lumba Bayabao, Lumbaca Unayan, Marogong, Sultan Dumalondong, Tubaran, and Tambuang in Lanao del Sur. The seven municipalities have 71,578 registered voters, according to the Comelec's project of precincts.
The resolution also ordered the holding of special elections in two Basilan villages, with a total voting population of 1,500.
The Comelec resolution said the Board of Election Inspectors in the Lanao del Sur towns did not show up on election day over security fears.
In the two Basilan villages, no elections happened as voters and election workers were harassed by unidentified armed men, the poll body said.
Both provinces are located in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), which is considered the election cheating capital of the country.
Aside from the irregularities mentioned that prevented the residents there from voting, Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and other ARMM provinces saw an escalation of election-related violence on May 10.
The Comelec, in another resolution, said special polls should be held in the villages of Buenos Aires, Pagsanghan, Western Samar and Generosa, Guimbal, Iloilo, after the polling center there did not receive the right ballots for the May 10 polls. The polling centers have around 400-500 voters each.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20100518-270762/Special-polls-set-in-7-Lanao-Sur-towns-6-Basilan-Iloilo-villages
By Kristine L. Alave
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 20:50:00 05/18/2010
Filed Under: Safety of Citizens, Elections
MANILA, Philippines -- The winners for many national and local races in the May 10 automated polls have been proclaimed, but for a handful of towns in Visayas and Mindanao, the elections hasn't happened yet.
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has declared special elections to be held within 30 days in seven Lanao del Sur municipalities and in villages in Basilan, Iloilo, and Western Samar after these areas did not join the nationwide automated elections last May 10.
Comelec commissioner Lucenito Tagle said the election officers in the provinces have been told to prepare for the polls. No date has been set yet, he said.
The elections body, Tagle said, could still use the Precinct Count Optical Scanner machines and the machine-readable ballots in the special elections there.
In a May 14 resolution, the commission en banc declared a failure of elections in the towns of Lumba Bayabao, Lumbaca Unayan, Marogong, Sultan Dumalondong, Tubaran, and Tambuang in Lanao del Sur. The seven municipalities have 71,578 registered voters, according to the Comelec's project of precincts.
The resolution also ordered the holding of special elections in two Basilan villages, with a total voting population of 1,500.
The Comelec resolution said the Board of Election Inspectors in the Lanao del Sur towns did not show up on election day over security fears.
In the two Basilan villages, no elections happened as voters and election workers were harassed by unidentified armed men, the poll body said.
Both provinces are located in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), which is considered the election cheating capital of the country.
Aside from the irregularities mentioned that prevented the residents there from voting, Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and other ARMM provinces saw an escalation of election-related violence on May 10.
The Comelec, in another resolution, said special polls should be held in the villages of Buenos Aires, Pagsanghan, Western Samar and Generosa, Guimbal, Iloilo, after the polling center there did not receive the right ballots for the May 10 polls. The polling centers have around 400-500 voters each.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20100518-270762/Special-polls-set-in-7-Lanao-Sur-towns-6-Basilan-Iloilo-villages
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Drone War’s Rules: Shoot First, Ask Permission Later
By Noah Shachtman
March 23, 2009 |
12:50 pm |
The U.S. isn’t just launching killer drone attacks on targets in Pakistan, from bases on Pakistani soil. It’s doing so without the individual authorization of the Pakistani government.
Before August, the CIA had to ask for Islamabad’s OK before launching any attack. The approvals often took "a day or more, sometimes causing the agency to lose track of the target," the L.A. Times reports. But when Pakistani president and Bush administration ally Pervez Musharraf was forced to resign in August, Bush quickly approved "new rules:
Rather than requiring Pakistan’s permission to order a Predator strike, the agency was allowed to shoot first."
"We had the data all along," a former CIA official tells the paper. "Finally we took off the gloves."
"The effect was immediate, the Times adds. "There were two Predator strikes on
Aug. 31, and three more by the end of the week." And dozens more, since then.
The result, American officials say, is an al-Qaeda leadership that’s on the run, constantly looking over its shoulder. But Craig Mullaney, rumored to be the next Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Central Asia, wonders whether the drone strikes have been worth it.
"There are advantages to being able to strike remotely, at key leadership in Pakistan," Mullaney recently told
Danger Room. "But when you pan back and look strategically: What does that do for the recruiting base of the Taliban in Pakistan,
Afghanistan. What does that do for the ability of Al Qaeda to reconstitute? You’re balancing the political stability of Pakistan against the military advantages of making these counter-terror strikes.
I’m not sure what the answer is."
Over the weekend, new CIA chief Leon Panetta made his first overseas trip — to South Asia, including Pakistan. The agency won’t say exactly what was on his agenda there. But you can imagine.
UPDATE: "The heart of the problem for the West is in western Pakistan," U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke tells the Christian Science Monitor. "But there are not going to be US or NATO troops on the ground in Pakistan. There is a red line for the government of Pakistan, and one which we must respect." Notice he didn’t say anything about robot planes.
[Photo: USAF]
Read More http://www.wired.com/
March 23, 2009 |
12:50 pm |
The U.S. isn’t just launching killer drone attacks on targets in Pakistan, from bases on Pakistani soil. It’s doing so without the individual authorization of the Pakistani government.
Before August, the CIA had to ask for Islamabad’s OK before launching any attack. The approvals often took "a day or more, sometimes causing the agency to lose track of the target," the L.A. Times reports. But when Pakistani president and Bush administration ally Pervez Musharraf was forced to resign in August, Bush quickly approved "new rules:
Rather than requiring Pakistan’s permission to order a Predator strike, the agency was allowed to shoot first."
"We had the data all along," a former CIA official tells the paper. "Finally we took off the gloves."
"The effect was immediate, the Times adds. "There were two Predator strikes on
Aug. 31, and three more by the end of the week." And dozens more, since then.
The result, American officials say, is an al-Qaeda leadership that’s on the run, constantly looking over its shoulder. But Craig Mullaney, rumored to be the next Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Central Asia, wonders whether the drone strikes have been worth it.
"There are advantages to being able to strike remotely, at key leadership in Pakistan," Mullaney recently told
Danger Room. "But when you pan back and look strategically: What does that do for the recruiting base of the Taliban in Pakistan,
Afghanistan. What does that do for the ability of Al Qaeda to reconstitute? You’re balancing the political stability of Pakistan against the military advantages of making these counter-terror strikes.
I’m not sure what the answer is."
Over the weekend, new CIA chief Leon Panetta made his first overseas trip — to South Asia, including Pakistan. The agency won’t say exactly what was on his agenda there. But you can imagine.
UPDATE: "The heart of the problem for the West is in western Pakistan," U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke tells the Christian Science Monitor. "But there are not going to be US or NATO troops on the ground in Pakistan. There is a red line for the government of Pakistan, and one which we must respect." Notice he didn’t say anything about robot planes.
[Photo: USAF]
Read More http://www.wired.com/
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Pentagon bars Graham
Kathleen Parker: Pentagon bars Graham
WASHINGTON -- As thousands prayed across the nation Thursday in celebration of National Day of Prayer, the Rev. Franklin Graham held his own vigil in the Pentagon parking lot.
Oh well, it doesn't matter where one prays, right? All prayers lead to heaven. Or do they? Not if you're Graham, who lost his place at the Pentagon altar after he mocked other religions, specifically Muslims and Hindus. A plea to President Obama to reinstate him apparently fell on pitiless ears.
Graham's offense was expressing his belief that only Christians have God's ear, that Islam is evil, and that Muslims and Hindus don't pray to the same God he does.
"No elephant with 100 arms can do anything for me," Graham said in a USA Today interview, referring to one of the five main Hindu deities. "None of their 9,000 gods is going to lead me to salvation. We are fooling ourselves if we think we can have some big kumbaya service and all hold hands and it's all going to get better in this world. It's not going to get better."
It's not? If the whole world prays for a common good, will no good come of it? If so, then what's the point of a National Day of Prayer? Oh ye of little faith.
Perhaps Graham was feeling cross after his rejection.
As honorary chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, a private evangelical group, Graham was to have led a prayer for the U.S. military. His son is on a fourth tour in Afghanistan.
But Graham's views didn't sit well with secular Americans or even nonevangelical Christians, who protested that the government is endorsing a certain flavor of Christianity.
A Wisconsin court apparently agreed and ruled the day unconstitutional, appeals pending.
Graham isn't alone in his views. A survey of 1,000 Protestant pastors, conducted by an evangelical polling firm, found that 47 percent agree that Islam is "a very evil and a very wicked religion."
But such opinions may be confined mostly to an older generation. Evangelicals under 30 believe that there are many ways to God, not just through Jesus.
David Campbell, a professor at Notre Dame and co-author of "American Grace: How Religion Is Reshaping Our Civic and Political Lives" (with Harvard's Bob Putnam) conducted surveys showing that nearly two-thirds of evangelicals under 35 believe non-Christians can go to heaven, versus 39 percent of those over 65.
When it comes to whose prayers carry more weight in the heavenly realm, well, who really knows? But new brain research supports the likelihood that one man's prayer is as good as any other's.
Barbara Bradley Hagerty, the award-winning NPR religion reporter, participated in a peyote ceremony in Arizona, meditated while wearing a brain scanner at the University of Wisconsin, and donned a "God helmet" in a neuroscientist's lab in Canada in her quest to discover the secrets of prayer and, possibly, proof of God.
In her book, "Fingerprints of God," Hagerty tries to answer a question that has plagued her for years: (Is there more than this?)
She couldn't accept mainstream science's answer that we are "a collection of molecules with no greater purpose than to eke out a few decades."
Instead, she sought out spiritual virtuosos (people who practice prayer, religiously), as well as neurologists, geneticists, physicists and medical researchers who are using the newest tools of science to discern the circumstantial evidence of God.
Her research led to some startling conclusions that have caused no small amount of Sturm und Drang among those who believe theirs is the one true way.
She found that whether one is a Sikh, a Catholic nun, a Buddhist monk, or a Sufi Muslim, the brain reacts to focused prayer and meditation much in the same way. The same parts light up and the same parts go dark during deep meditation.
Apparently, we have a "God spot" and "God genes."
And though some are more generously endowed than others, spiritual experience is a human phenomenon, not a religious one. Different routes to the same destination.
Understandably, these are not glad tidings to some. Centuries of blood have been shed for the sake of religious certitude.
But transcending the notion that only some prayers are the right ones might get us closer to the enlightenment we purportedly seek.
Hagerty is optimistic that science eventually will demonstrate that we are more than mere matter.
In the meantime, it would seem imminently rational to presume in our public affairs that God does not play political favorites with his creation.
Kathleen Parker's e-mail address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.
Read more: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/05/08/1414995/kathleen-parker-pentagon-bars.html#ixzz0nMawIND5
WASHINGTON -- As thousands prayed across the nation Thursday in celebration of National Day of Prayer, the Rev. Franklin Graham held his own vigil in the Pentagon parking lot.
Oh well, it doesn't matter where one prays, right? All prayers lead to heaven. Or do they? Not if you're Graham, who lost his place at the Pentagon altar after he mocked other religions, specifically Muslims and Hindus. A plea to President Obama to reinstate him apparently fell on pitiless ears.
Graham's offense was expressing his belief that only Christians have God's ear, that Islam is evil, and that Muslims and Hindus don't pray to the same God he does.
"No elephant with 100 arms can do anything for me," Graham said in a USA Today interview, referring to one of the five main Hindu deities. "None of their 9,000 gods is going to lead me to salvation. We are fooling ourselves if we think we can have some big kumbaya service and all hold hands and it's all going to get better in this world. It's not going to get better."
It's not? If the whole world prays for a common good, will no good come of it? If so, then what's the point of a National Day of Prayer? Oh ye of little faith.
Perhaps Graham was feeling cross after his rejection.
As honorary chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, a private evangelical group, Graham was to have led a prayer for the U.S. military. His son is on a fourth tour in Afghanistan.
But Graham's views didn't sit well with secular Americans or even nonevangelical Christians, who protested that the government is endorsing a certain flavor of Christianity.
A Wisconsin court apparently agreed and ruled the day unconstitutional, appeals pending.
Graham isn't alone in his views. A survey of 1,000 Protestant pastors, conducted by an evangelical polling firm, found that 47 percent agree that Islam is "a very evil and a very wicked religion."
But such opinions may be confined mostly to an older generation. Evangelicals under 30 believe that there are many ways to God, not just through Jesus.
David Campbell, a professor at Notre Dame and co-author of "American Grace: How Religion Is Reshaping Our Civic and Political Lives" (with Harvard's Bob Putnam) conducted surveys showing that nearly two-thirds of evangelicals under 35 believe non-Christians can go to heaven, versus 39 percent of those over 65.
When it comes to whose prayers carry more weight in the heavenly realm, well, who really knows? But new brain research supports the likelihood that one man's prayer is as good as any other's.
Barbara Bradley Hagerty, the award-winning NPR religion reporter, participated in a peyote ceremony in Arizona, meditated while wearing a brain scanner at the University of Wisconsin, and donned a "God helmet" in a neuroscientist's lab in Canada in her quest to discover the secrets of prayer and, possibly, proof of God.
In her book, "Fingerprints of God," Hagerty tries to answer a question that has plagued her for years: (Is there more than this?)
She couldn't accept mainstream science's answer that we are "a collection of molecules with no greater purpose than to eke out a few decades."
Instead, she sought out spiritual virtuosos (people who practice prayer, religiously), as well as neurologists, geneticists, physicists and medical researchers who are using the newest tools of science to discern the circumstantial evidence of God.
Her research led to some startling conclusions that have caused no small amount of Sturm und Drang among those who believe theirs is the one true way.
She found that whether one is a Sikh, a Catholic nun, a Buddhist monk, or a Sufi Muslim, the brain reacts to focused prayer and meditation much in the same way. The same parts light up and the same parts go dark during deep meditation.
Apparently, we have a "God spot" and "God genes."
And though some are more generously endowed than others, spiritual experience is a human phenomenon, not a religious one. Different routes to the same destination.
Understandably, these are not glad tidings to some. Centuries of blood have been shed for the sake of religious certitude.
But transcending the notion that only some prayers are the right ones might get us closer to the enlightenment we purportedly seek.
Hagerty is optimistic that science eventually will demonstrate that we are more than mere matter.
In the meantime, it would seem imminently rational to presume in our public affairs that God does not play political favorites with his creation.
Kathleen Parker's e-mail address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.
Read more: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/05/08/1414995/kathleen-parker-pentagon-bars.html#ixzz0nMawIND5
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Filipinos still in ‘colonial’ chains
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:01:00 04/18/2010
Filed Under: history, Treaties & International Organisations
WE Filipinos must review our mistakes and the problems they have brought about. For we still have not realized that our trusting ways have always been taken advantage of by opportunists. While our Asian neighbors have always traded with us without meddling in our internal affairs, Western countries have colonized us for their own selfish purposes.
For example, Spain converted us to Christianity which was used to rule us for 400 years while it exploited our natural resources. And then America came along to rule us for around 50 years, teaching us their system of democracy while they mined our mountains for gold and silver. What made us docile to their exploitative ways if not our trustful bent?
Consider now that the former US Ambassador Kristie Kenny was very warm and friendly and her replacement Harry Thomas is a forceful official. That makes us ask if the Obama administration is going to rule us once more with an iron glove for obvious geopolitical reasons. Indeed it is time we Filipinos realized that since 10 years ago our own leader, President Macapagal-Arroyo, allowed the Americans to have a say in our country’s affairs for her own political survival. The tradeoffs were always obvious even though her treachery to the Philippines was cleverly disguised.
The point is, if we have to protect our rights as human beings, we must differentiate right from wrong, good from evil. We must reject the deceptions foisted on us, including the technologies which merely serve to enslave us for obvious reasons. To put it another way, the West’s political aggressiveness has degraded our humanity so that even our leaders have succumbed to hypocritical and selfish ways.
It is time we realized that Google and Microsoft are being forced on us by the American hegemony so it can pry into our privacy, whether at home or in the workplace. For instance, only last December, a French publishing house in Paris won a copyright infringement case against Google for digitalizing the contents of books by French writers. And here in the Philippines, Microsoft also digitalized my manuscript “An Indication of the Truth” for a worldwide pay-per-view scheme on Yahoo—without my express permission.
Indeed, “highway robbery” in the old days has become “Internet robbery” these days. The fact is that Google and Microsoft amassed multibillion-dollar profits in 2009 at the expense of hardworking book writers.
When the French publisher won its case, Google was penalized and made to pay for the violation. This highlights the Philippine justice system’s failure in handling similar cases because its hands are still tied by America’s colonial chains, with the support of the corrupt Arroyo administration.
Indeed, unless we decide to right this wrong, we will remain an abused nation.
—ERNESTO KELLY MAGTOTO,
ernestomagtoto@gmail.com
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view/20100418-265063/Filipinos-still-in-colonial-chains
First Posted 23:01:00 04/18/2010
Filed Under: history, Treaties & International Organisations
WE Filipinos must review our mistakes and the problems they have brought about. For we still have not realized that our trusting ways have always been taken advantage of by opportunists. While our Asian neighbors have always traded with us without meddling in our internal affairs, Western countries have colonized us for their own selfish purposes.
For example, Spain converted us to Christianity which was used to rule us for 400 years while it exploited our natural resources. And then America came along to rule us for around 50 years, teaching us their system of democracy while they mined our mountains for gold and silver. What made us docile to their exploitative ways if not our trustful bent?
Consider now that the former US Ambassador Kristie Kenny was very warm and friendly and her replacement Harry Thomas is a forceful official. That makes us ask if the Obama administration is going to rule us once more with an iron glove for obvious geopolitical reasons. Indeed it is time we Filipinos realized that since 10 years ago our own leader, President Macapagal-Arroyo, allowed the Americans to have a say in our country’s affairs for her own political survival. The tradeoffs were always obvious even though her treachery to the Philippines was cleverly disguised.
The point is, if we have to protect our rights as human beings, we must differentiate right from wrong, good from evil. We must reject the deceptions foisted on us, including the technologies which merely serve to enslave us for obvious reasons. To put it another way, the West’s political aggressiveness has degraded our humanity so that even our leaders have succumbed to hypocritical and selfish ways.
It is time we realized that Google and Microsoft are being forced on us by the American hegemony so it can pry into our privacy, whether at home or in the workplace. For instance, only last December, a French publishing house in Paris won a copyright infringement case against Google for digitalizing the contents of books by French writers. And here in the Philippines, Microsoft also digitalized my manuscript “An Indication of the Truth” for a worldwide pay-per-view scheme on Yahoo—without my express permission.
Indeed, “highway robbery” in the old days has become “Internet robbery” these days. The fact is that Google and Microsoft amassed multibillion-dollar profits in 2009 at the expense of hardworking book writers.
When the French publisher won its case, Google was penalized and made to pay for the violation. This highlights the Philippine justice system’s failure in handling similar cases because its hands are still tied by America’s colonial chains, with the support of the corrupt Arroyo administration.
Indeed, unless we decide to right this wrong, we will remain an abused nation.
—ERNESTO KELLY MAGTOTO,
ernestomagtoto@gmail.com
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view/20100418-265063/Filipinos-still-in-colonial-chains
Kucinich: White House Assassination Policy Is Extrajudicial
By Jeremy Scahill
April 15, 2010
There has been almost universal silence among Congressional Democrats on the Obama administration's recently revealed decision to authorize the assassination of a US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, has been accused of providing inspiration for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged "underwear bomber," and Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter. In recent weeks, there has been a dramatic surge in US government chatter about the alleged threat posed by al-Awlaki, with anonymous US officials accusing him of directly participating in terror "plots" (his family passionately disputes this).
Several Democrats refused, through spokespeople, to comment on the assassination plan when contacted by The Nation, including Senator Russ Feingold and Representative Jan Schakowsky, both of whom serve on the Intelligence Committees. Representative Jane Harman, who serves on the Homeland Security Committee, said recently that Awlaki is "probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us."
One of the few Democrats to publicly address the issue of government-sanctioned assassinations is Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich. "I don't support it--period," he said in an interview. "I think people in both parties that are concerned about the Constitution should be speaking out on this. I can't account for what anyone else doesn't do."
Kucinich told The Nation he has sent several letters to the Obama administration raising questions about the potential unconstitutionality of the policy, as well as possible violations of international law, but has received no response. "With all the smart people that are in that administration, they've got to know the risks that they're taking here with violations of law," he says.
Targeted killings are not a new Obama administration policy. Beginning three days after his swearing in, President Obama has authorized scores of lethal drone strikes, including against specific individuals, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, surpassing the Bush era numbers. The elite Joint Special Operations Command maintains a list of individuals, including US citizens, which it is authorized to assassinate. In January, Dana Priest reported in the Washington Post that the CIA had US citizens on an assassination list, but the Post later ran a correction stating that only JSOC had "a target list that includes several Americans." The policy of the CIA targeting al-Awlaki, a US citizen, for assassination, therefore, appeared to be a new development, at least in terms of public awareness of approved government assassinations.
"In the real world, things don't work out quite so neatly as they seem to in the heads of the CIA," says Kucinich. "There's always the possibility of blowback, which could endanger high-ranking US officials. There's the inevitable licensing of rogue groups that comes about from policies that are not strictly controlled and that get sloppy--so you have zero accountability. And that's not even to get into an over-arching issue of the morality of assassination policies, which are extra-constitutional, extra-judicial. It's very dangerous from every possible perspective."
He added: "The assassination policies vitiate the presumption of innocence and the government then becomes the investigator, policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner all in one. That raises the greatest questions with respect to our constitution and our democratic way of life."
Kucinich says the case of al-Awlaki is an attempt to make "a short-cut around the Constitution," saying, "Short-cuts often belie the deep and underlying questions around which nations rise and fall. We are really putting our nation in jeopardy by pursuing this kind of policy."
-------------------------------------
About Jeremy Scahill
Jeremy Scahill, a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute, is the author of the bestselling Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, published by Nation Books. He is an award-winning investigative journalist and correspondent for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!. more...
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100503/scahill
April 15, 2010
There has been almost universal silence among Congressional Democrats on the Obama administration's recently revealed decision to authorize the assassination of a US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, has been accused of providing inspiration for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged "underwear bomber," and Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter. In recent weeks, there has been a dramatic surge in US government chatter about the alleged threat posed by al-Awlaki, with anonymous US officials accusing him of directly participating in terror "plots" (his family passionately disputes this).
Several Democrats refused, through spokespeople, to comment on the assassination plan when contacted by The Nation, including Senator Russ Feingold and Representative Jan Schakowsky, both of whom serve on the Intelligence Committees. Representative Jane Harman, who serves on the Homeland Security Committee, said recently that Awlaki is "probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us."
One of the few Democrats to publicly address the issue of government-sanctioned assassinations is Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich. "I don't support it--period," he said in an interview. "I think people in both parties that are concerned about the Constitution should be speaking out on this. I can't account for what anyone else doesn't do."
Kucinich told The Nation he has sent several letters to the Obama administration raising questions about the potential unconstitutionality of the policy, as well as possible violations of international law, but has received no response. "With all the smart people that are in that administration, they've got to know the risks that they're taking here with violations of law," he says.
Targeted killings are not a new Obama administration policy. Beginning three days after his swearing in, President Obama has authorized scores of lethal drone strikes, including against specific individuals, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, surpassing the Bush era numbers. The elite Joint Special Operations Command maintains a list of individuals, including US citizens, which it is authorized to assassinate. In January, Dana Priest reported in the Washington Post that the CIA had US citizens on an assassination list, but the Post later ran a correction stating that only JSOC had "a target list that includes several Americans." The policy of the CIA targeting al-Awlaki, a US citizen, for assassination, therefore, appeared to be a new development, at least in terms of public awareness of approved government assassinations.
"In the real world, things don't work out quite so neatly as they seem to in the heads of the CIA," says Kucinich. "There's always the possibility of blowback, which could endanger high-ranking US officials. There's the inevitable licensing of rogue groups that comes about from policies that are not strictly controlled and that get sloppy--so you have zero accountability. And that's not even to get into an over-arching issue of the morality of assassination policies, which are extra-constitutional, extra-judicial. It's very dangerous from every possible perspective."
He added: "The assassination policies vitiate the presumption of innocence and the government then becomes the investigator, policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner all in one. That raises the greatest questions with respect to our constitution and our democratic way of life."
Kucinich says the case of al-Awlaki is an attempt to make "a short-cut around the Constitution," saying, "Short-cuts often belie the deep and underlying questions around which nations rise and fall. We are really putting our nation in jeopardy by pursuing this kind of policy."
-------------------------------------
About Jeremy Scahill
Jeremy Scahill, a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute, is the author of the bestselling Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, published by Nation Books. He is an award-winning investigative journalist and correspondent for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!. more...
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100503/scahill
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Indonesia, Islam and democracy: A perspective
Blake Respini and Herdi Sahrasad , San Fransisco/Jakarta
Fri, 02/05/2010 10:36 AM
There are currently hundreds moderate Muslim organizations in Indonesia, many of them set up following the fall of President Soeharto in May 1998. The nurturing of these civic organizations may be as important to the future of Indonesia’s democracy as is the curtailment of extremists.
Furthermore, simple political maturity, such as developing true parties with accountability and that stand for something beyond personality as well the development of an educated and experienced electorate should protect and stabilize Indonesia’s democracy.
However, a critical component of Indonesia’s democratic future involves recognition of the special role of Islam in the state.
As most Indonesian Muslims want their government to respect Islamic customs even if they do not support the creation of an Islamic state, the line between support for and opposition to sharia is often blurred.
Many Indonesians, including those who are only nominally Muslims, hold conservative values and support strict moral laws without necessarily seeing them as purely religious- or sharia-based.
It is easy to mistake support for a conservative moral law as support for Islamism when it is more simply a reflection of basic conservative values.
By the same token, many Muslims in Indonesia reject some social arrangements and norms that are commonly associated with democracy in the West, including our pluralism and secularism. But this too neither makes them theocrats nor anti-democratic.
While the political debate is often framed by pitting Islamists against non-Islamists, the lines are really much more subtle than this and democratic negotiation will require all parties to recognize this so that they can find common ground.
In this regard, Ahmad Shboul (2005) reminds us that keeping religion out of politics is not the same as keeping it out of society in general and that aside from the communists, even the most secular governments of the Western world have not attempted to do this.
Shboul suggests that the US attempts to secularize Arab politics may have even resulted in a backlash that has contributed to the growth of political Islam. Westerners would do well to remember that there is not only one form democratic society can take.
In fact, we do well to remember that even in the West, notions over what accruements democracy must have remains in flux and have changed over time.
As Hefner points out, whereas family was once seen as the central base of Western culture, today individual freedom is often elevated above family unity.
Additionally, the very notion of family is being redefined as Ame-ricans consider a variety of arrangements including domestic partnerships, civil unions, and gay marriage.
Despite our consensus on many central values there is constant stress in Western societies over the proper balance of individual right and needs of the community, equality and freedom, and even the pro-per role of religion and morality in politics.
Just as various Western democratic societies define each of these somewhat differently, Muslim democracies are likely to have their own brand of pluralism.
The debate over the passage of sharia-based legislation reflects that that Indonesia continues to map out the most central questions concerning the basic shape of its democracy.
The debate is less a debate about whether sharia is good or bad, but more about the proper meaning of sharia and its relationship to the state and thus its relationship to the national ideology of Pancasila.
Ultimately, it reflects a deep debate over the very meaning of the Indonesian nation and what it means to be Indonesian.
All of us have multiple identities. We may define ourselves as students, scholars, husbands, wives, athletes, musicians from an array of images that form our composite selves.
However, for a nation state to succeed it is essential that one of the imbedded images that a country’s inhabitants hold of themselves is that of their national identity.
But it is not enough to simply be an American, German, Indonesian or Turk, for a nation to function it is necessary that one’s national identity represent some share sense of community, and thus shared values.
Most nations form out of a long history that creates a shared past. In most of Western Europe these shared histories have been bound together by common languages, religions and cultural norms.
Thus, while the Italians and French were both Catholics, the growing awareness of their differences became an expression of nationalism.
Indonesians similarly may share Islam with others across the globe, but Islam can fulfill only part of the nationalist vision. Of course this is especially true in light of the tens of millions of Indonesians who are not Muslims.
The challenge for Indonesia is to find a place for sharia that neither subverts the uniqueness of Indonesia from rest of the Islam nor undermines non-Muslim Indonesians.
Indonesian Islamic scholarship has long and deep ties to the Middle East that form a strong bond with the rest of the Muslim world and recent decades have seen what is often called the Islamization or sometimes even the Arabization of Indonesia.
It would thus be a mistake to dismiss Indonesia as a worthy example of what the type of democratic society that Islam has produced even if it would be a mistake to assume that what can work in Indonesia could be exported to rest of the Islamic world.
Blake Respini is a graduate of Stanford University, USA, and lecturer at the Department of Political Science, San Francisco State University, USA. Herdi Sahrasad is associate director at Center for Islam and State Studies, Paramadina University, Jakarta, and PhD candidate at Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University, Yogyakarta.
Fri, 02/05/2010 10:36 AM
There are currently hundreds moderate Muslim organizations in Indonesia, many of them set up following the fall of President Soeharto in May 1998. The nurturing of these civic organizations may be as important to the future of Indonesia’s democracy as is the curtailment of extremists.
Furthermore, simple political maturity, such as developing true parties with accountability and that stand for something beyond personality as well the development of an educated and experienced electorate should protect and stabilize Indonesia’s democracy.
However, a critical component of Indonesia’s democratic future involves recognition of the special role of Islam in the state.
As most Indonesian Muslims want their government to respect Islamic customs even if they do not support the creation of an Islamic state, the line between support for and opposition to sharia is often blurred.
Many Indonesians, including those who are only nominally Muslims, hold conservative values and support strict moral laws without necessarily seeing them as purely religious- or sharia-based.
It is easy to mistake support for a conservative moral law as support for Islamism when it is more simply a reflection of basic conservative values.
By the same token, many Muslims in Indonesia reject some social arrangements and norms that are commonly associated with democracy in the West, including our pluralism and secularism. But this too neither makes them theocrats nor anti-democratic.
While the political debate is often framed by pitting Islamists against non-Islamists, the lines are really much more subtle than this and democratic negotiation will require all parties to recognize this so that they can find common ground.
In this regard, Ahmad Shboul (2005) reminds us that keeping religion out of politics is not the same as keeping it out of society in general and that aside from the communists, even the most secular governments of the Western world have not attempted to do this.
Shboul suggests that the US attempts to secularize Arab politics may have even resulted in a backlash that has contributed to the growth of political Islam. Westerners would do well to remember that there is not only one form democratic society can take.
In fact, we do well to remember that even in the West, notions over what accruements democracy must have remains in flux and have changed over time.
As Hefner points out, whereas family was once seen as the central base of Western culture, today individual freedom is often elevated above family unity.
Additionally, the very notion of family is being redefined as Ame-ricans consider a variety of arrangements including domestic partnerships, civil unions, and gay marriage.
Despite our consensus on many central values there is constant stress in Western societies over the proper balance of individual right and needs of the community, equality and freedom, and even the pro-per role of religion and morality in politics.
Just as various Western democratic societies define each of these somewhat differently, Muslim democracies are likely to have their own brand of pluralism.
The debate over the passage of sharia-based legislation reflects that that Indonesia continues to map out the most central questions concerning the basic shape of its democracy.
The debate is less a debate about whether sharia is good or bad, but more about the proper meaning of sharia and its relationship to the state and thus its relationship to the national ideology of Pancasila.
Ultimately, it reflects a deep debate over the very meaning of the Indonesian nation and what it means to be Indonesian.
All of us have multiple identities. We may define ourselves as students, scholars, husbands, wives, athletes, musicians from an array of images that form our composite selves.
However, for a nation state to succeed it is essential that one of the imbedded images that a country’s inhabitants hold of themselves is that of their national identity.
But it is not enough to simply be an American, German, Indonesian or Turk, for a nation to function it is necessary that one’s national identity represent some share sense of community, and thus shared values.
Most nations form out of a long history that creates a shared past. In most of Western Europe these shared histories have been bound together by common languages, religions and cultural norms.
Thus, while the Italians and French were both Catholics, the growing awareness of their differences became an expression of nationalism.
Indonesians similarly may share Islam with others across the globe, but Islam can fulfill only part of the nationalist vision. Of course this is especially true in light of the tens of millions of Indonesians who are not Muslims.
The challenge for Indonesia is to find a place for sharia that neither subverts the uniqueness of Indonesia from rest of the Islam nor undermines non-Muslim Indonesians.
Indonesian Islamic scholarship has long and deep ties to the Middle East that form a strong bond with the rest of the Muslim world and recent decades have seen what is often called the Islamization or sometimes even the Arabization of Indonesia.
It would thus be a mistake to dismiss Indonesia as a worthy example of what the type of democratic society that Islam has produced even if it would be a mistake to assume that what can work in Indonesia could be exported to rest of the Islamic world.
Blake Respini is a graduate of Stanford University, USA, and lecturer at the Department of Political Science, San Francisco State University, USA. Herdi Sahrasad is associate director at Center for Islam and State Studies, Paramadina University, Jakarta, and PhD candidate at Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University, Yogyakarta.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Of Bells and Minarets
First Published 2009-12-17
Of Bells and Minarets
It is difficult to fathom how Switzerland, a country that prides itself in its centuries-old neutrality, could feel that its existence and culture are threatened by the construction of minarets, says René Guitton.
PARIS - When Jerusalem was conquered in 635 AD, the second caliph Omar Ibn Al-Kattab refused to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, despite an invitation from the Christian patriarch Sophronius, for fear that his men invoke the precedent to turn the place of worship into a mosque and thus deprive the Christians of their right to freely practice their religion.
Although 1,400 years have passed, people were sometimes more civilised and more tolerant then than in our modern world, where passions and tensions seem to have translated into a return of fanaticism and religious intolerance.
The example set by Omar, the inventor of dhimmitude, the code governing the life of non-Muslims under Islamic law, is symbolic of the covenant bearing his name, which granted the "People of the Book" (a term which refers to Jews and Christians) the right to live on Muslim-majority or Muslim-ruled lands and possess their own places of worship. Is it possible to imagine Jerusalem, Aleppo, Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus, Tunis, Algiers, Casablanca, without their lace-like filigree of church towers, minarets and sometimes synagogue cupolas soaring up to the sky like so many ladders guiding the prayers of the faithful up to their God?
The complicated Middle East of bygone eras provides a simple lesson for today, one that it sometimes finds hard to follow because it finds itself riddled by deep contradictions and attempts toward religious uniformity.
This situation, which has been exemplified by Switzerland on November 29 with the adoption of a law prohibiting the construction of minarets on its soil, risks promoting a rejection of the "other" and the unconditional right to pray as one chooses.
The incident would be trivial if it were not, in a sense, tragic. It is difficult to fathom how Switzerland, a country that prides itself in its centuries-old neutrality, could feel that its existence and culture are threatened by the construction of minarets.
Regardless of the factors inspiring the bill, many feel its results primarily expressed a rejection of Islam and the right of Muslims to practice their rites freely wherever they live.
However, the Swiss referendum results do not only affect Muslims, although they are its main victims. It also risks institutionalising the so-called "clash of civilisations", leaving it up to citizens, or their elected representatives, to decree lifestyles and mindsets as a function of demographic majorities.
With this type of reasoning, a ban on the construction of minarets in countries where non-Muslims constitute the majority could also apply to the construction of churches or synagogues in Muslim-majority countries. In this regard, ethno-religious uniformity and viewing religion as a monolith risks reviving the post-Reformation concept of one people, one country, one religion, in which the ruler's religion determined that of a country's.
The absurd application of this principle is responsible for the disappearance of the time when Spain was known for its three religions, when the Jews and Moriscos (Muslims forced to convert to Christianity and suspected of doing so in name only) were expelled at the time of the Renaissance, a move that resulted in the spiritual and material impoverishment of the Iberian Peninsula. The same principle inspired many a totalitarian regime in the modern era, in an effort to remove any spiritual element that might threaten their rule. The same principle is again at work today in many regions of the planet where being a member of a minority is synonymous with inequality.
Those who reject the construction of minarets in Switzerland do not realise that they could be viewed in the future like those who burnt synagogues or destroyed churches in what was known as the Fertile Crescent, or elsewhere. It is worth recalling that whenever a community is threatened, be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, agnostic or atheist, others could be threatened too.
The spiral is now set in motion and could wreak its horrendous effects unless we stand up to reaffirm that the pre-eminent dignity of every human being, and the right for every person of faith to pray to his or her God as he or she sees fit, are not subject to a building permit.
The minarets of Geneva are worth as much as the bells of Basel. Now is the time for one and all to remember this.
René Guitton, a writer and essayist, is a member of the Alliance of Civilizations and has recently been awarded the 2009 Human Rights Prize. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (GCNews).
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Thailand crisis is the result of democracy
| Gwynne Dyer | Arab News |
The Thai media have been silent on the question of what happens after the death of King Bhumibol Adulyadej. But the king is 81 years old and he has been in hospital for a month now, so there are widespread fears that he is dying. Last week the Bangkok stock market fell by 8 percent in a day on rumors that his health is worse than the palace admits. Bhumibol has been on the throne for 63 years and he is universally revered. Thailand is three years into the worst political crisis it has seen since it became a more or less democratic country two decades ago, and the king is just about the only unifying and stabilizing factor that remains. His death would make matters much worse. The crisis is the result of democracy. Thailand has become a semideveloped country — average income has risen forty-fold since Bhumibol came to the throne — but most of the population is still rural and quite poor. Their votes used to be bought by powerful local politicians and delivered to whichever urban-based party paid the highest price, but no more. As the people of the overwhelmingly rural north and northeast acquired more education and sophistication, they started using their votes to back politicians who promised to defend their interests and not just those of the Bangkok-based economic elite. In 2001, they elected a populist politician of humble origins called Thaksin Shinawatra as prime minister. Thaksin had made a fortune in telecommunications, and he probably couldn’t have won the elections if he wasn’t rich. But he did govern in the interests of the poor, and he was re-elected with an increased majority in 2005. It was how you would expect a maturing democracy to work, for the poor always outnumber the rich. But you would also expect a backlash from the traditional ruling elite, and it came in the form of the People’s Alliance of Democracy (PAD), a yellow-shirted movement that actually aimed to roll back democracy. By provoking confrontations in the streets with Thaksin’s supporters (who took to wearing red shirts), the PAD created a pretext for its allies in the army to seize power in a military coup in 2006. Since then, Thailand has been in permanent crisis. The PAD’s urban, middle-class supporters can control the streets of the capital (with some help from the army) and even overthrow governments they don’t like, but they cannot force the rural majority to abandon its own loyalties. The country is dangerously polarized and politically paralyzed — and many Thais believe that only King Bhumibol can hold the country together. Maybe it’s true, although there are suspicions that he actively supported the 2006 coup rather than just acquiescing in it. (Again, that cannot be openly discussed in Thailand. A well-known former journalist, Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul, was recently sentenced to 18 years in prison after she suggested in a public speech that the king had backed the coup.) At any rate, the king’s death would greatly deepen the crisis, for his likely successor is not loved. Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn has led a turbulent personal life, including three marriages. His attitude has probably not been improved by living for 57 years in the shadow of his father. He would be a perfectly serviceable constitutional monarch in normal times, but the Thai people have decided, fairly or unfairly, that they do not like him very much. Vajiralongkorn is so lacking in the respect that has enabled his father to play a mediating, calming role that there are those who quietly suggest that his sister, Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, might perform the duties of the monarchy better. It’s not impossible. Thai law has been changed to allow women to occupy the throne, and the constitution leaves the final right to designate an heir to the 19-member Privy Council of senior advisors to the king. They are unlikely to change the succession, but the mere fact that it could happen introduces another element of uncertainty and potential conflict into the equation. Which gives Thais another reason to pray for Bhumibol’s recovery. The almost daily reports from the palace on the king’s condition are always upbeat, but there have been references to a “lung inflammation,” which is a delicate way of saying pneumonia. That is potentially a killer in a man of his age, and the worries of the Thai public are justified. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)