Melee at Tripoli hotel after woman claims she was raped
March 27, 2011 - 10:27AM
--smh.com.au--

“They say that we are all Libyans and we are one people,” said the woman, who gave her name as Eman al-Obeidy, barging in during breakfast at the hotel dining room. “But look at what the Qaddafi men did to me.” She displayed a broad bruise on her face, a large scar on her upper thigh, several narrow and deep scratch marks lower on her leg, and marks from binding around her hands and feet.

Dramatic footage has emerged of western journalists caught up in a hotel brawl in Tripoli after a Libyan woman burst in announcing she had been raped by government troops. The woman was tackled by waitresses and government minders as she sat telling her story to the press. In a state of distress, she had rushed into the restaurant at the Rixos hotel, where a number of journalists were eating breakfast on Saturday. She told them troops had detained her at a checkpoint, tied her up, abused her, then led her away to be gang-raped - an account that could not be independently verified. She claimed she was targeted by the troops because she is from the eastern city of Benghazi, a rebel stronghold.

In response, a hotel waitress brandished a butter knife, a government minder reached for his handgun and another waitress pulled a jacket tightly over her head. The waiters called her a traitor and tried to stop her talking. The scene descended into chaos when the journalists tried to intervene to protect the woman and were pushed out of the way by the government minders. A British television reporter was punched and a CNN camera was smashed on the ground by the minders.

A gun was pulled out in front of a Sky News crew but was not pointed at anyone. Meanwhile, the cameras continued to roll and journalists tried to smuggle the footage out but said attempts were made to prevent this. Sky News foreign affairs correspondent Lisa Holland was among the reporters caught up in the melee, but Sky said none of its staff were injured. The fracas culminated in the minders overpowering the woman, leading her outside and shoving her into a car that sped away. At a hastily arranged press conference after the incident, government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim addressed the incident.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/world/melee-at-tripoli-hotel-after-woman-claims-she-was-raped-20110327-1cbki.html

Drugs, inequality and a US-backed dirty war
--aljazeera-- Barack Obama visits El Salvador to talk security cooperation while the facing the ghosts of past dirty wars.
Chris Arsenault Last Modified: 23 Mar 2011 16:31 US President Barack Obama arrived in El Salvador to talk about drug violence, but he also tried to make peace with history, visiting the tomb of Oscar Romero, a popular Archbishop gunned down by a US-linked death squad in 1980.

Despite cutting his visit short to deal with the situation in Libya, Obama still made time to visit the tomb, showcasing its symbolic importance.

"Obama is sending a message, taking a moderate approach to the region, and getting big points for going to Romero's grave," says Carlos Velazquez, an El Salvadorian political researcher at York University in Canada. "It is an emotional thing for Salvadorians."

Twelve years of internal conflict, between leftist rebels from the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) and the right-wing US-supported government, ended with a peace deal in 1992.

But violence continues to grip the country. "El Salvador has one of the highest homicide rates in the world," according to the US State Department, as violence between rival gangs and drug cartels is far worse on a per capita basis than neighboring Mexico, where killings draw more media attention.

Violence and inequality

Today’s violence has similar root causes to the issues which started the political conflict in the 1980s, including judicial impunity, economic inequality and social fragmentation, says Ivan Briscoe, a conflict researcher and Latin America expert at the Clingendael Institute in the Netherlands.

"In El Salvador, there was an absolutely brutal conflict that has been passed down to gang violence," he says. "Inequality led to the insurgency, but now this inequality has found expressions in other forms."

Archbishop Romero, a theologian who mixed ideas of heaven in the next life and liberation on earth, was highly critical of US military aid. In a letter to then-US president Jimmy Carter, Romero said aid would "sharpen injustice and repression against the people’s organisations" which were struggling for "respect for their basic human rights". After his murder, least 75,000 people died in El Salvador's dirty war.

In some respects, times have changed. Obama has shown a willingness to work with some democratically elected leftist leaders in Latin America, analysts say.

Mauricio Funes, El Salvador's current president, who is supported by the FMLN, told Al Jazeera that he welcomes American security assistance. "I will ask president Obama for more funds to strengthen our police, army, and the judiciary but also to get more involved in fighting our structural problems like poverty and social inequality," Funes, a former TV host, said.

During his visit, Obama promised $200mn to Central American governments to fight drug cartels, as part of a package to "strengthen courts, civil society groups and institutions that uphold the role of law" while addressing the "social and economic forces that drive young people towards criminality".

Competing security concerns

But those lofty goals of poverty reduction and institutional empowerment are inhibited by broader US interests, according to one security analyst. "I think the US operates with a double agenda in Central America," says Ivan Briscoe.

"The US says it is supportive of judicial reforms, strengthening police forces ect. But it is constantly willing to militarise regions, applying states of emergency [where legal regiments are suspended], applying the full force of local power in a very Manichean version of good versus evil," Briscoe told Al Jazeera.

A more subtle version of that "Manichean struggle" may have been on display during Obama's visit. Despite the focus on security and the so-called war on drugs, Obama refused to meet with Manuel Melgar, El Salvador's Justice and Security Minister.

US diplomats accuse Melgar of having "blood on his hands", linking the security minister to the 1985 killings of four US marines in an upscale restaurant in San Salvador, the capital.

Melgar was once an FMLN guerrilla. Today, US diplomats see him as a hard-liner, closely allied to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

Obama's decision to visit Romero's tomb may be linked to divisions within Latin America's left, analysts say.

"President Funes looks to Brazil and Chile for his models," says Briscoe. "His rivals in the same party were front line guerrillas who look to Venezuela. There is a divide."

To gain support from so-called moderate Latin American leftists, Obama may be trying to distance himself from US-backed violence and destabilisation campaigns during the Cold War.

Military responses

Despite Obama's attempts to reach out to some Latin American leftists, Ivan Briscoe, the security analyst, believes elements within the US military’s Southern Command are advocating a "hard-line military response" to security problems in the region, even though this strategy has failed in the past.

Guatemala, another impoverished Central American country, recently followed this "hard-line" approach when authorities declared a state of emergency to battle drug gangs.

Maximo Ba Tiul, a professor at the Universidad Rafael Landivar in Guatemala, watched as the Guatemalan government imposed a two-month-long state of siege, which prohibited public gatherings, allowed for warrantless searches and suspended other constitutional protections in Alta Verapaz state where he lives.

"This state of emergency was decreed through legislation written during the era of military dictatorships," said Tiul, during an interview at his home in January. The siege, which ended in mid-February, netted at least 20 arrests, hardly a major victory against a drug trade worth tens of billions of dollars.

Professor Tiul, who lived through Guatemala's dirty war, doesn’t believe that suspending constitutional protections is the way to enhance the institutional reforms Obama advocated during his El Salvador visit.

"The [Guatemalan] government has creates a situation of marginilisation. This has permitted narco traffickers to assume roles that should be dealt with by the state," Tiul said, referring to the schools, social events and health clinics that cartels finance in some rural areas.

The lack of public services pushes many young people into the arms of cartels, analysts say. Other central Americans simply move to the US.

Obama recognised this dichotomy. "I thought that President Funes gave a very eloquent response to one of my questions during our bilateral meeting, He said: 'I don’t want a young man in El Salvador or a young woman in El Salvador to feel that the only two paths to moving up the income ladder is either to travel north or to join a criminal enterprise,'" Obama said.

With a total population of about 6 million, more than 2.5 million El Salvadorians live in the US. Las Maras, El Salvador's fearsome, heavily tattooed street gangs, first formed in Los Angles, drawing their ranks from expatriate El Salvadorians in the city's prisons.

The gangs were then exported back to El Salvador through migrant networks. More than 500 Salvadorians leave the country every day, says Velazquez, and the country uses the US dollar instead of a national currency.

Oligarchic power

Structural problems in Central America, leaving average people with few viable options, can be traced to the mentality of local elites, says Carlos Velazquez, the El Salvadorian political researcher.

"Elites are oligarchic in their mentality. They want the state to benefit their interests only. They despise the idea of social justice, the idea of paying taxes," says Velazquez, who left El Salvador as a teenager to get a better education.

In Brazil and Chile, countries with strong economic growth, elites have a different mentality, says Ivan Briscoe.

"In Brazil, the upper classes realize that to reach the next stage of development, a country needs to create a mass internal market. That requires a level of egalitarianism, to create consumers, to create equality of opportunity," he says. "In Central America, the geopolitics meant that extremely conservative, unenlightened, elites, were in charge of the situation."

Income taxation, to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, is often seen as a fairly simple way to combat inequality and entrenched elites. The US favors a higher tax rate in El Salvador, as it would result in better public institutions and thus fewer migrants sneaking into the US, Velazquez says.

But President Funes has his hands tied.

If he confronts the oligarchy, he risks being associated with Hugo Chavez’s socialist policies, Velazquez says. But if Funes doesn’t confront elites, important reforms to the country’s political economy will remain stalled.

A sniper killed Archbishop Oscar Romero because he promoted social justice and reform; he criticised the status quo. Carlos Velasquez thinks El Salvador’s current security and economic stability depends on someone else taking up that mantra. "The oligarchy has to be confronted there is no other way.”

Despite the difficulties, Ivan Briscoe sees hope in the democratistion and economic development happening in South America. "Structures can be changed," he says. "There is evidence of that in Latin America."

Follow Chris Arsenault On Twitter: @AJEchris

In a replay of the recent political upheaval in Wisconsin, Indiana state government remains at a five-week standstill with the departure of 39 House Democrats who remain holed up in Illinois.
By Mark Guarino, Staff writer / March 21, 2011
--christiansciencemonitor.com--

In this instance, they are protesting of a Republican agenda they characterize as unfair to the state’s middle class and a threat to future business development.

While walkouts are not uncommon among Indiana state legislators, what makes the current situation unique – and different from the one in Wisconsin – is that Democrats are protesting the entire Republican agenda, not any single bill. As a result, lawmakers don't appear to know where to start to find compromise. In addition, hotter-than-usual rhetoric fueled by a mounting sense of political uncertainty in the Hoosier State is making the situation more volatile.

The standoff, which has no sign of abating on either side, may lead to a government shutdown if the Democrats do not return by April 29, the last day in session and the final opportunity legislators have to approve a state budget, due June 30.

“It looks like it’s going to be a waiting game. And so they will play it out until the bitter end unless there is a backroom deal,” says Brian Vargus, a political scientist at Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis.

Illinois is no stranger to housing renegade Democrats from neighboring states. For three weeks, the state became the safe haven for 14 Senate Democrats from Wisconsin who fled here to prevent their Republican peers from achieving a quorum on a bill that trimmed back union rights of public-sector workers. The self-impose exile ended when Senate Republicans stripped fiscal elements from the bill and passed it without a quorum (though a judge is reviewing whether this process followed state legislative rules).

Trading barbs across the border
Indiana law is written so a quorum is needed for every vote, no matter if it involves spending money or not. That means Indiana Republicans remain powerless until the Democrats return.

When that happens is anyone’s guess. Democrats yawned in response to Republican threats of censure, hefty fines, and charges they are in dereliction of duty as they run up daily hotel tabs in Urbana, Ill., at the expense of their party.

Worsening the situation is a battle of wills on both sides. House Speaker Brian Bosma (R) continues to say he is not open to compromise and will not adjust or remove any of the proposals the Democrats find objectionable. House minority leader Patrick Bauer refuses to return to Indianapolis, the state capital, unless he senses the Republican leadership is willing to go beyond just listening to actually negotiate.

The intensity of the debate is indicative of the unpredictable election results of the past few years, where state power has yanked back and forth between both parties, leaving neither of them assured of incumbency each election cycle, says Marjorie Hershey, a political scientist at Indiana University in Bloomington.

“Both parties nationally have perceived they may have a very limited time to get their agenda enacted, and they better hit the top of the agenda real fast before they lose the control they’ve got,” Professor Hershey says.

Unlike Wisconsin, where Republican Gov. Scott Walker was the public face of the battle between both parties, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) has more or less removed himself from the debate. He is serving his second and final term – a lame duck status that some say he is using to prepare for a presidential run in 2012.

How the standoff began
The House standoff started Feb. 21 when Democrats walked out after a House committee passed a right-to-work bill, written to bar companies and unions from negotiating contracts that require nonmembers to pay membership fees for representation. The bill was later removed by Republicans to lure Democrats to return to the state.

They didn’t return. Soon after, Democrats took issue with several other bills on the docket, including one that affected union jobs on public construction projects and another that used taxpayer money to fund charter school vouchers.

Protesting an entire agenda, instead of a single bill, is what makes “negotiating more difficult to begin with,” says Andrew Downs, director of the Mike Downs Center on Indiana Politics at Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis.

“I don’t think you could have gotten the Democrats to walk out of the statehouse if you tried to fix one or two issues on the basis of that walkout. But what happened was, one legislator was upset about this piece of legislation, another one was upset about another. I would not be surprised if [Indiana Democrats] are having trouble in Illinois figuring out what they see as a victory or what they are willing to sacrifice,” Mr. Downs says.

Not having a single issue to rally around also makes it difficult for Democrats to explain to the public why they are not in session. This becomes especially true this month when the standoff recedes from the headlines in favor of – what else in Indiana? – the NCAA March Madness college basketball tournament.

“The public doesn’t understand what’s going on, they really don’t, and the Democrats have had trouble articulating their message because the devil is in the details – and it really is in this case. The longer this goes on, the less it seems to be bothering anybody than those attached to either end of the party spectrum,” says Professor Vargus. “In March, Indiana is all about basketball.”

God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible -- Almost: God's wife, Asherah, was a powerful fertility goddess, according to a theologian.
By Jennifer Viegas | Fri Mar 18, 2011 07:00 AM ET
--discovery.com--

God had a wife, Asherah, whom the Book of Kings suggests was worshiped alongside Yahweh in his temple in Israel, according to an Oxford scholar.

In 1967, Raphael Patai was the first historian to mention that the ancient Israelites worshiped both Yahweh and Asherah. The theory has gained new prominence due to the research of Francesca Stavrakopoulou, who began her work at Oxford and is now a senior lecturer in the department of Theology and Religion at the University of Exeter.

Information presented in Stavrakopoulou's books, lectures and journal papers has become the basis of a three-part documentary series, now airing in Europe, where she discusses the Yahweh-Asherah connection.

"You might know him as Yahweh, Allah or God. But on this fact, Jews, Muslims and Christians, the people of the great Abrahamic religions, are agreed: There is only one of Him," writes Stavrakopoulou in a statement released to the British media. "He is a solitary figure, a single, universal creator, not one God among many ... or so we like to believe."

"After years of research specializing in the history and religion of Israel, however, I have come to a colorful and what could seem, to some, uncomfortable conclusion that God had a wife," she added.

Stavrakopoulou bases her theory on ancient texts, amulets and figurines unearthed primarily in the ancient Canaanite coastal city called Ugarit, now modern-day Syria. All of these artifacts reveal that Asherah was a powerful fertility goddess.

Asherah's connection to Yahweh, according to Stavrakopoulou, is spelled out in both the Bible and an 8th century B.C. inscription on pottery found in the Sinai desert at a site called Kuntillet Ajrud.

"The inscription is a petition for a blessing," she shares. "Crucially, the inscription asks for a blessing from 'Yahweh and his Asherah.' Here was evidence that presented Yahweh and Asherah as a divine pair. And now a handful of similar inscriptions have since been found, all of which help to strengthen the case that the God of the Bible once had a wife."

Also significant, Stavrakopoulou believes, "is the Bible's admission that the goddess Asherah was worshiped in Yahweh's Temple in Jerusalem. In the Book of Kings, we're told that a statue of Asherah was housed in the temple and that female temple personnel wove ritual textiles for her."

J. Edward Wright, president of both The Arizona Center for Judaic Studies and The Albright Institute for Archaeological Research, told Discovery News that he agrees several Hebrew inscriptions mention "Yahweh and his Asherah."

"Asherah was not entirely edited out of the Bible by its male editors," he added. "Traces of her remain, and based on those traces, archaeological evidence and references to her in texts from nations bordering Israel and Judah, we can reconstruct her role in the religions of the Southern Levant."

Asherah -- known across the ancient Near East by various other names, such as Astarte and Istar -- was "an important deity, one who was both mighty and nurturing," Wright continued.

"Many English translations prefer to translate 'Asherah' as 'Sacred Tree,'" Wright said. "This seems to be in part driven by a modern desire, clearly inspired by the Biblical narratives, to hide Asherah behind a veil once again."

"Mentions of the goddess Asherah in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) are rare and have been heavily edited by the ancient authors who gathered the texts together," Aaron Brody, director of the Bade Museum and an associate professor of Bible and archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion, said.

Asherah as a tree symbol was even said to have been "chopped down and burned outside the Temple in acts of certain rulers who were trying to 'purify' the cult, and focus on the worship of a single male god, Yahweh," he added.

The ancient Israelites were polytheists, Brody told Discovery News, "with only a small minority worshiping Yahweh alone before the historic events of 586 B.C." In that year, an elite community within Judea was exiled to Babylon and the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. This, Brody said, led to "a more universal vision of strict monotheism: one god not only for Judah, but for all of the nations."

(Some) Justice for Martine
How a young girl’s murder led to a boycott of Coca-Cola.
by Liv Buli-March 20, 2011
--newsweek.com--
Farouk Abdulhaq is wanted for the rape and murder of Martine Vik Magnussen.

The night of her murder began with a celebration.

On an early spring evening in 2008, Martine Vik Magnussen, a 23-year-old Norwegian beauty, curled her long, blond hair and accented her blue-green eyes with eye shadow, before heading to the smart London club Maddox with friends to celebrate upcoming holidays and high scores on her latest Regents College exams.

At the club in London’s Mayfair district was her friend Farouk Abdulhaq, the jet-setting son of a Yemeni billionaire, who, friends recalled later, had been feeling pressure from his father to clean up his party-boy image and, on this night, didn’t appear his usual lighthearted self.

Despite Abdulhaq’s peculiar mood, Magnussen left with him when the club closed, police believe. When she didn’t return to her apartment the next day, her friends became concerned. In a Norwegian documentary, they recounted how, reaching out to Abdulhaq over Facebook to see if he knew of her whereabouts, they noticed that he had changed his status around 4 that morning. “Farouk,” it said, “is home alone.” Soon after, Abdulhaq’s profile disappeared, they told the TV crew.

Police say they found Magnussen’s body in the basement of Abdulhaq’s apartment building two days later, partly covered with garbage. One of her earrings had been ripped from her ear, and her face was badly bruised. There was a blood trail from her body up the stairwell to Abdulhaq’s second-floor apartment, which showed signs of a struggle. A neighbor reported hearing strange noises in the middle of the night, and, by 2009, British authorities placed Abdulhaq on Scotland Yard’s Most Wanted list in connection with the rape and murder of Magnussen. They also issued an international warrant for his arrest. But, by then, Abdulhaq had left the country. Investigators found that he had left for Cairo just hours after the murder, flying onward from Egypt to Yemen on his father’s private jet.

Farouk’s father, Shaher Abdulhaq, is one of Yemen’s most powerful businessmen. At the time of the murder, his business empire included a range of luxury hotels and ownership of Yemen’s primary cellular network. He was also the main Mercedes importer and counted a large ownership stake in Coca-Cola bottling and distribution in the Middle East.

Since Yemen holds no extradition agreement with Great Britain, Magnussen’s father, Odd Petter Magnussen, tried diplomatic channels but with little luck. Meetings with the Norwegian foreign ministry and high-level British politicians brought promises but no results. Meanwhile, the Yemeni government offered to try Abdulhaq in country. The nation’s brutal and corrupt legal system, based on Sharia, punishes rape and murder with death; the convict is usually shot in the back of the head while laying facedown on the ground, and Magnussen’s father felt that neither that nor the unsolicited offer he got from strangers who suggested they’d fly to Yemen and kill Abdulhaq themselves would offer real justice for his daughter. What he wanted was for Abdulhaq to stand trial in Britain. “It is the only way to honor my daughter’s memory,” he told NEWSWEEK. “It can’t be possible to take a life in one place, get on a bus, and not have to suffer the consequences.”

Shaher Abdulhaq has so far declined media interviews but confirms through a PR person in London that his son is in Yemen. However, through his representative, he asserts that his son is not financially dependent on him; that he has encouraged him to return to Britain but that his son, so far, has refused; and that, in fact, the two have a strained relationship.

In Norway, meanwhile, the case has become a cause célèbre. In late 2010, seven Norwegian lawmakers drafted a series of letters to a number of multinational corporations connected with Shaher Trading, asking them to cut ties with the company on moral and ethical grounds. (Shaher Abdulhaq responded by threatening to sue the politicians for defamation and malicious falsehood.) Daimler-Benz subsequently dropped all business dealings with Shaher Abdulhaq but would not confirm that this was a direct result of the letters. Xerox started looking into the matter but Coca-Cola, effectively, said it wasn’t their problem. Communications director of Coca-Cola in Norway, Steir Rømmerud, told the Verdens Gang newspaper that while the company felt for the family, it was the responsibility of local and international police to solve the matter. “We have no ties to the suspect, and the suspect’s father is only indirectly involved in Coca-Cola as an investor in bottling operations,” he said, according to the paper. But a group called Justice for Martine wasn’t appeased and decided to take the battle against Abdulhaq online. Via a Facebook page, members encouraged a boycott of Coca-Cola products, starting March 1 this year. Within the first two weeks, more than 53,000 people signed up. “What we had hoped to achieve was to show Shaher Abdulhaq that this issue will not be swept under the table,” said Marcus Rolandsen, chairman of the foundation. (The foundation has also filed a civil complaint against the younger Abdulhaq in Norwegian courts for failing to respond to summons, and is considering further legal action in the United States.) While the boycott didn’t represent a massive economic impact on the behemoth company, the campaign was a potential threat to the Coca-Cola brand, and on March 14, the company released a statement announcing its decision to sever all ties with Abdulhaq. Joel Morris, spokesperson for Coca-Cola Europe, says Shaher Abdulhaq no longer holds financial interests in bottling operations in Libya or Egypt, has agreed to step down from the board of directors of the unit in Egypt, and is in the process of divesting his investments in Yemen. Morris adds that discussions on this matter began before the boycott, but that “our conversations with the campaign group did bring new urgency to the process.” The boycott’s success shows how Facebook and other social-media networks make it possible to take on multinational corporations, using a low-cost but very visual form of campaigning, says Clay Shirky, an author of several books on the effects of social media, “It’s not called good will in the balance sheet for nothing,” he says. Although the younger Abdulhaq remains at large, Magnussen’s father is optimistic that a solution is imminent. “You have to believe in the good in people, and that ethics will prevail in this case.”

Judge blocks Wisconsin law curbing labor rights
By Michael A. Fletcher, Friday, March 18, 2:14 PM
--washingtonpost.com--
A Wisconsin judge has temporarily blocked a law from going into effect that would severely restrict collective-bargaining rights for most public employees in the state.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued a restraining order Friday that stops publication of the law signed last week by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Governor Walker (R). Halting that procedural step essentially blocks the measure, which would go into effect once it is formally published.

The judge’s order came after Dane County’s Democratic District Attorney Ismael Ozanne filed suit alleging that a joint committee of the legislature violated the state’s open meeting law when it abruptly called a session to get the law passed last week.

The judge’s ruling does not speak to the legal merits of the law but says that the suit over the session has to be completed before the law can move forward.

Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, praised the judge’s action. “Judge Sumi confirmed today what we knew all along — that the bill stripping hundreds of thousands of hard-working Wisconsinites of their voice on the job was rammed through illegally in the dark of the night,” Neuenfeldt said.

In a statement, governor’s spokesman Cullen Werwie said: “The legislation is still working through the legal process. We are confident the provisions of the budget repair bill will become law in the near future.”

The move to curb collective bargaining ignited weeks of demonstrations in Madison, as tens of thousands of people descended on the state capitol in protest.

The effort also prompted 14 state Senate Democrats to flee Wisconsin for more than two weeks, in an ultimately futile effort to block the measure’s passage by denying the chamber a quorum.

But Walker and the Republicans managed to outmaneuver the Democrats by calling an abrupt meeting of a joint legislative committee, which altered the bill last week, allowing it to be considered by fewer legislators.

The measure then passed both legislative chambers, and Walker signed it last week.

Since the law’s enactment, protesters have made fervent efforts to recall Republican state senators who supported the law, while supporters of the measure have mounted recall efforts against the Democratic senators who left Wisconsin to block a vote.


fletcherm@washpost.com

The UN Security Council has approved a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians.
--bbc.co.uk--

The resolution allows for all necessary measures , short of a foreign occupation force, to defend civilians who are under threat of attack. France has indicated that air-strikes against Col Gaddafi's forces could begin within hours. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has briefed his cabinet at an emergency meeting, and is answering questions in the House of Commons about the overnight developments at the UN in New York.

U.S. pushing for air strikes, no-fly zone in Libya
Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:49pm GMT
--REUTERS--
* U.S. now pushing for air strikes against Gaddafi forces

* U.S. wants Arab League to play active role in any plan

* Burns: Actions short of boots on the ground (Adds more details)

By Steve Holland and Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters) - The United States, in a sharp shift in tone, wants the United Nations to authorize not just a no-fly zone to aid Libyan rebels but also air strikes against Libyan tanks and heavy artillery, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

The move toward a tougher stance in favor of military action comes after an extended internal debate within the Obama administration over how to stop Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's battle to put down a rebellion that has threatened his 30-year reign.

The Libyan opposition has appealed for immediate assistance to prevent the rebel capital of Benghazi from falling to forces loyal to Gaddafi, and the question facing President Barack Obama and other world leaders was whether the action they planned to take would come in time. [ID:nLDE72G0UF]

The U.S. Defense Department voiced concerns about a military engagement in Libya, echoing recent comments from Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"I think you could safely say there would be a concern about conducting military operations inside Libya," said Colonel David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman. [ID:nN17220104]

U.S. officials said the United States has concluded a no-fly zone should be adopted and other measures that go well beyond a no-fly zone, should be taken, including air strikes against Libyan tanks and heavy artillery.

The United States is also seeking U.N. authorization for other steps under consideration, including diverting frozen Gaddafi assets to Libyan rebels for buying weapons and tightening a Libyan arms embargo.

U.S. officials believe the measures could be implemented rapidly to have an immediate impact.

NO "BOOTS ON THE GROUND"

The United States supports international measures in Libya that are "short of boots on the ground," Undersecretary of State William Burns said on Thursday.

Burns also told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that a no-fly zone over Libya could have "an important, positive, practical" effect, but it was still necessary to consider other measures.

He said Washington is concerned Gaddafi could "return to terrorism and violent extremism" and create turmoil in the Middle East.

Pentagon officials have made clear their wariness of instituting a no-fly zone with U.S. forces already engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and a massive relief operation under way in Japan.

Any military plan adopted must have active participation by Arab League nations.

"They have to do more than just support it," a senior official said.

Obama has been under pressure from Britain and France to join together in taking tough action against Gaddafi before the moment to do so slips away.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said on Twitter that urgent negotiations were continuing at the U.N. Security Council about a Libya resolution.

"US view -- need to take steps beyond no-fly zone to protect civilians," she wrote.

Separately, the U.S. mission to the United States said on its Twitter account that the vote would likely come at 3:30 p.m. EDT (1930 GMT). A council diplomat said that the vote could come later.

French U.N. Ambassador Gerard Araud had said he wanted a vote by 6:00 p.m. EST (2200 GMT) on Thursday.

The former Libyan ambassador to the United States, Ali Aujali, who backs the rebels, appealed for immediate help in a CNN interview.

"President Obama, please, I am asking you for the second or third time, you know Gaddafi, you know what he will do," he said. (Additional reporting by Jackie Frank and Andrew Quinn; Editing by Jackie Frank and Eric Beech)

© Thomson Reuters 2011 All rights reserved

U.S. backs Arab states' call for Libya no-fly zone
Sun Mar 13, 2011 4:42am GMT
--reuters--
By Michael Georgy and Tom Perry
RAS LANUF, Libya/CAIRO (Reuters) - The United States backed a call by the Arab League for a United Nations no-fly zone over Libya, as government troops backed by warplanes fought to drive rebels from remaining strongholds in western Libya.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said the League, meeting in Cairo Saturday, had decided that "serious crimes and great violations" committed by the government of Muammar Gaddafi against his people had stripped it of legitimacy.

Washington, which would play a leading role in enforcing any no-fly zone, called the declaration an "important step"; but it stopped short of commitment to any military action and made no proposal for a swift meeting of the U.N. Security Council.

It was not clear if the League's call for a no-fly zone would provide the unequivocal regional endorsement NATO required for military action to curb Gaddafi.

Diplomats in New York said they could not rule out a weekend meeting of the U.N. Security Council to vote on the issue, but added it was unlikely.

On the ground, Gaddafi marshalled his forces to defy a tide of reform that has led to the overthrow of autocratic rulers in Tunisia and Egypt and unprecedented protest elsewhere.

However, a mutiny slowed the advance of a crack Libyan brigade commanded by Gaddafi's son Khamis as it advanced on Misrata, with 32 soldiers joining the rebels holding the city, a rebel there said. He said one defector was a general.

Rebel spokesman Gamal added that the brigade, stalled about 10-15 km south of the city, broke out in a fire fight after dozens of troops balked at the idea of killing innocent civilians in the impending attack.

The events could not be confirmed independently. Journalists have been prevented from reaching the city by the authorities.

Earlier Saturday, the feared 32nd Brigade tried but failed to take Misrata, the last major rebel holdout in western Libya.

ZAWIYAH SCENARIO

Mussa Ibrahim, a government spokesman in Tripoli, could neither confirm nor deny a military operation was under way in Misrata.

"There is a hard core of al Qaeda fighters there," he said. "It looks like a Zawiyah scenario. Some people will give up, some will disappear ... Tribal leaders are talking to them. Those who stay behind, we will deal with them accordingly."

It took a week of repeated assaults by government troops, backed by tanks and air power, to crush the uprising in Zawiyah, a much smaller town 50 km (30 miles) west of Tripoli.

The death toll in Zawiyah was unknown but much of the town was destroyed, with buildings around the main square showing gaping holes blown by tank rounds and rockets. Gaddafi's forces bulldozed a cemetery where rebel fighters had been buried.

The rebels in Misrata were heavily outgunned.

"We are bracing for a massacre," said Mohammad Ahmed, a rebel fighter. "We know it will happen and Misrata will be like Zawiyah, but we believe in God. We do not have the capabilities to fight Gaddafi and his forces. They have tanks and heavy weapons and we have our belief and trust in God."

Further east, Gaddafi's troops pushed insurgents out of Ras Lanuf, a day after making an amphibious assault on the oil port and pitting tanks and planes against rebels armed with light weapons and machineguns mounted on pick-up trucks.

Dozens of soldiers waved posters of Gaddafi and painted over rebel graffiti at a deserted housing complex for oil industry workers as foreign journalists arrived from Tripoli on a government-run visit to the recaptured city.

Smoke billowed from an oil storage facility near the refinery east of the town. Local officials brought to meet the media party said the retreating rebels had bombed it.

Libya's flat desert terrain favours the use of heavy armour and air power. The Libyan army is also better trained and more disciplined than the rag-tag, though enthusiastic, rebel force.

ALL CONTINGENCIES

Moussa told a news conference after the Arab League meeting in Cairo talks: "The Arab League has officially requested the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone against any military action against the Libyan people."

It was not immediately clear how Russia and China, who have veto rights in the Security Council and have publicly opposed a no-fly zone, would react.

The White House responded by welcoming League decision, calling it and "important step" and saying it was preparing for all contingencies.

"The international community is unified in sending a clear message that the violence in Libya must stop, and that the Gaddafi regime must be held accountable," it said.

Britain, in the forefront of states advocating preparation for a possible no-fly zone, welcomed the Arab League appeal as significant, but not enough by itself to trigger action.

"We've said all along that one of the conditions for a no-fly zone must be broad support in the region," Foreign Secretary William Hague told BBC television.

"Clearly this is one indicator that there is broad support in that region," he said. "It's not the only condition, it's also necessary to have even broader international support and it's also necessary for it to be clearly legal."

The terms of any no-fly zone would have to be agreed carefully and time may be working against the rebels. Its aim would be to stop Gaddafi using his air force in attacking rebel forces and civilians, transport and reconnaissance.

Arab League asks for no-fly zone over Libya
By DIAA HADID Associated Press © 2011 The Associated Press
March 12, 2011, 12:12PM

CAIRO — The Arab League asked the U.N. Security Council Saturday to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians from air attack by forces of Moammar Gadhafi's embattled government, giving crucial backing to a key demand of the rebel forces battling to oust the Libyan leader.

Foreign ministers from the 22-member Arab bloc, meeting in Cairo, also left the Libyan leader of more than 40 years increasingly isolated, declaring his government had "lost its sovereignty."

They also appeared to confer legitimacy on the rebel's interim government, the National Libyan Council, saying they would establish contacts with the umbrella group and calling on nations to provide it with "urgent help."

"The Arab League asks the United Nations to shoulder its responsibility ... to impose a no-fly zone over the movement of Libyan military planes and to create safe zones in the places vulnerable to airstrikes," said a League statement released after the emergency session.

League Secretary-General Amr Moussa stressed in remarks afterward that a no-fly zone was intended as a humanitarian measure to protect Libyan civilians and foreigners in the country and not as a military intervention.

That stance appeared meant to win over the deeply Arab nationalist government of Syria, which has smarted against foreign intervention into Arab affairs.

The Arab League cannot impose a no-fly zone itself. But the approval of the key regional Arab body gives the U.S. and other Western powers crucial regional backing they say they need before doing so. Many were weary that Western powers would be seen as intervening in the affairs of an Arab country if they began a no-fly zone without Arab approval.

Still, the Obama administration has said a no-fly zone may have limited impact, and the international community is divided over the issue.

Backing the rebel's political leadership, the League statement said it had faced "grievous violations and serious crimes by the Libyan authorities, which have lost their sovereignty."

The League's decision comes hours before the European Union's policy chief is set to arrive in Cairo to meet with the Arab bloc's leaders to discuss the situation in Libya.

Catherine Ashton said she hoped to discuss a "collaborative approach" with Arab League chief Moussa on Libya and the rest of the region.

Ashton said it was necessary to evaluate how effective economic sanctions imposed on Gadhafi's regime had been so far and that she was "keeping all options moving forward" regarding any additional measures.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle welcomed the EU's "very cautious" stance on possible military intervention.

"We do not want to be drawn into a war in north Africa — we should have learned from the events in and surrounding Iraq," Westerwelle said.

"It is very important that the impression doesn't arise that this is a conflict of the West against the Arab world or a Christian crusade against people of Muslim faith."

Florence and the Machine, Rabbit Heart (Raise It Up)

Peter King, U.S. Representative Supports Terrorism
--newyorktimes.com--
By SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON — For Representative Peter T. King, as he seizes the national spotlight this week with a hearing on the radicalization of American Muslims, it is the most awkward of résumé entries. Long before he became an outspoken voice in Congress about the threat from terrorism, he was a fervent supporter of a terrorist group, the Irish Republican Army.

“We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”

As Mr. King, a Republican, rose as a Long Island politician in the 1980s, benefiting from strong Irish-American support, the I.R.A. was carrying out a bloody campaign of bombing and sniping, targeting the British Army, Protestant paramilitaries and sometimes pubs and other civilian gathering spots. His statements, along with his close ties to key figures in the military and political wings of the I.R.A., drew the attention of British and American authorities.

A judge in Belfast threw him out of an I.R.A. murder trial, calling him an “obvious collaborator,” said Ed Moloney, an Irish journalist and author of “A Secret History of the I.R.A.” In 1984, Mr. King complained that the Secret Service had investigated him as a “security risk,” Mr. Moloney said.

In later years, by all accounts, Mr. King became an important go-between in talks that led to peace in Northern Ireland, drawing on his personal contacts with leaders of I.R.A.’s political wing, Sinn Fein, and winning plaudits from both Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, the former president and the British prime minister.

But as Mr. King, 66, prepares to preside Thursday as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee at the first of a series of hearings on Muslim radicalization, his pro-I.R.A. past gives his many critics an obvious opening. The congressman’s assertions that 85 percent of leaders of American mosques hold extremist views and that Muslims do not cooperate with law enforcement have alarmed Muslim groups, some counterterrorism experts and even a few former allies in Irish-American causes.

Mr. King, son of a New York City police officer and grand-nephew of an I.R.A. member, offers no apologies for his past, which he has celebrated in novels that feature a Irish-American congressman with I.R.A. ties who bears a striking resemblance to the author.

Of comparisons between the terrorism of the I.R.A. and that of Al Qaeda and its affiliates, Mr. King said: “I understand why people who are misinformed might see a parallel. The fact is, the I.R.A. never attacked the United States. And my loyalty is to the United States.”

He said he does not regret his past pro-I.R.A. statements. The Irish group, he said, was “a legitimate force” battling British repression — analogous to the African National Congress in South Africa or the Zionist Irgun paramilitary in British-ruled Palestine. “It was a dirty war on both sides,” he said of I.R.A. resistance to British rule.

As for the hearings, he noted that counterterrorism officials from the Obama administration have often spoken, especially since a string of largely homegrown plots since 2009, of the threat from American Muslims who take on radical views. “Al Qaeda is recruiting from the Muslim community,” he said. “If they were recruiting from the Irish community, I’d say we should look at that.”

Mr. King’s witnesses at the hearing will feature a fellow House Republican, Frank Wolf of Virginia; Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, who is Muslim; Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim physician and activist who has been sharply critical of some fellow Muslims; and two family members of young men who embraced extremist violence. (The committee’s top Democrat, Representative Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi, has invited Leroy Baca, the sheriff of Los Angeles County, who has praised Muslim assistance to law enforcement, and Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, who has many Muslim constituents.)

The furor about the hearing is less about the witness lineup, which does not seem especially incendiary, than about statements by Mr. King that appear to spread blame for terrorism to the entire population of American Muslims.

“This hearing is not focusing on the acts of a criminal fringe but is broad-brushing an entire community,” said Alejandro J. Beutel, policy analyst at the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Washington.

Mr. Beutel, who has compiled a database of terrorist incidents since 2001, said the problem of radicalization of young Muslims is serious, and his group has helped counter it with a number of measures, including a video featuring nine imams speaking against extremism that has become a Web hit. But he said broadly accusing Muslims of complicity in terrorism will hamstring the fight to prevent extremism, which depends on tips from citizens willing and unafraid to contact authorities.

Even Mr. King’s critics acknowledge a fundamental difference between the violence carried out by the I.R.A., which usually sought with varying success to minimize civilian casualties, and that of Al Qaeda, which has done the opposite. The I.R.A. was responsible for 1,826 of 3,528 deaths during the Northern Irish conflict between 1969 and 2001, including those of several hundred civilians, said the historian Malcolm Sutton

“King’s exactly right to say there’s a difference of approach between the I.R.A. and Al Qaeda,” said Tom Parker, a counterterrorism specialist at Amnesty International and a former British military intelligence officer. “But I personally consider both of them terrorist groups.”

Mr. Parker was at a birthday party for a friend in London in 1990 when the I.R.A. tossed a bomb onto the roof of the rented hall, a historic barracks. Many people, including Mr. Parker, were injured, but none died, by lucky chance of location and quick medical response, he said.

What troubles him, Mr. Parker said, is that Mr. King “understands the pull of ancestral ties. He took a great interest in a terrorist struggle overseas. He’s a guy who could bring real insight to this situation.” Instead, he said, “he is damaging cooperation from the greatest allies the U.S. has in counterterrorism.”

Some who have been close to Mr. King agree. Niall O’Dowd, an Irish-born New York publisher and writer who worked with him on the peace process in the 1990s, broke publicly with him Monday on his Web site, IrishCentral.com, describing Mr. King’s “strange journey from Irish radical to Muslim inquisitor.”

In Northern Ireland, Mr. O’Dowd said, they saw a Catholic community “demonized” by its Protestant and British critics and worked to bring it to the peace table. Seeing his old friend similarly “demonize” Muslims has shocked him, he said.

“I honestly feel Peter is wrong, and his own experience in Northern Ireland teaches him that,” Mr. O’Dowd said. “He’s a very honest, working-class Irish guy from Queens who’s had an amazing career. Now I see a man turning back on himself, and I don’t know why.”

Clarence Hypocracy Thomas
By Jonathan Turley
--latimes.com--
March 6, 2011

Louis XIV of France was infamous for his view that there was no distinction between himself and the state, allegedly proclaiming "L'État, c'est moi" ("I am the State"). That notorious merging of personality with an institution was again on display in a February speech by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas before the conservative Federalist Society.

Thomas used the friendly audience to finally address a chorus of criticism over his alleged conflicts of interest and violation of federal disclosure rules concerning his wife's income. Rather than answer these questions, however, Thomas denounced his critics as "undermining" the court and endangering the country by weakening core institutions.

In January, Common Cause released documents showing that Thomas had attended events funded by conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch. Thomas was even featured in Koch promotional material — along with Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others — for events that sought financial and political support for conservative political causes.

Worse yet, Common Cause discovered that Thomas had failed to disclose a source of income for 13 years on required federal forms. Thomas stated that his wife, Virginia, had no income, when in truth she had hundreds of thousands of dollars of income from conservative organizations, including roughly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2007. Thomas reported "none" in answering specific questions about "spousal non-investment income" on annual forms — answers expressly made "subject to civil and criminal sanctions."

In the interests of full disclosure, I was consulted by Common Cause before the release of the Thomas documents. I found the violations regarding Virginia Thomas' income particularly alarming.

Virginia Thomas was receiving money from groups that had expressed direct interest in the outcome of cases that came before her husband, including Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, in which the court in 2010 struck down limitations on corporate contributions to elections.

A justice is expressly required by federal law to recuse himself from any case "in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." This law specifically requires recusal when he knows that "his spouse … has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."

The financial disclosure forms are meant to assist the public in determining conflicts of interest. Though Thomas clearly could argue that his wife's ties to these organizations were not grounds for recusal, he denied the court and the public the ability to fully evaluate those conflicts at the time. Instead, Thomas misled the public for years on the considerable wealth he and his wife were accumulating from ideological groups.

After Common Cause detailed the violations, Thomas simply wrote a brief letter to the court saying that the information was "inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions."

It is unclear how Thomas will rule in the next case in which an individual is accused of a failure to disclose on tax or other government forms. Thomas is viewed as one of the least sympathetic justices to such defenses. Indeed, last year, he joined a decision in Jerman vs. Carlisle that rejected a defense from debt collectors that their violations were due to misunderstandings of the requirements of federal law and just "bona fide errors." In rejecting the claim that such errors were not intentional, the court reminded the defendants that "we have long recognized the common maxim, familiar to all minds, that ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally."

None of these issues, however, was addressed by Thomas in his speech to the Federalist Society. Instead, Thomas suggested that his critics were endangering freedom by undermining his authority and, by extension, the authority of the court. He insisted that his wife was being attacked because she believes in the same things he does and because they were "focused on defending liberty." He added:

"You all are going to be, unfortunately, the recipients of the fallout from that — that there's going to be a day when you need these institutions to be credible and to be fully functioning to protect your liberties.... And that's long after I'm gone, and that could be either a short or a long time, but you're younger, and it's still going to be a necessity to protect the liberties that you enjoy now in this country."

That was Thomas' Louis XIV moment. Thomas appears to have finally merged his own personality with the institution itself. Thus, any criticism — even criticism that he is harming the court — is an attack on the institution. It is more than an embarrassing conceit; it can be a dangerous delusion for any justice.

The Supreme Court is not composed of nine Atlas-like jurists holding up justice in the United States. Rather, the foundations are laid in the rule of law, which speaks to all Americans in the same voice. The court is "credible," to use Thomas' word, because it is not the extension of the jurists themselves but the law that they are required to follow.

"I am the Court" sounds little better than "I am the State." We will continue to "enjoy" the liberties of this nation not by the grace or grandeur of Justice Thomas but by the simple triumph of principle over personalities.

Jonathan Turley is as professor of law at George Washington University, where he teaches a class on the Supreme Court.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

Crowd in NYC rallies against hearing on US Muslims
--ajc.com--
They have heard from the imam who was an initial key supporter of plans to develop a mosque near ground zero. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf says the real enemy isn't Muslims or Islam, it's extremism.

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King, says affiliates of al-Qaida are radicalizing some American Muslims and that he plans to hold hearings on the threat they pose to the U.S.

Another group held a rally in support of King's hearing.A coalition of over 100 interfaith, nonprofit and governmental organizations plans to rally in New York City Sunday March 6, 2011 against a planned congressional hearing scheduled by U.S. Rep. Peter J. King of New York on Muslims' role in homegrown terrorism.

___

March 06, 2011 04:04 PM EST

Copyright 2011, The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators
By Michael Hastings
February 23, 2011 11:55 PM ET
--rollingstone.com--
The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in "psychological operations" to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war, Rolling Stone has learned – and when an officer tried to stop the operation, he was railroaded by military investigators.

The orders came from the command of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star general in charge of training Afghan troops – the linchpin of U.S. strategy in the war. Over a four-month period last year, a military cell devoted to what is known as "information operations" at Camp Eggers in Kabul was repeatedly pressured to target visiting senators and other VIPs who met with Caldwell. When the unit resisted the order, arguing that it violated U.S. laws prohibiting the use of propaganda against American citizens, it was subjected to a campaign of retaliation.

"My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. "I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line."

The list of targeted visitors was long, according to interviews with members of the IO team and internal documents obtained by Rolling Stone. Those singled out in the campaign included senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Jack Reed, Al Franken and Carl Levin; Rep. Steve Israel of the House Appropriations Committee; Adm. Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Czech ambassador to Afghanistan; the German interior minister, and a host of influential think-tank analysts.

The incident offers an indication of just how desperate the U.S. command in Afghanistan is to spin American civilian leaders into supporting an increasingly unpopular war. According to the Defense Department’s own definition, psy-ops – the use of propaganda and psychological tactics to influence emotions and behaviors – are supposed to be used exclusively on "hostile foreign groups." Federal law forbids the military from practicing psy-ops on Americans, and each defense authorization bill comes with a "propaganda rider" that also prohibits such manipulation. "Everyone in the psy-ops, intel, and IO community knows you’re not supposed to target Americans," says a veteran member of another psy-ops team who has run operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It’s what you learn on day one."

When Holmes and his four-man team arrived in Afghanistan in November 2009, their mission was to assess the effects of U.S. propaganda on the Taliban and the local Afghan population. But the following month, Holmes began receiving orders from Caldwell’s staff to direct his expertise on a new target: visiting Americans. At first, the orders were administered verbally. According to Holmes, who attended at least a dozen meetings with Caldwell to discuss the operation, the general wanted the IO unit to do the kind of seemingly innocuous work usually delegated to the two dozen members of his public affairs staff: compiling detailed profiles of the VIPs, including their voting records, their likes and dislikes, and their "hot-button issues." In one email to Holmes, Caldwell’s staff also wanted to know how to shape the general’s presentations to the visiting dignitaries, and how best to "refine our messaging."

Congressional delegations – known in military jargon as CODELs – are no strangers to spin. U.S. lawmakers routinely take trips to the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they receive carefully orchestrated briefings and visit local markets before posing for souvenir photos in helmets and flak jackets. Informally, the trips are a way for generals to lobby congressmen and provide first-hand updates on the war. But what Caldwell was looking for was more than the usual background briefings on senators. According to Holmes, the general wanted the IO team to provide a "deeper analysis of pressure points we could use to leverage the delegation for more funds." The general’s chief of staff also asked Holmes how Caldwell could secretly manipulate the U.S. lawmakers without their knowledge. "How do we get these guys to give us more people?" he demanded. "What do I have to plant inside their heads?"

According to experts on intelligence policy, asking a psy-ops team to direct its expertise against visiting dignitaries would be like the president asking the CIA to put together background dossiers on congressional opponents. Holmes was even expected to sit in on Caldwell’s meetings with the senators and take notes, without divulging his background. "Putting your propaganda people in a room with senators doesn’t look good," says John Pike, a leading military analyst. "It doesn’t pass the smell test. Any decent propaganda operator would tell you that."

At a minimum, the use of the IO team against U.S. senators was a misuse of vital resources designed to combat the enemy; it cost American taxpayers roughly $6 million to deploy Holmes and his team in Afghanistan for a year. But Caldwell seemed more eager to advance his own career than to defeat the Taliban. "We called it Operation Fourth Star," says Holmes. "Caldwell seemed far more focused on the Americans and the funding stream than he was on the Afghans. We were there to teach and train the Afghans. But for the first four months it was all about the U.S. Later he even started talking about targeting the NATO populations." At one point, according to Holmes, Caldwell wanted to break up the IO team and give each general on his staff their own personal spokesperson with psy-ops training.

It wasn’t the first time that Caldwell had tried to tear down the wall that has historically separated public affairs and psy-ops – the distinction the military is supposed to maintain between "informing" and "influencing." After a stint as the top U.S. spokesperson in Iraq, the general pushed aggressively to expand the military’s use of information operations. During his time as a commander at Ft. Leavenworth, Caldwell argued for exploiting new technologies like blogging and Wikipedia – a move that would widen the military’s ability to influence the public, both foreign and domestic. According to sources close to the general, he also tried to rewrite the official doctrine on information operations, though that effort ultimately failed. (In recent months, the Pentagon has quietly dropped the nefarious-sounding moniker "psy-ops" in favor of the more neutral "MISO" – short for Military Information Support Operations.)

Under duress, Holmes and his team provided Caldwell with background assessments on the visiting senators, and helped prep the general for his high-profile encounters. But according to members of his unit, Holmes did his best to resist the orders. Holmes believed that using his team to target American civilians violated the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which was passed by Congress to prevent the State Department from using Soviet-style propaganda techniques on U.S. citizens. But when Holmes brought his concerns to Col. Gregory Breazile, the spokesperson for the Afghan training mission run by Caldwell, the discussion ended in a screaming match. "It’s not illegal if I say it isn’t!" Holmes recalls Breazile shouting.

In March 2010, Breazile issued a written order that "directly tasked" Holmes to conduct an IO campaign against "all DV visits" – short for "distinguished visitor." The team was also instructed to "prepare the context and develop the prep package for each visit." In case the order wasn’t clear enough, Breazile added that the new instructions were to "take priority over all other duties." Instead of fighting the Taliban, Holmes and his team were now responsible for using their training to win the hearts and minds of John McCain and Al Franken.

On March 23rd, Holmes emailed the JAG lawyer who handled information operations, saying that the order made him "nervous." The lawyer, Capt. John Scott, agreed with Holmes. "The short answer is that IO doesn’t do that," Scott replied in an email. "[Public affairs] works on the hearts and minds of our own citizens and IO works on the hearts and minds of the citizens of other nations. While the twain do occasionally intersect, such intersections, like violent contact during a soccer game, should be unintentional."

In another email, Scott advised Holmes to seek his own defense counsel. "Using IO to influence our own folks is a bad idea," the lawyer wrote, "and contrary to IO policy."

In a statement to Rolling Stone, a spokesman for Caldwell "categorically denies the assertion that the command used an Information Operations Cell to influence Distinguished Visitors." But after Scott offered his legal opinion, the order was rewritten to stipulate that the IO unit should only use publicly available records to create profiles of U.S. visitors. Based on the narrower definition of the order, Holmes and his team believed the incident was behind them.

Three weeks after the exchange, however, Holmes learned that he was the subject of an investigation, called an AR 15-6. The investigation had been ordered by Col. Joe Buche, Caldwell’s chief of staff. The 22-page report, obtained by Rolling Stone, reads like something put together by Kenneth Starr. The investigator accuses Holmes of going off base in civilian clothes without permission, improperly using his position to start a private business, consuming alcohol, using Facebook too much, and having an "inappropriate" relationship with one of his subordinates, Maj. Laural Levine. The investigator also noted a joking comment that Holmes made on his Facebook wall, in response to a jibe about Afghan men wanting to hold his hand. "Hey! I’ve been here almost five months now!" Holmes wrote. "Gimmee a break a man has needs you know."

"LTC Holmes’ comments about his sexual needs," the report concluded, "are even more distasteful in light of his status as a married man."

Both Holmes and Levine maintain that there was nothing inappropriate about their relationship, and said they were waiting until after they left Afghanistan to start their own business. They and other members of the team also say that they had been given permission to go off post in civilian clothes. As for Facebook, Caldwell’s command had aggressively encouraged its officers to the use the site as part of a social-networking initiative – and Holmes ranked only 15th among the biggest users.

Nor was Holmes the only one who wrote silly things online. Col. Breazile’s Facebook page, for example, is spotted with similar kinds of nonsense, including multiple references to drinking alcohol, and a photo of a warning inside a Port-o-John mocking Afghans – "In case any of you forgot that you are supposed to sit on the toilet and not stand on it and squat. It’s a safety issue. We don’t want you to fall in or miss your target." Breazile now serves at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where he works in the office dedicated to waging a global information war for the Pentagon.

Following the investigation, both Holmes and Levine were formally reprimanded. Holmes, believing that he was being targeted for questioning the legality of waging an IO campaign against U.S. visitors, complained to the Defense Department’s inspector general. Three months later, he was informed that he was not entitled to protection as a whistleblower, because the JAG lawyer he consulted was not "designated to receive such communications."

Levine, who has a spotless record and 19 service awards after 16 years in the military, including a tour of duty in Kuwait and Iraq, fears that she has become "the collateral damage" in the military’s effort to retaliate against Holmes. "It will probably end my career," she says. "My father was an officer, and I believed officers would never act like this. I was devastated. I’ve lost my faith in the military, and I couldn’t in good conscience recommend anyone joining right now."

After being reprimanded, Holmes and his team were essentially ignored for the rest of their tours in Afghanistan. But on June 15th, the entire Afghan training mission received a surprising memo from Col. Buche, Caldwell’s chief of staff. "Effective immediately," the memo read, "the engagement in information operations by personnel assigned to the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan and Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan is strictly prohibited." From now on, the memo added, the "information operation cell" would be referred to as the "Information Engagement cell." The IE’s mission? "This cell will engage in activities for the sole purpose of informing and educating U.S., Afghan and international audiences…." The memo declared, in short, that those who had trained in psy-ops and other forms of propaganda would now officially be working as public relations experts – targeting a worldwide audience.

As for the operation targeting U.S. senators, there is no way to tell what, if any, influence it had on American policy. What is clear is that in January 2011, Caldwell’s command asked the Obama administration for another $2 billion to train an additional 70,000 Afghan troops – an initiative that will already cost U.S. taxpayers more than $11 billion this year. Among the biggest boosters in Washington to give Caldwell the additional money? Sen. Carl Levin, one of the senators whom Holmes had been ordered to target.

Libyan invasion possibility
--arabnews.com--
“Let’s just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses ... and then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a congressional hearing.

(cont...)