 |
Oooh Juicy! Condi Rice: Cheney Attacked My Integrity
Solar Energy Company Touted By Obama Goes Bankrupt
This is the 3rd solar energy company gone bankrupt in 1 month. Obama touted them as flagships of his economic policies. And as such, they epitomize his epic FAIL.
(The Week) Obama nurtured the solar-panel maker with $535 million in his push to create green jobs. Now it's kaput and its 1,100 employees are out of luck Solar-power startup Solyndra — one of the flagships of President Obama's efforts to create green-energy jobs — has shut down, and plans to file for bankruptcy. Solyndra received $535 million in federally guaranteed loans to expand, and Obama once visited the company's Silicon Valley factory to congratulate its workers on their bright future. But Solyndra says it just can't compete with cheaper solar panels from China, and now its 1,100 employees are out of work. Is this a "political catastrophe" for Obama, or just a painful setback in the transition to clean energy? [MORE] Eye-on-the-World
UN Palmer Commission Report: Israel Blockade Of Gaza AND Its Defense Is Legal
The New York Times has the complete text of the UN Palmer Commission Report (PDF).
Below is the text of the summary of the report and the appendix with the rebuttal by Israel and Turkey to some of the report's findings. The main issues where the report faults Israel are the warnings to the Mavi Marmara before boarding, the extent of the force used by the IDF (while agreeing that the soldiers were in danger) and the treatment of those on the Mavi Marmara after they were removed.
These points are addressed below and rebutted by Israel in the Appendix quoted below after the summary.
The difference between the points raised by Israel and Turkey below reflects the difference between the original reports Israel and Turkey produced after the Mavi Marmara incident.
In the absence of legal sources to back their claim that the blockade is illegal, Turkey falls back on "common sense and conscience" to define the law--at the same time that it claims that the law is "highly complex"
In the summary below, Daled Amos italicized points of interest.
In the Appendix, where Israel's rebuttal contained italicized portions, Daled Amos bolded some points.
----- Appendix II: Separate Statements from Mr. Ciechanover and Mr. Sanberk
Statement by Mr. Ciechanover [Israel]
As the Representative of Israel to this Panel, I join the Chairman and Vice Chairman in adopting this report. Israel appreciates the important work of the Panel and thanks Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Mr. Alvaro Uribe for their leadership. Their efforts should send a message to the international community about the need to engage with all sides to a dispute and to avoid prejudging an incident before all of the facts are known.
Israel has reservations to a few aspects of the report, which are expressed below, but appreciates that the report concurs with Israel’s view that the “naval blockade was legal,” that it "was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea,” that the blockade’s implementation “complied with the requirements of international law,” and that Israel had a “right to visit and search the vessel and to capture it if found in breach of a blockade”, including in international waters. The Report rightly finding serious questions about “the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH,” notes that they planned “in advance to violently resist any boarding attempt” and classifies the decision to breach the blockade of Gaza as a “dangerous and reckless act,” which “needlessly carried the potential for escalation.” Israel also notes the importance of the Panel’s support for Israel’s long-standing position that “all humanitarian missions wishing to assist the Gaza population should do so through established procedures and designated land crossings in consultation with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”
At the same time, Israel does not concur with the Panel’s characterization of Israel’s decision to board the vessels in the manner it did as “excessive and unreasonable.” The Panel was provided evidence of the repeated warnings it gave the vessels regarding its intent to board them. Israel feels that the Panel gave insufficient consideration to the operational limitations which determined the manner and timing of the boarding of the vessels and to the operational need for a covert takeover in order to minimize the chances for resistance on board.
As to the actions of Israel’s soldiers, given the panel’s conclusions regarding the resistance that they encountered when boarding the Mavi Marmara, it is clear that the soldier’s lives were in immediate danger. For example, the Panel notes that “Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara.” The Panel confirmed that video footage showed that passengers were wearing "bullet proof vests, and carrying metal bars, slingshots, chains and staves” and that this information “supports the accounts of violence given by IDF personnel to the Israeli investigation.” The Panel further confirms that “two soldiers received gunshot wounds,” “three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk” and that “seven soldiers were wounded by passengers, some seriously.”
Given these circumstances, Israel’s soldiers clearly acted in self-defense and responded reasonably, proportionally and with restraint, including the use of less-lethal weapons where feasible. The Panel's characterization of the circumstances which led to the nine deaths on board the Mavi Marmara does not adequately take into account the complexities of what was clearly a chaotic combat situation. In such a situation, reconstructing the exact chains of events is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Given the close range combat that clearly took place aboard the vessel, wounds sustained at close range do not in themselves suggest wrongdoing by Israeli soldiers.
Israel’s treatment of the hundreds of participants following the takeover of the ships was reasonable and compatible with international standards. Reliance on some passenger statements presented in the Turkish National Report as evidence of wrongdoing was particularly problematic. Israel raised serious concerns regarding the veracity and credibility of some of these statements.
Still, Israel cherishes the shared history and centuries old ties of strong friendship and cooperation between the Jewish and Turkish peoples and hopes that the Panel's work over the past few months will assist Israel and Turkey in finding a path back to cooperation.
............................
Statement by Mr. Sanberk [Turkey]
I hereby register my disagreement with the Chairmanship on the following issues contained in the report:
Below is the text of the summary of the report and the appendix with the rebuttal by Israel and Turkey to some of the report's findings. The main issues where the report faults Israel are the warnings to the Mavi Marmara before boarding, the extent of the force used by the IDF (while agreeing that the soldiers were in danger) and the treatment of those on the Mavi Marmara after they were removed.
These points are addressed below and rebutted by Israel in the Appendix quoted below after the summary.
The difference between the points raised by Israel and Turkey below reflects the difference between the original reports Israel and Turkey produced after the Mavi Marmara incident.
In the absence of legal sources to back their claim that the blockade is illegal, Turkey falls back on "common sense and conscience" to define the law--at the same time that it claims that the law is "highly complex"
In the summary below, Daled Amos italicized points of interest.
In the Appendix, where Israel's rebuttal contained italicized portions, Daled Amos bolded some points.
Summary
On 31 May 2010 at 4.26 a.m. a flotilla of six vessels was boarded and taken over by Israeli Defense Forces 72 nautical miles from land. The vessels were carrying people and humanitarian supplies. The flotilla had been directed to change course by the Israeli forces who stated that the coast of Gaza was under a naval blockade. Nine passengers lost their lives and many others were wounded as a result of the use of force during the take-over operation by Israeli forces.
The Secretary-General established the Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident on 2 August 2010. The Panel received and reviewed reports of the detailed national investigations conducted by both Turkey and Israel. Turkey established a National Commission of Inquiry to examine the facts of the incident and its legal consequences, which provided an interim and final report to the Panel along with annexes and related material. Israel provided the report of the independent Public Commission that it had established to review whether the actions taken by the State of Israel had been compatible with international law.
The Panel reviewed these reports and further information and clarifications it received in written form and through direct meetings with Points of Contact appointed by each government. In light of the information so gathered, the Panel has examined and identified the facts, circumstances and context of the incident and considered and recommended ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future. In so doing it was not acting as a Court and was not asked to adjudicate on legal liability. Its findings and recommendations are therefore not intended to attribute any legal responsibilities. Nevertheless, the Panel hopes that its report may resolve the issues surrounding the incident and bring the matter to an end.
The Panel’s Method of Work provided that the Panel was to operate by consensus, but where, despite best efforts, it was not possible to achieve consensus, the Chair and Vice- Chair could agree on any procedural issue, finding or recommendation. This report has been adopted on the agreement of the Chair and Vice-Chair under that procedure.
Facts, Circumstances and Context of the Incident
The Panel finds:
i. The events of 31 May 2010 should never have taken place as they did and strenuous efforts should be made to prevent the occurrence of such incidents in the future.
ii. The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.
iii. The flotilla was a non-governmental endeavour, involving vessels and participants from a number of countries.
iv. Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation.
v. The incident and its outcomes were not intended by either Turkey or Israel. Both States took steps in an attempt to ensure that events did not occur in a manner that endangered individuals’ lives and international peace and security. Turkish officials also approached the organizers of the flotilla with the intention of persuading them to change course if necessary and avoid an encounter with Israeli forces. But more could have been done to warn the flotilla participants of the potential risks involved and to dissuade them from their actions.
vi. Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable:
a. Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance. In particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the type of confrontation that occurred; b. The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent.vii. Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded. viii. The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.
ix. There was significant mistreatment of passengers by Israeli authorities after the take-over of the vessels had been completed through until their deportation. This included physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely consular assistance.
How to Avoid Similar Incidents in the Future
The Panel recommends:
With respect to the situation in Gaza
i. All relevant States should consult directly and make every effort to avoid a repetition of the incident.
ii. Bearing in mind its consequences and the fundamental importance of the freedom of navigation on the high seas, Israel should keep the naval blockade under regular review, in order to assess whether it continues to be necessary.
iii. Israel should continue with its efforts to ease its restrictions on movement of goods and persons to and from Gaza with a view to lifting its closure and to alleviate the unsustainable humanitarian and economic situation of the civilian population. These steps should be taken in accordance with Security Council resolution 1860, all aspects of which should be implemented.
iv. All humanitarian missions wishing to assist the Gaza population should do so through established procedures and the designated land crossings in consultation with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
General
v. All States should act with prudence and caution in relation to the imposition and enforcement of a naval blockade. The established norms of customary international law must be respected and complied with by all relevant parties. The San Remo Manual provides a useful reference in identifying those rules.
vi. The imposition of a naval blockade as an action in self-defence should be reported to the Security Council under the procedures set out under Article 51 of the Charter. This will enable the Council to monitor any implications for international peace and security.
vii. States maintaining a naval blockade must abide by their obligations with respect to the provision of humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian missions must act in accordance with the principles of neutrality, impartiality and humanity and respect any security measures in place. Humanitarian vessels should allow inspection and stop or change course when requested.
viii. Attempts to breach a lawfully imposed naval blockade place the vessel and those on board at risk. Where a State becomes aware that its citizens or flag vessels intend to breach a naval blockade, it has a responsibility to take pro- active steps compatible with democratic rights and freedoms to warn them of the risks involved and to endeavour to dissuade them from doing so.
ix. States enforcing a naval blockade against non-military vessels, especially where large numbers of civilian passengers are involved, should be cautious in the use of force. Efforts should first be made to stop the vessels by non- violent means. In particular, they should not use force except when absolutely necessary and then should only use the minimum level of force necessary to achieve the lawful objective of maintaining the blockade. They must provide clear and express warnings so that the vessels are aware if force is to be used against them.
Rapprochement
x. An appropriate statement of regret should be made by Israel in respect of the incident in light of its consequences.
xi. Israel should offer payment for the benefit of the deceased and injured victims and their families, to be administered by the two governments through a joint trust fund of a sufficient amount to be decided by them.
xii. Turkey and Israel should resume full diplomatic relations, repairing their relationship in the interests of stability in the Middle East and international peace and security. The establishment of a political roundtable as a forum for exchanging views could assist to this end.
----- Appendix II: Separate Statements from Mr. Ciechanover and Mr. Sanberk
Statement by Mr. Ciechanover [Israel]
As the Representative of Israel to this Panel, I join the Chairman and Vice Chairman in adopting this report. Israel appreciates the important work of the Panel and thanks Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Mr. Alvaro Uribe for their leadership. Their efforts should send a message to the international community about the need to engage with all sides to a dispute and to avoid prejudging an incident before all of the facts are known.
Israel has reservations to a few aspects of the report, which are expressed below, but appreciates that the report concurs with Israel’s view that the “naval blockade was legal,” that it "was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea,” that the blockade’s implementation “complied with the requirements of international law,” and that Israel had a “right to visit and search the vessel and to capture it if found in breach of a blockade”, including in international waters. The Report rightly finding serious questions about “the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH,” notes that they planned “in advance to violently resist any boarding attempt” and classifies the decision to breach the blockade of Gaza as a “dangerous and reckless act,” which “needlessly carried the potential for escalation.” Israel also notes the importance of the Panel’s support for Israel’s long-standing position that “all humanitarian missions wishing to assist the Gaza population should do so through established procedures and designated land crossings in consultation with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”
At the same time, Israel does not concur with the Panel’s characterization of Israel’s decision to board the vessels in the manner it did as “excessive and unreasonable.” The Panel was provided evidence of the repeated warnings it gave the vessels regarding its intent to board them. Israel feels that the Panel gave insufficient consideration to the operational limitations which determined the manner and timing of the boarding of the vessels and to the operational need for a covert takeover in order to minimize the chances for resistance on board.
As to the actions of Israel’s soldiers, given the panel’s conclusions regarding the resistance that they encountered when boarding the Mavi Marmara, it is clear that the soldier’s lives were in immediate danger. For example, the Panel notes that “Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara.” The Panel confirmed that video footage showed that passengers were wearing "bullet proof vests, and carrying metal bars, slingshots, chains and staves” and that this information “supports the accounts of violence given by IDF personnel to the Israeli investigation.” The Panel further confirms that “two soldiers received gunshot wounds,” “three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk” and that “seven soldiers were wounded by passengers, some seriously.”
Given these circumstances, Israel’s soldiers clearly acted in self-defense and responded reasonably, proportionally and with restraint, including the use of less-lethal weapons where feasible. The Panel's characterization of the circumstances which led to the nine deaths on board the Mavi Marmara does not adequately take into account the complexities of what was clearly a chaotic combat situation. In such a situation, reconstructing the exact chains of events is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Given the close range combat that clearly took place aboard the vessel, wounds sustained at close range do not in themselves suggest wrongdoing by Israeli soldiers.
Israel’s treatment of the hundreds of participants following the takeover of the ships was reasonable and compatible with international standards. Reliance on some passenger statements presented in the Turkish National Report as evidence of wrongdoing was particularly problematic. Israel raised serious concerns regarding the veracity and credibility of some of these statements.
Still, Israel cherishes the shared history and centuries old ties of strong friendship and cooperation between the Jewish and Turkish peoples and hopes that the Panel's work over the past few months will assist Israel and Turkey in finding a path back to cooperation.
............................
Statement by Mr. Sanberk [Turkey]
I hereby register my disagreement with the Chairmanship on the following issues contained in the report:
- The question of the legality of the blockade imposed on Gaza by Israel. - The actions of the flotillaThis, for the following reasons:
- Naval blockades in general
- Appendix: The applicable International legal principles.
- On the legal aspect of the blockade, Turkey and Israel have submitted two opposing arguments. International legal authorities are divided on the matter since it is unprecedented, highly complex and the legal framework lacks codification. However, the Chairmanship and its report fully associated itself with Israel and categorically dismissed the views of the other, despite the fact that the legal arguments presented by Turkey have been supported by the vast majority of the international community. Common sense and conscience dictate that the blockade is unlawful. - Also the UN Human Rights Council concluded that the blockade was unlawful. The Report of the Human Rights Council Fact Finding Mission received widespread approval from the member states.There can be no exception from this long-standing principle unless there is a universal convergence of views.
- Freedom and safety of navigation on the high seas is a universally accepted rule of international law.
- The intentions of the participants in the international humanitarian convoy were humanitarian, reflecting the concerns of the vast majority of the international community. They came under attack in international waters. They resisted for their own protection. Nine civilians were killed and many others were injured by the Israeli soldiers. One of the victims is still in a coma. The evidence confirms that at least some of the victims had been killed deliberately. - The wording in the report is not satisfactory in describing the actual extent of the atrocities that the victims have been subjected to. This includes the scope of the maltreatment suffered by the passengers in the hands of Israeli soldiers and officials.In view of the above, I reject and dissociate myself from the relevant parts and paragraphs of the report, as reflected in paragraphs ii, iv, v, vii of the findings contained in the summary of the report and paragraphs ii, iv, v, vii, viii and ix of the recommendations contained in the same text.
via Daled Amos
Wiesenthal Center slams Germany for participating in Durban III
In a sharply worded letter, the Simon Wiesenthal Center on Thursday slammed the German government for its plans to participate in the Durban III lynch mob in New York later this month.[MORE]Turkish ultimatum to Israel: Apologize or face 'plan B'
(YNET) Turkey's foreign minister issued a menacing warning to Israel
Thursday, saying the Jewish state must apologize for a deadly 2010
raid on a Gaza-bound vessel by the time the UN report on the incident is
published.
The UN Palmer Report is expected to be released in the coming days, and likely as early as Friday.
why is it do you think Turkey wants an apology so badly before this Palmer Report comes out?
Addressing ongoing delays in releasing the UN report on the lethal
IDF raid, Ahmet said, "It is not remotely possible for us to agree to a
six-month delay," the Turkish Zaman news website reported.“For us the deadline (for the formal apology from Israeli officials) is the day the UN report gets released, or we resort to Plan B,” Davutoglu said, but did not elaborate on what the alternate Turkish route would be. "We are not in a position to tell the UN to release or delay it," the Turkish minister added, referring to the upcoming Palmer Report, "but we will do as necessary when the UN finally does release it."
Ban Ki-moon announced that he was postponing the delivery of a UN panel's report on Israel's raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla that killed nine Turkish activists. He said the reason for the delay was to give the two governments more time to reach a "harmonious agreement" on its findings.
Earlier this month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel will not apologize to Turkey over the 2010 flotilla incident, despite an earlier demand by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to do so.
At the time, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said it would be impossible for Turkish-Israeli ties to improve without an apology. Minister Davutoglu also addressed the issue in an earlier news conference, saying that "if the Palmer Report does not contain an apology, both sides and the United States know what we will do."
"Israel is facing a choice: deeper relations with Turkey or open a gap with the Turkish state that will not be overcome very easily," he said.
'Plan B' scenarios
Turkish officials already referred to "Plan B" and possible sanctions against Israel in the past, yet did not detail the measures they may adopt. However, according to information accumulated in Jerusalem, the Turkish plan may include the following steps:- Downgrading Turkey's diplomatic mission in Tel Aviv
- Rejection of the appointment of a new Israeli ambassador to Turkey
- An Erdogan visit to the Gaza Strip in September
- Full Turkish support for the Palestinian UN statehood bid, coupled with an effort to form a lobby and attempts to isolate Israel at all frameworks
- Granting legal assistance to the families of Turkish fatalities and the filing of lawsuits against Israel, including ones submitted to the International Criminal Court at The Hague
- Terminating the defense cooperation with Israel, a move that would include the annulment of joint exercises and defense industry projects
- Imposition of economic sanctions and the cutting back of investments in Israel. While Israeli businesspeople will be allowed to operate in Turkey, Ankara would refrain from taking steps to promote trade.
- Turkish newspaper Hurriyet recently reported that Ankara may adopt another step: Suspending all political and economic ties between the states. The same threat was voiced last year by Turkey's ambassador to the United States
Feminists Again: Eva Peron ‘kept Nazi treasure taken from Jews’
Sure are a lot of these progressive whores fooling around with Hitler's goons. To my Jewish brothers... be careful with the whores that try to indoctinate you into their Hitlery Clinton world view. Speaking of Hitlery Clinton... she didn't get along to well with Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Maria Callas and Livni also comes to mind. Funny the way these Semi-Socialist Vagina led tyrants don't like each other.
Eva Peron, known as Evita, was the second wife of President Juan Peron, and remains a national heroine almost 60 years after she died from cancer. Hospitals, schools and orphanages were built in poor areas through a foundation she established and she was crucial to her husband’s popularity with the masses. However, Mr Peron helped many Nazis fleeing Europe after the Second World War to find a safe haven in Argentina, including Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele. According to the new book: “It is still suspected that among her [Eva Peron’s] possessions, there were pieces of Nazi treasure, that came from rich Jewish families killed in concentration camps. “Peron himself even spoke of goods of ‘German and Japanese origin’ that the Argentine government had appropriated.” Looking further back in history, the authors write of Bolivar: “His greatest fear was that blacks, Indians and those of mixed race would take power and install a government.” Allende, who killed himself in 1973 during a coup which saw General Augusto Pinochet depose him, is accused of having “stifled the media”. The book adds that he started “a project of socialist doctrination in schools and almost installed a law of sterilisation, inspired by a Nazi law” aimed at reducing genetic illnesses. The book has triggered a wave of controversy, winning praise from some historians for stimulating debate but attracting strong criticism from others for a lack of historical context. “It is not a historical guide. It is politically incorrect. We only show the unpleasant side of history’s heroes,” said Narloch, who is now planning a follow-up work about global historical figures. Telegraph.co.ukLet's Remind Libya of this Next Year: WMDs [Updated]
Remember when US and Israeli intelligence agencies tracked the WMD consignments from eastern Libya as far as Sudan in convoys secured by Iranian agents with Hizballah and Hamas guards? and then there were rumors that Qaddaffi spread about the same accusation with Libyan rebels arming Hamas and Hezbullah?
 |
| VX gas was developed in
the Porton Down Chemical Weapons Research Centre, Wiltshire, England in
1952 and its devastating effects were tested. The British traded the
technology of VX with the United States of America for information on
thermonuclear weapons.
The LD50 can be as little as 10mg for humans. It operates by cutting off
the nervous system. It binds to the enzyme that transmits signals to
the nerves and inhibits them. Therefore the nerves become isolated and
uncontrollable. The antidote, atropine, is a toxin itself but it
counteracts the effect of the VX by removing it from the enzyme. It is
an anti-nerve agent so does the reverse of the VX, a nerve agent. It is
normally injected into the arm or thigh but for gaseous attacks the
atropine must go immediately into the heart. So full body protection and
gas masks are essential to avoid exposure in a VX missile attack. |
 | |||
|
"We are seeking Israel's support and influence around the world in order to bring to an end Gaddafi's despotic rule," Ahmad Shabani, the founder of Libya's Democratic and a spokesperson on behalf of the rebels was quoted as saying. According to the unconfirmed reports, Shabani, whose family fled Libya after the king was deposed in 1969, said they were seeking the Jewish State's help because "Libya needs all the international support they can get, including Israel's." Responding to Gaddafi's allegations, according to which al Qaeda was aiding the rebels to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip, Shabani said the deposed dictator was himself cooperating with the terrorist group, adding that the opposition group aims to stop the alleged arms smuggling
Qaddafi's Daughter Hana is ALIVE!
Daniel Pipes:...tyrants will fabricate about anything, even the deaths
of their own family members.
One curious side-show of the collapse of Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi's regime is a revelation about his (possibly adopted) daughter Hana, born on November 11 1985. Qaddafi repeatedly claimed that this child, six months old at the
time of the U.S. strike on Libya in April 1986, had been killed in that attack. In contrast, many observers counter-claimed that the child either did not exist or was not his.
Turns out, both sides were wrong. She was his daughter and she survived the attack. Martin Evans reports in the The Daily Telegraph that Rebels searching Gaddafi's Bab al-Azizia base, discovered a series of documents and photographs suggesting a bedroom in
the complex belonged to a young female medical graduate by the name of Hana Gaddafi. The room was furnished in a western style and contained items including CDs, a Sex and the City box set, a poster of the American band the Backstreet Boys, cellulite treatments and WellWoman vitamins. A journalist from the Irish Times, who gained access to the room also discovered a passport, photographs and other personal documents bearing the name Hana Gaddafi. One certificate that was discovered recorded the fact a student by the name of Hana Moammer Gaddafi obtained an A grade in an English course run by the British Council in Tripoli in July 2007. Qaddafi exploited Hana's alleged death to rally Libyans against the West; and it may have played a role in his decision to help with the
1988 bombing of Pan Am 103.
 | |
|
Iran says China ruining copies of the Quran
Several Iranian publishers have outsourced production of the Quran to China, only to have the Muslim holy book come back riddled with spelling errors, an official from the Organization of the Holy Quran told the Tehran Times, adding, "These tableaus are made quite cheaply in China but are sold for much more than they are really worth to make that much more profit." - LOLZ Now LebanonDOJ Advises Gibson Guitar to Export Labor to Madagascar
Gibson Guitar Corp... [ran]
...afoul of U.S. authorities over allegedly illegal imports of wood. Though
no charges have been filed, Gibson factories have been raided twice,
most recently last week, by federal agents who say ebony exported from
India to Gibson was "fraudulently" labeled to conceal a contravention of
Indian export law. Federal agents with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service shut down the Gibson Guitar factory in
Memphis Aug. 24 to serve search warrants. Henry Juszkiewicz, chief executive officer of the
closely held company, said in an interview that a broker probably made a
mistake in labeling the goods but that the sale was legal and approved
by Indian authorities.
Gibson's predicament, which raises concerns for musical instrument
makers and other importers of wood, illustrates the pitfalls of
complying with U.S. law while dealing with middlemen in faraway
countries whose legal systems can be murky.
The law ensnaring Gibson is the Lacey Act of 1900, originally passed
to regulate trade in bird feathers used for hats and amended in 2008 to
cover wood and other plant products. It requires companies to make
detailed disclosures about wood imports and bars the purchase of goods
exported in violation of a foreign country's laws.
Leonard Krause, a consultant in Eugene, Ore., who
advises companies on complying with the Lacey Act, is telling clients
they should hire lawyers in countries where they obtain products. "How
many people know the statutes in India?" Mr. Krause said. "The net
effect is that it raises everybody's cost of doing business."
Federal agents first raided Gibson factories in November 2009 and
were back again Aug. 24, seizing guitars, wood and electronic records.
Gene Nix, a wood product engineer at Gibson, was questioned by agents
after the first raid and told he could face five years in jail.
"Can you imagine a federal agent saying, 'You're going to jail for
five years' and what you do is sort wood in the factory?" said Mr.
Juszkiewicz, recounting the incident. "I think that's way over the top."
Gibson employees, he said, are being "treated like drug criminals." By JAMES R. HAGERTY and KRIS MAHER [MORE] from WSJ
The Gibson Guitar saga has taken a sinister turn.
It seems that the Department of Justice wasn’t satisfied with merely
raiding the law abiding factories of Gibson Guitar with armed agents,
shutting down their operation costing them millions, and leaving the
American company in the dark as to how to proceed without going out of
business.
Now, according to CEO Henry Juszkiewicz, agents of the United States
government are bluntly informing them that they’d be better off shipping
their manufacturing labor overseas. In an interview with KMJ AM’s “The Chris Daniel Show,” Juszkiewicz revealed some startling information. [MORE] via REDSTATE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
