THIS WAS FORWARDED FROM KBOO PM NEWS DIRECTOR JENKA SODERBERG:
Dear all:
I (Zahra Alkabi) have been informed from the
Catholic Charities that we will have some Iraqi
refugees in Portland at the end of this month and
the beginning of Aug 2008. They do need a place
to stay at least for the first 3 months and they do
need your hospitality and your welcoming attitude.
I know we will have 1 single woman, 2 or 3
single men so each one of them need a room with
a family or individuals. We will be able to pay
$250 per month for each person. We will also have
a big family of 9 persons and they do need a house
to stay in. If you have a house or know a private
owner that owns houses you may contact this
person and let me know how much should we pay
for the rent.
Iraqi refugees need your help and your kindness.
It's a good opportunity to know about Iraqis
and Iraqi culture for most of you. I have been
telling stories of many Iraqi families who live as
refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.
NOW it's the time to help and contribute to
those who come to Portland seeking a stable life
and security. They need your help, they deserve
your help. Please help them.
If you have any question or concerns please feel
free to contact me direct either by email or by phone.
Thanks a lot for your cooperation and kind ,
every thing you offer is highly appreciated
PS: we just started the Iraqi - Portland solidarity
community if you want to be part of this
community you can contact us , welcoming Iraqi
refugees in Portland is the first action that
shows our solidarity.
Yours in the struggle for peace, Zahra AlKabi
Director and Founder www.saverefugees.org
Help Iraqi Refugees 503-422-7321
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Story Assignment: Stagflation -- The Military Drain
Institute for Public Accuracy
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
* Stagflation * The Military Drain
Interviews Available
DOUG HENWOOD, dhenwood@panix.com,
Henwood is author of the book "Wall Street" and editor of Left
Business Observer. He said today: "The U.S. economy continues to be
dominated by the contradictory forces of stagnation and inflation -- a
reincarnation of that 1970s monster, stagflation. This morning we
learned that inflation is running at a 5 percent annual rate. But just
yesterday, the president took the unusual step of reminding the public
that bank deposits are insured up to $100,000, a bit of reassurance made necessary by the sight of depositors lining up to withdraw money from a failing bank, IndyMac. All this is the culmination of some very serious long-term problems -- the chronic trade deficit, the polarization of rich and poor, the use of debt to compensate for falling incomes. It always looked unsustainable, but somehow we managed to get by with a
short-term fix or a new bubble. But now it's looking like the Bank for
International Settlements, the central bankers' club, had it right when
they said recently that 'the unsustainable has run its course.'"
ERIK LEAVER, erik@ips-dc.org,
Leaver is a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. He
said today: "Too little attention is being paid to one of the largest
drains on the economy. The Iraq war is costing $12 billion a month.
These funds could be put to use back here at home.
"Part of McCain�s plan to balance the budget includes a military
draw-down in Iraq. But he's planning on increasing the size of the
military, as is Obama. Both candidates are also discussing plans to
send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan. So neither candidate is
talking about relieving the largest drain on the economy -- the
enormous military costs."
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
* Stagflation * The Military Drain
Interviews Available
DOUG HENWOOD, dhenwood@panix.com,
Henwood is author of the book "Wall Street" and editor of Left
Business Observer. He said today: "The U.S. economy continues to be
dominated by the contradictory forces of stagnation and inflation -- a
reincarnation of that 1970s monster, stagflation. This morning we
learned that inflation is running at a 5 percent annual rate. But just
yesterday, the president took the unusual step of reminding the public
that bank deposits are insured up to $100,000, a bit of reassurance made necessary by the sight of depositors lining up to withdraw money from a failing bank, IndyMac. All this is the culmination of some very serious long-term problems -- the chronic trade deficit, the polarization of rich and poor, the use of debt to compensate for falling incomes. It always looked unsustainable, but somehow we managed to get by with a
short-term fix or a new bubble. But now it's looking like the Bank for
International Settlements, the central bankers' club, had it right when
they said recently that 'the unsustainable has run its course.'"
ERIK LEAVER, erik@ips-dc.org,
Leaver is a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. He
said today: "Too little attention is being paid to one of the largest
drains on the economy. The Iraq war is costing $12 billion a month.
These funds could be put to use back here at home.
"Part of McCain�s plan to balance the budget includes a military
draw-down in Iraq. But he's planning on increasing the size of the
military, as is Obama. Both candidates are also discussing plans to
send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan. So neither candidate is
talking about relieving the largest drain on the economy -- the
enormous military costs."
Story Assignment: Can the President Detain Anyone Indefinitely?
FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC ACCURACY:
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Can the President Detain Anyone Indefinitely?
Interviews Available
Ali Al-Marri, who was living in Peoria, Illinois, with his wife and children, was awaiting trial in 2003. A month before his trial, he was
deemed an 'enemy combatant' by the president. He has been held in
solitary confinement ever since. On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the president has the authority to detain anyone deemed an 'enemy
combatant' indefinitely. (See Glenn Greenwald, "Al-Marri and the power
to imprison U.S. citizens without charges," Salon)
MICHAEL RATNER,
mratner@michaelratner.com, http://www.ccr-ny.org
President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Ratner said
today: "The core of the Bush administration's excesses and illegalities
in the so-called 'Global War on Terror' is the authority he has asserted to detain anyone anywhere in the world as an 'enemy combatant.' The president claims this authority for anyone detained in the 'Global War on Terror' even if that detention was far from a battlefield and the person had nothing to do with a war as traditionally known. It's the assertion that acts of terrorism or affiliation with a terrorist group can be treated as acts of war and alleged terrorist can be held in a way analogous to how POWs are held in a real shooting war. In other words such alleged terrorists can, according to Bush, be held indefinitely until the end of the 'Global War on Terror.' In normal circumstances such people would be tried for crimes in federal courts, but not today.
"Two issues arise from this. The first is what has finally been decided in the Gitmo cases -- assuming the president has the claimed authority to detain people as 'enemy combatants,' can those people at least challenge their detention as 'enemy combatants' and in that challenge what process is due and what is the definition of enemy combatant? This is an important issue, but if we only win that we have lost the bigger battle -- for what we would then have is a preventive detention scheme for alleged terrorists -- albeit one in which the detainee can challenge that detention.
"The second issue to arise is the key one: Can a person who is alleged to commit or plan acts of terrorism or claimed to have affiliation with a terrorist group (as in al-Marri's case) be held indefinitely as an 'enemy combatant' and never tried for a crime -- in other words can he be preventively detained without a criminal trial?
The Supreme Court has not ruled on this either in the Gitmo cases or domestic ones, which is only al-Marri at this point.
"The Fourth Circuit (5-4) has now held that a U.S. resident or lawful immigrant (the reasoning would apply to citizens as well) can be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant and never need be tried (yes he can test that detention -- but the question asked at the hearing is whether he is an enemy combatant -- once that is answered he can be held indefinitely.)
"In al-Marri, the bad part of the decision is based on a congressional statute -- the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which addressed the use of force against al-Qaeda. It is that statute which the court said authorized the detention at issue -- even though the detention took place in the U.S.
"It is a very, very dangerous decision. It literally means citizens in the U.S. can be detained as 'enemy combatants' in solitary confinement indefinitely and, while they can get a hearing, they never need be tried.
"The court in the narrow decision has put its imprimatur on the most dangerous departure from fundamental rights: the administration's treatment of what should be serious crimes as acts of war and its departure from fundamental protections of our constitution that should apply to those who are alleged to have engaged in criminal conduct. The claimed legal underpinning of the brutality of the administration
toward the detainees -- from torture to rendition to special trials -- stems
from its claim to be fighting a war on terror, when in fact it should be prosecuting crimes and giving suspects the protections of a civilized society."
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Can the President Detain Anyone Indefinitely?
Interviews Available
Ali Al-Marri, who was living in Peoria, Illinois, with his wife and children, was awaiting trial in 2003. A month before his trial, he was
deemed an 'enemy combatant' by the president. He has been held in
solitary confinement ever since. On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the president has the authority to detain anyone deemed an 'enemy
combatant' indefinitely. (See Glenn Greenwald, "Al-Marri and the power
to imprison U.S. citizens without charges," Salon)
MICHAEL RATNER,
mratner@michaelratner.com, http://www.ccr-ny.org
President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Ratner said
today: "The core of the Bush administration's excesses and illegalities
in the so-called 'Global War on Terror' is the authority he has asserted to detain anyone anywhere in the world as an 'enemy combatant.' The president claims this authority for anyone detained in the 'Global War on Terror' even if that detention was far from a battlefield and the person had nothing to do with a war as traditionally known. It's the assertion that acts of terrorism or affiliation with a terrorist group can be treated as acts of war and alleged terrorist can be held in a way analogous to how POWs are held in a real shooting war. In other words such alleged terrorists can, according to Bush, be held indefinitely until the end of the 'Global War on Terror.' In normal circumstances such people would be tried for crimes in federal courts, but not today.
"Two issues arise from this. The first is what has finally been decided in the Gitmo cases -- assuming the president has the claimed authority to detain people as 'enemy combatants,' can those people at least challenge their detention as 'enemy combatants' and in that challenge what process is due and what is the definition of enemy combatant? This is an important issue, but if we only win that we have lost the bigger battle -- for what we would then have is a preventive detention scheme for alleged terrorists -- albeit one in which the detainee can challenge that detention.
"The second issue to arise is the key one: Can a person who is alleged to commit or plan acts of terrorism or claimed to have affiliation with a terrorist group (as in al-Marri's case) be held indefinitely as an 'enemy combatant' and never tried for a crime -- in other words can he be preventively detained without a criminal trial?
The Supreme Court has not ruled on this either in the Gitmo cases or domestic ones, which is only al-Marri at this point.
"The Fourth Circuit (5-4) has now held that a U.S. resident or lawful immigrant (the reasoning would apply to citizens as well) can be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant and never need be tried (yes he can test that detention -- but the question asked at the hearing is whether he is an enemy combatant -- once that is answered he can be held indefinitely.)
"In al-Marri, the bad part of the decision is based on a congressional statute -- the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which addressed the use of force against al-Qaeda. It is that statute which the court said authorized the detention at issue -- even though the detention took place in the U.S.
"It is a very, very dangerous decision. It literally means citizens in the U.S. can be detained as 'enemy combatants' in solitary confinement indefinitely and, while they can get a hearing, they never need be tried.
"The court in the narrow decision has put its imprimatur on the most dangerous departure from fundamental rights: the administration's treatment of what should be serious crimes as acts of war and its departure from fundamental protections of our constitution that should apply to those who are alleged to have engaged in criminal conduct. The claimed legal underpinning of the brutality of the administration
toward the detainees -- from torture to rendition to special trials -- stems
from its claim to be fighting a war on terror, when in fact it should be prosecuting crimes and giving suspects the protections of a civilized society."
Story Assignment: Implications of Torture
FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC ACCURACY:
Friday, July 18, 2008
Implications of Torture
Interviews Available
RICK SHENKMAN, editor@hnn.us, http://hnn.us
Editor of the History News Network, Shenkman is author of the
just-released book "Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the
American Voter."
He said today: "Despite Watergate, Republicans have never given up
their belief in an imperial presidency. If the president does something,
it's not illegal, was Nixon's line of defense. It might as well be
Bush's and Cheney's, though they are careful never to admit it publicly.
President Bush violated the law numerous times during his presidency
without once expressing remorse at having done so. Violate the law by
going around the FISA court? No problem. Torture terrorist suspects by
waterboarding them? No problem (even as his own attorney general
designate opined that torture is illegal under the Constitution as a
violation of the 14th Amendment)."
LISA HAJJAR, lhajjar@lawso.ucsb.edu,
Hajjar, a professor in the Law and Society Program at the University of California-Santa Barbara, Hajjar said today: "The problem-ridden and
illegitimate military commissions at Guantanamo offer one among many
examples of the adverse consequences of using torture on prisoners. The
fact that the U.S. has adopted a policy of torture is now beyond
dispute, as is the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of totally
innocent people have been subjected to officially sanctioned torture
and abuse. However, supporters of the administration are arguing that if
some 'errors' were made, they were done with good intentions to benefit
American security, and they produced invaluable information. There
evidence that any good intelligence was produced through torture;
people knowledgeable about the interrogations of KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]
and Abu Zubaydah, for example, have said that any information they
provided came during non-coercive interrogations. But because they were
tortured, the use of this information for their prosecutions becomes
problematic. To understand why the U.S. got to this place, it is
important to appreciate that Cheney and other top officials were
motivated by the goal to roll back the legal constraints on the
executive branch instituted in the wake of Watergate, and to repudiate
international law as ostensibly 'unAmerican.' ...
"Torture is a crime. Now is the time for 'law and order' types to
'get tough on crime' and demand special prosecutors and prosecutions
for those who have authorized the illegal policies of torture that have
destroyed America's reputation and the very institutions responsible
for keeping us safe."
Hajjar is author of the book "Courting Conflict" and co-editor of
"Human Rights: Critical Concepts in Political Science."
Friday, July 18, 2008
Implications of Torture
Interviews Available
RICK SHENKMAN, editor@hnn.us, http://hnn.us
Editor of the History News Network, Shenkman is author of the
just-released book "Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the
American Voter."
He said today: "Despite Watergate, Republicans have never given up
their belief in an imperial presidency. If the president does something,
it's not illegal, was Nixon's line of defense. It might as well be
Bush's and Cheney's, though they are careful never to admit it publicly.
President Bush violated the law numerous times during his presidency
without once expressing remorse at having done so. Violate the law by
going around the FISA court? No problem. Torture terrorist suspects by
waterboarding them? No problem (even as his own attorney general
designate opined that torture is illegal under the Constitution as a
violation of the 14th Amendment)."
LISA HAJJAR, lhajjar@lawso.ucsb.edu,
Hajjar, a professor in the Law and Society Program at the University of California-Santa Barbara, Hajjar said today: "The problem-ridden and
illegitimate military commissions at Guantanamo offer one among many
examples of the adverse consequences of using torture on prisoners. The
fact that the U.S. has adopted a policy of torture is now beyond
dispute, as is the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of totally
innocent people have been subjected to officially sanctioned torture
and abuse. However, supporters of the administration are arguing that if
some 'errors' were made, they were done with good intentions to benefit
American security, and they produced invaluable information. There
evidence that any good intelligence was produced through torture;
people knowledgeable about the interrogations of KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]
and Abu Zubaydah, for example, have said that any information they
provided came during non-coercive interrogations. But because they were
tortured, the use of this information for their prosecutions becomes
problematic. To understand why the U.S. got to this place, it is
important to appreciate that Cheney and other top officials were
motivated by the goal to roll back the legal constraints on the
executive branch instituted in the wake of Watergate, and to repudiate
international law as ostensibly 'unAmerican.' ...
"Torture is a crime. Now is the time for 'law and order' types to
'get tough on crime' and demand special prosecutors and prosecutions
for those who have authorized the illegal policies of torture that have
destroyed America's reputation and the very institutions responsible
for keeping us safe."
Hajjar is author of the book "Courting Conflict" and co-editor of
"Human Rights: Critical Concepts in Political Science."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
