Anti-Israel UN "Human Rights" Report Based on NGO Propaganda

From NGO Monitor:

Goldstone Report: 575 pages of NGO "cut and paste"

The 575-page Goldstone report is primarily based on NGO statements, publications, and submissions (70 references each for B’Tselem and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, and more than 30 for Al-Haq and Human Rights Watch). In its analysis of NGO submissions and testimony, NGO Monitor found numerous false and unsubstantiated allegations. Nevertheless, the Goldstone committee simply copied the NGO biases, flawed methodology, and false claims, rendering the entire report invalid.

Goldstone’s press conference in New York and the report’s recommendations constitute another step in the Durban Strategy, crystallized at the 2001 NGO Forum, using the language of human rights and international law as weapons in the political war to isolate and demonize Israel, and restrict legitimate responses to terror.

Still no “human shields” in Gaza. Following HRW and Amnesty, paragraph 495 ignores evidence that contradicts Goldstone’s predetermined conclusions: “Although the situations investigated by the Mission did not establish the use of mosques for military purposes or to shield military activities, the Mission cannot exclude that this might have occurred in other cases.”

The report copies NGO distortions of international law, including:

Promotion of the false legal claim invented by the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department (and promoted by NGOs such as B’tselem, HRW, Amnesty) that Gaza remains “occupied” after the 2005 disengagement (p. 9). The political objective of this distortion is to manufacture humanitarian obligations that do not exist under international law. (The ICRC, in contrast, had acknowledged that Gaza is an “autonomous territory.” However, after the release of the Goldstone report, the ICRC changed its website to promote the biased conclusion of the Mission.)

The classification of the Gaza police force as “civilian” (paras. 33-34) even though independent studies have shown that more than ninety percent were members of Hamas’ military wing and active combatants.

The claim that under the Geneva Convention (para 28) Israel has a duty to supply food to Gazans. No such duty exists and the Commission does not cite to any specific provision of the Convention to support its claim. For more on NGO distortions of international law regarding Gaza, see NGO Monitor’s report on the topic.

Paragraph 493 claims that the failure of armed Palestinian groups “to distinguish themselves from the civilian population by distinctive signs is not a violation of international law in itself.” This is patently false. The adoption of civilian dress is a violation of the IHL obligation against perfidy.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Goldstone’s report asserts that the “data provided by non-governmental sources with regard to the percentage of civilians among those killed are generally consistent …” (para. 30). There is no such “consistency” -- the numbers claimed by these organizations differ by the hundreds. Goldstone also fails to note the major lack of credibility in PCHR’s data, such as characterizing two leading Hamas military figures, Nizar Rayan and Siad Siam, as civilians. And as researchers have shown, the B’Tselem data, while different from PCHR’s, is also unreliable.

Prior to the report’s release, Goldstone made several public statements that the Commission’s work was “not judicial. This is not a court.” (This claim was used to defend Prof. Christine Chinkin’s membership on the committee, who should have recused herself because of prejudicial comments made during the war.) In contrast, the report draws legal conclusions, asserting (without basis) that “the normative framework for the Mission has been general international law, the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law” (para 15). But these legal judgments are issued without any evidentiary procedures in place, including the right to cross-examination or guarantees of due process.

A Visit to Longwood Gardens

A couple of weeks ago, someone I know and yours truly visited Longwood Gardens, a botanical garden in a former DuPont estate located just outside Philadelphia. It was a bargain at $16.00--better than Disneyland. Clearly, Pierre S. DuPont succeeded in creating his own private Chicago World's Fair. The crowd was multi-national and multi-cultural, with lots of Asians, South Asians, and Russians promenading among the ferns and fountains. The giant greenhouse (4.5 acres under glass) featured a Fall vegetable festival, as shown in the picture and described in the official blog.

Not to be missed: the lotus gardens, the lake, the DuPont house, the former Casino, and the gigantic Aeolian organ. "Autumn's Colors" themed displays on show now... Plus, fireworks and fountain special displays at various times during the year. More visitor information, here.

Now, That's a Good Idea...

From Radio Iowa:

An Iowa congressman is pushing the idea of honoring the late Norman Borlaug with a statue in the U.S.Capitol. Borlaug, a native of Cresco, Iowa, won the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in plant genetics...

William Easterly: "Development" = Imperialism + Colonialism - Racism

From AidWatch:

How the British Invented “Development” to Keep the Empire and Substitute for Racism
By William Easterly

During the early years of World War II, Japan won major victories (such as the capture of Singapore) against the British and threatened India. Japanese propaganda pointed to British racism and offered themselves as the defenders of non-white peoples. The British feared that non-white people in the colonies might side with the Japanese rather than their colonial masters. The British had to come up with a new justification for colonial rule to replace the unpopular and increasingly implausible idea that they were a superior race destined to rule inferior races. In response, they invented the concept of economic development.

This story is told in an undeservedly obscure book by Suke Wolton, 2000, Lord Hailey, the Colonial Office, and the Politics of Race and Empire in the Second World War, (I have this thing for obscure development history books; this one is ranked #4,399,430 on Amazon)

The Japanese charge of British racism was certainly correct. They were so racist they thought even nonwhites acknowledged their own inferiority, like when Julian Huxley referred to the natives’ “childlike belief in the white as an inherently superior being.” After World War I, the Americans and British shot down a League of Nations resolution for Racial Equality proposed by the Japanese. The Colonial Office said in 1939 “most Africans are still savages.”

But during the dark days when the British were losing World War II, the racism was no longer allowed to be so explicit. The Labor Minister in 1941 banned the N word for Africans and “coolies” for Indians. The Colonial Office further told the BBC that the N-word should be “discouraged” on the radio. A further breakthrough caused the BBC to drop the word “native.”

But something more positive was needed to put the Empire in a good light. A long-time colonial official, Lord Hailey came up with the idea in 1941 of redefining the Empire’s mission as “promotion of native welfare.” (I guess he didn’t get the BBC memo about “native.”) And he argued the colonies could only develop with Britain’s help (sound familiar?) In short, Hailey said:

A new conception of our relationship…may emerge as part of the movement for the betterment of the backward peoples of the world, which stands in the forefront of every enlightened programme for …postwar conditions.

To repress independence movements, however, Hailey made a distinction between political development and economic development: “Political liberties are meaningless unless they can be built on a better foundation of social and economic progress.” (A line that autocrats have been using ever since.) The Colonial Office thought many colonies “little removed from their primitive state,” so “they will probably not be fit for complete independence for centuries.”

Of course, changing the language from racist to economic development did not mean racism suddenly disappeared. As Wolton shows, “the white Western elites still believed in their fundamental superiority.” In the end, Wolton says, “The major powers would continue to be able to determine the future of the colonial territories – only this time the source of their legitimacy was based less on racial difference and more on their new role as protector and developmental economist.” After the war, even more officials went out to the Empire in what became known as the “second colonial occupation.”

Why does this history matter today? After all, the Empire fell apart much sooner than expected, and racism did diminish a lot over time. And I do NOT mean to imply guilt by association for development as imperialist and racist; there are many theories of development and many who work on development (including many from developing countries themselves) that have nothing to do with imperialism and racism.

But I think the origin of development as cover for imperialism and racism did have toxic legacies for some. First, it meant that the concept of development was determined to fit a propaganda imperative; it was NOT a breakthrough in thought by economists. Second, it followed that development from the beginning would stress the central role of Western aid to help the helpless natives (which shows up in the early development theories like the “poverty trap” and the “Big Push,” and the lack of interest in local entrepreneurs and market incentives). Third, the paternalism was so extreme at the beginning that it would last for a long time – I still think it is widespread today, especially after today’s comeback of the early development ideas in some parts of the aid system. And this history also seems strangely relevant with today’s “humanitarian” nouveau-imperialism to invade and fix “failed states” like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Membership in the development elites is far more diverse than in Lord Hailey’s time, but I fear that, to use Wolton’s words, “in the end, the elites still believe in their fundamental superiority.”

Afghan President Calls for Investigation into Death of Afghan NY Times Reporter

Could this be one reason why the NY Times runs op-eds calling Hamid Karzai corrupt? A NY Times "fixer" (their term, not ours) is killed, and their reporter leaves his body behind?

Also, why doesn't the British Government want an investigation? Do they have something to hide? Story from Agence France Presse:

KABUL — President Hamid Karzai on Wednesday ordered a second investigation into the killing of an Afghan reporter during a British commando raid that rescued his Western colleague, his office said.

The president told the interior ministry and National Directorate for Security to re-open inquiries into the death last week of Sultan Munadi, a 34-year-old father of two.

Karzai issued the order after meeting Munadi's family at his palace in Kabul and hearing their version of the events that led to his death.

Munadi and Stephen Farrell, both working for The New York Times, were snatched by Taliban rebels while investigating suspected civilian deaths in a NATO air strike in the northern Kunduz province earlier this month.

A dramatic airborne commando raid last Wednesday saw British-Irish citizen Farrell whisked to safety but Munadi killed in the crossfire, his bullet-riddled body left at the scene for his family to collect.

Karzai met Munadi's father and brother and "assured them of a serious investigation into his death," the presidency said.

Based on investigations carried out by Qurban Mohammad, the reporter's father, and witnesses, Munadi's "martyrdom case is totally different to what is said by media and coalition forces," said the statement.

"Listening to Qurban Mohammad, the president ordered the interior ministry and National Directorate of Security to launch a re-investigation," it said.

Initial investigations showed Munadi was killed by gunfire at close-range, the statement said.

Munadi's brother Mohammad Osman told AFP that he believed the fatal shot entered vertically from under his chin and was fired from such close range that it left burn marks on the skin around the wound.

"He had a gun shot from under his chin with a skin burn. This is not possible unless he is shot with gun barrel touching his skin," said Osman.

Munadi's death caused heartbreak and anger among his colleagues, some of whom accused international forces of double standards in their dealings with Afghans and Westerners.

The operation sparked a blacklash over the use of British troops with reports saying that negotiations had been under way to free the pair and after a British soldier, and an Afghan woman and child were also killed in the raid.

It has been unclear whether Munadi was killed by insurgents or troops.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband rebuffed calls for an inquiry, insisting the raid was the only way to secure the men's release.

Meanwhile, Reporters Sans Frontiers has also called for an investigation:

Call for probe into Afghan journalist’s death during British rescue operation
Published on 16 September 2009

Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth Secretary of State for Defence London United Kingdom
Paris, 16 September 2009

Dear Secretary of State,

There has been a great deal of emotion and anger in Afghanistan and internationally about the death of Afghan journalist Sultan Munadi in the operation carried out by British special forces on 9 September to rescue Munadi’s British colleague, Stephen Farrell.

We urge you to order an investigation that will shed light on the problems and errors that led to this tragedy. We also ask you to publish its findings and to sanction those responsible.

Several aspects of this commando operation continue to be unclear. We do not doubt that the aim was to rescue the two journalists, who had been kidnapped a few days earlier by Taliban militants, and to spare them a long and difficult captivity.
But we think the investigation needs to explain why a decision to carry out a military operation, involving a serious risk to both the soldiers and the hostages, was taken so quickly and without consulting all the parties. You were personally involved in this decision. Why did you not await the outcome of the negotiations that were under way with the Taliban?

According to the various accounts available of how the operation unfolded, the British soldiers knew there were two hostages, a westerner and an Afghan. They even had photographs of Farrell and Munadi. When he was killed, Munadi was obviously unarmed and, shouting in English, had just identified himself as a journalist. What led the British or Afghan combatants to open fire at that precise moment? What were the rules of engagement that had been given to the British commandos?

Munadi’s body was left at the scene of the operation. His family members were forced to fetch his body themselves from a very dangerous region. How is it possible that the body of one of the two hostages was abandoned in this fashion? Wasn’t the goal to take care of both the British journalist and his Afghan colleague?

As we said in the press release we issued on the day Munadi died, we consider that all options, including military ones, have to be considered in kidnapping cases.

But it is important that all these questions are answered. The need to know the truth is pressing, not only for Munadi’s family and colleagues but also for the family and colleagues of the British soldier who died in this operation.

We trust you will satisfy our hopes.

Sincerely,
Jean-François Julliard Secretary-General

My Sony VAIO warranty claim has finally been resolved...

I just got a refund to cover repair costs--after writing a certified letter to the CEO of NetSolutions. Lesson: NEVER GIVE UP.

NY Daily News Footage of Queens Terror Raid

Am I the only one who finds the way police dressed disturbing? What message does it send to ordinary citizens...that America is a police state? Surely there must be a lower-key way to handle such incidents...If the box above doesn't work, here's a link to the Daily News URL.

House of Representatives Condemns Cong. Joe Wilson Heckling

I was against throwing shoes at President Bush, and so heartily approve of yesterday's House resolution condemning Cong. Joe Wilson (R-SC) for heckling President Obama. From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Representative Joe Wilson was formally rebuked by the House on Tuesday for his outburst during President Obama’s health care address. The vote came after a Congressional clash over civility that showcased the deep partisan divisions in the House.

In a mainly party line vote of 240 to 179, the House held that by shouting “You lie” during the president’s speech Mr. Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, committed a “breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House.”

Full text of House Resolution 744 here.

Simon Johnson on Obama's Wall Street Speech

From Baseline Scenario:

And, of course, the real issues were not mentioned at all.

1) The largest financial institutions have to be made smaller — aim to make them under $100bn in assets, roughly the size of CIT Group which even this Treasury was willing to leave to its own devices. We can do it with legislation now or by regulatory fiat next time the behemoths get into trouble, but we should do it before they ruin us.

2) The people who run banks like to talk about “skin in the game” in various contexts, but they generally have only a small proportion of their wealth at risk in these financial institutions. This is not a panacea of course, but it is completely fair to ask them to stake a large part of their fortunes. If they respond that this is not fair because all kinds of things can happen that are beyond their control, you should say, “Agreed – so split your bank up and manage something much smaller.”

3) The revolving door between Wall Street and Washington is out of control. There is no way people should be able to go directly (or even overnight) from a failing bank to designing bailout packages to benefit such banks. In any other industry, in any other country, and at any other time in American history, this would have been seen as an unconscionable conflict of interest. Let’s get our principles back and impose a 5 year moratorium on such flows in either direction.

4) The way the Fed operates means that, in the absence of tough regulation, the finance industry has at its disposal the world’s greatest ever bailout machine. Our financial elite knows this and is acting accordingly.

Brandeis was scathing about the individuals behind the financial structures. For him, it was about power and it was about control. He was appalled by how big finance operated and he worked hard – an uphill slog – to rein it in.

But Brandeis never saw anything like what we have now experienced, with regard to the amount of taxpayer money that the banks are able to expropriate when downside risks materialize. The big banks that Brandeis feared did not, in the end, dominate the 20th century. But they are back now, with unfettered power and an arrogance that spells trouble.

Ultimately, we will put the banks back in their regulatory box or they will bankrupt us all.

How Come The New York Times Isn't Covering This Story?

Are only white, British-Irish passport-holding, NY Times staffers worth saving? Afghan NY Times reporter (called a "fixer" in some news accounts) Sultan Munadi's father doesn't think so. He thinks it merits an investigation...something the New York Times could do, if anyone cared about Afghan employees. Do New York Times editor Bill Keller and publisher Pinch Sulzberger disagree? From the BBC:

The father of an Afghan journalist who died when British forces tried to rescue him from the Taliban is demanding a full enquiry.

The British reporter Stephen Farrell was freed unharmed in the raid. However, his Afghan colleague, Sultan Munadi, a British soldier and two Afghan civilians died during exchanges of gunfire.

It is reported that twelve Taliban fighters were also killed.

Afghan journalists have voiced concerns that the British reporter was rescued whilst his Afghan counterpart died.

BTW, now that it is all over, one lasting result of this affair for journalism was that it corrupted Wikipedia as part of an official NY Times policy of news suppression and censorship--which failed to help Sultan Munadi one bit... I hope his family sues the New York Times in an American court.

Obma to Wall Street: "Act Responsibly!"

On the eve of Pittsburgh's G-20 Summit, the President tells Wall Street to get its act together:

At the same time, we have to recognize that what's needed now goes beyond just the reforms that I've mentioned. For what took place one year ago was not merely a failure of regulation or legislation; it wasn't just a failure of oversight or foresight. It was also a failure of responsibility -- it was fundamentally a failure of responsibility -- that allowed Washington to become a place where problems -- including structural problems in our financial system -- were ignored rather than solved. It was a failure of responsibility that led homebuyers and derivative traders alike to take reckless risks that they couldn't afford to take. It was a collective failure of responsibility in Washington, on Wall Street, and across America that led to the near-collapse of our financial system one year ago.

So restoring a willingness to take responsibility -- even when it's hard to do -- is at the heart of what we must do. Here on Wall Street, you have a responsibility. The reforms I've laid out will pass and these changes will become law. But one of the most important ways to rebuild the system stronger than it was before is to rebuild trust stronger than before -- and you don't have to wait for a new law to do that. You don't have to wait to use plain language in your dealings with consumers. You don't have to wait for legislation to put the 2009 bonuses of your senior executives up for a shareholder vote. You don't have to wait for a law to overhaul your pay system so that folks are rewarded for long-term performance instead of short-term gains.

The fact is, many of the firms that are now returning to prosperity owe a debt to the American people. They were not the cause of this crisis, and yet American taxpayers, through their government, had to take extraordinary action to stabilize the financial industry. They shouldered the burden of the bailout and they are still bearing the burden of the fallout -- in lost jobs and lost homes and lost opportunities. It is neither right nor responsible after you've recovered with the help of your government to shirk your obligation to the goal of wider recovery, a more stable system, and a more broadly shared prosperity.

So I want to urge you to demonstrate that you take this obligation to heart. To put greater effort into helping families who need their mortgages modified under my administration's homeownership plan. To help small business owners who desperately need loans and who are bearing the brunt of the decline in available credit. To help communities that would benefit from the financing you could provide, or the community development institutions you could support. To come up with creative approaches to improve financial education and to bring banking to those who live and work entirely outside of the banking system. And, of course, to embrace serious financial reform, not resist it.

Just as we are asking the private sector to think about the long term, I recognize that Washington has to do so as well. When my administration came through the door, we not only faced a financial crisis and costly recession, we also found waiting a trillion dollar deficit. So yes, we have to take extraordinary action in the wake of an extraordinary economic crisis. But I am absolutely committed to putting this nation on a sound and secure fiscal footing. That's why we're pushing to restore pay-as-you-go rules in Congress, because I will not go along with the old Washington ways which said it was okay to pass spending bills and tax cuts without a plan to pay for it. That's why we're cutting programs that don't work or are out of date. That's why I've insisted that health insurance reform -- as important as it is -- not add a dime to the deficit, now or in the future.

There are those who would suggest that we must choose between markets unfettered by even the most modest of regulations, and markets weighed down by onerous regulations that suppress the spirit of enterprise and innovation. If there is one lesson we can learn from last year, it is that this is a false choice. Common-sense rules of the road don't hinder the market, they make the market stronger. Indeed, they are essential to ensuring that our markets function fairly and freely.

Personally, I favor more than self-regulation...perhaps a special financial-services tax on Wall Street companies and executives, to help repay the bailout...and who knows, maybe it could pay for single-payer health-care, too?

Hero of the Day: Judge Jed S. Rakoff

From the Washington Post:

A federal judge in New York Monday rejected a $33 million settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Bank of America, throwing into doubt the future of one of the government's chief cases against a firm charged with wrongdoing in the financial crisis.

Using biting language, Judge Jed S. Rakoff accused the SEC, Wall Street's top regulator, of trying to nab a quick victory against a big bank while concealing the true facts of the wrongdoing the agency alleges. He attacked Bank of America's top executives for allegedly trying to protect themselves at the expense of the company's shareholders. Most of all, Rakoff suggested that the SEC and Bank of America are working together to try to make the case go away even if it "victimizes" the shareholders who would be responsible for paying the $33 million settlement.

"This case suggests a rather cynical relationship between the parties: the S.E.C. gets to claim that it is exposing wrongdoing on the part of the Bank of America in a high-profile merger; the Bank's management gets to claim that they have been coerced into an onerous settlement by overzealous regulators," Rakoff wrote. "And all this is done at the expense, not only of the shareholders, but also of the truth."

Rakoff has ordered that the case move to trial early next year. The SEC could also choose to drop it, renegotiate the settlement or possibly appeal.

The case centers on whether Bank of America hid from shareholders important details about its plans for Merrill Lynch, the troubled Wall Street firm it agreed to acquire last fall in a hastily arranged deal aimed at containing further damage to the financial system. Early last month, the SEC claimed that Bank of America failed to disclose to shareholders who were to vote on the deal that it had allowed payment of billions of dollars in bonuses to Merrill Lynch employees. Bank of America agreed to pay $33 million to settle the charges.

But Rakoff, who must sign-off on the settlement, expressed immediate skepticism, demanding additional information from the SEC and Bank of America and summoning their lawyers to the court. Though the SEC and Bank of America were on opposing sides of the case, they joined in an awkward marriage of arguments for why the settlement was proper.

NY: Going Dutch for 400 Years...

The Dutch Royal Family sent Prince Willem-Alexander and Princess Máxima of the House of Orange to congratulate New York City as well as President and Mrs. Obama on 400 years of Dutch-American friendship. Here's a link to the NY400 website.

As my mother was born in Scheveningen, and came to New York as a refugee from Hitler, where she worked for the Dutch Ministry of Shipping (of the government-in-exile)I think it is very nice.

To all our Dutch readers: Gelukwensen!

It's Official: Washington Replaces NYC as America's Financial Capital

According to David Cho in yesterday's Washington Post:

As financial firms navigate a life more closely connected to government aid and oversight than ever before, they increasingly turn to Washington, closing a chasm that was previously far greater than the 228 miles separating the nation's political and financial capitals.

In the year since the investment bank Lehman Brothers collapsed, paralyzing global markets and triggering one of the biggest government forays into the economy in U.S. history, Wall Street has looked south to forge new business strategies, hew to new federal policies and find new talent.

"In the old days, Washington was refereeing from the sideline," said Mohamed A. el-Erian, chief executive officer of Pimco. "In the new world we're going toward, not only is Washington refereeing from the field, but it is also in some respects a player as well. . . . And that changes the dynamics significantly."

Washington has become a dominant player. Over the past year, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have injected trillions of dollars into frozen financial markets, snapping up unwanted bonds, extending guarantees to banks and slashing interest rates.

Three times as much U.S. taxpayer money has gone into propping up a single firm, insurance giant American International Group, as the world spent a decade ago during the financial rescue of South Korea, then the world's 11th-largest economy. And the emergency bailout of financial firms that Congress approved last year has cost nearly as much as the first five years of the war in Iraq.

Now the Treasury and the Federal Reserve are embroiled in everything from credit cards and home loans to auto manufacturing, from overseeing executive pay to shaping boards of directors.

In response, senior executives of major financial companies are traversing the Beltway to meet lawmakers in person for the first time. Firms such as Fidelity Investments, BNY Mellon and even Goldman Sachs, which has prospered in the crisis relative to many other banks, are opening additional offices or bulking up their staffs in the capital.

All Universities to Become Stanley Kaplan

that's apparntly the bottom line of Zephyr Teachout's story in yesterday's Washington Post about the future of online education (The Post owns Stanley Kaplan, a fact not disclosed by the article):

When this happens -- be it in 10 years or 20 -- we will see a structural disintegration in the academy akin to that in newspapers now. The typical 2030 faculty will likely be a collection of adjuncts alone in their apartments, using recycled syllabuses and administering multiple-choice tests from afar.

President Obama Commemorates 9/11

The official transcript:

For Immediate Release September 11, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT WREATH-LAYING CEREMONY
AT THE PENTAGON MEMORIAL

The Pentagon
Arlington, Virginia

9:34 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and members of the Armed Forces, fellow Americans, family and friends of those that we lost this day -- Michelle and I are deeply humbled to be with you.

Eight Septembers have come and gone. Nearly 3,000 days have passed -- almost one for each of those taken from us. But no turning of the seasons can diminish the pain and the loss of that day. No passage of time and no dark skies can ever dull the meaning of this moment.

So on this solemn day, at this sacred hour, once more we pause. Once more we pray -- as a nation and as a people; in city streets where our two towers were turned to ashes and dust; in a quiet field where a plane fell from the sky; and here, where a single stone of this building is still blackened by the fires.

We remember with reverence the lives we lost. We read their names. We press their photos to our hearts. And on this day that marks their death, we recall the beauty and meaning of their lives; men and women and children of every color and every creed, from across our nation and from more than 100 others. They were innocent. Harming no one, they went about their daily lives. Gone in a horrible instant, they now "dwell in the House of the Lord forever."

We honor all those who gave their lives so that others might live, and all the survivors who battled burns and wounds and helped each other rebuild their lives; men and women who gave life to that most simple of rules: I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

We pay tribute to the service of a new generation -- young Americans raised in a time of peace and plenty who saw their nation in its hour of need and said, "I choose to serve"; "I will do my part." And once more we grieve. For you and your families, no words can ease the ache of your heart. No deeds can fill the empty places in your homes. But on this day and all that follow, you may find solace in the memory of those you loved, and know that you have the unending support of the American people.

Scripture teaches us a hard truth. The mountains may fall and the earth may give way; the flesh and the heart may fail. But after all our suffering, God and grace will "restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast." So it is -- so it has been for these families. So it must be for our nation.

Let us renew our resolve against those who perpetrated this barbaric act and who plot against us still. In defense of our nation we will never waver; in pursuit of al Qaeda and its extremist allies, we will never falter.

Let us renew our commitment to all those who serve in our defense -- our courageous men and women in uniform and their families and all those who protect us here at home. Mindful that the work of protecting America is never finished, we will do everything in our power to keep America safe.

Let us renew the true spirit of that day. Not the human capacity for evil, but the human capacity for good. Not the desire to destroy, but the impulse to save, and to serve, and to build. On this first National Day of Service and Remembrance, we can summon once more that ordinary goodness of America -- to serve our communities, to strengthen our country, and to better our world.

Most of all, on a day when others sought to sap our confidence, let us renew our common purpose. Let us remember how we came together as one nation, as one people, as Americans, united not only in our grief, but in our resolve to stand with one another, to stand up for the country we all love.

This may be the greatest lesson of this day, the strongest rebuke to those who attacked us, the highest tribute to those taken from us -- that such sense of purpose need not be a fleeting moment. It can be a lasting virtue.

For through their own lives –- and through you, the loved ones that they left behind –- the men and women who lost their lives eight years ago today leave a legacy that still shines brightly in the darkness, and that calls on all of us to be strong and firm and united. That is our calling today and in all the Septembers still to come.

May God bless you and comfort you. And may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END
9:40 A.M. EDT

Vice-President Biden attended a ceremony in New York City.

NATO Forces Killed Afghan NY Times Hostage in Botched Raid

According to David Batty's report in The Guardian (UK), NY Times reporter Sultan Munadi was killed by NATO forces in the botched raid that freed British reporter Stephen Farrell:

Farrell said today that he and Munadi fled the Taliban compound in Kunduz as a Nato helicopter, carrying British and American soldiers, swooped in from the night sky. "We thought they would kill us. We thought should we go out," he told a colleague in Kabul.

As bullets flew, the two men sprinted for cover, protected by a wall. Munadi moved forward, shouting "journalist, journalist", but fell in a hail of bullets, Farrell said.

Farrell dived into a ditch and, hearing British voices, shouted "British journalist".

More from the BBC, in a story headlined "Afghan rescue death causes anger:"

There is growing anger within Afghanistan about the local journalist's death and the way the incident was reported.

A group of Afghan journalists have accused the troops of having double standards when it comes to Western and Afghan lives.

Still more from the AP:

KABUL — Afghan journalists blamed international troops Thursday for the death of a kidnapped colleague during a rescue operation and said British commandos showed a "double standard" by leaving his body while retrieving a foreign New York Times writer.

The newly formed Media Club of Afghanistan — a group of Afghan reporters who work with international news outlets — also condemned the Taliban for abducting both men last week in northern Afghanistan as they investigated reports of civilian deaths in a German-ordered airstrike.

Local journalists laid flowers Thursday at the grave of reporter and translator Sultan Munadi in Kabul. Munadi, 34, was killed by gunfire during a British commando raid Wednesday to free him and New York Times writer Stephen Farrell.

Munadi was shot during the raid, but Farrell survived and was taken away in a helicopter. One British commando was killed in the raid.

At Thursday's ceremony, the group issued a statement holding international forces responsible for launching a military operation to free the journalists without exhausting nonviolent channels.

The statement also said it was "inhumane" for the British forces to rescue Farrell, who has dual British-Irish nationality, and also retrieve the body of the commando killed in the raid while leaving behind Munadi's body.

Fazul Rahim, an Afghan producer for CBS News, said the foreign forces' actions showed a lack of respect.

"It shows a double standard between a foreign life and an Afghan life," he said.

And even more, from AFP:

Munadi's brother said negotiators were on the brink of winning their release and slammed the raid as "thoughtless" despite insistence from British Foreign Secretary David Miliband that it was the only way to secure their freedom.

"There was no need for this operation at all," Munadi's brother Mohammad Osman told AFP.

"The ICRC (the International Committee of the Red Cross), the United Nations, tribal elders were all involved in optimistic negotiations for their release, when all of sudden this raid took place," he added.

"This was a totally thoughtless raid resulting in the martyrdom of Sultan."

Colleagues of Munadi are outraged that his bullet-riddled body was abandoned at the scene and hundreds of mourners attended a prayer ceremony at a Kabul mosque to pay their respects to the reporter on Friday.

His photo sat in a wreath of flowers, where a sign read: "We want an explanation for the killing of young journalist Sultan Ahmad Munadi."

Why Did Netanyahu Go To Moscow Monday?

According to The Jerusalem Post, quoting Kommersant:

A senior Kremlin official confirmed Wednesday to the Russian paper Kommersant thatPrime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did indeed make a clandestine trip to Russia on Monday.

Mystery surrounds Netanyahu's 'secret trip to Russia'

Commenting on the visit, the official said that "this kind of development could only be related to new and threatening information on Iran's nuclear program."

The Russian newspaper quoted experts speculating that such a trip would only be justified under extraordinary circumstances, "for example, in the case of Israel planning to attack Iran."

Human Rights Watch "Expert" Collects Nazi Regalia

I'm not making this up, either. From NGO Monitor:

“That is so cool! The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold it is so COOL!” --Flak88 (aka Marc Garlasco), wehrmacht-awards.com, 2005

“To imply that Garlasco’s collection is evidence of Nazi sympathies is not only absurd but an attempt to deflect attention” --HRW statement, September 8, 2009

On September 8, Omri Ceren (MereRhetoric) published a fully documented report clearly showing that Human Rights Watch’s “senior military expert” and coauthor of numerous reports condemning Israel, Marc Garlasco, is an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia. This revelation follows NGO Monitor’sresearch report on HRW’s pattern of false and unsupported claims in relation to Israel, and lack of professionalism and anti-Israel activism among some HRW officials, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa division.

Meet the US State Department's Official Blogger

His name is P.J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. The State Department now shows a new motto on its website: "Diplomacy In Action." The blog is called DipNote.

(I'm not making this up.)

Ted Kennedy's "Last Hurrah"

As I mentioned in a post after Ted Kennedy's Arlington funeral, he has continued politicking from beyond the grave, much like Mayor Skeffington as played by Spencer Tracy. So, not surprisingly, last night's speech by President Obama had its own "Win One for the Gipper" moment, featuring excerpts from Senator Kennedy's letter to President Obama. Today, Talking Points Memo published the full text:

Dear Mr. President,

I wanted to write a few final words to you to express my gratitude for your repeated personal kindnesses to me - and one last time, to salute your leadership in giving our country back its future and its truth.

On a personal level, you and Michelle reached out to Vicki, to our family and me in so many different ways. You helped to make these difficult months a happy time in my life.

You also made it a time of hope for me and for our country.

When I thought of all the years, all the battles, and all the memories of my long public life, I felt confident in these closing days that while I will not be there when it happens, you will be the President who at long last signs into law the health care reform that is the great unfinished business of our society. For me, this cause stretched across decades; it has been disappointed, but never finally defeated. It was the cause of my life. And in the past year, the prospect of victory sustained me-and the work of achieving it summoned my energy and determination.

There will be struggles - there always have been - and they are already underway again. But as we moved forward in these months, I learned that you will not yield to calls to retreat - that you will stay with the cause until it is won. I saw your conviction that the time is now and witnessed your unwavering commitment and understanding that health care is a decisive issue for our future prosperity. But you have also reminded all of us that it concerns more than material things; that what we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.

And so because of your vision and resolve, I came to believe that soon, very soon, affordable health coverage will be available to all, in an America where the state of a family's health will never again depend on the amount of a family's wealth. And while I will not see the victory, I was able to look forward and know that we will - yes, we will - fulfill the promise of health care in America as a right and not a privilege.

In closing, let me say again how proud I was to be part of your campaign- and proud as well to play a part in the early months of a new era of high purpose and achievement. I entered public life with a young President who inspired a generation and the world. It gives me great hope that as I leave, another young President inspires another generation and once more on America's behalf inspires the entire world.

So, I wrote this to thank you one last time as a friend- and to stand with you one last time for change and the America we can become.

At the Denver Convention where you were nominated, I said the dream lives on.

And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.

With deep respect and abiding affection,

[Ted]

IMHO, If President Obama can't pass a bill this year with the considerable help of Ted Kennedy's ghost, he's not the politician I think he is...

Dan Brown's Washington

In today's Washington Post Style section, a Masonic tour of Washington, DC, tied to Dan Brown's newest best-seller, The Lost Symbol.

USAID Funded Iraqi Insurgents, Too...

Recent reports of USAID funding for Afghan Taliban reminded of this earlier story from Bill Easterly's AIDWatch blog:

...namely a 2008 audit that found evidence of fraud, phantom workers, and money being diverted to insurgents through trash collection contracts.

Steve Jobs, Live and In Person...

Federal Reserve Policies Corrupted Economics Profession

So says Ryan Grim in today's Huffington Post:

Galbraith, a Fed critic, has seen the Fed's influence on academia first hand. He and co-authors Olivier Giovannoni and Ann Russo found that in the year before a presidential election, there is a significantly tighter monetary policy coming from the Fed if a Democrat is in office and a significantly looser policy if a Republican is in office. The effects are both statistically significant, allowing for controls, and economically important.

They submitted a paper with their findings to the Review of Economics and Statistics in 2008, but the paper was rejected. "The editor assigned to it turned out to be a fellow at the Fed and that was after I requested that it not be assigned to someone affiliated with the Fed," Galbraith says.

Publishing in top journals is, like in any discipline, the key to getting tenure. Indeed, pursuing tenure ironically requires a kind of fealty to the dominant economic ideology that is the precise opposite of the purpose of tenure, which is to protect academics who present oppositional perspectives.

And while most academic disciplines and top-tier journals are controlled by some defining paradigm, in an academic field like poetry, that situation can do no harm other than to, perhaps, a forest of trees. Economics, unfortunately, collides with reality -- as it did with the Fed's incorrect reading of the housing bubble and failure to regulate financial institutions. Neither was a matter of incompetence, but both resulted from the Fed's unchallenged assumptions about the way the market worked.

Even the late Milton Friedman, whose monetary economic theories heavily influenced Greenspan, was concerned about the stifled nature of the debate. Friedman, in a 1993 letter to Auerbach that the author quotes in his book, argued that the Fed practice was harming objectivity: "I cannot disagree with you that having something like 500 economists is extremely unhealthy. As you say, it is not conducive to independent, objective research. You and I know there has been censorship of the material published. Equally important, the location of the economists in the Federal Reserve has had a significant influence on the kind of research they do, biasing that research toward noncontroversial technical papers on method as opposed to substantive papers on policy and results," Friedman wrote.

Afghanistan 2009 v Chicago 2008

Someone I know suggested that I take a look at US 2008 Presidential election results, precinct-by-precinct, when considering the Obama Administration's reported objections to recent polling in Afghanistan--since New York Times "journalists" Mark Landler and Helene Cooper had not bothered to do their homework. It's not hard. Here's a link to the Chicago Elections website. It shows, for example, that in Wards 3 to 9, President Obama and Vice-President Biden received over 95 percent of the votes cast:

Ward 3--97.05%
Ward 4--97.07%
Ward 5--97.13%
Ward 6--99.25%
Ward 7--98.69%
Ward 8--99.19%
Ward 9--98.80%

There was a similar pattern In my hometown of Washington, DC.:

Precinct 20--96.58%
Precinct 114--99.45%
Precinct 115--99.33%
Precinct 116--99.09%
Precinct 120--98.79%

So, I don't think that the Obama administration would ever choose to set aside votes in the United States in the way US Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry has advocated doing in Afghanistan...

All the College Courses You Can Take For $99/Month

A teaching colleague sent me a link to this article by Kevin Carey from the Washington Monthly:

StraighterLine is the brainchild of a man named Burck Smith, an Internet entrepreneur bent on altering the DNA of higher education as we have known it for the better part of 500 years. Rather than students being tethered to ivy-covered quads or an anonymous commuter campus, Smith envisions a world where they can seamlessly assemble credits and degrees from multiple online providers, each specializing in certain subjects and—most importantly—fiercely competing on price. Smith himself may be the person who revolutionizes the university, or he may not be. But someone with the means and vision to fundamentally reorder the way students experience and pay for higher education is bound to emerge.

In recent years, Americans have grown accustomed to living amid the smoking wreckage of various once-proud industries—automakers bankrupt, brand-name Wall Street banks in ruins, newspapers dying by the dozen. It’s tempting in such circumstances to take comfort in the seeming permanency of our colleges and universities, in the notion that our world-beating higher education system will reliably produce research and knowledge workers for decades to come. But this is an illusion. Colleges are caught in the same kind of debt-fueled price spiral that just blew up the real estate market. They’re also in the information business in a time when technology is driving down the cost of selling information to record, destabilizing lows.

In combination, these two trends threaten to shake the foundation of the modern university, in much the same way that other seemingly impregnable institutions have been torn apart. In some ways, the upheaval will be a welcome one. Students will benefit enormously from radically lower prices—particularly people like Solvig who lack disposable income and need higher learning to compete in an ever-more treacherous economy. But these huge changes will also seriously threaten the ability of universities to provide all the things beyond teaching on which society depends: science, culture, the transmission of our civilization from one generation to the next.

Whether this transformation is a good or a bad thing is something of a moot point—it’s coming, and sooner than you think...

The Ascent (1977)

The other night, someone I know and this blogger watched Laura Shepitko's 1977 Russian classic, The Ascent, which we had ordered from Netflix. It is a harrowing film, a WWII horror picture set in what seems to be the Ukraine or Belarus, full of Russian Orthodox religious symbolism, including shots that look like icons painted by Andrey Rublev, set in landscapes by Levitan (although in Black & White). Shepitko died at age 40, in a car accident, shortly after making this film. She was married to Elim Klimov, whose Come and See explored similar themes, in a less religious way....

From Our "Told You So" Department: USAID Funded Taliban in Afghanistan

From Jean MacKenzie's story on GlobalPost.com (ht The Newshour With Jim Lehrer):

KABUL — The United States Agency for International Development has opened an investigation into allegations that its funds for road and bridge construction in Afghanistan are ending up in the hands of the Taliban, through a protection racket for contractors.

And House Foreign Affairs Committee member, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) vowed to hold hearings on the issue in the fall, saying: "The idea that American taxpayer dollars are ending up with the Taliban is a case for grave concern."

U.S. officials confirmed that the preliminary investigation and the proposed hearings were sparked by a GlobalPost special report on the funding of the Taliban last month that uncovered a process that has been an open secret in Afghanistan for years among those in international aid organizations.

The report exposed that the Taliban takes a percentage of the billions of dollars in aid from U.S. and other international coalition members that goes to large organizations and their subcontractors for development projects, in exchange for protection in remote areas controlled by the insurgency.

I wrote about a different aspect of this problem in a February 2007 ORBIS article, NGOs: A ‘New Class’ in International Relations:

Nongovernmental organizations have attempted to take control of civil society, displacing traditional governing institutions. This serves the interests of the terrorists, warlords, and mafia dons, who benefit from weak central government, and hinders the West's ability to mobilize allies to participate in the war on terror. NGO leaders who are hostile to the nation-state itself seek to transform a voluntary system of participation in international organizations by sovereign member-states via a “power shift” to an unholy alliance of multinational corporations and NGOs. Since they do not possess the traditional sources of legitimacy enjoyed by nation-states, they seek to impose their will by financial or forceful means—for example, “sanctions” or “humanitarian intervention.” A new class of NGOs has thus emerged that is essentially opposed to the diplomatic, legal, and military measures required for dealing with civilizational conflict.

Minister Confesses UK Traded Pan Am Bomber for BP-Libya Oil Deal

In an item from the Press Association (UK), Justice Minister Jack Straw takes a fall for Prime Minister Gordon Brown:

But Mr Straw said the issue of trade played "a very big part" in his decision to include Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) struck with Libya in 2007, citing a lucrative deal which was being sought by British oil giant BP at the time.

Documents released earlier this week showed Mr Straw assured the Scottish Government in 2007 that Megrahi would be excluded from any PTA agreed with the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi as part of the normalisation of relations between the UK and Libya. But just weeks later, he informed Edinburgh that he had not been able to secure an exemption for Megrahi and had decided to go ahead with the PTA as it stands "in view of the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom".

Asked whether trade was a factor in his decision, Mr Straw told the Daily Telegraph: "Yes... a very big part of that. I'm unapologetic about that. Libya was a rogue state... We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal."

Mr Straw said Mr Brown was not involved in the decision to press ahead with the PTA, saying: "I certainly didn't talk to the PM. There is no paper trail to suggest he was involved at all."

In January 2008, just weeks after the PTA was sealed, Libya ratified a £550 million oil deal with BP.

New Jersey Senator Demands US Investigate UK-Libya Pan Am Bomber Deal

According to UPI:

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called for a formal investigation into the allegations.

"In particular, I ask that the committee examine whether Mr. Megrahi's release was influenced by oil contracts between U.K.-based BP Plc. and the government of Libya," he writes.

Lautenberg said a formal investigation should look into whether oil and commercial interests played a role in the decision.

London, meanwhile, faces an uncertain energy future as deposits in the North Sea run dry. Ukraine and other European nations have lobbied for access to Libyan reserves as well.

Regardless, Lautenberg says the bombing of Pan Am 103 was a "brutal act of terrorism" that should not be linked to commercial interests.

"I urge the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to hold a hearing and investigation to uncover whether justice took a back seat to commercial interests," he said.

More from PolitickerNJ.com

· Whether oil and commercial interests led to the U.K's. authorization to include al-Megrahi in the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) when it had previously sought to exclude him;

· If the negotiated PTA and/or the August 20 release of al-Megrahi violated the international agreement between the U.S. and the U.K.;

· Whether oil contracts played a role in the U.K. government's actions leading up to the release of al-Megrahi, including the U.K.'s failure to object to al-Megrahi's release; and

· Whether commercial interests played a role in the decision to release al-Megrahi.

Scotland's The Herald has still more:

Sir Christopher [Meyer], speaking about his time as ambassador in Washington during the 1998 negotiations over Megrahi’s trial, said: “One thing I do remember very, very clearly was that it was very important to them [the US] to get a commitment out of us that if Megrahi and the other guy were found guilty, they would serve the full term of their sentence in a UK jail.

“That was a vital selling point for the relatives and friends of the Americans who died in the blowing up of the Pan Am flight.” He added that this was the “clear political and diplomatic understanding” the US had.

Washington Examiner: Bin Laden a Whitney Houston Fan...

He reportedly also reads The Star:

Whitney Houston has a fan in bin Laden
By: KIKI RYAN
09/04/09 12:05 AM EDT

Whitney Houston — Bin Laden’s ‘Greatest Love of All?’

According to a new novel [a memoir entitled Diary Of A Lost Girl] by Sudanese author Kola Boof, Osama bin Laden is obsessed with singer Whitney Houston.

Boof claims that when she was held as a sex slave for the terrorist for four months in a Moroccan hotel room, he couldn’t stop talking about the legendary singer.

“He told me Whitney Houston was the most beautiful woman he’d seen,” she writes in “Diary of a Lost Girl,” excerpted in next month’s Harpers’ Bazaar. Boof adds that he constantly spoke of “how beautiful she was, what a nice smile she has, and how truly Islamic she is but is just brainwashed by American culture and by her husband.”

Allegedly, Bin Laden sought to have Houston’s ex-husband Bobby Brown killed.

And although the totalitarian government of Afghanistan considers listening to music sinful, she writes Bin Laden “spoke of someday spending vast amounts of money to go to America and try to arrange a meeting with the superstar.”

If that’s not bizarre enough, other American pop culture she cites as him enjoying were watching episodes of “The Wonder Years,” “Miami Vice” and “MacGyver” and reading Star Magazine and Playboy.

(more at PerezHilton.com.

Washington's New African-American History Museum Expands Collection

An interesting account today from the Washington Post's Jacqueline Trescott:

The discoveries can come through late-night e-mails, conversations with elderly black women over weak tea, or at a community center where someone brings in their great-grandfather's diploma.

Such is life at the moment for Lonnie G. Bunch III, the founding director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, who is working diligently to bring essential documents and artifacts of the black American story to the public. So far he has a Selmer trumpet once owned by jazz innovator Louis Armstrong, a Jim Crow railroad car from outside Chattanooga, Tenn., a sign from a Nashville bus that reads "This part of bus for colored race," an 1850 slave badge from Charleston, S.C., and a porcelain drinking fountain labeled "colored."

The museum also has a house built about 1874 in Poolesville by the Jones family, freed slaves who founded an all-black community in Montgomery County, as well as a letter signed by Toussaint L'Ouverture, the leader of a successful slave revolt in Haiti, not to mention a cape and jumpsuit from the late soul superstar James Brown, and the 700 garments and 300 accessories from the Black Fashion Museum, which closed in 2007.

BP Pressurized British Government to Hand Over Pan Am Bomber

According to this London Times article:

Jack Straw was personally lobbied by BP over Britain’s prisoner transfer agreement with Libya just before he abandoned efforts to exclude the Lockerbie bomber from the deal.

The Times has learnt that the Justice Secretary took two telephone calls from Sir Mark Allen, a former M16 agent, who was by then working for BP as a consultant, on October 15 and November 9, 2007.

Having signed a $900million oil exploration deal with Libya earlier that year, BP feared that its commercial interests could be damaged if Britain delayed the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) through which the Gaddafi regime hoped to secure the return home of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi.

Baltimore Sun: Human Rights Watch Shills for Saudis

From Israel obsession leads HRW astray by Gerald Steinberg and Dan Kosky:

The likes of HRW benefit from a halo effect that persuades journalists to accept their every claim as gospel, without first checking the "evidence" provided.

Yet this façade is slipping under the weight of HRW's activities within Saudi Arabia, one of the world's most notorious human rights abusers. According to Arab News, HRW's senior Middle East professional Sarah Leah Whitson, along with board and Advisory Committee member Hassan Elmasry, attended a dinner where they asked "prominent members of Saudi society" to make up for the "shortage of funds" due to the global financial crisis "and the work on Israel and Gaza which depleted HRW's budget for the region." This tacit admission that HRW targeted Israel to the detriment of analyzing genuine human rights violations was accompanied by Ms. Whitson's odious invocation of "pro-Israel pressure groups."

HRW has failed to provide an alternative account of events, and its only defense has been an absurd attempt to cast a distinction between soliciting Saudi officials and prominent members of society who owe their very position to the regime.

Serious questions are rightly being asked of a human rights organization that sees fit to have its pockets lined with the gold of one of the world's most oppressive countries.

More from the Jerusalem Post:

HRW's Middle East division is run by Sarah Leah Whitson, who had organized protests against Israeli "brutality" at the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee before she was hired by Roth. At HRW, Whitson continued to promote anti-Israel boycotts, and in May 2009, Whitson led HRW's fund-raising trip to Saudi Arabia, where she denounced "pro-Israel pressure groups," which "tried to discredit" HRW's "work on Israel and Gaza," including its role in creating the Goldstone inquiry.

Furthermore, Joe Stork, Whitson's deputy in HRW, spent over 20 years as a founder and editor of MERIP, an anti-Zionist and anti-American organization. Following the Munich attack, Stork and his colleagues published an editorial headlined "Who are the real terrorists?" which denounced "Israeli terrorists, equipped with US-supplied jets and tanks" and "their policy of murder and destruction against the Palestinians." (The authors added a disclaimer that such acts were not "justification" for the Munich attack.) In 1996, Stork joined HRW.

The biases displayed by Whitson and Stork violate the basic principle of political objectivity for human rights fact-finding, as codified in the International Bar Association's "London-Lund" guidelines. Similarly, the appointments of Goldstone and Prof. Christine Chinkin to the UN's Gaza investigation are inconsistent with these common-sense rules. (UN Watch's call to disqualify Chinkin quotes a letter she signed declaring Israel the aggressor and perpetrator of war crimes, and "categorically rejecting" Israel's right to self-defense against rocket barrages.)

HRW's reports, like the NGO submissions to Goldstone, consistently reflect this bias and lack of professional standards. Behind the façade of "factual research," the work of the Middle East Division consists of multiple pages of carefully picked Palestinian "eyewitness testimony." These reports mix speculative, plausible Palestinian claims that are unverifiable, bad fiction and pages of irrelevant technical "facts" and contorted legal verbiage.

In HRW's latest publication, co-authored by Stork, which accused the IDF of the odious moral crime of deliberately killing civilians waving white flags, the first incident is based entirely on the claims of the Abed Rabbo family. However, Western and Arabic versions show that as the Palestinian "fixers" brought journalists and NGO officials, including HRW "researchers," for interviews, the story evolved with each telling.

In parallel, the videos and other evidence clearly showing Palestinian abuses, including routine use of "human shields" to protect terrorists and weapons, are omitted because they do not fit the desired conclusions. No serious court would accept this testimony as evidence, or the publications as "research." .

There are dozens of similar examples repeating Palestinian claims in HRW publications. Every phase of this long war is also opportunity for promoting this agenda through reports, press conferences, letters and e-mails. These indictments (Roth was trained as a prosecutor) routinely repeat the odious charges of "indiscriminate attacks against civilians," "war crimes" and collective punishment. (HRW's "White Flags" publication uses the term "war crimes" 15 times.) This anti-Israel obsession is part of the broader transformation of HRW from its original goal of battling for the freedom of political prisoners in repressive regimes, to an ideological power directing its guns ($42 million in 2008) against embattled democracies such as Israel.

Charles Crawford on Putin's Polish Speech

From the blogoir of the former British ambassador to Poland, among other places:

1st September 2009
As many senior international dignitaries gather in Gdansk today to commemorate the start of WW2, Russian Prime Minister Putin (one of the guests) has written an open letter to Poland to give a clear and (as of now) definitive Russian view on the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact.

Here is the Russian official version in English. The published Polish version is here. It is a well-turned and characteristically clever piece of work. And long - nearly 2200 words in the English version.

Let's go through it, looking at what it says - and what Messages it sends.

Invited by Donald Tusk, Polish Prime Minister, to take part in the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Second World War, I did not hesitate to accept the invitation, I could not do otherwise: because the war took a heavy toll of 27 million lives of my compatriots, and every Russian family keeps both the sorrow of loss and the honor of the Great Victory...

First message: Poland bangs on about the role of the Soviet Union in starting WW2. Attack is the best form of defence. Onward!

No judge can give a totally unbiased verdict on what was in the past. And no country can boast of having avoided tragedies, dramatic turning points or state decisions having nothing to do with high morals. If we are eager to have peaceful and happy future, we must draw lessons from history. However, exploiting memory, anatomizing history and seeking pretexts for mutual complaints and resentment causes a lot of harm and proves lack of responsibility.

Message: there's no real 'truth' in all this, so why talk about it so much? Let's all be ... responsible.

The canvas of history is not a third-rate copy which can be roughly retouched or, following customer's orders, modified by the addition of bright of dark tints. Unfortunately, such attempts to rehash the past are quite common today. We witness the efforts to tailor history to the immediate political needs. Some countries went even further, making the Nazi accomplices heroes, placing victims on a par with executioners, and liberators - with occupants.

Message: no 'equating' Nazism with Soviet Communism, you pathetic ungrateful Balts and others.

The situation in Europe prior to the Second World War is considered fragmentarily, regardless of the cause-and-effect relationship. It is indicative that history is often slanted by those who actually apply double standards in modern politics.

Message: any attempt to look at these events on the basis of clear standards is necessarily hypocritical and false, since there's no 'truth' anyway, plus those who assert such standards invariably fail to live by them, so what they say can not count.

One cannot help but wonder to what extend such myths-makers differ from the authors of the memorable "Brief Course of Russian History" published in the Stalin period, where all names or events uncomfortable to the "leader of all nations" would be erased and stereotyped and completely ideology-based versions of reality would be imposed.

Message: yes - you too are no better than Stalinists, so don't accuse me of being one.

Thus, today we are expected to admit without any hesitation that the only "trigger" of the Second World War was the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939.

However, those who advocate such a position neglect simple things - did not the Treaty of Versailles which drew the bottom line of the First World War leave a lot of "time bombs", the main of which was not only the registered defeat of Germany but also its humiliation. Did not the borders in Europe begin to crumble much earlier than 1 September 1939? What about the Anschluss of Austria and Czechoslovakia being torn to pieces, when not only Germany, but also Hungary and Poland in fact took part in the territorial repartition of Europe.

Message: Germany was 'humiliated' by the Versailles settlement which you wrote, so what did you expect? Plus things were falling apart anyway before we started taking our slice. That means you Poland (Note: Good Point.)

And is it possible to turn a blind eye to the backstage attempts of Western democracies to "buy off" Hitler and redirect his aggression "eastwards" and to the systematic and generally tolerated removal of security safeguards and arms restrictious system in Europe?

Finally, what was the military and political echo of the collusion that took place in Munich on 29 September 1938? Maybe it was then when Hitler finally decided that "everything was allowed". That neither France nor England would "lift a finger" to protect their allies.

Message: you Westerners were weak but crafty in dealing with Hitler - who are you to talk now?

There is no doubt that one (sic) can have all the reasons to condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact concluded in August of 1939. But a year before, in Munich, France and England signed a well-known treaty with Hitler and thus destroyed all the hope for a united front to fight fascism.

Message: the M/R Pact was the inevitable consequence of what others did. 'One' might condemn it - but I don't.

Today, we understand that any kind of collusion with the Nazi regime was morally unacceptable and had no prospects of practical implementation. However, in the context of the historical events of that time, the Soviet Union not only remained face to face with Germany (since the Western States had rejected the proposed system of collective security) but also faced the threat of waging war on two fronts, because precisely in August of 1939 the flame of the conflict with Japan on the Halkin-Gol river reached its highest.

Message: as I keep saying, Russia resists being encircled by its enemies. Events thousands of miles away left us simply no choice but to invade Poland. Strange but true.

The Soviet diplomacy was quite right at that time to consider it, at least, unwise to reject Germany's proposal to sign the Non-Aggression Pact when USSR's potential allies in the West had already made similar agreements with the German Reich and did not want to cooperate with the Soviet Union, as well as to be confronted with the Nazi allmighty military machine alone.

Message: we only did with Hitler what y'all did. And we were wise to do so. Right?

...the Munich Agreement that led to disunity among the natural allies in the fight against the Nazis and made them distrust and suspect each other. While looking back at the past, it is necessary for all of us, both in Western and Eastern Europe, to remember what tragedies can result from cowardice, behind-the-scenes and armchair politics, as well as from seeking to ensure security and national interests at the expense of others. There cannot be reasonable and responsible politics without a moral and legal framework.

Message: and, by the way, since there is no Truth we define the moral and legal framework as we like.

... the moral aspect of policies pursued is particularly important. In this regard, I would like to remind you that our country's parliament unambiguously assessed the immorality of the Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact. This has not been the case so far in some other States, though they also made very controversial decisions in the 1930s.

Message: NB this is very important. The M/R Pact was assessed as 'immoral' by the Russian Parliament back in 1989. I have mentioned that in this message. But I also have said that it would have been 'unwise' for the Soviet Union not to sign the Pact. What's immoral about being wise? So you stupid media people in the West need to say that I have condemned the Pact as 'immoral', even though I have not done so. Got that?

All experience of the prewar period - from the Versailles Peace Conference to the beginning of the Second World War - provides strong evidence that it is impossible to set up an efficient system of collective security without involvement of all countries of the continent, including Russia. You Americans - represented in Gdansk by some junior flunkey - can relax and stay at home.

Message: if we are not happy, look what we do. That's just the way it is.

Establishment of the Anti-Hitler Coalition is, without exaggeration, a turning point in the history of the 20th century, one of the most important and determining events of the previous century. The world saw that countries and peoples, despite all their differences, diverse national aspirations, tactical discords were able to stand united for the sake of the future, for the sake of countering the global evil...

Message: you Westerners got into bed with Stalin and Stalinism to defeat Hitler. And thereby gave Stalin a legitimacy which is not going away.

The historic post-war reconciliation of France and Germany opened the way to the establishment of the European Union. At the same time, the wisdom and generosity of Russian and German peoples, as well as the foresight of statesmen of the two countries, made it possible to take a determining step towards building the Big Europe. The partnership of Russia and Germany has become an example of moving towards each other and of aspiration for the future with care for the memory of the past.

Message: some things are for grown-ups.

I am sure that Russian-Polish relations will, sooner or later, come to such high level, to the level of genuine partners. It is in the interests of our peoples and of the whole European continent.

Message: sigh ... you Poles need to work on it, and get with the Russian-German Narrative. Remember 1939.

We are deeply grateful that Poland, the land where more than 600 thousand soldiers of the Red Army lie, those who gave their lives for its liberation, shows care and respect to our military burial places. Believe me, these words are not simply for the record, they are sincere and heartfelt.

The people of Russia, whose destiny was crippled by the totalitarian regime, fully understand the sensitiveness of Poles about Katyn where thousands of Polish servicemen lie. Together we must keep alive the memory of the victims of this crime.

Message: be very grateful, sensitive Poland, for our liberating you, even though we murdered and imprisoned thousands of Poles to do so. And let's remember the victims of the Katyn crime. But let's not talk about the criminals who committed it.

Katyn and Mednoye memorials, just as the tragic fate of the Russian soldiers taken prisoners in Poland during the 1920 war, should become symbols of common grief and mutual pardon.

Message: you have your massacre victims, Poland - we have ours. No double standards. OK?

Our obligation to the past and gone, to the very history, is to do everything in order to make the Polish-Russian relations free from the burden of mistrust and prepossession, which we have inherited. To turn over the page and start writing a new one...

Message: all this historical stuff is so tedious. We all know Poland and Europe just won't wear us down into apologising for the M/R Pact and all that. Why not look at some oil/gas deals instead?

* * * * *

Vladimir Putin has a weak hand to play here, on the merits. And plays it aggressively.

He basically turns the fact that Poland is making so much of this anniversary of Nazi/Soviet aggression to Russia's advantage. He knows that once the Poles have invited him they will be loath to be too critical of what he says, lest they come over as churlish, 'needlessly' generating a controversy when there should be a sense of reconciliation.

Hence this message. It deftly strikes a reasonable, fair-minded overall tone, while conceding precisely nothing at all on the hard-core post-Soviet view of WW2:

The Munich Agreement is presented as no different from the M/R Pact, even though France and UK struck a deal with Hitler to avoid war, not to launch it by invading and annexing great slabs of other countries.
The brutality the Soviets inflicted on millions of Poles as they invaded in 1939 and thereafter is not mentioned.
Nothing is conceded on Katyn, which is compared to the messy aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1920 (another attempted land-grab) - did Poland's top leaders back then really sign papers ordering the cold-blooded murder of tens of thousands of Red Army prisoners?
Warsaw's 'courageous' resistance is mentioned, but nothing about Stalin's shameful refusal to intervene as the Nazis razed the city in 1944.
Nothing is said about post-WW2 Soviet crimes.
And Putin boldly puts all this in the context of Russian/German reconciliation. At the ceremonies today the UK is represented by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, whose recent speech in Poland did not even mention the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact and why the issues around it still matter. The USA is sending only a senior official.

Thus Poland as the first victim of the Nazi/Soviet Pact is left today commemorating it sandwiched between Big Germany and Big Russia, Angela Merkel and PM Putin, the former keen to achieve substantive reconciliation on modern European terms, the latter nodding stiffly in that direction but in practice offering only Russian terms.

Putin's Message?

You see, Poland and Europe, I will come to your so-called ceremony - and assert my view of history, not yours.

I'll make some nice noises but concede nothing. But your sissy leaders and idiotic media will feel obliged to portray my message as a positive conciliatory gesture and say that I have 'condemned' the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact as 'immoral' when - as we both know - I have done no such thing.

You will have no choice but to accept my view, thereby legitimising it for a long time to come.

In short?

I am strong. You are weak.

Понял?

Moral of the story?

Be careful which VIPs you invite to a party.

Some of them may show up.

And then it becomes their party.

I Like the Washington Monthly's College Guide...

Washington Monthly is taking on U.S. News and World Report with this list:

Below are the Washington Monthly's 2009 national university college rankings. We rate schools based on their contribution to the public good in three broad categories: Social Mobility (recruiting and graduating low-income students), Research (producing cutting-edge scholarship and PhDs), and Service (encouraging students to give something back to their country).

Here's the top ten:

1 University of California, Berkeley
2 Univ. of California, San Diego
3 Univ. of California, Los Angeles
4 Stanford University (CA)
5 Texas A&M U., Col. Station
6 South Carolina State University
7 Pennsylvania State U., University Park
8 College of William and Mary (VA)*
9 University of Texas, Austin
10 University of California, Davis

Of course, I'm biased. My undergraduate degree is from UC Berkeley (where I transferred from Swarthmore, ranked 8 on the Washington Monthly's liberal arts list) and my doctorate is from UCLA...Go Bears! Go Bruins!

Charles Crawford on Britain's Libyan Lockerbie Bomber Deal

From the world's first diplomatic Blogoir:

It is always fascinating to read original official documents, in this case a selection of papers about the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted for the Lockerbie bombing.

So have a look here.

Yet it all seems ... incomplete.

Where are the letters and emails from/to the FCO and No 10, and associated FCO/No 10 internal minuting including the FCO Legal Advisers thoughts?

The key constitutional/legal issue after all is, basically, how far Scottish legal norms as decided in Edinburgh might be subject to (or have to take some sort of account of) UK foreign policy concerns (including the interplay between foreign policy principles and commercial possibilities) as decided in London.

The papers as released leave us none the wiser on how that question and all the issues swirling around it were hammered out behind the scenes. I just do not believe that not a single memo/email/minute/letter was sent to or issued from No 10 or the Foreign Secretary's office on these complex and sensitive subjects.

Nice try. But not good enough.

More please.

UPDATE--The Telegraph's (UK) Nile Gardiner reports:

David Rivkin, a highly respected former White House official, has told the BBC that the British government’s role in the release of the Lockerbie bomber “will damage US relations with Britain for years to come. I really can’t think about a more duplicitous act by Britain vis-à-vis the United States in the post-war period.”

Bob Dole's Advice to President Obama: Try, Try Again on Health Care

From yesterday's Washington Post:

Obama's approval numbers would jump 10 points if Americans knew he was fully in charge. A tactical move of introducing his own plan would also stir more Republicans to become active for reform in critical areas. Right now the president's biggest problem is with congressional Democrats, who are split and searching for a way out of the medical wilderness.

In short, the president, Congress and the public are choking on all this, and choking is not covered by the legislation.

When I served as Senate Republican leader, I recall President Ronald Reagan telling me after he'd sent a bill that I would introduce that he wanted it all -- but that if I could get 70 to 80 percent, to run with it, and he would try to get the rest later. Neither Reagan nor Obama has been considered a master of Congress, but both are known for their great popularity and for understanding the art of reaching for more than they could reasonably expect. Now, consider this: Members of Congress want to keep their jobs. They support their president, but they also want to be employed, with a good health plan (like the one they enjoy now), after this president or even the next has come and gone. So votes on this issue are not simply partisan. They are also about survival. Most lawmakers, Republican or Democratic, will think long and hard before casting this vote -- to avoid backing into a buzz saw.

Once the president has staked out his position, which will provide room for amendments, the debate will narrow, and bipartisan bargaining and other political maneuvering can begin.