Starting Points

May 18, 2010

Twitter / Search - 18 May 2010 before 5 pm Tweets by johnamacdougall

JohnAMacDougall

Starting Points: My Country, Tis of Me - #Tea #Party 'Patriots' http://bit.ly/apauZH #american #right-wing 30 minutes ago via twitthat
JohnAMacDougall

How to Save the News - Magazine - The Atlantic http://bit.ly/d4TahW #internet #google #newspapers #fallows 41 minutes ago via twitthat
JohnAMacDougall

Impact of the #Maternus #Bere Case on the Justice System and the #Rule of #Law in #Timor-Leste http://bit.ly/csaTGu #southeast #suai about 1 hour ago via twitthat
JohnAMacDougall

Ethiopian #Diaspora, #US #Rights Groups Seek Democratic Progress in #Ethiopia | USA | English http://bit.ly/9hiOTz #minority #global about 1 hour ago via twitthat
JohnAMacDougall

Clinton: Big Powers Agree on #Iran #Sanctions Resolution English http://bit.ly/9m0csO #nuclear #proliferation #muslim #us about 1 hour ago via twitthat
JohnAMacDougall

Seach public #Facebook status messages out on the net via Openbook app. http://bit.ly/aw0V07 #internet #security about 4 hours ago via web
JohnAMacDougall

#Facebook hit by massive adware attack. http://bit.ly/9dSHHE #internet #security about 5 hours ago via web
JohnAMacDougall

SaveFace http://bit.ly/aqByXO #facebook #privacy #tool #internet about 5 hours ago via twitthat
JohnAMacDougall

Facebook is really an entertainment site. http://bit.ly/dtIQBb about 5 hours ago via web
JohnAMacDougall

Starting Points: How the #U.S. Engages the World with Social Media http://bit.ly/aQXNN3 #american #indonesia #internet about 5 hours ago via twitthat
JohnAMacDougall

Vote for #Congress Remains Tied Among #Registered #Voters http://bit.ly/9jTsRa #gallup #american about 6 hours ago via twitthat
JohnAMacDougall

69% of #Facebook Users Concerned About #Security of Personal Information - Rasmussen Reports™ http://bit.ly/d1853P #internet about 6 hours ago via twitthat

My Country, Tis of Me - Tea Party 'Patriots'

There’s nothing patriotic about the Tea Party Patriots.
By Michael Kinsley

The right-wing populist Tea Party movement has politicians of both parties spooked. Democrats fear it will bring so many Republicans to the boil, and then to the voting booth, that they will lose control of Congress. Republicans fear the movement will frighten away moderates and leave their party an unelectable, ideologically extreme rump. The press, both alarmed and delighted by this political force that sprang from nowhere, is eager to prove its lack of elitism and left-wing bias by treating the Tea Party activists with respect. Journalists also sincerely appreciate having something new to write or talk about. It is in their interest to keep this story going.

A Harris poll released the last day of March reported that a third of all adults support the Tea Party, and slightly less than a quarter oppose it. Do they know what they are supporting, or opposing? The movement is not yet united on a single platform or agenda, like Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract With America, which started as a triumph and ended as an embarrassment. The lack of specifics allows anyone who is just existentially fed up (and who isn’t, on some days?) to feel right at home. No one will demand to know what he or she is fed up with. On Web sites and in speeches, Tea Party Patriots reveal a fondness for procedural gimmicks (like a ban on congressional earmarks), constitutional amendments (term limits, balanced budget), and similar magic tricks or shortcuts to salvation. Apart from a general funk, though, the one common theme espoused by TPPs is the monstrous danger of Big Government.

The Tea Party movement has been compared (by David Brooks of The New York Times, among others) to the student protest movement of the 1960s. Even though one came from the left and the other from the right, both are/were, or at least styled themselves as, a mass challenge to an oppressive establishment. That’s a similarity, to be sure. But the differences seem more illuminating.

First, the 1960s (shorthand for all of the political and social developments we associate with that period) were by, for, and about young people. The Tea Party movement is by, for, and about middle-aged and old people (undoubtedly including more than a few who were part of the earlier movement too). If young people discover a cause and become a bit overwrought or monomaniacal, that’s easily forgiven as part of the charm of youth. When adults of middle age and older throw tantrums and hold their breath until they turn blue, it’s less charming.

Second, although the 1960s ultimately spread their tentacles throughout the culture and around the world, politically there was just one big issue: ending the war in Vietnam. No such issue unites the Tea Party Patriots. You might guess from some of their materials on the Web that the repeal of health-care reform is the TPPs’ Vietnam, their towering cause. But even for devoted TPPs, stripping health insurance away from people who’ve just gotten it is unlikely to summon the same passions that the activists of the 1960s brought to stopping a misguided war. Not only do TPPs not have one big issue like Vietnam—they disagree about many of their smaller issues. What unites them is a more abstract resentment, an intensity of feeling rather than any concrete complaint or goal.

The antiwar movement also worked, sort of. As did the civil-rights movement that preceded it. Antiwar protests ultimately turned the establishment itself against the war, though extracting us from it still took years. By contrast, the Tea Party Patriots, I predict, are just the flavor of the month: the kind of story that the media are incapable of not exaggerating. The antiwar movement and the 1960s changed America in numerous ways forever. The Tea Party Patriots will be an answer on Jeopardy or a crossword-puzzle clue.

A final difference: although the 1960s featured plenty of self-indulgence, this wasn’t their essence. Their essence was selfless and idealistic: stopping the war; ending racism; eradicating poverty. These goals and some of the methods for achieving them may have been childishly romantic or even entirely wrongheaded, but they were about making the world a better place. The Tea Party movement’s goals, when stated specifically, are mostly self-interested. And they lack poetry: cut my taxes; don’t let the government mess with my Medicare; and so on. I say “self-interested” and not “selfish” because pursuing your own self-interest is not illegitimate in a capitalist democracy. (Nor is poetry an essential requirement.) But the Tea Party’s atmospherics, all about personal grievance and taking umbrage and feeling put-upon, are a far cry from flower power. There is a nasty, sour, vindictive tone to the Tea Party that certainly existed in the antiwar movement and its offspring, but never dominated the atmosphere created by these groups.

Some people think that what unites the Tea Party Patriots is simple racism. I doubt that. But the Tea Party movement is not the solution to what ails America. It is an illustration of what ails America. Not because it is right-wing or because it is sometimes susceptible to crazed conspiracy theories, and not because of racism, but because of the movement’s self-indulgent premise that none of our challenges and difficulties are our own fault.

“Personal responsibility” has been a great conservative theme in recent decades, in response to the growth of the welfare state. It is a common theme among TPPs—even in response to health-care reform, as if losing your job and then getting cancer is something you shouldn’t have allowed to happen to yourself. But these days, conservatives far outdo liberals in excusing citizens from personal responsibility. To the TPPs, all of our problems are the fault of the government, and the government is a great “other,” a hideous monster over which we have no control. It spends our money and runs up vast deficits for mysterious reasons all its own. At bottom, this is a suspicion not of government but of democracy. After all, who elected this monster?

This kind of talk is doubly self-indulgent. First, it’s just not true. Second, it’s obviously untrue. The government’s main function these days is writing checks to old people. These checks allow people to retire and pursue avocations such as going to Tea Party rallies. This basic fact about the government is no great secret. In fact, it’s a huge cliché, robably available more than once in an average day’s newspaper. But the Tea Party Patriots feel free to ignore it and continue serving up rhetoric about “the audaciousness and arrogance of our government,” and calling for the elimination of the Federal Reserve Board or drastic restraints on the power of the Internal Revenue Service.

“I like what they’re saying. It’s common sense,” a random man-in-the-crowd told a Los Angeles Times reporter at a big Tea Party rally. Then he added, “They’ve got to focus on issues like keeping jobs here and lowering the cost of prescription drugs.” These, of course, are projects that can be conducted only by Big Government. If the Tea Party Patriots ever developed a coherent platform or agenda, they would lose half their supporters.

Principled libertarianism is an interesting and even tempting idea. If we wanted to, we could radically reduce the scope of government—defend the country, give poor people enough money to live decently, and leave it at that. But this isn’t the TPP vision. The TPP vision is that you can keep your Medicare benefits and balance the budget by ending congressional earmarks, and perhaps the National Endowment for the Arts.

What is most irksome about the Tea Party Patriots is their expropriation of the word patriot, with the implication that if you disagree with them, you’re not a patriot, or at least you’re less patriotic than they are. Without getting all ask-notty about it, I think a movement labeling itself patriotic should have some obligation to demonstrate patriotism in a way other than demanding a tax cut. In their rhetoric, the Tea Party Patriots do not sound as if they love their country very much: they have nothing but gripes. Yes, of course, these are gripes against the government, not against the country itself. But that distinction becomes hard to maintain when you have nothing good to say about the government and nothing but whines to offer the country.

Times are tough, and some sympathy is due. Still, times have always been tough for many folks for one reason or another, and people didn’t always resort so quickly to all-purpose bellyaching, did they? But in recent years inchoate rage against the government has almost become part of our civic religion: the short list of values we all do share. To say, “Yeah, the government’s okay by me,” or even to express gratitude for a country that sends you a Social Security check and pays your medical bills, actually does seem almost un-American. Our new national motto is from the movie Network: “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore.” And what is “this”? Ask not.

How the U.S. Engages the World with Social Media

State Department Social Media Logo The perception of the U.S. abroad varies widely, and is subject to many forces, including world events, media coverage, policy changes, and presidential administrations. In response, the U.S. State Department, America’s public relations branch, has been charged with the difficult task of engaging in the dialogue surrounding the controversial policies discussed in almost every corner of the world.

Social media has proven to be a valuable tool in this regard, and the State Department has made impressive gains in their mission to turn conflict into conversation. Cabinet officials, foreign dignitaries, and embassies are experimenting with ways to inject America’s voice into the global chatter. Some of their experiments are paying dividends that few expected. Here’s a look at some of these efforts.

Social Media Can Bridge the “Last Three Feet”

President Barack Obama garners an enormous response when he solicits the country’s opinion online, as when he circumvented the White House press corps with YouTube-submitted questions this past February — an effort that received over 11,000 responses.

But when Obama fields Internet () questions from local residents during an overseas trip, the numbers are staggering — a whopping 17,000 responses during a visit to Ghana, and an astounding 250,000 in South Africa (though some responses did come from outside Africa). Given the relatively smaller population and shallow Internet penetration, these numbers speak volumes about the world’s web-based engagement with U.S. leaders.

Obama’s responses alone, just out of sheer publicity, may have some positive impact on foreign attitudes. But, for Bill May, Director of the State Department’s Office of Innovative Engagement (i.e. social media), being at the epicenter of online chatter is what he thinks of as the “new version of the last three feet.”

May was invoking Edward R. Murrow’s famous public diplomacy strategy where he wrote, “The real crucial link in the international exchange is the last three feet, which is bridged by personal contact, one person talking to another.” In public diplomacy, there are a latent number of people throughout the world who will befriend America’s vision after a thorough conversation. The reverberation of Obama’s message, coupled with the hyper-local follow-ups from America’s Embassies, can reach more of those hidden friends than ever before.

Indeed, when Elizabeth Tradeau of the U.S. Embassy in Pretoria tweeted, “South Africa, what’s the impact of new media in your view of America?” there was a mix of negative and positive comments. But, one in particular seemed to prove May’s point:

America is Fun

For every serious news or political blog, there are likely twice as many dedicated to sex, drugs, or rock n’ roll. And when Bill Clinton pioneered a youth outreach strategy answering questions from MTV fans, it was the infamous “boxers or briefs” question that garnered him the most attention. In the end, entertainment is just so much more appealing.

Seizing on this strategy, the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia has seen Facebook () fan growth of jaw-dropping proportions — an increase from 36,000 to 120,000 in roughly one month. On a single Facebook post, the embassy often receives between 700 to 1,000 comments (that’s about 10 times more comments than The Huffington Post). This is especially astonishing when you consider that less than 10% of Indonesia’s population even uses Facebook.

So, what’s their winning strategy? Simple social games, where users can dress up Barack Obama in local garb and share the creation with friends, or suggest what Obama should eat during his next visit.

While the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia does delve into some culturally thorny issues, foreign diplomat Tristram Perry admits that Facebook is “not a good venue for hard policy topics.” Instead, he says “we make our Facebook fun. Jazz, technology, tourism — we have a fascinating history. There’s lots about it that people admire.”

The embassy saw huge traffic from an essay contest to win a trip to “Barack Obama’s America” (Hawaii and Chicago), where winners will blog about their tour for what will surely be a stadium’s worth of jealous peers back home.

Education

Many of the messages texted to President Obama plead for “not a hand out, but a hand up,” says Trudeau of the South Africans she speaks with. Centuries of colonization, war, and resource scarcity have paralyzed innovation in many parts of the world. To jump-start the economy, the U.S. helps plant what is seen as the seed of technological innovation: Education.

For instance, in the humble rural township of Mamelodi, just outside Pretoria, the Embassy provides technological and scientific literacy to disadvantaged children. In the Mae Jemison reading room, which is named after the first female African-American astronaut, children are “introduced to the Internet,” says Trudeau. She tells them, “This is how you use Google (); this is how you get an e-mail account,” and my personal favorite as a writing teacher, “don’t use Wikipedia () as a source.” The students’ curiosity is limitless. During class, Trudeau observes that students bunch up by computers “six-deep” in line “looking, exploring,” and are eager to learn more.

The current business culture in South Africa points to some promising returns on this educational investment. “It’s like being in Silicon [Valley] or San Francisco in 2004 with Biz Stone and all of his friends,” said one visiting American at a local technology conference, as recounted by Trudeau. “It’s journalists, it’s editors, it’s tech entrepreneurs … they all use Twitter () to connect. It’s a very interconnected, very engaged community,” Trudeau notes.

Media Outreach

The State Department has taken to providing timely information on crises and policy via social networks. During an attempted coup in Madagascar, a rumor began circulating that the threatened president was seeking refuge in the U.S. Embassy. After refuting the rumors themselves, the State Department tweeted out the correct information, “and immediately we started getting retweets and people saying ‘thanks for the correction,’” notes Daniel Schaub, Director of Digital Communications for the State Department. “And, then within probably an hour or so, the traditional media had caught it,” helping to blanket the spreading fire of a rumor that “could potentially put embassy staff at risk.”

Moreover, Schaub’s department manages Secretary Hillary Clinton’s blog, Dipnote, which provides rich context for otherwise curt policy pronouncements. Dipnote is now cited by news organizations such as the Associated Press and The New York Times for detailed explanations of Department policy and procedure.

The importance of this supplementary information should not be underestimated. A recent study suggests that the clarity of White House rhetoric can impact the political world. “If the president is able to define an intervention in simple, compelling terms, he is likely to get considerably more support from the public,” says Associate Professor Cooper Drury, editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy Analysis.

Conclusion

Every single Department official I spoke with admitted that the era of one-way broadcasting is dying. The ubiquity of mobile and social technologies means the U.S. must now have an ear as well as a voice. It seems like an unprecedented opportunity to open a dialogue with people and communities all over the world who would otherwise be isolated.

It should be noted that members of the State Department often disagree with their bosses on best practices. But, they also understand that conversation, even in 140 characters, may one day mean the difference between conflict and peace.

May 17, 2010

In U.S. visit, Mexican president to discuss drug war, immigration

Image via Wikipedia

By William Booth
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, May 17, 2010; A08

MEXICO CITY -- President Felipe Calderón arrives in Washington this week for a two-day state visit that was supposed to be a celebration of U.S.-Mexican cooperation in his drug war. Instead, it is likely to showcase Mexico's frustration over Arizona's tough new immigration law, which Calderón has described as anti-Mexican.

The measure requires police enforcing another law to question a person's immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the United States illegally. Its passage has put the hot-button issue of illegal immigration on the bilateral agenda.

At home, Calderón -- who is usually cautious, lawyerly and scripted in his public remarks -- speaks daily about the fight against the drug cartels, but rarely about immigration, although roughly 10 percent of Mexico's population lives in the United States.

He has been frank in his condemnation of the Arizona law, however, saying it "opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement" and noting that the U.S. economy was built with a lot of Mexican sweat, legal and not.

In remarks to Spain's El País newspaper Friday, he asserted that the law is creating tensions between the two countries.

In Mexico, the political class from right to left has closed ranks to deplore the Arizona measure, which has dominated front pages and TV news here. Elected officials from the three major parties are exhorting Calderón to challenge it in Washington, where on Wednesday he will be greeted with pomp and ceremony at the White House and feted with high-end Mexican fusion food at a state dinner, and will address a joint session of Congress.

But the atmosphere might be a little strained.

Soon after Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed the measure last month, Mexico issued a rare "travel advisory" to its citizens warning them of possible harassment in the state.

The governors of the six northern Mexican states that share a border with the United States have denounced the law and said they would boycott an upcoming governors' conference in Phoenix.

The Mexican Embassy in Washington is preparing amicus briefs to support lawsuits by civil rights groups seeking repeal of the measure. The head of Mexico's National Human Rights Commission declared the law "xenophobic." Mexican universities said they would suspend student-exchange programs involving Arizona. And cartoonists here have had a field day depicting an Arizona without Mexicans, where U.S. citizens are forced to cook their own food, cut their lawns, pick their crops and care for their children.

"So, yes, we don't like this law," Mexico's interior secretary, Fernando Gómez-Mont, said at a forum in Washington this month.

The drug issue

There are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, most of them from Mexico. Mexican migrants, legal and not, sent home more than $20 billion last year, the second leading source of legitimate foreign income in the country after oil sales. Illegal drug sales may account for as much as $25 billion.

The U.S. ambassador to Mexico, Carlos Pascual, who worked for six months to arrange the state visit for Calderón, has sought to calm emotions, repeating at every opportunity that President Obama and his administration consider the Arizona measure "misdirected" and are exploring legal challenges.

A former Mexican foreign minister, Jorge Castañeda, now a professor at New York University, has described the law as "stupid but useful," meaning that it may help create momentum for federal immigration reform.

The law also appears also to be feeding Mexican frustration -- usually expressed off the record -- that the United States is not doing enough in the drug war. Mexican officials are complaining more openly that authorities here are under grenade attack by drug-smuggling syndicates while pot pharmacies in Los Angeles sell bags of marijuana to so-called patients.

Authority figures in Mexico are coming under increasing assault. This weekend, a former presidential candidate mysteriously disappeared, and police think that kidnappers or drug gangs may be responsible. Diego Fernández de Cevallos, a powerbroker in Calderón's political party, went missing in the central state of Queretaro near his ranch, leaving his empty car and few clues.

Under the Merida Initiative aid package, U.S. taxpayers have contributed $1.3 billion to the fight, money that pays for Black Hawk helicopters, night-vision goggles and armored cars and trains for Mexican police and judges. Obama wants to continue the aid initiative and has asked for another $310 million for Mexico in 2011.

Calderón, who has described his northern neighbors as "the biggest consumers of drugs in the world," said last week that the binational struggle against drug trafficking will still be at the center of discussions in Washington.

"The president has to say something about the Arizona law in his speech, but he is really speaking more to Mexicans," said Raúl Benítez Manaut, an expert in national security issues and immigration at the Autonomous University of Mexico. "He also will be careful not to upset the Republicans in Congress, whom he needs to continue the fight against the cartels."

Systemic corruption

At home, Calderón has complained that billions of dollars in drug profits empower the cartels while the United States, with its freewheeling gun market, is the source of most of the weapons smuggled into Mexico.

More than 22,700 people have died in drug-related violence since Calderón declared war against the cartels in December 2006 and sent the first of 50,000 Mexican troops into the streets.

U.S. officials might push back, however. Although they have publicly applauded Calderón's courage in attacking the cartels, the fight has revealed systemic corruption in Mexico.

The latest shock was the discovery of a pile of documents that the government seized from the an associate of Mexico's most-wanted drug trafficker, Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán. The stash included lists of Mexican federal agents, their names and numbers and references to intelligence shared by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

Taliban Hold Sway in Area Taken by U.S., Farmers Say

Image via Wikipedia

By CARLOTTA GALL

LASHKAR GAH, Afghanistan — Farmers from the district of Marja, which since February has been the focus of the largest American-led military operation in Afghanistan, are fleeing the area, saying that the Taliban are terrorizing the population and that American troops cannot protect the civilians.

The departure of the farmers is one of the most telling indications that Taliban fighters have found a way to resume their insurgency, three months after thousands of troops invaded this Taliban stronghold in the opening foray of a campaign to take control of southern Afghanistan. Militants have been infiltrating back into the area and the prospect of months of more fighting is undermining public morale, residents and officials said.

As the coalition prepares for the next major offensive in the southern city of Kandahar, the uneasy standoff in Marja, where neither the American Marines nor the Taliban have gained the upper hand and clashes occur daily, provides a stark lesson in the challenges of eliminating a patient and deeply rooted insurgency.

Over 150 families have fled Marja in the last two weeks, according to the Afghan Red Crescent Society in the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah.

Marja residents arriving here last week, many looking bleak and shell-shocked, said civilians had been trapped by the fighting, running a gantlet of mines laid by insurgents and firefights around government and coalition positions. The pervasive Taliban presence forbids them from having any contact with or taking assistance from the government or coalition forces.

“People are leaving; you see 10 to 20 families each day on the road who are leaving Marja due to insecurity,” said a farmer, Abdul Rahman, 52, who was traveling on his own. “It is now hard to live there in this situation.”

One farmer who was loading his family and belongings onto a tractor-trailer on the edge of Lashkar Gah last week said he had abandoned his whole livelihood in Sistan, Marja, as soon as the harvest, a poor one this year, was done.

“Every day they were fighting and shelling,” said the farmer, Abdul Malook Aka, 55. “We do not feel secure in the village and we decided to leave. Security is getting worse day by day.”

“We thought security would be improving,” he said.

Those who remain in Marja voiced similar complaints in dozens of interviews and repeated visits to Marja over the last month.

“I am sure if I stay in Marja I will be killed one day either by Taliban or the Americans,” said Mir Hamza, 40, a farmer from Loye Charahi.

Combat operations in Marja ended at the end of February and the military declared the battle won. But much of the local Taliban, including at least four mid-level commanders, never left, stashing their rifles and adopting the quiet farm life.

A Taliban resurgence was not entirely unexpected, especially now as the poppy harvest ends, freeing men to fight, and as the weather warms up. But the military had seen Marja as a “clear and hold” operation in which the first part, clearing the district of militants, would be wrapped up fairly quickly. In fact, clearing has proved to be a more elusive goal.

By April, life had picked up. People began coming forward to receive government handouts and farmers were happily taking money in return for destroying their poppy crops, whose opium provides a main source of Taliban financing. As villagers saw their neighbors benefiting, more were encouraged to approach the district administration as well, despite Taliban threats.

The change was even more pronounced in the adjacent Nad-e-ali district, where the Taliban have been weakened and security improved thanks largely to the operation in Marja.

But the insurgents’ extensive intelligence network in Marja has remained intact, and they have been able to maintain a hold over the population through what residents have described as threats and assassinations. In April members of the Taliban visited one old man late at night and made him eat his aid registration papers, several residents said, a Mafia-style warning to others not to take government aid.

At the beginning of May, a well-liked man named Sharifullah was beaten to death, accused of supporting the district chief and not paying taxes to the Taliban. His killing froze the community and villagers stopped going to the district administration.

“The Taliban are everywhere, they are like scorpions under every stone, and they are stinging all those who get assistance or help the government and the Americans,” Mr. Rahman, the farmer, said.

The population remains divided in its support for the Taliban, with a portion providing shelter and assistance to the militants and few daring to oppose them. In some places, people are still lining up for aid, indicating a certain resistance to Taliban strictures.

But many repeat the Taliban contention that the Americans are bent on long-term occupation of Afghanistan and seek to eradicate their religion, Islam, and impose an alien, Western-style democracy.

Villagers complained of indignities imposed by the foreign forces, the arrest and killing of civilians, house searches that violate the ethnic Pashtuns’ sense of honor and the sanctity of the home, and checkpoints where they are forced to lift up their shirts, which is deeply shaming for Afghans, to show that they are not carrying explosives.

Yet they also say that the American Marines are good with the people, only shoot at those who shoot at them, and are showing greater restraint than the British forces who came before them. Farmers tell stories of how the Marines pursue Taliban fighters but leave the farm workers alone, and how in the last week four known insurgents have been killed in airstrikes as they were laying roadside bombs at night.

Nevertheless Afghans express frustration that the American military, which defeated the Taliban so resoundingly in 2001, cannot clear Marja, a district of 100 square miles, of Taliban insurgents that residents estimate number no more than 200.

More Taliban fighters have arrived in recent weeks, slipping in with the itinerant laborers who came to work the poppy harvest and staying on to fight, villagers and officials said. Haji Gul Muhammad Khan, tribal adviser to the governor of Helmand Province, said he had reports of Taliban arriving in the area in the last three or four days.

Everyone in Marja knows the Taliban, since they are village men who never left the area although they quit fighting soon after the military operation. Gradually they found a stealthier way of operating, moving around in small groups, often by motorbike or on foot.

They fire several shots at an American patrol and then flee, or throw aside their weapons and pick up spades, posing as innocent farmers. At least three midlevel Taliban commanders were seen operating in the area in recent weeks, moving among the farms, staying in different houses every night, and asking for food and shelter from the villagers as they go.

The villagers do not dare give them away to the Americans because they are local men and can exact revenge, villagers said.

“We know who the Taliban are,” said Muhammad Ismail, 35, a farmer from Loye Charahi said. “When they attack the police or the Americans, they put down their weapons and sit down with ordinary people. We cannot say a word against them, they know us and we know them pretty well. We know Taliban are killing people and threatening people, but we cannot stand against them, or tell Americans or police about their whereabouts.”

Mr. Khan, the governor’s adviser, expects a further exodus of civilians. “People are just waiting for the harvest to be over and then they will leave,” he said.

C. J. Chivers and an Afghan employee of The New York Times contributed reporting from Marja, and Taimoor Shah from Lashkar Gah.

Terror Spreads in Bangkok

Manish Swarup/Associated Press

Thai policemen marched to remove a barricade put up by antigovernment protesters near the victory monument in Bangkok on Monday. More Photos »

By THOMAS FULLER and SETH MYDANS

BANGKOK — Chaotic gun battles in central Bangkok marked a new phase of the city’s spiraling violence Monday as residents hoarded food and the government warned die-hard protesters that they should leave their encampment or risk “harmful” consequences.

Protesters roaming the lawless streets of a strategically important neighborhood near the protest zone threatened to set fire to a gasoline truck as bonfires, some from piles of tires, sent large plumes of black, acrid smoke into the sky.

Security forces armed with assault rifles were deployed in greater numbers across the city after many firefights, including a nighttime grenade attack on the five-star Dusit Thani hotel, a landmark in the city.

The attack and a subsequent prolonged gun battle suggested that Thai security forces were up against more than just protesters with slingshots and bamboo staves. The mayhem of the crackdown, which follows two months of demonstrations by protesters who are seeking the resignation of the government, has made it difficult to understand who is battling whom.

A government official, Korbsak Sabhavasu, said late Monday that a protest leader had called him to discuss an end to the standoff, a development that offered a glimmer of hope that the violence might subside. The Associated Press reported that Mr. Korbsak said he had told the protest leader that the army would stop shooting if protesters returned to their base in the city.

But there have been many false starts in recent weeks, making a resolution to the crisis far from imminent.

The government suggested that Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister who was ousted in a 2006 coup, was behind the shadowy forces battling the army on Bangkok streets.

Satit Wongnongtoei, a minister in the prime minister’s office, spoke of a “commander who lives overseas” who is intent on “causing violence and loss of life as much as they can by using weapons of war.”

The government on Sunday issued a ban on certain banking transactions linked to companies and accounts held by Mr. Thaksin and his family.

The protest movement defiantly encamped in Bangkok began as a reaction to Mr. Thaksin’s ouster but has expanded to resemble a large social movement by less affluent segments of Thai society rebelling against what they say is an elite that tries to control Thailand’s democratic institutions.

On Sunday, Mr. Thaksin issued a statement through his lawyer that called on “all sides to step back from this terrible abyss and seek to begin a new, genuine and sincere dialogue between the parties.”

It seems plausible that some of the attacks in recent days have been carried out by disaffected elements of the military or police. The attack on the Dusit Thani hotel in the early hours of Monday may have been a retaliatory move by a faction loyal to Khattiya Sawatdiphol, a renegade major general allied with the protesters who was shot on Thursday. Security experts speculate that General Khattiya, who died on Monday, was shot by a sniper stationed at the Dusit Thani hotel, which has served as a base for hundreds of security personnel members in recent weeks.

The government has insisted that soldiers fire only in self-defense, but the death toll has been lopsidedly among civilians since violence intensified last Thursday. Government statistics said that 34 civilians and two soldiers — including General Khattiya — had been killed since Thursday, and 256 people been wounded, almost all of them civilians.

Protesters have attributed some of the deaths to snipers who are stationed in several places around the city on top of tall buildings.

The Foreign Ministry explained in a memo distributed on Monday that the sharpshooters had been deployed to “look out for danger and protect others.”

The memo summarized in chilling detail a video taken of a military sniper shooting someone suspected of carrying a “bomb,” the memo said, without more detail.

“The shot was made in a controlled manner,” the memo said. One of the soldiers in the video is then quoted saying, “Man is down! I see it!”

Most of the violence has occurred in the streets that surround the protesters barricaded encampment, where protest leaders appear increasingly anxious.

Nattawut Saikua, a hard-line protest leader, said he was prepared to negotiate without preconditions if the government would accept a cease-fire. He dropped the demand he had made Sunday for mediation by the United Nations.

The government responded that there would be no talks while the violence continued.

With the apparent involvement of various armed groups, the fighting may have moved beyond the point where any protest leader can declare an effective cease-fire.

The protest site, in the heart of Bangkok’s main commercial district, which at its peak was filled with tens of thousands of demonstrators, had thinned to perhaps 2,000 on Monday afternoon. Where entire families had camped in a festive atmosphere, mostly men remained. Garbage was strewn everywhere.

Army aircraft circled above the site dropping leaflets urging people to leave. Guards in black with red scarves escorted people who chose to leave. A man circulated among the guards handing out small packets of sticky rice along with 100 baht bills, worth about $3.

Protesters filled small Red Bull energy drink bottles with gasoline and then demonstrated their plan to propel them by swinging a golf club. Small groups of people occasionally looked up and pointed at surrounding department stores where they said they believed snipers were hidden.

Outside the site of the sit-in, on Rama IV road where much of the worst fighting has taken place, trucks loaded with tires raced in, unloaded them as if at a racetrack pit stop, and sped away. Crowds watching from a safe distance applauded. The tires were stacked by the road to replenish a continually burning barricade.

At one point in mid-afternoon, the crowd, at a new makeshift stage near the Khlong Toey slum, faced the burning wall of tires and sang the national anthem.

Tension radiated from battle zone, and at one point unknown gunmen carried out an attack on a hospital.

Hundreds of businesses and bank branches were closed after the violence caused the government to declare a national holiday and postpone the opening of schools.

The American Embassy in Bangkok canceled a “town hall” meeting about the security situation scheduled for Tuesday because of the risk that those attending would be put in “harm’s way,” a statement from the embassy said Monday. Embassy officials will instead address concerns of Americans living in Bangkok on the Internet.

One American photographer, Paula Bronstein of Getty Images, described being trapped in the Dusit Thani when the attacks occurred.

“If you’ve ever heard the sound of a grenade, it’s really loud if it goes off really close,” she said. “It didn’t take long before we realized the hotel was under attack. The gunfire was just indescribable. It was just nonstop. And it was coming from both directions.”

After the attack guests were told to go into the basement of the hotel, where they remained until morning.

“There was a woman who had fainted, and they were trying to make her come to and it was really just more confusion and everyone was yelling,” Ms. Bronstein said.

The hotel closed its doors to guests Monday afternoon.

Mariko Takayasu contributed reporting.

May 16, 2010

Singapore Democrats - When rights can mean life and death

Tuesday, 11 May 2010 Chee Soon Juan

"Are you Dr Chee Soon Juan?" an elderly woman asked tentatively.

"I need to talk to you," she continued as she confirmed my identity. "I have been found guilty of poisoning my husband. But I was forced into confessing. The officer who questioned me was very harsh."

"She was not allowed to call me when she was at the station," her son jumped in. "She couldn't even have a lawyer present unlike in Hong Kong or London." The following day the media reported on the case (here).
This is a little known fact in Singapore. Most people are not aware that if you are called up for questioning by the police, you don't have the right to a counsel while you are being interrogated. And if you are forced into confessing to the crime, in its exceedingly difficult to get the court to accept your retraction of the confession and that it was made under duress.

This seemed to be the case when District Judge Ng Peng Hong threw out Madam Fong Quay Sim's (pictured above) defence that she was forced into confessing that she had poisoned her husband by lacing his food and drink with arsenic.

The 68-year-old granny said during the trial that Station Inspector Faisal Sheik Abdul had pressured her into signing the confession by interrogating her in a very harsh manner. Judge Ng concluded that "there was no intense interrogation", threw out Mdam Fong's defence and convicted her. Sentencing was postponed.

Is Mdm Fong telling the truth? How did the Judge know that there was no intense interrogation? He had only the word of the interrogation officer. Which raises another question: Would the police sink so low as to force confessions from suspects?

They have in the past.

In 1989, Mr Zainal Kuning was charged together with two accomplices, brothers Mohd Ismail and Salahuddin Ismail, for savagely stabbing a coffee shop caretaker to death. During the trial the prosecution produced a signed statement from Mr Zainal confessing to the crime.

At the hearing Mr Zainal retracted his confession and contended that he was forced into signing it. He said that he was denied food and drink for several hours when he was questioned, and claimed that he was repeatedly marched to the toilet where he was drenched, and then made to stand on a chair under the air-conditioner holding two telephone books with arms outstretched.

The accused even said that at one point, an officer grabbed his hair and banged him against the wall. After 24 hours, the accused gave in and confessed.

Rather fortuitously, however, during the three years in remand awaiting trial, Mr Zainal learned from one of his fellow inmates that the inmate had overheard a man by the name of Man Semput boasting how he had killed the caretaker. He even showed off the scars on his chest when the victim threw boiling water at him.

Mr Zainal engaged the late J B Jeyaretnam as counsel. Jeyaretnam argued that the police had no evidence linking his client to the murder scene. There was only the confession which his client had said was forced out of him.

Hight Court Judge (the late) T S Sinnathuray rejected Jeyaretnam's argument and like, Judge Ng Peng Hong in Mdm Fong's case, ruled that the confession was made voluntarily.

During the late stage of the trial, the police managed to locate a man by the name of Mohd Sulaiman aka Man Semput. Fingerprints lifted at the scene of crime confirmed that Mr Sulaiman was their man, not Mr Zainal.

DPP Bala Reddy had no choice but to withdraw the prosecution's case.

After more than three years in prison and coming close to death, Mr Zainal and the Ismail brothers walked free.

The three men subsequently sued the police officer who interrogated them and accused the police of torture, malicious prosecution and defamation. They lost. The media gave scant coverage to the matter.

Mr Chris Lydgate, in his book Lee's Law: How Singapore crushes dissent, chronicled the case. He wrote:

What was more perplexing was the wall of silence surrounding the case...The entire country, it seemed, was unwilling or unable to to discuss the issue. The trial might as well never have happened.

This leads me back to my original point. How is it that suspects can be left with police interrogators for questioning during which confessions can be involuntarily extracted with no witnesses around? How can judges accept such an arrangement?

Abuses by police officers who are under pressure to deliver results can, and have been shown to, occur. Without a lawyer present during interrogation, suspects are at the mercy of their captors. Innocent people like Zainal Kuning, Mohd Ismail and Salahuddin Ismail can be victimised.

In the present case, did Mdm Fong really poison her husband? Did Inspector Faisal force her to confess? Only Mdm Fong and Mr Faisal know.

Here comes the million-dollar question: Why not remove all doubt by ensuring that suspects have lawyers and/or witnesses present during interrogation? If the evidence is strong enough the suspect may want to voluntarily confess on the advice of his/her lawyer. At the very least, accusations of confession under duress can be eliminated.

Such butchery of due process must be reviewed without which we could be wrongly convicting innocent people and even sentencing them to their deaths. With the mandatory death penalty in play in Singapore, such a review is all the more urgent.

Calling Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Law Society and Singaporean lawyers...

God and democracy - Inside Indonesia

A Christian church is asserting its democratic rights by suing the mayor of Depok

Melissa Crouch

The construction of the church has been on hold

Sukron Hadi

Places of worship are an extremely sensitive subject in contemporary Indonesia. Recent years have seen radical Islamic groups take the law into their own hands as they damage the places of worship of religious minorities, or force others to close by threats of violence. Local government leaders are also becoming more proactive against religious minorities, sometimes cancelling permits for places of worship that have already been granted. One of the first victims was the Christian Batak Protestant Congregation of Cinere, a town in the province of West Java. In May 2009, the mayor of Depok cancelled their permit to build a place of worship, despite the fact that construction of the building had already commenced. In response, the church asserted their democratic rights by filing a legal case in the Administrative Court of Bandung.

This case is significant for two main reasons. First, it is highly symbolic because the church belongs to the largest protestant denomination in Indonesia, with an estimated 3.5 million members across Indonesia. Second, this is one of the first court actions taken by a church against a mayor in relation to a dispute over a permit for a place of worship in Indonesia.

History of the dispute

On 13 June 1998, the mayor of Bogor granted the church a permit to build a place of worship. Four months later, the construction of the church commenced. Throughout 1999, however, large demonstrations by various radical Islamic groups such as the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) were held in opposition to the building of the church. In July 2000, the then mayor of Depok, Badrul Kamal, sent a letter to the church recommending that construction cease temporarily until the opposition died down. This effectively caused all construction works to grind to a halt until 2008, when the church decided to recommence building. The church wrote to the mayor of Depok, Nur Mahmudi Ismail, on three separate occasions asking for clarification of the validity of their permit and for protection. They had only completed the foundations and the first level of the building before their plans were again thwarted by demonstrations held in opposition to the church.

Then on 27 March 2009, with no prior warning to the church, the mayor issued a decision which cancelled the church’s original permit. Betty Sitorus, the current deputy chair of the church building committee, suspects that this decision was made to gain support for the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) in the 2010 local elections in the city of Depok. According to her, when the church questioned the mayor about his decision, he emphasised the fact that he made the decision as a Muslim and as a representative (and former chair) of PKS.

Local groups opposed to the building of the church

Sukron Hadi

The mayor’s decision was based on submissions from various government bodies and community groups, such as the Muslim Community Solidarity Forum, an Islamic group that claims to represent the aspirations of local Muslims in Depok. According to the forum head, they demanded that the church permit be revoked because it had acted unfairly by failing to comply with the Joint Regulation of 2006 on Places of Worship, which outlines the process to obtain a permit.

The mayor also relied on letters from the local branch of the Ministry of Religion and from the newly-established Inter-religious Harmony Forum, a body established by the reforms introduced by the 2006 joint regulation at the provincial and city/district level to facilitate the application process for permits for establishing places of worship and to assist in the prevention and resolution of disputes. In fact, the ministry’s brief letter simply recommended that it was the responsibility of the mayor to take action to resolve the conflict. Similarly, the Inter-religious Harmony Forum of Depok in fact did not suggest that the mayor cancel the existing permit, as explained by Dr Lodewijk Gultom, one of the forum’s two Protestant representatives. According to Gultom, the forum has been unable to prevent escalating tensions and, through a misinterpretation of its recommendation, was used by the mayor to legitimise his decision. This eventually led the church to take court action.

Resistance through the courts

The church, represented by its current national leader, Reverend Bonar Napitupulu, and the Cinere church pastor, Reverend Mori Sihombing, filed a lawsuit in the State Administrative Court of Bandung on 6 May 2009 challenging the decision of the mayor to cancel the building permit. Represented by lawyer Junimart, they argued that the church had obtained the permit legally and had fulfilled the conditions of both national and local building laws. They claimed that the mayor had no legal basis on which to cancel their permit, and that his decision was against the right to freedom of religion under Indonesia’s constitution. Junimart pointed out that the church had obtained the signatures of over 100 local residents as evidence of local support for the court – more than is required under Joint Regulation of 2006.

The mayor tells a different story. In responding to the church’s allegations, he referred to the changes that have taken place since decentralisation and the introduction of the joint regulation. He points out that the village of Cinere was only formed in 1999 as part of the process of decentralisation, and that the permit was obtained before this time. This means the head of the village of Cinere never had the opportunity to consider the application. Further, he argues that the original permit could no longer be valid because it was issued under an old regulation concerning places of worship that is no longer in operation.

However, Joint Regulation of 2006 confirms that permits issued prior to 2006 are still valid and legal. According to Fatmawati Djugo, lawyer for the Indonesian Christian Church of Bogor in a similar case in 2008, this provision clarifies that a place of worship which holds a permit under the old system does not need to obtain another permit. In addition, she emphasised that a mayor or district head does not have the power to cancel permits merely because there is opposition from the local community. A clear dispute resolution process is set out under the Joint Regulation. If there is dispute over a proposal for a place of worship, a meeting must first be held by the local community. If that fails to resolve the dispute, consultations are to be arranged with the local division of the Ministry of Religion and the local Inter-religious Harmony Forum. If that is not successful, the case can then be taken to court.

The Cinere case is among the first examples of a church congregation taking its case to court

In the Depok court case, the evidence was inconclusive at best. Both sides produced local Muslim residents as witnesses. Those for the plaintiff testified that they did not have any objections to the construction of the church, while the witnesses for the defence testified to the history of opposition to the church. Large crowds of people turned up in force at the court hearings demanding the closure of the church, many wearing clothes bearing the words ‘Front Pembela Islam’ (Islamic Defenders Front), the name of a radical Islamic group infamous for its use of violence.

After ten years of uncertainty, the court stepped in. On 29 October 2009, the court found that the church had obtained the permit legally under the old regulation and that the building fulfilled the requirements of national and local building laws. The court found that the church was not misusing the permit, which is the only ground on which a mayor could legitimately cancel a permit. On this basis, the court ruled in favour of the church. The mayor has since appealed the decision.

Regulating places of worship

As this incident suggests, local authorities continue to use conflict over places of worship as opportunities for political gain in the highly competitive political atmosphere that has developed since the downfall of Suharto in 1998. The church in Cinere is not the only example. The permit of the Indonesian Christian Church of Bogor was cancelled in 2008, as was the permit of the Santa Maria Catholic church of Purwakarta in October 2009. Both of these incidents occurred in the province of West Java, which has a high rate of church closures by radical Islamic groups. According to the Indonesian Christian Communication Forum, 70 of the 400 churches closed under the New Order (1966-98) occurred in West Java. In 2005 alone, the National Indonesian Communion of Churches recorded that about 50 churches were destroyed or forced to close in the province. Against this background, this case is notable because a religious minority turned to the legal process to assert their newly-found democratic rights. It is even more significant that they won the case.

Regulating the construction of places of worship and containing conflicts arising in the process remains a significant challenge for the national government. As these cases show, the Joint Regulation introduced in 2006 has largely failed to prevent attacks or closures on the places of worship of religious minorities. The outcome of the mayor’s appeal against the church in Cinere is a significant test case in this regard – even if the church is successful, the real issue is whether the court decision will have any effect in practice.

Melissa Crouch (m.crouch@unimelb.edu.au) is writing a PhD at the University of Melbourne’s Law School. She is a research assistant on Professor Tim Lindsey’s Federation Fellowship project, ‘Islam and Modernity’ in the same faculty.

May 18, 2010

Social Media Can Bridge the “Last Three Feet”

America is Fun

Education

Media Outreach

Conclusion

May 17, 2010

By CARLOTTA GALL

By THOMAS FULLER and SETH MYDANS

May 16, 2010

Melissa Crouch

The construction of the church has been on hold

Sukron Hadi

History of the dispute

Local groups opposed to the building of the church

Sukron Hadi

Resistance through the courts

The Cinere case is among the first examples of a church congregation taking its case to court

Regulating places of worship

Inside Indonesia 100: Apr-Jun 2010