O human kind,We have created you from a single pair of a male and a female,and made u into nations and tribes,that you shall recognize one another and not that you shall despise one another.
Quran Ch.49, Verse 13.....
I'm against Racism,Prejudice,Selfishness,Oppression,Aggression,Militarism,Corruption,Corporatism,Poverty and those against God/Humanity/Nature.
Tehran city council has named a street after an American activist who was crushed to death by an Israeli military bulldozer in the Gaza Strip in 2003, a local newspaper has reported.
The report in the Hamshahri, a daily affiliated with Tehran's authorities, said the council has named the street Rachel Aliene Corrie. It said the sign would be placed in the city centre, but did not say when it would be displayed.
Corrie, a pro-Palestinian activist from Washington, was trying to prevent what she and other campaigners believed was a push by the Israeli military to demolish nearby Palestinian homes. She was 23 at the time of her death.
Iran does not recognise Israel and supports the Palestinians.
The decision marked the first time an Iranian street has been named after a US national since the 1979 Islamic revolution that ousted the pro-west shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi.
Before the revolution, at least three high streets in the Iranian capital were named after former US presidents: Dwight Eisenhower, John F Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt.
Iran and the US have not had diplomatic ties since militant students occupied the US embassy in Tehran, holding American diplomats hostage for 444 days from 1979 to 1981.
There are a few streets in the city named after western nationals, including Bobby Sands, a member of the IRA who died on hunger strike in a British prison in 1981, and Edward Brown, a British Orientalist known for his work on Iranian history.
Washington and its allies say Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and have imposed sanctions on the country. Tehran maintains its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.
After extensive correspondence between Palestinian human rights groups and the Israeli authorities, Israel agreed to return several fishing vessels confiscated off the coast of Gaza.
On 2 August, Israel brought the stolen ships to the Karem Abu Salem crossing with Gaza to return the ships to their owners. However, the boats had been stripped of their motors and fishing equipment; in some cases the missing equipment was worth thousands of dollars.
Israel also attempted to charge the boat owners for transportation fees to the Karem Abu Salem crossing — therefore the Palestinian fishermen refused the Israeli receipts for their vessels and returned to Gaza without their ships.
The Palestinian rights groups Adalah and Al Mezan released a statement on 4 August explaining that the returned boats had been confiscated from eight fishermen over the course of 18 months. The full statement by the rights groups is below.
The Electronic Intifada has continuously covered Israel’s repeated attacks on Gaza fishermen and the fishing industry. Israel has arrested fishermen, shot them dead and more recently attacked a small ship carrying human rights observers monitoring Israel’s harassment of fishermen.
In addition to physically attacking Gaza fishermen, Israel has prevented them from rightfully accessing deep sea waters — decimating the fishing industry, robbing Palestinians in Gaza of self-sufficiency and depriving Palestinians in Gaza from an affordable source of protein.
Israel’s attacks on the Gaza fishing industry takes place in the wider context of its systematic decimation of Gaza’s economy, through denying exports from the besieged territory, and through the bombardment of agricultural areas.
The full statement by Adalah and Al Mezan follows:
4 August 2011
Israeli Navy Releases Boats Confiscated from Gaza Fishermen without Equipment and Large Motors; Fishermen Refuse to take Boats
Adalah and Al Mezan continue to work intensively to secure the return of the boats and equipment belonging to fishermen from the Gaza Strip following its undue confiscation by the Israeli navy. The two human rights organizations are following the cases of eight fishermen whose boats were confiscated over the past 18 months
On 1 August 2011, after extensive correspondence, Adalah received a written response from the Israeli military prosecutor for the Israeli navy informing it that dozens of fishermen from Gaza would be permitted to go to the Karem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom) crossing to collect small fishing boats (hasakat) that were confiscated from them by the Israeli navy over the course of the past 18 months. However, the military prosecutor also informed Adalah that any outboard motors over 25 horsepower on the boats had been dismantled and would not be returned to their owners, on the pretext that there was a legal prohibition against the export of such engines to Gaza.
When the fishermen arrived at the crossing to collect their boats on 2 August 2011, they were further shocked to discover that all they were given were the empty hulls of the fishing boats: in addition to larger motors, all of the fishing equipment and supplies that were onboard had been removed, in some cases worth tens of thousands of shekels. For example, on 26 April 2010, the Israeli navy raided the fishing boat of fisherman Mr. Fayyad Murtaji along the Gaza coast, arrested him and other people who were present on the boat, and impounded his vessel. The navy released the men soon afterwards but kept the fishing boat and equipment, which included fishing nets worth more than NIS 13,000 shekels, an outboard motor worth NIS 21,500, diving suits, fishing tackle, and search lighting, together worth thousands of shekels.
Furthermore, the fishermen were then required to pay the transportation fees for moving the boats from Israel to the Karem Abu Salem crossing, at a cost of between NIS 3,500 and 5,000 each. In addition, the fishermen are expected to pay for the transportation of the boats from the landlocked crossing to seaports. All the fishermen refused to take receipt of their boats and returned home without them.
The military prosecutor’s response follows extensive legal correspondence between Adalah - on behalf of the fishermen and Al Mezan Center for Human Rights - and the Office of the Navy Prosecutor over the past 10 months. In the correspondence, Adalah Attorney Fatmeh El-‘Ajou rejected the navy’s claims that the confiscation of the boats came in response to violations of security restrictions and for sailing in a closed military zone, arguing that the boats were impounded within the maritime areas of the Gaza Strip in permitted fishing zones.
As Adalah emphasized in a letter dated 20 July 2011, the refusal to permit the import of 25- horsepower outboard motors to Gaza on the basis of the Defense Export Control Law - 2007, which prevents the export of security equipment from Israel into the Gaza Strip - was illegal in these cases, which entail the return of illegally-seized goods from the Gaza Strip and not exported goods.
The military prosecutor for the Israeli navy conditioned the return of the fishing boats on written commitments from the fishermen that they would observe “the security restrictions in the maritime zone off the coast of Gaza and the orders of the Israeli army not to violate the security restrictions,” and “forfeit their right to compensation as a result of the lengthy duration of the impounding of the fishing boats.”
Adalah further argued, in a letter dated 8 September 2010, that the impounding of the fishing boats and the conditions imposed by the Israeli navy constituted a grave violation of the rights of Gaza residents to occupation and property under both Israeli domestic law and international law.
Attorney Mervat An Nahhal of Al Mezan stated that the confiscation of the fishing boats from Gaza comes within the broader context of the Israeli maritime blockade on the Strip, which is imposed by force of arms by the Israeli navy. Fishermen are exposed to serious rights violations that tread on their dignity and undermine their ability to work, even while fishing in permitted areas. Dozens of fishermen have been killed, injured and detained, their property has been illegally seized, and many of them have been driven into poverty and unemployment. Attorney An Nahhal argued that these practices constitute grave violations of international law, and form part of the collective punishment that is imposed on Gaza. They further violate the prohibition on targeting civilians and their livelihoods in the context of Occupation and armed conflict. She further stated that Adalah and Al Mezan would continue to work together on these cases to gain justice for the fishermen.
Published on Tuesday, July 12, 2011 by On the Commons
Republicans ignore incompetence, bloat and corruption at the Pentagon
by David Morris
In all the talk about the federal deficit, why is the single largest culprit left out of the conversation? Why is the one part of government that best epitomizes everything conservatives say they hate about government—- waste, incompetence, and corruption—all but exempt from conservative criticism?
Of course, I’m talking about the Pentagon. Any serious battle plan to reduce the deficit must take on the Pentagon. In 2011 military spending accounted for more than 58 percent of all federal discretionary spending and even more if the interest on the federal debt that is related to military spending were added. In the last ten years we have spent more than $7.6 trillion on military and homeland security according to the National Priorities Project.
In the last decade military spending has soared from $300 billion to $700 billion.
When debt ceilings and deficits seem to be the only two items on Washington’s agenda, it is both revealing and tragic that both parties give a free pass to military spending. Representative Paul Ryan’s much discussed Tea Party budget accepted Obama’s proposal for a pathetic $78 billion reduction in military spending over 5 years, a recommendation that would only modestly slow the rate of growth of military spending.
Indeed, the Republican government battering ram appears to have stopped at the Pentagon door. This was evident early on. As soon as they took over the House of Representatives, Republicans changed the rules so that military spending does not have to be offset by reduced spending somewhere else, unlike any other kind of government spending. It is the only activity of government they believe does not have to be paid for. Which brings to mind a bit of wisdom from one of their heroes, Adam Smith. “Were the expense of war to be defrayed always by revenue raised within the year … wars would in general be more speedily concluded, and less wantonly undertaken.”
The Tea Party revolution has only strengthened the Republican Party’s resolve that the Pentagon’s budget is untouchable. An analysis by the Heritage Foundation of Republican votes on defense spending found that Tea Party freshmen were even more likely than their Republican elders to vote against cutting any part of the military budget.
What makes the hypocrisy even more revealing is that the Pentagon turns out to be the poster child for government waste and incompetence.
In 2009 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found “staggering” cost overruns of almost $300 billion in nearly 70 percent of the Pentagon’s 96 major weapons. What’s more, the programs were running, on average, 21 months behind schedule. And when they were completed, they provided less than they promised.
The Defense Logistics Agency had no use for parts worth more than half of the $13.7 billion in equipment stacked up in DOD warehouses in 2006 to 2008.
And these are only the tips of the military’s misspending iceberg. We really don’t know how much the Pentagon wastes because, believe it or not, there hasn’t been a complete audit of the Pentagon in more than 15 years.
In 1994, the Government Management Reform Act required the Inspector General of each federal agency to audit and publish the financial statements of their agency. The Department of Defense was the only agency that has been unable to comply. In fiscal 1998 the Department of Defense used $1.7 trillion of undocumentable adjustments to balance the books. In 2002 the situation was even worse. CBS News reported that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted, “we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.”
Imagine that a school district were to reveal that it didn’t know where it spent its money. Now imagine the Republican response. Perhaps, “Off with their desktops!”
How did Congress’ respond to DOD’s delinquency? It gave it absolution and allowed it to opt out of its legal requirement. But as a sop to outraged public opinion Congress required DOD to set a date when it would have its book sufficiently in order to be audited. Which the Pentagon dutiful did, and missed every one of the target dates. The latest is 2017 and DOD has already announced it will be unable to meet that deadline.
Adding insult to injury, last September, the GAO found that the new computer systems intended to improve the Pentagon’s financial oversight are themselves nearly 100 percent or $7 billion over budget and as much as 12 years behind schedule!
Read More
