Neo-cons, ex-Israeli diplomats push Islamophobic videoElectronic Intifada - 24 Sep 2008rr r r rr r rr r rr r rr r rr rrr rWASHINGTON (IPS) – A group of hard-line United States neo-conservatives and former Israeli diplomats, among others, are behind the mass distribution, ahead of the November US presidential election, of a controversial DVD that critics have denounced as Islamophobic. The group, the Endowment for Middle East Truth, is working with another organization called the Clarion Fund, which produced the 60-minute video and is itself tied closely to an Israeli organization called Aish Hatorah.
New York activists protest Leviev fundraiserElectronic Intifada - 24 Sep 2008rr r r r rr r rr r rr r rr rr rrr rManhattan’s elite were aghast to be greeted yesterday evening by 25 chanting protesters when they exited their SUVs and limos to attend a glitzy fundraiser sponsored by Israeli billionaire Lev Leviev for the Museum of the City of New York. Leviev has been criticized for his businesses’ human rights violations and unethical practices in Palestine, Angola, Namibia and New York City.
“Incoherent” agreement spells the way forwardElectronic Intifada - 24 Sep 2008rr r r rr r rr r rr r rr r rr rrr rBEIRUT (IPS) – The Lebanese unity government has finally came to terms with its ministerial declaration after weeks of political haggling. What promises and threats does the incoherent declaration hold for Lebanon in a polarized local and regional context? “The ministerial declaration is an impossible document that carries many contradictions,” says Oussama Safa, director of the Lebanese Center for Political Studies, a local Lebanese think tank.
Ahmadinejad in New YorkCampaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) - 24 Sep 2008Summary: In a blistering speech before the United Nations General Assembly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blamed “a few bullying powers” for creating the world’s problems; and while he insisted Iran’s nuclear activities are peaceful, he said those powers, are building or maintaining nuclear stockpiles themselves, unchecked by anyone. source: CNNread more
At least the City doesn’t go on strikeUKWatch.net - 24 Sep 2008You almost want to shake their hands in admiration. The total amount of city bonuses for the last year, it turns out, is 12.6bn. Which is more, apparently, than the nation’s entire budget for transport. And you can be certain some bankers will hear that and think: “That’s outrageous ? if the economy didn’t waste all that money on buses we could be paid what we’re really worth.” And despite being the most vastly paid section of society, no one can explain a single thing they do that’s of any value at all. If they had their bonuses stopped they could hardly go on strike, as it’s unlikely that it would cause much of an emergency, with people appearing on the news to say: “Unless they get back to buying files of bonds and selling them half an hour later for three million pounds profit, I’m going to run out of share speculation, and I can’t put up with that, as I’ve got three kids.” So it’s doubtful the army would have to be brought in, with a general giving a briefing: “Men ? this is a mission none of us ever wished to have to undertake. But it is our solemn duty to provide the service to Queen and country currently remaining unfilled by those people normally charged with the task. The Duke of Sutherland’s third fusiliers will scream: “Buy! Sell! Buy! Sell!”, and it will then fall to Her Majesty’s ninth dragoon guards to get pissed and spray vintage champagne at a woman’s cleavage. But they try to justify it. So Richard Lambert, director-general of the CBI, said the bonuses are “a very effective way of motivating employees”. In which case it’s a good job the rest of the country’s workforce manages to get motivated without a 12.6m bonus or hospitals would be full of frail old patients squealing: “Can you change my sheets dear, I’ve had an accident,” and the nurse replying: “Four million quid or you can do them yourself.” The CBI leader added that the bankers “contribute enormously to the vitality of the country”. And they do give Britain a certain colourful charm, much like Sweeney Todd and Jack the Ripper. Bob Diamond, of Barclays, must be especially vital then, as he picked up a 35m bonus for running the bank, including the writing off of 2bn in bad debts. No doubt he desperately wanted to reject his bonus but just couldn’t bear the thought of failing to bring vitality to the country. But we mustn’t regulate them, because then we run the risk of driving them out of the country. Maybe this argument will catch on during burglaries. If the thief is caught running out of the house with the jewellery, he’ll say: “Don’t try and stop me or you might frighten me off and I’ll leave the house altogether.” Then the family will discuss the matter, saying: “Hmm, he’s got a point”, and instead warn the burglar that if he keeps doing it he’ll be a fool to himself as there’ll be nothing left to rob. And now the distaste for these bankers has become so great that even the Prime Minister and Chancellor are denouncing “bonus culture” ? although it’s them who’ve spent the last 11 years nurturing and encouraging it. Not only that, but they’re the bloody government; if they don’t like it, unlike the rest of us, they could do something to stop it. But they only say this because they know it’s now in tune with popular sentiment. Maybe this is the strategy to revive their popularity, by repeating the majority’s view, and Brown’s next speech will begin: “Ooh, isn’t that Gordon Brown a disaster. The sooner he’s gone the better.”
Wave goodbye to democracyUKWatch.net - 24 Sep 2008The Irish voters’ rejection of the Lisbon Treaty on June 12 was a victory for democracy in Europe.Working people voted No to the renamed EU constitution because it represents a direct attack on their hard-won democracy and decent public services and creates the conditions for a race to the bottom in wages and conditions. Trade unionists across Europe have seen what the treaty promises, with a number of recent judgements from the European Court of Justice effectively outlawing strike action. The ECJ, a core EU institution, has ruled in the Viking, Laval, Ruffert and Luxembourg cases that, in different ways, business rights trump trade union rights to take industrial action and bargain collectively for their members. Highly political ECJ rulings are also being used to open up health services to competition and to create a single market for health care across the EU, which would have huge implications for the National Health Service. Under the Lisbon Treaty, this court for capital would become the supreme court of the EU over and above national courts and would have the power to act like the US Supreme Court. As one of the architects of the EU project Jean Monnet said back in December 1952 at the inaugural meeting of the first EU court, “I greet you not only as the court of the European Coal and Steel Community but also as the precursor of a supreme European federal court.” To make this a reality, Lisbon is the first treaty to enshrine the superiority of European law over the law of its member states by referring in Declaration 17 to the primacy of ECJ case law. Over the years, this court has already asserted the superiority of EU law, its direct effect on member states, regardless of national parliaments and the constitutional character of the legal order from which European law emanates. One ECJ judge once characterised the ECJ as “a court with a mission,” that mission being to extend the powers of the EU as widely as possible by means of the case law of a court that is notorious for “competency creep.” If Lisbon comes into being, the Council of Ministers would no longer be an intergovernmental body responsible to national governments but, instead, an EU government in its own right. The European Commission would become the executive in this new set-up, charged with drawing up and implementing EU law. And, if either of these unelected bodies does not further EU goals as laid down in the treaty, it could be taken to the ECJ, which would make decisions on the basis of deepening the EU, without a democratic mandate. The Lisbon Treaty would also make the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding on the member states and their citizens in all areas of European law. This would give the twenty-seven ECJ judges in Luxembourg the final decision on the wide range of human rights issues covered by the charter, as against national constitutions, supreme courts or the Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which is not an EU body. The ECHR makes its rulings based on the European Convention on Human Rights alone. It does not have to take account of other rights set out in EU treaties, such as business’s right to “freedom of establishment,” in the way that the ECJ does. However, the ECJ has legal power to enforce its rulings on EU member states, whereas the ECHR does not. Some trade unionists have supported the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the mistaken belief that it would strengthen their rights to collective bargaining and strike action, thinking that European law would override national law in such areas to their advantage. However, the new treaty states that the charter is to be interpreted in the light of the ‘Explanations’, which state that “the modalities and limits for the exercise of collective action, including strike action, come under national law and practices.” Moreover, the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the charter may be limited “to meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union.” In the Kjell Karlsson case, the ECJ also claimed: “It is well established in the case law of the court that restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights, in particular in the context of a common organisation of the market.” It is clear from these precedents that these “fundamental rights” are not fundamental at all, but could be varied or restricted in the interests of a “common organisation of the market” or to advance “objectives of general interest pursued by the community.” In this post-democratic nightmare, the market in effect becomes the substitute for democracy and human rights become marketised. Giving unaccountable European court judges the final competence to decide on a large area of public policy covered by the EU is more about power than rights. Human rights standards in the EU member states are not so defective that they require a supranational EU court heavily influenced by corporate power to lay down laws on over 500 million people. In fact, it is often the other way round, as recent ECJ cases have shown. It is generally agreed that recent ECJ rulings have already found in favour of business interests. The illegal imposition of the discredited Lisbon Treaty would make matters considerably worse and should be resisted by all democrats and trade unionists. Brian Denny is spokesman for Trade Unionists Against the EU Constitution. This article first appeared in the Morning Star
Brown’s SpeechUKWatch.net - 24 Sep 2008Prime Minister Gordon Brown?s keynote speech to the Labour Party conference was billed as a declaration of war on the ?something-for-nothing? society. It served as a perfect reminder of why his government is so detested. The Labour conference gathered under conditions of financial meltdown of the global capitalist system, and a political meltdown of the Labour Party. Just days before, the US treasury had outlined a trillion-dollar rescue package for Wall Street after a fall in share values reminiscent of the Great Crash of 1929. In the UK, the collapse of Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS)?Britain?s largest mortgage lender?saw the city and government engineer a 12 billion take-over by Lloyds TSB in breech of competition rules. Yet such is the precariousness of Brown?s position that there was open speculation in the media that he might be the first prime minister to be rescued by an economic crisis. Whereas the weeks and months before the conference had been plagued by revelations of a plot to unseat Brown in advance of a general election due next year, the financial turmoil of the preceding days had reportedly led many in the party to question whether now was the best time to depose a sitting prime minister?not least because it might lead to a run on the pound. Brown?s speech to conference on Tuesday was considered a pointer as to his future. His performance, it was felt, would finally demonstrate to the party and the country his strengths and underscore his claim that?as former chancellor of exchequer?his was the safe pair of hands needed to guide Britain through volatile economic times. There was even evidence, it was claimed, that Brown would solidarise himself with public hostility to the bailout of the City of London and the concerns of those millions of Britons struggling with debt, rising prices and potential job losses. Hadn?t the prime minister signalled such an approach with his claim that the stock market crisis had been caused by ?irresponsibility? and short-term bonuses that were unrelated to long-term profits? And wasn?t his highly trailed intention to inform conference that ?on the side of hard working families is the only place I?ve ever wanted to be. And from now on it?s the only place I ever will be,? further proof? But the central message of Brown?s speech?his assertion that ?Nobody in Britain should get to take more out of the system than they are willing to put in? and his pledge to crack down on the ?something-for-nothing? society?was not directed against the banks and city speculators, but the working class, and its most vulnerable members at that. Brown stipulated, ?We are and will always be a pro-enterprise, pro-business and pro-competition government.? Referring to calls for a change of direction, he insisted that any ?new settlement? between the market and government would remain determinedly ?pro-market.? In keeping with this pledge, there was no mention of the more than 70 billion in taxpayers? monies the government has spent bailing out the Northern Rock Bank. Nor did his injunction against those taking ?more out of the system? than they put in apply to those for whom Washington has created a ?Toxic Asset Dump.? The transference of the banks? liabilities onto the federal government will massively increase the government budget deficits and demands sharp cuts in essential public spending that will create untold misery for millions of American workers and their families. In fact, the Brown government is reportedly considering a similar package for British banks, at the urging of the US. Brown and Darling depart for Washington at the end of the week. While Brown has made great play of his demand for a stronger international regulatory system to manage the global markets, there are increasing demands for Britain to emulate the Federal Reserve?s unprecedented transfer of wealth from working people to Wall Street. According to reports, leading economists are stipulating that a Toxic Asset Dump is required urgently in Britain, at a potential cost of some 200 billion to UK taxpayers. A Treasury spokesman stated that while the ?UK does not have plans to implement a U.S.-style resolution regime…the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have made it clear we are prepared to take whatever action is necessary in the interests of financial stability.? At the same time, the government has also made clear that it intends to break its own fiscal rules on public borrowing in a further attempt to bail out the City of London. The UK budget deficit is now expected to reach a record 100 billion in 2010/2011?double the previous post-war record. Borrowing must rise to ?support the economy,? Chancellor Alistair Darling said, signalling the introduction of new fiscal rules to this end. This can only be recouped by massive cuts in public spending further down the line. Already, in his own conference speech, Darling had ruled out any clampdown on City bonuses, stating that it was necessary to ?remain level-headed and avoid knee-jerk reactions.? Brown did not take heed of such prescriptions against ?knee-jerk reactions? in his own remarks. The government is well aware that its bailout of the super-rich will increase public unrest?hence Brown?s efforts to scapegoat immigrants and the unemployed for social injustices. ?Our policy is that everyone who can work must work, so that the dole [unemployment benefits] is only for those looking for work or actively preparing for it,? Brown said. ?We recognise the contribution that migrants make to our economy and our society, but the other side of welcoming newcomers who can help Britain is being tough about excluding those who won?t and can?t,? he continued. ?That?s only fair to the tax-paying public,? he claimed, promising to ?create rules that reward those who play by them and punish those who don?t.? His attack on the unemployed comes under conditions in which tens of thousands of people have been laid off over the last months as a direct result of the credit crunch. Many thousands more will join them, with unemployment expected to rise at 500,000 per month, far surpassing the 2 million mark by Christmas. While those whose jobs, homes, pensions and savings now hang in the balance are to receive no help from government and are instead treated as potential spongers and parasites, there will be no penalties imposed on those responsible for enabling a gargantuan accumulation of super profits for a few by means of massive indebtedness, financial speculation and fraud. Acknowledging that some bankers had taken actions that had proved to be ?disastrous,? Darling gave them a free pass, stating that ?Banks will always take risks, and that?s right and proper.? It remains to be seen how Brown?s speech will play out in the City and in the media. For its part, the Trades Union Congress had already pledged its loyalty to Brown?despite the fact that the government?s economic policies will impose further hardship on millions of its members in the public sector already subject to a below-inflation wage cap. TUC leader Brendan Barber congratulated Brown as the man best placed to steer Britain through ?tough times.? ?It is at times like these, where new ways forward have to be fashioned not just at home but on a global level, that our country most needs the wisdom and experience of this Labour government?led by Gordon. ?We will inevitably have our disagreements. But there will always be more that unites us than divides us. And it?s during the hard times, like now, that the enduring strength of our relationship matters most.? Ultimately, Brown?s future will be determined by the financial oligarchy on whose behalf Labour governs. And some of its leading figures have already made clear they are opposed to any ?sops? to public opinion. In an open letter to the Financial Times on September 22, 11 ?captains of industry,? including Whitbread chairman Anthony Habgood, Simon Wolfson, the chief executive of Next, and Severn Trent chairman Sir John Egan, attacked any talk of regulation. ?The lesson of recent years is clear. Economies must carefully manage public spending and reduce unnecessary budget deficits,? they wrote. ?They should have simple taxes and competitive tax rates and reduce the burden of regulation.? In its September 22 editorial, in advance of Brown?s speech, the Guardian also warned that the government should not forget where its fundamental loyalties lie. ?It is healthy for Labour to reconsider its attitude to business, after getting much too close in many ways,? it declared. ?But this debate needs to start with some acknowledged truths. The first is that?like it or not?Labour has become a party of the free market, and that sudden retreat would bewilder voters as much as encourage them.?
Cousin of Jean Charles de Menezes??We fear another cover-up?UKWatch.net - 24 Sep 2008Patricia da Silva Armani is the cousin of Jean Charles de Menezes. She spoke to the World Socialist Web Site on the eve of the coroner?s inquest convened into the innocent Brazilian?s brutal murder by a police gun squad. On July 22, 2005, Jean Charles was shot to death on a tube train at Stockwell station by an anti-terrorist unit that was investigating the failed explosions on London?s transport system the previous day. He had been covertly trailed by a police surveillance team as he left his home and made his way to work as an electrician. No attempt was made to detain him en route. At Stockwell station, some 26 minutes later, he was followed onto a train where, without warning, plainclothes, armed police officers grabbed Jean Charles, pinned him to the seat and pumped 11 bullets at point blank range into his body?7 directly into his head. Even though it was quickly established that Jean Charles was innocent, police and government spokesmen and the media continued to claim that a suicide bomber had been shot. It subsequently transpired that claims that Jean Charles had behaved ?suspiciously? and had sought to evade arrest?all used to justify the police?s decision to open fire?were lies. Nonetheless, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) rejected any criminal proceedings against any of the officers directly involved in the shooting and those who commanded them, claiming that there was ?insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.? Instead, last November, the police were found guilty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 of ?failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare? of Jean Charles. This was despite the fact that the only justification for targeting Jean Charles was that he lived in the same block of apartments as someone under surveillance and had ?Mongolian eyes? and the campaign of misinformation by the police in the hours following the shooting. The coroner?s inquest is to be a purely ?fact-finding? investigation, with the coroner, Sir Michael Wright, having told the jury that it is not a trial and is not supposed to apportion blame. The de Menezes family is, however, seeking a verdict of unlawful killing in order to pressure the CPS into prosecuting police officers involved in the killing. WSWS: What are your memories of Jean Charles? What was he like? Patricia: I remember Jean Charles as my best friend. He was very good with the family a hard-working man. He was my first cousin. My uncle, his father, was the brother of my Mum. We lived in different parts of the country. I lived in Sao Pao and he lived in Gonzaga. But every year, my family went to Gonzaga on holidays, and we always met on different family occasions. We were very close. WSWS: What made him come to England? Patricia: For a better life. And to send money back to my aunt and my uncle back home. WSWS: How did you first hear about the shooting? Patricia: We were told that Jean Charles had been arrested. I was at work at that time. He was an electrician, working in a building. At night, he worked washing up in a restaurant. I was a cleaner. I finished work and went back to my house. I met another cousin, who was very upset. She looked desperate. She said, ?Patricia, you have to calm down, because Jean Charles has been arrested.? I said, ?Why? He hasn?t done anything.? They told me he had been accused of being a terrorist. I said, ?What? That is not possible.? And I called Alex, another cousin, who was at the police station in Brixton. And he told me, ?You should sit down because it is bad news, I think Jean Charles is dead. You should come to the police station.? I said, ?You are lying, he cannot be dead.? When I got to the police station, other cousins were there. I said, ?Alex, what is happening?? And he said, ?They do not assist us, they don?t help. They told us to go to hell.? So I said, ?Well, now we are here, we are helping. So why won?t they talk to us?? WSWS: How long was it between when Jean Charles was shot and when you were told about it? Patricia: 27 hours. He was shot in the morning on Friday, and all day the press were saying the police have killed a terrorist. And I thought, oh, they have shot a terrorist! OK? And when we were told Jean Charles had been arrested, we didn?t connect it because the shooting had happened one day before. Terrible! That day Jean Charles had not come home, but I thought he had gone out, to the bar, to a party, with his girlfriend…. I went to work the following day, and when I got back, my cousins were in my home to tell me that he had been arrested. I did not connect it, because they had been telling lies, lies, all the time. WSWS: What did you think when the police came out with all these lies about him running, wearing a thick black jacket, and having jumped over the ticket machines? This after telling you he had been shot. What were you thinking at the time? Patricia: I knew it was all lies, because I knew Jean Charles. He had been here four years, and many times he had been stopped by the police, many times. And he had no black jacket, no black jacket. And I was thinking, it is a lie, it is a lie. WSWS: Do you believe that you are going to get justice? Patricia: I hope that at this enquiry we will get the answer to our questions. How was it that Jean Charles was allowed to go all the way to Stockwell Station? The journey from the flat to Stockwell Station is a long way. Why didn?t the police stop him before? Why did the police let him get on the bus if they thought he was a terrorist? Why did the police let him inside the Metro? If they thought he had bomb, why did they let him carry on his journey? Did they know he was not a terrorist? This is my question, why? We want to know the truth, why was he killed in that way. WSWS: Do you think this will come out of the inquest? Patricia: Maybe. I hope, but we fear another cover-up. We fear the inquest will not show the truth. But I am hoping, do you understand? I am hoping. WSWS: The Independent Police Complaints Commission report that has come out has exonerated the police. They let the police go. They say they?ve done their job. In no case of a shooting of innocent people has any policeman ever been charged. The Crown Prosecution Service was also a cover-up. The only thing the police have been charged with is breaching Health and Safety regulations. Do you think the inquest is going to change that? Patricia: Yes, yes, I know. It is all a cover-up. I think nothing happens in these cases because…. This fine on the police…this doesn?t work, the police have to pay to the state, but the state is the police and the police are the state. WSWS: Do you think that the killing of Jean Charles was part of a broader attack on democratic rights? What do you think of the role of the police today? Patricia: I think it will be bad if they don?t punish the police, because if they don?t punish them it could happen again. WSWS: Do you think that the rights of people in this country are under attack? Patricia: Yes, I believe that the human rights, socialist rights and democratic rights of people in this country are being undermined, are under attack. That?s wrong, because it is not their fault but the fault of people with power. WSWS: The inquest is going to be a long one, but the police have been granted anonymity. They will be behind a screen in one part of the Oval cricket ground, giving evidence, and the family and everybody else will be at the other side. So how do you think truth will prevail? Patricia: This is what worries us, scares us, that it is starting with this anonymity. We, the family can see their faces. But we will not know their names or anything about them. And the public, which for me is the most important thing, won?t even be able to see their faces. WSWS: This shows it is political, not just mistakes by individuals, but the whole state defending its own. You are confronting not individual policemen, but the state apparatus defending its right to kill. Patricia: I agree with what you say, because if the public cannot see even the faces of the officers, they can carry on. They will do it, because we know that the police?s shoot-to-kill policy is continuing. This policy gives them the right to kill, me, or you. WSWS: How do we stop that from happening again? Patricia: The public must know the truth, the public must understand what happened. If there is no punishment, then it will happen again. I don?t think arresting them is the solution. They are not competent to do the work as a police force. I don?t ask for much. I don?t agree with those who say, oh you have to arrest, you have to kill you have to do this or that. No, no, no, those policemen must be expelled from the police force because they have not the competence to do their job. WSWS: Do you think that those who would replace them will not do the same if ordered to? The policy of shoot-to-kill is determined by individuals. Patricia: This has to end. They need more training, better training. But I don?t think that the policy of shoot-to-kill will finish just by training. I think that the day the United States stops thinking that they have to own the world, to stop invading other peoples, I think many things will get better. And yes, Britain, too. WSWS: When are the rest of the family coming over? Patricia: My aunt and cousin, Jean Charles?s mother and brother, are coming on October 4. They will not be here for the opening of the inquest. Myself, my cousin Alexandro and other members of the family will be there. We would like you to come, but I don?t know if it is possible because there is only room for 150 people, I am not sure if this includes all the press. But the proceedings will be reported on a web site. WSWS: This is very conscious and deliberate. Patricia: Yes. When I heard the inquest was going to be held at the Oval, I thought great, great. The public, lots of people will be able to assist and see what happens. And then I was told, no, they are not opening up the Oval, just a small room. They want to control everything.
Naomi Klein: “Now Is the Time to Resist Wall Street’s Shock Doctrine”Democracy Now - 24 Sep 2008While the collapse of this country’s financial system continues to send shock waves around the world, we speak to the bestselling author of The Shock Doctrine. Naomi Klein says the public should be wary of the Bush administration trying to use the crisis to push through more of the radical pro-corporate policies that helped cause it in the first place. [includes rush transcript]
Bush Admin Faces Congressional Skeptics on $700B Wall St. BailoutDemocracy Now - 24 Sep 2008Both Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Banking Committee lambasted the Bush administration’s proposed $700 billion bailout plan Tuesday. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke repeatedly clashed with almost every senator on the committee, all of whom focused on Wall Street’s culpability for the crisis. Many also brought up executive pay and emphasized the need for oversight of the Treasury. [includes rush transcript]
Headlines for September 24, 2008Democracy Now - 24 Sep 2008Bush Admin Pushes Bailout Plan, Buffett to Invest $5B in Goldman Sachs, Supreme Court Gives Last-Minute Reprieve to Death Row Prisoner Troy Davis, NY to Cut Public Funding Following Wall St. Woes, Bush, Ahmadinejad Address UN General Assembly, Thousands Attend Gen. Assembly Protests, Palin Meets Karzai, Uribe, Kissinger, Officials: US Spy Drone Crashes in Pakistan, Burmese Political Prisoner Released, Dems Cave to White House on Lifting Drilling Ban, Soldier Granted Conscientious Objector Status for Religious Beliefs, Michigan Police Accused of Beating African American Diabetic into Coma, Veterans Call for Bush, Cheney Arrest
