All Posts (6434)
Sort by
S 1959 "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" must be stopped at all costs.
Pick up your phone today and contact your US Senator's office to instruct them to vote "NO" on S.1959.
Click here for your Senators contact info:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Full PDF text if the bill:
http://...com/3a3y2z
If this bill is passed, and becomes law, your words and actions could be considered terrorism. S 1959 EVISCERATES FREE SPEECH, and empowers the govt. to declare ANYTHING they deem an "extremist belief system", instantly make you a terrorist, resulting in stripping of US citizenship, torture, and/or execution, with no habeas corpus rights, no ability to challenge even in the US Supreme Court.
Contact your Senator and let them know they will be looking for another job if they vote yes on this bill, which is now introduced into the Senate as S.1959 THIS BILL **MUST NOT** BECOME LAW, PERIOD.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1959
If this becomes law, your words could be considered "promoting an extremist belief system", and all they have to say is that you are using PLANNED OR THREATENED *FORCE* (DOES NOT HAVE TO BE VIOLENCE) --FORCE by exposing CORRUPTION, CRIMINALITY against "THE CIVILIAN POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES, *****OR ANY SEGMENT THEREOF" READ THE BILL MANY TIMES AND VERY CAREFULLY--YOU ARE THE TERRORIST (WHICH MEANS THEY CAN STRIP YOUR CITIZENSHIP, AND HAVE YOU TORTURED AND EXECUTED).
Senate is back in session today, do not hesitate, call, fax, email your Senator ASAP.
Click here for your Senators contact info:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Yours in Freedom and Liberty,
Gary Franchi
RTR National Director, www.RestoreTheRepublic.com
Managing Editor, www.RepublicMagazines.com
Founder, Lone Lantern Society of America, www.LoneLantern.org
Host, Lone Lantern Radio, www.WTPRN.com
..THIS IS AN URGENT ACTION ALERT:..
..S 1959 "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" must be stopped at all costs...
..Pick up your phone today and contact your US Senator's office to instruct them to vote "NO" on S.1959. ..
..Click here for your Senators contact info:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Full PDF text if the bill:
http://...com/3a3y2z
..
If this bill is passed, and becomes law, your words and actions could be considered terrorism. S 1959 EVISCERATES FREE SPEECH, and empowers the govt. to declare ANYTHING they deem an "extremist belief system", instantly make you a terrorist, resulting in stripping of US citizenship, torture, and/or execution, with no habeas corpus rights, no ability to challenge even in the US Supreme Court.
Contact your Senator and let them know they will be looking for another job if they vote yes on this bill, which is now introduced into the Senate as S.1959 THIS BILL **MUST NOT** BECOME LAW, PERIOD.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1959
If this becomes law, your words could be considered "promoting an extremist belief system", and all they have to say is that you are using PLANNED OR THREATENED *FORCE* (DOES NOT HAVE TO BE VIOLENCE) --FORCE by exposing CORRUPTION, CRIMINALITY against "THE CIVILIAN POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES, *****OR ANY SEGMENT THEREOF" READ THE BILL MANY TIMES AND VERY CAREFULLY--YOU ARE THE TERRORIST (WHICH MEANS THEY CAN STRIP YOUR CITIZENSHIP, AND HAVE YOU TORTURED AND EXECUTED).
..Senate is back in session today, do not hesitate, call, fax, email your Senator ASAP...
.. ..
..Click here for your Senators contact info:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
..
..Yours in Freedom and Liberty,..
.. ..
..
Gary Franchi..
..
RTR National Director, www.RestoreTheRepublic.com..
..Managing Editor, www.RepublicMagazines.com ..
..
..Founder, Lone Lantern Society of America, www.LoneLantern.org..
..Host, Lone Lantern Radio, www.WTPRN.com ....
despite critics - HOW ABOUT da "KANAKA MAOLI" FORCED INTO AMERIKANISM , ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED and RULED SLAVED and GENOCIED in THEIR OWN ILLEGALLY OCCUIPED SOVEREIGN " NEUTRAL" NATION and KINGDOM ?? { BY da ASSHOLES WHO WANT TO PUT THEM IN HERE} SEEMS A LITTLE ONESIDED TO MEGET FRICKIN REAL !!
|
Hawaii is ideal for Stryker unit, despite critics, according to the Army
Despite the insistence by local environmental groups that Fort Lewis is a better location than Schofield Barracks, Army planners say there is no room at the Washington state base for another 4,000-member Stryker Brigade Combat Team and their family members.
Fort Lewis was the home of the Army's first combat unit built around the 320 eight-wheeled, 19-ton vehicles. Opponents like environmental lawyer David Henkin believe the Washington facility has the necessary room and its location near an Air Force transport base makes it a better choice than Schofield Barracks.
"In 2004, we were told we can't look at Fort Lewis because Fort Lewis has two Stryker brigades and can't take a third," said Henkin, who represents Ilioulaokalani Coalition, Na Imi Pono and Kipuka in a long-running legal battle protesting the Army's plan to convert one of the 25th Infantry Division's units to a Stryker unit. "Few weeks after they said that, they moved a third Stryker brigade to Fort Lewis and to this day Fort Lewis has three Stryker brigades."
In the draft environmental impact statement that recommended Schofield Barracks as the home of the Army's fifth Stryker unit, Henkin said Army leaders again ruled out a fourth Stryker unit at Fort Lewis, which he claims is an about-face from the Army's previous position.
On Feb. 22, the Army released a supplemental environmental impact statement that recommended Schofield Barracks as the base for a Stryker team. The study rejects Fort Lewis, saying it is "at its maximum capacity" in supporting three Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. "Accommodating the full requirements of an additional SBCT (Stryker Brigade Combat Team) would require an additional 192 acres of space within the cantonment area, temporarily discounting the fact that facilities could not be constructed in time," the study says.
Fort Lewis is experiencing a family housing shortage of 1,100 units, the report says, and the surrounding Seattle-Tacoma area is "critically short on housing availability to meet these needs."
An additional Stryker brigade means the Army would need 2,000 units for married soldiers and their families, according to the 743-page study.
There also aren't enough training ranges and facilities to support an additional Stryker brigade at Fort Lewis, the report says. The Army estimates that it would need seven additional training ranges.
Army planners also reject Henkin's arguments that Fort Lewis' location next to McChord Air Force Base makes it a better location to meet the Army's rapid deployment intent to send a Stryker unit anywhere in the world in 96 hours.
"Stacking four Stryker units at one location would tie up deployment facilities allowing only SBCT to deploy at one time," the report states.
The environmental study says the Army considered more than 160 locations before limiting the selections to Schofield Barracks, Fort Richardson in Alaska and Fort Carson in Colorado.
The Army rejected:
» Exchanging a heavy brigade, equipped with tanks and armored vehicles from Forts Bliss and Hood in Texas and Fort Stewart in Georgia with 25th Division's Stryker brigade because Hawaii's training sites are not ideal for conducting maneuvers involving tanks and heavy armored vehicles.
» Exchanging the new infantry units planned for Fort Stewart and Fort Bliss with Hawaii's Stryker unit because the new infantry units won't be in place until 2011.
» Stationing the Stryker unit at an Army Reserve or Army National Guard installation because the 25th Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team is an active duty unit which has different requirements than those in the reserves.
» Permanently stationing the Stryker unit overseas because the Army is now bringing home 44,500 soldiers from Europe and South Korea and will no longer be stationing combat brigades overseas because of a change in national security and defense policies.
» Acquiring more land to support a Stryker unit at Fort Knox in Kentucky, Fort Drum in New York, Fort Riley in Kansas or Fort Polk in Louisiana because it would take too long.
» Permanently stationing the Stryker unit at Schofield Barracks but conduct all training away from Hawaii because it would be both time-consuming, expensive and disruptive to the soldiers and their families.
» Stationing the Stryker unit at Schofield Barracks temporarily and then moving it when construction is completed at its permanent post because it would be a waste of money to build duplicate sets of training facilities.
» Dropping the Schofield Barracks Stryker brigade from the Army inventory because it "would reduce the Army's combat forces at a time when those forces are under considerable strain. It would also leave only one BCT (brigade combat team) to meet the Army's mission requirements in the Pacific."
Nearly $700 million have been set aside for 28 construction projects since the Stryker project began nearly four years ago. Many have been completed or are in the final stages of completion.
Down with King CornBy Juan Wilson - The Garden Islandwww.IslandBreath.orgOnce upon a time, the Iroquois nation learned to plant corn in a system called “The Three Sisters”: The technique was to plant corn on mounds in a triad with squash and beans. The corn stood atop the mound and supported the beans. The squash surrounded the base of the mound and protected it. Each plant added chemical, hormonal and mechanical advantages to the other two. Fish heads were added to the mound as a secret ingredient to get things started. Together these plants provided a complete protein addition to the diet of the Iroquois. The Three Sisters have lasted for centuries.Today, if you go to the snack food, beverage or pet food aisles of your supermarket, you’ll be up to your eyeballs in corn. You’ve seen it - in the snack aisle the stacks of bagged Fritos, Cheetos and Tostados as high as you can reach.In the beverages aisle, the three liter soda bottles hold high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) mixed with water, at 100 calories per serving. And when you drink a 40 ounce can of Cran-Apple juice drink, unless you’re buying a product labeled “100% JUICE”, you’re really swilling water mixed with HFCS and trace amounts of some bulk fruit concentrate. The HFCS tastes as sweet as cane sugar, but is easier to ingest in large quantities. You never get satiated, as with cane sugar - and guess what - it’s cheaper.The remaining food aisles are also affected. Even a plain can of tomato paste, or a package of hot dogs now contains the magic ingredient of corn syrup.The Children of the CornWhy should we worry about corn based Coke and Cheetos? Why should we care that 40% of supermarket food contains HFCS? Because three-quarters of Americans are overweight and over a third of us are categorized as obese. In fact, between 1980 (when HFCS hit the shelves) and 2000, our obesity rate has doubled.The products containing corn syrup have been directly connected to our problems with obesity. The biggest health risks facing our nation are heart disease and diabetes. They both result from obesity. As it stands today, almost half of mature Americans are considered pre-diabetic.The increased consumption of industrialized corn products in our diet is no accident. There is an interlocking set of interests that has created a huge agricultural corn industry that involves Monsanto, ADM, Cargill, Tyson, Swift and others.A new element of the corporate corn industry is one of the biggest boondoggles in American agricultural history. A swindle of staggering proportions — Ethanol.Ethanol will not save the planet from global warming. It will not provide an alternative energy source we can rely on. It will, however create additional demand for corn. The increased demand for corn as a fuel additive will compete with its use as a food additive. The result is both food and fuel will be more expensive. A double whammy on the public.King Corn RulesIn 2007, three-quarters of all U.S. corn planted were Genetically Modified Organisms. Two-thirds of that GMO corn came from three companies that develop their seed corn here on Kaua‘i. Those GMO companies are Monsanto (Dekalb), DuPont (Pioneer) and Syngenta. Besides disease and chemical resistance, their genetic modification allows for linking a patented corn seed with copyright markers, requirements for specific chemical treatments, and even chemical triggers for germination and suicide. Some call this stuff Frankenfood.U.S. farmers planted over 90 million acres of corn last spring, up 15 percent from the year before. That is an area almost as big as California. Most of this “Corn Basket” crop is concentrated in the Midwest’s Mississippi River Basin. Mono-crop corn production has caused erosion and soil run-off. The overuse of pesticides and fertilizers has created a flow of toxic chemicals that follow the soil down the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. This brew, including much nitrogen and phosphorous, has created a “Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico as big as the state of New Jersey.There is a giant pyramid of destruction that flows down from the seed corn producers here on Kaua‘i and spreads across the world. The agricultural strategy of these GMO companies is to own it all.What do we have to fear?Two examples of why you should be afraid if you live on Kaua‘i:Example One: SyngentaSyngenta operates GMO seed-corn fields on the Mana Plain immediately adjacent to Waimea Canyon Middle School. Syngenta sprays the herbicide Touchdown on those fields. Three times since November of 2006, children at the school have become ill after the spraying. Teachers and parents have complained. Children have had to go to the hospital. Syngenta says it is not the herbicide but the smell of stinkweed that has caused a hysteria in the community. They claim Touchdown is perfectly safe to breath when they apply it.Gary Hooser introduced a bill to create a herbicide-free buffer around schools in Hawaii to protect our children. In the public hearing, the representatives of the Lingle administration’s departments of agriculture, health and education all testified against the need for such a bill. After all, Touchdown is safe. After great public pressure, the company has delayed spraying that particular field for the rest of 2008.Example Two: MonsantoMonsanto subleases most of the Alexander and Baldwin land in Hanapepe Valley. That represents a large part of the productive farmland in the valley where food crops like taro and rice were grown in the past. Monsanto’s Dekalb seed company develops GMO seed-corn there.On Sunday, Feb. 3, TGI reported “...shortly after 6 p.m. in Hanapepe, a 40-foot shipping container carried by the rain-swollen Hanapepe River struck the bridge and required police to close it for a time, according to emergency frequency traffic. Police were calling for a structural engineer to assess the damage before reopening it.”County workers warned residents that there were two more containers up the river that might come down and strike bridges or even block the flow of water under them. Eyewitnesses claim the floating container broke open when it hit the main highway bridge and some say they smelled pesticides and saw warning labels on packaging.This container continued out into Hanapepe Bay. It may still be spewing its contents out onto the reefs and possibly affecting nearby Salt Pond Beach Park.The alternative to FrankenfoodWe do not want our children to be the guinea pigs in a genetic experiment. We do not want industrial scale applications of pesticides and chemicals on our island. We do not want our productive farmland tied up by multinational corporations.No one really knows what long term health effects will result from eating genetically modified corn, but one thing is clear — this corn uses too much energy, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, refinement, packaging and transportation — obviously this is not a sustainable business plan.The path the GMO companies are on is leading to higher energy and food prices. The corporate petrochemical-dependent plan to own the means of producing food and energy won’t save the planet in a post peak oil world... their efforts will only make things worse. What we need is to grow our own food here on Kaua‘i. Every experimental corn plot is a field that could otherwise be used to produce local organic vegetables, eggs, dairy or meat to feed the people of Hawai‘i.The solution for Kaua‘i is for the GMO companies to phase out of their current operations here.• First, we should create a wide No-Pesticide-Spray buffer around not only our schools, as proposed by Gary Hooser, but also to buffer residential neighborhoods and existing traditional agland.• Second, the GMO companies should begin to turn over portions of their leased land for non-GMO use. They should provide plots for Community Gardens next to schools and residential areas. This should include their own efforts at establishing sustainable organic farming practices here on Kaua‘i that utilize their current employees.• Third, these companies should plan on a limited time for the continuation of their current GMO experiments on this island - a complete phase out of open field GMO tests and pesticide use by 2013.• Lastly, I urge the GMO companies to take a long hard look at the future and realize that local organic farming will need to be started en masse throughout the world and that they should be a part of it. Their technical expertise could be invaluable.• Juan Wilson is an architect/planner living on Kaua‘i in Hanapepe Valley. Visit www.IslandBreath.org for more about this and related subjects.mahalo:Nini'ane
“Bishop Museum has a collection of 14 million artefacts from Hawaii and Polynesia,” he said as we toured the premises, and explained that the institution was established in 1889 to house the family heirlooms and collections of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, last descendant of Hawaii’s King Kamehameha. In perhaps a foretaste of what was to come, the gallery that featured royal Hawaiian regalia included a standard vaguely reminiscent of Malaysia’s bunga mangga.The work of archaeologists like Dr Jiao has led to findings that the predecessors of the Austronesians – a grouping that includes Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians – migrated from coastal south-eastern China to Taiwan 5,000-6,000 years ago.From Taiwan, they dispersed to other parts of the Pacific, eventually reaching the Hawaiian isles. They also migrated to the islands of South-East Asia, particularly those in the Philippines and Indonesia and to Borneo. These seafarers, whom linguists call Malayo-Polynesians, finally landed in the Malay Peninsula some 2,500 years ago.The notion that the forefathers of so many Malaysians arrived from southeast China – be it 25 centuries or just a hundred years ago – is certainly thought-provoking.“Fujian is the most important place to trace the origins of the Austronesians,” said Dr Jiao. I was curious as to whether there are any remnants of the Austronesians in the province. “They have long ago been absorbed into the Han Chinese population,” he replied, and revealed that studies are currently being done on Austronesian influences in the Minnan (south Fujian) dialect.Tanshishan, one of the archaeological sites Dr Jiao mentioned, is near Fujian’s provincial capital Fuzhou, just an hour-and-a-half from my ancestral village, Jiangdou, which is located in an inlet. For all I know, since the pre-historic Austronesians were maritime people who inhabited coastal Fujian, they might have walked the very ground my grandfather’s house sits on today.To this day, Hawaii’s balmy climate, sunny skies and clean air continue to attract people from all over the world. Just specks in the vast Pacific Ocean and thousands of kilometres from anywhere, the islands are home to a hodgepodge of ethnic groups. The US Census Bureau website reveals that those of Asian descent constitute 40% of the population while Pacific islanders, including native Hawaiians are in the minority at just 9%. Most of all, the isles are a true melting pot with over 19% of the inhabitants claiming mixed ancestry.This has in no small way contributed to the diversity of one of Hawaii’s best kept secrets – its food. From French-Vietnamese pork sausage sandwiches to a Filipino-Hawaiian doughnut called “malasada” to scoops of ice-cream sold by weight, the choices are as varied as the populace.The traditional staple of the native Hawaiians, however, is a paste made of pounded boiled taro root called poi. Dr Jiao drew my attention to poi’s similarity with yuni (ornee), the rich Fujian dessert. Could yuni be a vestige of the lost Austronesian culture in Fujian and could it have evolved into poi when it reached the Hawaiian Islands?As Dr Jiao remarked, there are many questions still to be answered in this extraordinary saga.
HAWAII was NEVER part of usa ,Prove me wrong !
New Arizona law pressures Latinos to move
Exodus from jobs, schools after Arizona cracks down on illegal immigrants
The Associated Press
updated 1:28 p.m. HT, Fri., Feb. 29, 2008
PHOENIX - Parents are pulling students out of school. Construction workers are abandoning their jobs. Families are hastily moving out of apartments.
Two months after Arizona enacted a law punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants, the law is already achieving one of its goals: Scores of immigrants are fleeing to other states or back to their Latin American homelands.
Gaby Espinoza, who has been unemployed since November, is among those affected. She gave up looking for a job because of the law and may have to return to Mexico.
Espinoza's husband works here legally, but the law means that employers must ask her for papers, and she faces the daily fear of being deported.
"There's no work over there in Mexico," said Espinoza, who has three U.S.-born children. "People there live so poorly. Here, my kids have health insurance and Medicare. Over there, there's nothing."
Jose Perez Leon, a laborer in Phoenix who wants to return to his home in Mexico City, said jobs were plentiful when he came to Arizona about 18 months ago but began to dry up in the last three months.
"I don't like it here anymore because of everything that's happening," he said. "There's no work."
Challenges to the law
The Republican-controlled Legislature and Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano approved the law last summer out of frustration with federal efforts to curb illegal immigration. It took effect Jan. 1.
The law suspends or revokes the business licenses of violators and was intended to reduce the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak across the border. Illegal immigrants account for an estimated one in 10 workers in Arizona, which is the nation's busiest gateway for illegal immigration.
Business groups have challenged the law. While awaiting a ruling, prosecutors agreed to hold off bringing cases to court until at least March 1.
Republican state Rep. Russell Pearce designed the law to reduce spending on educating and providing health care for illegal immigrants and their families, and to encourage them to leave Arizona.
"Why in the world do (illegal immigrants) think they have a right to break the law? And we are the bad guys for insisting that the law be enforced? The public doesn't agree with that," Pearce said.
School enrollment drops
Many school officials believe the law has played a role in falling enrollment. The state's struggling economy and slumping housing market are other factors. Several districts reported losing more than 100 students at least in part because of the law.
The Isaac School District in central Phoenix, with a student body that is 96 percent Hispanic, lost 500 students, said district spokesman Abedon Fimbres.
The departure of so many students upsets people like Jackie Doerr, who is principal at Andalucia Primary School, which is in a separate district in west Phoenix. She said teachers had made progress teaching English to many of the children.
"They have to leave and start all over again. It's just so frustrating when you see how far they have come," Doerr said. "They are probably going to lose it, especially if they go back to Mexico. They are definitely going to have problems."
Driving Hispanics away
The law has also contributed to rising vacancies in Phoenix. The slow economy and a market overloaded with rental homes have exacerbated the problem, said Terry Feinberg, president of the Arizona Multihousing Association, a rental housing industry group.
Even so, property managers have reported that the law has also driven away Hispanics who are legally in the country, Feinberg said.
The construction industry says some of its workers are leaving, too, for California, Nevada, Colorado or Texas.
Veronica Avalos, an illegal immigrant who has lived in Arizona for 13 years, has been caring for her three children alone since January. Her husband's Arizona employer closed its doors. He now works in San Antonio building swimming pool decks.
Avalos and her children plan to join him in the coming months, but she worries how the move will affect her 11-year-old son, who is partially blind and has mild mental disabilities.
"We need to look for a school, services and programs for him. He has all those things right now," Avalos said. "But I don't know what will happen in Texas."
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
New limits for Navy sonar off Hawaii
 MSNBC.com |
Can't be used within 12 nautical miles of coast to protect whales
By SUDHIN THANAWALA
Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
updated 7:00 p.m. HT, Fri., Feb. 29, 2008
HONOLULU - A federal judge has ordered the Navy to take additional precautions when conducting sonar exercises off Hawaii that environmentalists say can seriously injure or kill marine mammals.
U.S. District Judge David Ezra said Friday the Navy cannot conduct exercises within 12 nautical miles, or 13.8 miles, of the shoreline, where species that are particularly sensitive to sonar, such as the beaked whale, are found.
Among other requirements, the Navy must look for marine mammals for one hour each day before using sonar, employ three lookouts exclusively to spot the animals during sonar use and stop sonar transmission altogether when one of the mammals is within 500 feet.
It must also gradually increase its sonar power before beginning any exercise to allow animals to leave the area before they can be harmed.
Similar order in California
The Navy faces a similar order in California, where a U.S. District Court judge last month issued an injunction that created a 12 nautical-mile no-sonar zone off Southern California.
The judge a few weeks later upheld the injunction, ruling against a waiver signed by President George W. Bush exempting the Navy and its anti-submarine warfare exercises from the decision.
The Navy has appealed the decision.
Although environmentalists had called for additional restrictions on the Navy, Ezra said he had to balance the need to protect the environment with the country's safety. The ruling rejects a call for the Navy to limit sonar use during humpback calving season and either stop the exercises or reduce sonar power in low visibility conditions.
National security argument
Government officials have argued the anti-submarine warfare exercises that use the sonar are essential to national security.
The Navy plans to conduct up to 12 of the exercises off Hawaii over a two-year period that began January 2007. The next exercise is expected to begin in March.
The Hawaii case was initiated by EarthJustice, which sued the Navy in May on behalf of five groups, including the Ocean Mammal Institute and the Animal Welfare Institute.
Paul Achitoff, an attorney with EarthJustice, said Friday he was happy Ezra realized the "military is not above the law."
Although the judge did not grant all of their demands, he said the training exercises will be safer for marine mammals.
An after-hours call seeking comment from a Navy spokesman wasn't immediately returned.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Diego Garcia: No Surprise At Rendition Claimshttp://www.mauritiustimes.com/290208sean.htmBy Sean CareyAt any one time, there are three or four British policemen on the island of Diego Garcia. Ostensibly they are there to maintain law and order in this tropical, palm-fringed part of the British Indian Ocean Territory.In reality, they confine themselves to confiscating pornographic DVDs and drugs from the island’s population of 3,500 which is made up of 1,000 US military personnel and 2,500 civilian workers -- all but three of whom come from the Philippines and Sri Lanka.What the members of the Royal Overseas Police certainly haven’t been doing is collecting evidence about the use of the island’s military base for the CIA’s practice of extraordinary rendition.Last week British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, was obliged to make a humiliating apology to MPs after it emerged that contrary to previous government statements from Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Kim Howells and Lord Malloch-Brown, two CIA flights -- one to Guantanamo Bay and the other to Morocco -- carrying rendition suspects did in fact land at Diego Garcia in 2002.Miliband stated that the two detainees remained on board the planes while refuelling took place and neither was subject to torture by "waterboarding" or any other method.US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, who had previously issued a denial on British TV in 2005 about the use of British facilities for rendition contacted the Foreign Secretary to apologise for the "administrative error".In the Commons, Miliband denied that there was any sort of cover up and stated that he believed that the US had acted "in good faith". But Gordon Brown on a visit to an EU summit in Brussels expressed his disapproval stating he viewed the matter as "a very serious issue".Relations between London and Washington are now said to be strained.But the big surprise is that the news of the CIA flights came as a surprise to the Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary. It certainly shouldn't have done. As long ago as 2004, retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey – a veteran of the first Gulf War and now a professor at the West Point military academy -- made a claim on US national public radio which he repeated in 2006 that there was a prison facility for "high value" terrorist suspects on Diego Garcia.The allegations were also the subject of discussion at a session of the House of Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee investigating the British Indian Ocean Territory in January.Two obvious questions then: if this revelation about a prison on Diego Garcia wasn’t true why would someone of McCaffrey’s history and status make it up? And why didn’t the British government order an in-depth investigation when the general made either his first or second statement?Diego Garcia, a horseshoe-shaped coral atoll running 35 miles from tip to tip, is home to one of the most strategically important US bases and along with those on the American mainland and the Pacific island of Guam provides a world-wide security umbrella.The 60 plus islands in the Chagos archipelago were illegally detached from the colony of Mauritius in 1965 before the country's independence in 1968 under a deal struck between the US and Harold Wilson's Labour government at the height of the Cold War.The islands owned by the copra company, Chagos Agalega, were then made the subject of a compulsory purchase order and the freehold passed to the Crown. The 2000 or so islanders who lived in the archipelago were forcibly removed by the British authorities between 1968 and 1971 and dumped in Mauritius and the Seychelles.Once this process was completed, the largest and southernmost island in the group, Diego Garcia, was made available rent-free by the British authorities to the US military for its military base.Successive British governments, both Labour and Conservative, then attempted to cover their tracks by pretending that the islanders whose ancestors had originally arrived on the islands in the late eighteenth century were merely "temporary workers" who had been repatriated to their places of origin.The plight of the Chagossians was ignored for many years until news of what had happened was first reported in the Washington Post in 1975. The story was then picked up by other sections of the world’s media.The British government worried about the increasing amount of adverse publicity felt obliged to act and, after a series of paltry offers which were rejected, eventually paid adults £2500 in compensation with minors receiving £1500 to the Chagossians in Mauritius (although not those in the Seychelles) in "full and final settlement of all claims… with no admission of responsibility" in 1982.The settlement was not a success. Many Chagossians had run up big debts and were exploited by local moneylenders who pocketed most of the available compensation.And it has now become evident that the Creole-speaking islanders, many of whom were illiterate, did not realise that by signing the agreement, which had been drawn up in English and framed in a highly legalistic language, they were giving up their right of return to their homeland.In recent years, there has been considerable embarrassment in British government circles about the treatment of the Chagossians which is widely acknowledged as one of the most shameful episodes in recent colonial history.Indeed, at one time, it looked like the islanders might be allowed back to some of the outer islands which lie around 120 miles north of Diego Garcia. Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in the Clinton administration, was known to be sympathetic to the islanders’ return.In 2000, the then British Foreign Secretary, the late Robin Cook, commissioned a study looking at the feasibility of resettlement. The first draft of the report stated that up to 1000 islanders could go back immediately without encountering too many problems.But with Cook's departure from the foreign office and his replacement by Jack Straw there was a distinct change of mood and policy. This was influenced by changes on the other side of the Atlantic after President George W. Bush took charge in 2001, especially with heightened security fears after the 9/11 attacks.This effect was compounded by Tony Blair’s decision to "stand shoulder-to-shoulder" with the US in the so-called War on Terror.In 2002, an official report from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office stated that resettlement was no longer feasible -- the financial costs and rising sea levels were two factors cited.Interestingly, lawyers representing the Chagossians who had asked to see the original draft of the report under the Freedom of Information Act were dismayed to learn that all copies had been destroyed by Foreign Office officials.But last year, the former British High Commissioner to Mauritius, 2000-04, David Snoxell entered the fray and in a letter to The Times poured scorn on the notion that the outer islands were no longer suitable for settlement. Indeed, according to Snoxell allowing the islanders to return would perform a key environmental service by protecting the "unique biodiversity of the Chagos marine environment".Members of the UK Foreign Affairs Committee also heard that there were "no physical, economic or environmental reasons" why resettlement on two of the larger, outer islands, Peros Banhos and Salomon, could not take place. They were told that an initial settlement of 150 families -- around 750 people -- could make a decent living from the coconut plantations, ecotourism and fishing.Shortly after the select committee hearing, it was announced by John Murton, the British High Commissioner in Mauritius, that a small group of stonemasons and labourers would visit some of the outer islands of the archipelago to restore and repair the graves of the Chagossians’ ancestors. The group is due to travel to Singapore before flying to Diego Garcia and completing the rest of the journey by boat some time in the next few weeks. The trip will be paid for by the British government.Since 2000 the Chagossians have won twice in the British High Court and again in the Court of Appeal last year allowing them the right of return. In all, seven senior judges have found in their favour. Despite this, the government has petitioned the House of Lords claiming that it is obliged to clarify the legal status of all British overseas territories including the British Indian Ocean Territory. The case will be heard in June.But the political momentum is definitely now with the exiled islanders. This month a PR campaign -- "Let Them Return" -- was launched at the House of Lords.Gordon Brown and David Miliband must now be crossing their fingers and hoping for two things. The first is that the Law Lords will find in favour of the Chagossians’ right of return. This may seem like an odd thing to say but a decisive judgement would allow the British government to present the decision to allow the islanders to go back home to the US administration as a legal rather than a political one. The other is that whoever is elected as the next US President has a more enlightened attitude to foreign policy and the UN Convention Against Torture than George W. Bush.In the meantime, this still leaves open the accuracy of the claims of General McCaffrey that there was or is a secret prison facility on Diego Garcia. Perhaps the British Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary should find out, preferably sooner rather than later.Dr Sean Carey is Research Fellow at the Centre for Research on Nationalism, Ethnicity and Multiculturalism (CRONEM), Surrey University.“Gordon Brown and David Miliband must now hoping for two things. The first is that the Law Lords will find in favour of the Chagossians’ right of return… The other is that whoever is elected as the next US President has a more enlightened attitude to foreign policy…”“The plight of the Chagossians was ignored for many years until news of what had happened was first reported in the Washington Post in 1975. The story was then picked up by other sections of the world’s media…”Copyright © 2005 Mauritius Times.on behalf of ,Nini'ane
Hawaiians Reject Office of Hawaiian Affairs ‘Settlement’ ProposalSpecial from Hawaii Free PressBy Andrew Walden, 2/28/2008 12:11:59 PMSpeaking at the offices of Hilo’s Queen Liliuokalani Children’s Center February 25, state Attorney General Mark Bennett, Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chief Counsel Robert Klein, and Office of Hawaiian Affairs Trustee Robert Lindsey faced sign waving protesters shouting obscenities as they tried to sell OHA’s settlement agreement to a hostile crowd of about 100 people.Hilo resident Ed Miranda told Klein and Lindsey, “It is not for you guys to cut the line (so) nobody (can) sue. It is very obvious that you guys cannot take care of our interests.” As Bennett stood by passively Miranda rambled on about: “the prophesy of the Jewish Queen.”Standing just feet from the State’s chief law enforcement officer and a former Supreme Court Justice, another speaker identified only as “Kealoha from Puna” said “This is our money, not your (OHA’s) money” and began cursing the speakers: “F*** you! F*** all of you! What has OHA done for the beneficiaries?”A lady in the audience said, “We were not raised to speak like that. This is the Queen’s House.”Kealoha then blurted out the deepest and most profound truth of the entire meeting: “They made me like that.”Robert Lindsey responded saying that in the last year OHA had given grants to a Kona-based canoe club and to the ARC of Hilo.For no apparent reason Kealoha then attempted to square off with a reporter seated in the front row before Councilwoman Emily Naeole directed him back to his seat.A protester who declined to identify himself carried a sign reading, “OHA Stop stealing from Hawaiians.” He and others repeatedly interrupted and heckled the OHA representatives telling them at one point, “We are going to have peaceful Hawaiians ready to bust heads.” Another shouted, “We want 100% of this money. You guys are just using us Hawaiians.”Councilwoman Naeole pointed her finger at Bennett, Klein, and Lindsey shouting: “We Hawaiians are loving people but we got to act like this because of what we got to go through.”Former OHA Trustee Moana Akaka angrily denounced the settlement as “too small.”Mililani Trask loudly denounced OHA and questioned the value of the lands proposed for transfer, demanding “valuation reports and environmental disclosure on all parcels.” Robert Lindsey admitted that OHA had not assessed the value of the properties and had instead relied on a formula based on tax valuations.Ken Fujiyama, who owns a 65-year lease on Hilo’s Naniloa Hotel and an adjacent golf course, both to be transferred to OHA under the proposed settlement, echoed Trask’s concerns about valuation. He said “It is hard for me as a real estate person to look at a $200 million transaction with no appraisal.” About the Banyan Drive parcels, he added: “It is hard for me to comprehend (the State/OHA valuation of) $34 million. It is probably worth $10 million.”Lindsey responded—unwittingly outlining the root of Hawaii’s economy: “In our experience there never is a shortage of developers willing to come in and spend ever-greater amounts for resort property.”The meeting opened with a 30 minute power-point presentation by Dr Jonathan Scheuer, director of OHA’s newly-created land management hale. Scheuer explained: “OHA has fought this battle for 30 years. And it has distracted OHA from its core mission which is the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians.”Illustrating the grasp of the OHA trustees, Scheuer explained how OHA rejected $5.5 million in payments which would have allowed affordable housing developments on ceded land in Kona and Lahaina. Instead the Trustees filed suit in November 1994. OHA also demanded 20% of all patient fees from Hilo Hospital because it is located on ceded lands. Asked Scheuer: “What about University tuition. The University is located almost entirely on ceded lands. Should OHA get 20% of that?”Scheuer added: “I like to compare OHA to Kamehameha Schools. Kamehameha Schools has $9.1 billion dollars and can spend more in one year than OHA is worth in its entirety. Education is 1/20th of our kuleana and OHA’s resources are about 1/20th of Kamehameha Schools. So there is just a mismatch between the responsibility that we have for the betterment of native Hawaiians and the resources that we have to get those things done.”Earlier this month-- 14 years after being filed -- OHA’s affordable housing case resulted in the Hawaii State Supreme Court injunction against the sale of ceded lands to any agency other than OHA until such time as native Hawaiian claims to ceded lands have been resolved.Scheuer stated that OHA trustees had wished to keep ceded lands out of the settlement package but claimed that Attorney General Bennett had insisted on including at least one ceded lands parcel. Questioned about this by email, Bennett claimed that Scheuer “misspoke” in his presentation. After receiving a copy of Bennett’s response, Scheuer also claimed he “misspoke” but then wrote, “What I meant to say was that the (OHA) Board (of Trustees) had a preference in settlement to avoid ceded lands.”Scheuer didn’t get much respect in Hilo. As his presentation ended, he was relegated to a corner of the room by Mililani Trask demanding: “We don’t want to speak to staffers. Where are the trustees?”Robert Klein authored the 1995 PASH decision as a member of the Hawaii Supreme Court. He then resigned from the bench to join OHA as Chief Counsel and take full advantage of the decision he had just written. Unheeded, Klein pleaded with the crowd: “Is it more important to leave the moneys due you in the hands of the State? If there is too much dissention then (the proposed settlement) probably will not pass.”Representative Clift Tsuji (D-Hilo) and Senator Lorraine Inouye (D-Hilo, Hamakua) silently observed the meeting.Lindsey admitted: “We are not amongst our people at OHA.”A young mother who brought three children to the meeting got up to speak. She said: “Sovereignty is already happening now. We are educating our children.” Eyeing Klein and Lindsey she pointed out: “What we have in front of us doesn’t work.”Related: http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2008/02/26/local_news/local01.txt>Andrew Walden is the publisher and editor of Hawaii Free Press, a Big Island-based newspaper. He can be reached via email at mailto:andrewwalden@email.comon behalf of kanikapu@yahoo.comHui_Pu@yahoogroups.com
Army cites national security for basing Stryker unit in HawaiiBy AUDREY McAVOY, Associated Press, February 29th, 2008PACIFIC: Keeping the brigade in the islands gives US two options.HONOLULU -- Army leaders want to base a Stryker brigade in Hawaii instead of Alaska or Colorado because the state's Pacific location best serves the military's national security needs, a report said recently.The reasoning is outlined in the final version of a court-ordered environmental study the Army conducted on whether to base the brigade in the islands, Alaska or Colorado. Opponents sued to require the study several years ago, claiming the Army didn't adequately weight alternatives to Hawaii.The report said Lt. Gen. James Thurman, Army deputy chief of staff, selected Hawaii because keeping the brigade here would give the Army two Pacific outposts from which to deploy the eight-wheeled, heavy-duty vehicles and the soldiers who operate them.The Army already has one Stryker brigade in Alaska.The conclusion comes even though the report says the brigade's maneuver training would cause more soil erosion in Hawaii and Colorado than in Alaska. The maneuvers and the resulting wind-blown dust would also hurt air quality in Hawaii and Colorado more than in Alaska, it said.Hawaii "is best able to meet the Army's strategic defense and national security needs in the Pacific theater," the report said.Thurman considered the environmental and socio-economic effects the brigade would have on the three proposed host communities when making his recommendation, the report said.The Army still has to make a final decision on where to station the brigade, but many senior commanders -- including Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, head of U.S. Army-Pacific -- have already expressed a preference for Hawaii. The final decision will be announced no earlier than March 24.The military introduced the Stryker in 1999 as the cornerstone of a ground force of the future. It hoped to create faster, more agile armored units than tank-equipped units, but with more firepower and protection than light infantry units. The Army has ordered nearly 2,900 vehicles for its $13 billion Stryker program.The Army chose several years ago to put one Stryker unit -- the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division -- in Hawaii by transforming a light infantry brigade at Schofield Barracks in Central Oahu.But the Army had to re-examine that decision, and to conduct the environmental study, after a federal appeals court ruled in October 2006 the Army failed to adequately consider alternative locations for the brigade outside Hawaii.Native Hawaiian groups that sued the Army demanding a full environmental impact statement charged the brigade's 19-ton Stryker vehicles would damage Hawaii's fragile environment and cultural sites.Each brigade has more than 4,100 soldiers and 310 Stryker vehicles.Overall, the Army's report says the environmental impact of basing a Stryker brigade would be greater in Hawaii than in Alaska or Colorado.But it concludes mitigation efforts would limit the impact to a "less than significant" level for all areas except Pohakuloa Training Area on the Big Island.David Henkin, an Earthjustice lawyer who represented the three Hawaiian groups in their suit, said he was concerned the study didn't consider more mainland locations for the brigade."Based on our initial review, there seem to be some serious questions about the degree to which the Army is being forthcoming about what the alternatives are and where the advantages lie," Henkin said.Henkin said a separate environmental impact statement conducted by the Army last year identified four potential locations for basing Stryker brigades that weren't mentioned in Friday's report.That report examined two bases in Washington state, Fort Lewis and Yakima Training Center, as possible bases. It also considered Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico."The question is, is this particular project a good fit given the vulnerabilities and the sensitivities of Hawaii's cultural and biological landscape?" Henkin said. "The answer is no. It's not a good fit."
mahaloposted by Nini'ane
