Wednesday, February 11, 2015


News Clips For The Day


Wars And Rumors Of Wars


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-sends-isis-war-authorization-to-congress/

White House sends ISIS war authorization to Congress
CBS/AP 
February 11, 2015

WASHINGTON -- President Obama is asking Congress to formally formally authorize war against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants and says the group could threaten the U.S. homeland if left unchecked.

The president sent Congress a proposed three-page resolution on Wednesday to authorize military force. In a letter to lawmakers accompanying the request, Mr. Obama urges them to "show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat."

The White House confirmed to CBS News that it had submitted the resolution to Congress Wednesday morning. It was first obtained by the Associated Press.

Mr. Obama would limit authorization to three years, with no restriction where U.S. forces could pursue the threat. Obama's proposal bans "enduring offensive combat operations," an ambiguous term that attempts to define a middle ground between Democrats leery of another protracted Middle Eastern conflict involving ground troops, and Republicans, who largely believe the U.S. needs maximum flexibility to pursue ISIS.

The White House isn't saying it favors a role for U.S. ground forces in combating Islamic State terrorists, a move that a few outspoken lawmakers, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, have said will be necessary. But it isn't saying it opposes one, either.

Instead, the White House is merely declining to seek an "enduring offensive combat role" in authorizing the use of military force against extremists who have captured parts of Syria and Iraq, imposed stern Sharia law and summarily executed a string of hostages.

Applause was audible Tuesday from inside the room where White House officials presented the overall proposal to Democratic senators. But afterward, on the eve of the legislation's formal launch, there were lingering questions.

"I don't know what the word `enduring' means. I am very apprehensive about a vague, foggy word," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.

Other concerns came from Republicans who had been briefed earlier.

Graham said administration officials had told him their proposal would not provide for the protection of U.S.-trained Syrian rebel troops on the ground in the event of an air attack by Syrian forces loyal to President Bashar Assad.

"It's an unsound military strategy. I think it's immoral if the authorization doesn't allow for us to counter Assad's air power," Graham said.

The White House's efforts to forge a compromise were shadowed during the day by confirmation of the death of Kayla Jean Mueller, a 26-year-old American aid worker from Prescott, Arizona, who had been held hostage by the Islamic group. Obama vowed justice for her killers, and Republican Sen. John McCain, who represents the state where she was from, seemed to grow emotional as he eulogized her on the Senate floor.

The White House and lawmakers in both parties said they hoped Congress would act quickly on the president's request, and its fate seemed likely to turn on the search for a compromise that could satisfy Democrats who oppose the use of American ground forces in the fight against ISIS, and Republicans who favor at least leaving the possibility open.

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., discussing the White House's opaque formulation, predicted, "That's where the rub will be." He also said it was not yet clear if the proposal would cancel an authorization for the use of force that Congress approved shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Several other lawmakers who were briefed in earlier meetings said the legislation would be targeted exclusively against the fighters seeking establishment of an Islamic state, wherever they are and whatever name they use.

It also is intended to cancel a 2002 law that authorized the use of force against Iraq.

There is little evident dispute in Congress that a new authorization is needed, both to replace outdated laws and to underscore a bipartisan desire to defeat the terrorists seeking an Islamic state.

Mr. Obama so far has relied on congressional authorizations that President George W. Bush used to justify military action after 9/11. He said last year he had the legal authority necessary to deploy more than 2,700 U.S. troops to train and assist Iraqi security forces and conduct ongoing airstrikes against targets in Iraq and Syria.

Looking ahead to Obama's expected request, some Democrats expressed concern about a three-year timeline, noting that would leave the next president free to carry out ground operations that the president refused to approve.

Those who could succeed Mr. Obama in the White House have expressed a broad range of views on the AUMF, ranging from those like Sen. Ran Paul, R-Kentucky, who wanted geographic limits on the fight, to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, who originally told Mr. Obama he did not need additional Congressional authorization to fight the militants.

On the other side of the political aisle, some of the president's die-hard foes seemed unlikely to vote for anything that involved placing their trust in the current occupant of the White House.

Other Republicans have urged the president to request legislation now emerging, and they praised his willingness to do so, up to a point.

"This president, you know, is prone to unilateral action. But when it comes to national security matters, and particularly now fighting this barbaric threat - not only the region but to our own security - I think it's important to come to Congress and get bipartisan support," said John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate's second-ranking Republican leader.

Cornyn and other Republicans have said it's important to have a military strategy robust enough to enable victory, and accused Mr. Obama of failing to do so.




“Mr. Obama would limit authorization to three years, with no restriction where U.S. forces could pursue the threat. Obama's proposal bans "enduring offensive combat operations," an ambiguous term that attempts to define a middle ground between Democrats leery of another protracted Middle Eastern conflict involving ground troops, and Republicans, who largely believe the U.S. needs maximum flexibility to pursue ISIS. The White House isn't saying it favors a role for U.S. ground forces in combating Islamic State terrorists, a move that a few outspoken lawmakers, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, have said will be necessary. But it isn't saying it opposes one, either. Instead, the White House is merely declining to seek an "enduring offensive combat role".... "I don't know what the word `enduring' means. I am very apprehensive about a vague, foggy word," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md. Other concerns came from Republicans who had been briefed earlier. Graham said administration officials had told him their proposal would not provide for the protection of U.S.-trained Syrian rebel troops on the ground in the event of an air attack by Syrian forces loyal to President Bashar Assad. "It's an unsound military strategy. I think it's immoral if the authorization doesn't allow for us to counter Assad's air power," Graham said..... He also said it was not yet clear if the proposal would cancel an authorization for the use of force that Congress approved shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Several other lawmakers who were briefed in earlier meetings said the legislation would be targeted exclusively against the fighters seeking establishment of an Islamic state, wherever they are and whatever name they use. It also is intended to cancel a 2002 law that authorized the use of force against Iraq. There is little evident dispute in Congress that a new authorization is needed, both to replace outdated laws and to underscore a bipartisan desire to defeat the terrorists seeking an Islamic state.”

Three years may be long enough to defeat ISIS, especially if other governments will send in soldiers as well, while continuing their air attacks. I'm glad to see that Obama is moving on this, as the threat to Western nations is growing. Air strikes alone can only be so effective. I want to see him approve sending heavy weapons to the Kurds also, despite the fact that they have nationalistic goals. If they succeed in defeating ISIS they deserve a land settlement as a reward, I think. Turkey and Iraq are at the present opposed to their aid.


Kurds
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Kurds (Kurdish: کورد Kurd) are an ethnic Iranian group in the Middle East, mostly inhabiting a contiguous area spanning adjacent parts of modern-day Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, a geo-cultural region often referred to as "Kurdistan". The Kurds are an Iranian people and speak the Kurdish languages, which form a subgroup of the Northwestern Iranian branch of Iranian languages.[32]

The Kurds number about 40 million, the majority living in West Asia, including significant Kurdish diaspora communities in the cities of western Turkey outside of Kurdistan. A recent Kurdish diaspora has developed in Western countries, primarily in Germany. The Kurds are in the majority in the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan and are a significant minority group in the neighboring countries Turkey, Syria and Iran, where Kurdish nationalist movements continue to pursue (greater) autonomy.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/yemen-houthi-rebel-takeover-sanaa-us-france-britain-shut-embassies/

Western embassies shut as chaos grips Yemen
CBS/AP
February 11, 2015

SANAA, Yemen -- Britain and France on Wednesday joined the U.S. in announcing the closure of their embassies in Yemen and urged citizens to leave the country amid turmoil after Shiite rebels seized power.

The British Embassy in Yemen's capital closed and evacuated its staff early Wednesday, authorities said. The State Department confirmed it also closed the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa and evacuated its staff because of the political crisis there and security concerns. The French Embassy said it would close Friday.

"The security situation in Yemen has continued to deteriorate over recent days," U.K. Minister for the Middle East Tobias Ellwood said. "Regrettably we now judge that our embassy staff and premises are at increased risk."

Yemen has been in crisis for months, with Shiite Houthi rebels besieging the capital and then taking control. Earlier Tuesday, U.S. officials said the embassy closure would not affect counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda's Yemen branch (AQAP), which America views as the world's most dangerous branch of the terror group.

The United Nations has been trying to broker talks between the Houthis and others in Yemen since the Shiite rebels dissolved parliament after earlier besieging the country's president, who later resigned while armed militants surrounded his home.

Abdel-Malek al-Houthi, who leads the Shiite rebels, warned his enemies Tuesday not to stand in his hard-line movement's way and denounced foreign governments for removing their diplomats.

"We will not accept pressures. They are of no use," al-Houthi said in speech broadcast on the rebel group's own al-Masirah satellite television network. "Whoever harms the interest of this country could see that their interests in this country are also harmed."

Al-Houthi made a series of similarly threatening but vague remarks, and offered no explanation for what specific retaliatory action he might have in mind.

The Houthis, who are traditionally based in northern Yemen bordering Saudi Arabia, swept into Sanaa in September and have seized other territory since. Many link the Houthis to regional Shiite power Iran, though the rebels deny they are backed by the Islamic Republic.

CBS News terrorism analyst Jere Van Dyk, who spent much of 2014 in Yemen, notes that this week's embassy closure is not the first instance; most notably, the facility was shut in August 2013, after the NSA apparently intercepted a telephone conversation between the al Qaeda leader in Pakistan and AQAP's leader in Yemen. The U.S. closed 22 embassies and consulates in the region on that occasion, and nothing happened.

.@StateDeptSpox: We will explore options for a return to Sana'a when the situation on the ground improves. http://t.co/ugj0D7T4hj
— Department of State (@StateDept) February 11, 2015

This time, Van Dyk says it has nothing to do with AQAP, per se, but rather because of the Houthis' takeover of Sanaa, the resulting "sense of uncertainty, danger and chaos," and rumors that they have surrounded the embassy compound.

A former senior Yemeni security official, now in exile, told Van Dyk just a few days ago that the capital city had become dangerous and chaotic because no one appears to be in charge.

The Houthis have taken over, but as another former Yemeni official -- a Houthi himself -- told CBS News last week, they are "committing suicide." The Houthis are Shiite Muslims in a Sunni Muslim-dominated country. They have many enemies in the government and do not have the firepower of the Yemeni Army, explains Van Dyk.




“Britain and France on Wednesday joined the U.S. in announcing the closure of their embassies in Yemen and urged citizens to leave the country amid turmoil after Shiite rebels seized power.... "The security situation in Yemen has continued to deteriorate over recent days," U.K. Minister for the Middle East Tobias Ellwood said. "Regrettably we now judge that our embassy staff and premises are at increased risk." Yemen has been in crisis for months, with Shiite Houthi rebels besieging the capital and then taking control. Earlier Tuesday, U.S. officials said the embassy closure would not affect counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda's Yemen branch (AQAP), which America views as the world's most dangerous branch of the terror group. The United Nations has been trying to broker talks between the Houthis and others in Yemen since the Shiite rebels dissolved parliament after earlier besieging the country's president, who later resigned while armed militants surrounded his home.... Al-Houthi made a series of similarly threatening but vague remarks, and offered no explanation for what specific retaliatory action he might have in mind. The Houthis, who are traditionally based in northern Yemen bordering Saudi Arabia, swept into Sanaa in September and have seized other territory since. Many link the Houthis to regional Shiite power Iran, though the rebels deny they are backed by the Islamic Republic.... The Houthis have taken over, but as another former Yemeni official -- a Houthi himself -- told CBS News last week, they are "committing suicide." The Houthis are Shiite Muslims in a Sunni Muslim-dominated country. They have many enemies in the government and do not have the firepower of the Yemeni Army, explains Van Dyk.”

Maybe this will not involve us in yet another war. Maybe the Houthis will be unable to hold Sanaa and will retreat. There are too many nationalistic and religious groups in the Middle East now for us to fight them all. At least the Houthis haven't joined ISIS.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-russia-minsk-peace-talks-france-germany-pro-russia-separatists/

Ukraine demands "unconditional peace" as war rages
AP February 11, 2015

Photograph – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko speaks during a government meeting in Kiev, Feb. 11, 2015.

DONETSK, Ukraine -- Fighting continued to rage in eastern Ukraine Wednesday killing five people at a bus station in the rebel stronghold of Donetsk, as Western leaders confirmed that they would take part in crucial peace talks being held later in the day.

Steffen Seibert, a spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said both she and French President Francois Hollande would travel to the Belarusian capital, Minsk, to attend the four-way summit alongside their Russian and Ukrainian counterparts.

European leaders have warned in recent days that there is no guarantee a deal will be reached with Moscow, which the West says is fueling a separatist rising in eastern Ukraine with troops and arms. Germany and France have rushed to mediate after a recent uptick in violence in the region, where fighting has killed at least 5,300 people since April.

In Donetsk, rebel officials said that five people were killed and nine wounded at the scene of a shelling attack early Wednesday on a bus station, where an Associated Press reporter saw one body. Donetsk city officials said in a statement that three people had been killed in shelling overnight.

Ukraine troops, pro-Russia rebels intensify clahes

Officials in Kiev also said Wednesday that 19 troops had been killed and 78 wounded in a day of fighting in Debaltseve, a hotly contested transport hub in the region.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko posted a statement on his website saying that he had made an impromptu visit to the war-torn region early Wednesday. Poroshenko stopped in the city of Kramatorsk, some 30 miles from the nearest front line, where Kiev says 16 people were killed and 48 wounded in a rocket strike Tuesday.

"We demand an unconditional peace," Poroshenko said. "We demand a cease-fire, a withdrawal of all foreign troops, and closing of the border.... We will find a compromise within the country."

At a news conference in Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that there was "notable progress" in the peace process, though he gave no details.

Lavrov said that the most important goal of the talks would be to implement a cease-fire, and that it would be impossible for Ukraine to re-establish its control over the border with Russia because Kiev had already "suffocated (eastern Ukraine) economically and socially, in parallel with an attempted military crackdown."

"In these conditions, to give away the Russian part of the border also would be to cut them (the rebels) off even from humanitarian help and allow them to be surrounded," Lavrov said.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said early Wednesday that "quite a number of problems remain" in negotiations aimed at ending the fighting.

He said difficulties remain on the future of embattled eastern Ukraine, guarantees about the Ukraine-Russia border near the area, and the prospects of a possible cease-fire, weapons pullback and prisoner exchange.

Fabius said the aim of the talks is to win an accord, but "not just one on paper."




“Fighting continued to rage in eastern Ukraine Wednesday killing five people at a bus station in the rebel stronghold of Donetsk, as Western leaders confirmed that they would take part in crucial peace talks being held later in the day. Steffen Seibert, a spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said both she and French President Francois Hollande would travel to the Belarusian capital, Minsk, to attend the four-way summit alongside their Russian and Ukrainian counterparts. European leaders have warned in recent days that there is no guarantee a deal will be reached with Moscow.... "We demand an unconditional peace," Poroshenko said. "We demand a cease-fire, a withdrawal of all foreign troops, and closing of the border.... We will find a compromise within the country." At a news conference in Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that there was "notable progress" in the peace process, though he gave no details.... French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said early Wednesday that "quite a number of problems remain" in negotiations aimed at ending the fighting. He said difficulties remain on the future of embattled eastern Ukraine, guarantees about the Ukraine-Russia border near the area, and the prospects of a possible cease-fire, weapons pullback and prisoner exchange. Fabius said the aim of the talks is to win an accord, but "not just one on paper."

Kiev has done pretty well at holding its own in the fighting, despite the soldiers and weapons that Russia has given the Eastern areas. We have had a number of “cease-fires” already without more than two or three days without fighting. It's getting tiresome. And still Russia claims that it has no troops in Ukraine. All I can say is “Pants on fire!”





http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2015/02/10/385197419/with-new-moves-russias-parliament-looks-to-rewrite-history

With New Moves, Russia's Parliament Looks To Rewrite History
Corey Flintoff
FEBRUARY 10, 2015

Photograph – Russian soldiers guard the entrance to the Ukrainian military base in Perevalne, Crimea, last March. Russia was criticized widely internationally after seizing the region. Now Russian lawmakers are considering a bill that says Crimea was illegally given to Ukraine in 1954 and should have been part of Russia all along.
Ivan Sekretarev/AP

In the Soviet days, when Communist leaders periodically tried to rewrite history, the country's historians had a favorite joke: anyone can predict the future, they would say — what's hard is predicting the past.

The Soviet Union may now be history, but Russian lawmakers are busy trying to create their own version of the past.

Russia's parliament is considering several measures that would change the interpretation of major events in order to justify the country's actions today. The main driver is Russia's seizure of Crimea last March from Ukraine.

Russia calls that move a "reunification," but it's regarded as an illegal land grab by Ukraine, the United States the European Union and many other countries.

In making its case, Russia's upper house of parliament is considering legislation asserting that Crimea was never legally part of Ukraine in the first place.

Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev transferred the Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 as a gift. It was an administrative move that didn't seem to matter much at the time, because both republics were part of the Soviet Union.

But when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Crimea remained part of Ukraine, and many Russians felt they'd been deprived of a region that had belonged to them for centuries.

Valentina Matviyenko, the speaker of Russia's upper house of parliament, says she expects to pass a bill this spring that will "establish the fact that ... in 1954, an illegal act was committed" when Crimea was transferred to Ukraine.

The aim, she says, is to restore "historic and legal justice." If Crimea was never legally given to Ukraine, then it should still belong to Russia today, the reasoning goes.

Then there's the matter of German reunification in 1990.

That's when the East German government effectively collapsed and the previously communist state joined with West Germany, ending decades of a divided Germany.

But a Russian lawmaker, Nikolay Ivanov, recently described it as West Germany's "annexation" of East Germany, and the lower house of Russia's parliament recently considered a statement condemning this 25-year-old development.

According to the Russian news agency TASS, Ivanov, a member of parliament from the Communist Party, complained about the use of the word "annexation" with regard to Russia's action in Crimea.

Ivanov said, in effect, that that West Germany's action was less legal than Russia's "reunification" with Crimea, because people in Crimea voted for the move in a referendum.

He did not note that the Crimean referendum was dismissed widely in the West because it was organized hastily and wasn't monitored by the international community. It also was conducted under the guns of Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms who had taken over Crimea from the Ukrainian government and its security forces.

Another inconvenient fact he did not mention was that the Soviet Union agreed to Germany's reunification a quarter-century ago.

It appears unlikely that Ivanov's proposal will go any further, but if it did, it once again would pit Russia's parliament against moves taken by the former Soviet Union, a country that no longer exists.

Not that they want to disown the USSR entirely. Another proposal in Russia's parliament would treat Russia as the successor to the Soviet Union when it comes to collecting reparations from Germany for the damage inflicted by Hitler's troops during World War II.

Mikhail Degtyaryov of the Liberal Democrat Party is setting up a working group that will calculate the cost of the damage, which he believes will amount to between 3 trillion and 4 trillion euros ($3.4 trillion to $4.5 trillion dollars).

According to TASS, Degtyaryov says the issue is still relevant, particularly given that Germany still is damaging Russia by taking part in the sanctions imposed by the European Union after the Crimea takeover.

But this proposal would seem to cut two ways: If Russia is the sole successor to the Soviet Union, that also could make the country liable for any reparations for the millions of people killed, imprisoned or deported during the Soviet period.

Historians might want to warn the lawmakers that there are potential downsides when it comes to altering history.




“Now Russian lawmakers are considering a bill that says Crimea was illegally given to Ukraine in 1954 and should have been part of Russia all along.
Ivan Sekretarev/AP In the Soviet days, when Communist leaders periodically tried to rewrite history, the country's historians had a favorite joke: anyone can predict the future, they would say — what's hard is predicting the past.... In making its case, Russia's upper house of parliament is considering legislation asserting that Crimea was never legally part of Ukraine in the first place. Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev transferred the Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 as a gift. It was an administrative move that didn't seem to matter much at the time, because both republics were part of the Soviet Union. But when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Crimea remained part of Ukraine, and many Russians felt they'd been deprived of a region that had belonged to them for centuries.... Then there's the matter of German reunification in 1990. That's when the East German government effectively collapsed and the previously communist state joined with West Germany, ending decades of a divided Germany. But a Russian lawmaker, Nikolay Ivanov, recently described it as West Germany's "annexation" of East Germany, and the lower house of Russia's parliament recently considered a statement condemning this 25-year-old development.... He did not note that the Crimean referendum was dismissed widely in the West because it was organized hastily and wasn't monitored by the international community. It also was conducted under the guns of Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms who had taken over Crimea from the Ukrainian government and its security forces. Another inconvenient fact he did not mention was that the Soviet Union agreed to Germany's reunification a quarter-century ago.... Not that they want to disown the USSR entirely. Another proposal in Russia's parliament would treat Russia as the successor to the Soviet Union when it comes to collecting reparations from Germany for the damage inflicted by Hitler's troops during World War II. Mikhail Degtyaryov of the Liberal Democrat Party is setting up a working group that will calculate the cost of the damage, which he believes will amount to between 3 trillion and 4 trillion euros ($3.4 trillion to $4.5 trillion dollars). According to TASS, Degtyaryov says the issue is still relevant, particularly given that Germany still is damaging Russia by taking part in the sanctions imposed by the European Union after the Crimea takeover.”

Right now this is a war of words only. I do hope it doesn't become an armed conflict between Germany and other formerly Soviet nations. Does this remind you of any great work of literature?


Nineteen Eighty-Four
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nineteen Eighty-Four, sometimes published as 1984, is a dystopiannovel by George Orwell published in 1949.[1][2] The novel is set in Airstrip One (formerly known as Great Britain), a province of the superstateOceania in a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation, dictated by a political systemeuphemistically named English Socialism (or Ingsoc in the government's invented language, Newspeak) under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite, that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as "thoughtcrimes".[3] The tyranny is epitomised byBig Brother, the quasi-divine Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality but who may not even exist. The Party "seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power."[4] The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party, who works for the Ministry of Truth (or Minitrue), which is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to rewrite past newspaper articles, so that the historical record always supports the party line.[5





http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/11/385417978/an-arrest-but-no-motive-announced-in-killing-of-3-muslims-in-n-c

Police Say Killing Of 3 Muslims In N.C. Followed A Parking Dispute
Bill Chappell
FEBRUARY 11, 2015


Photograph – A photo from the Durham County Sheriff's Office shows Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, who was arrested on three counts of murder early Wednesday.

Police in Chapel Hill, N.C., have arrested a suspect and charged him with first-degree murder in the shooting of three young Muslims. The shooting occurred Tuesday afternoon; police say that the violence seems to have started after a dispute over parking.

Update at 10:10 a.m. ET: A Parking Dispute, Police Say

The inquiry into the three shootings continues, but the Chapel Hill Police Department says that the "preliminary investigation indicates that the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking."

"Our investigators are exploring what could have motivated Mr. Hicks to commit such a senseless and tragic act," said Chief Chris Blue of the Chapel Hill Police Department.

"We understand the concerns about the possibility that this was hate-motivated and we will exhaust every lead to determine if that is the case," Blue said. "Our thoughts are with the families and friends of these young people who lost their lives so needlessly."

Blue says that Hicks is cooperating with investigators and that the department could release more information "at a later time."

Our original post continues:

From North Carolina Public Radio, Rebecca Martinez reports:

"The victims are Deah Barakat, 23; his wife, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21; and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19. Barakat and Abu-Salha were students.

"The murders happened in the quiet Finley Forest neighborhood a few miles east of the UNC Chapel Hill Campus.

"Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, turned himself over to authorities last night. Police haven't released any information about a motive for the murders."

The case quickly attracted international attention — and sparked suspicions on social media that the victims might have been attacked because of their religion.

On Twitter, #ChapelHillShooting became the top trending hashtag, with many using the tag to criticize American media outlets for what they viewed as a lack of coverage.

In Chapel Hill, student newspaper the Daily Tar Heelreports that Barakat was in his second year at the UNC School of Dentistry, where Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha was planning to start studying in the fall. The paper says Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha was a student at N.C. State University.

N.C. State says all three of the victims had attended the school as under-graduates, and that all had earned academic distinctions.

Today, Chancellor Randy Woodson issued a statement saying, "On behalf of the entire NC State community, I'd like to extend our deepest condolences to the families and friends of Deah Shaddy Barakat, Yusor Mohammad and Razan Abu-Salha."

According to the Raleigh News Observer, Hicks lived in the same neighborhood as the victims. From the newspaper:

"Barakat, a Syrian-American, majored in business administration and management at NCSU before enrolling at UNC-Chapel Hill in 2013 to pursue his doctorate in dental surgery.

"Both he and Abu-Salha advocated for global dental health, providing care and supplies to people in the United States and the Middle East. On Jan. 29, Barakat posted a Facebook photo of a Durham project that gave dental supplies and food to more than 75 homeless people this year."

A look at Barakat's Twitter feed shows that he was a big basketball fan, particularly devoted to Stephen Curry, who starred at Davidson College in North Carolina before moving on to the NBA.

He also posted about dentistry — and occasionally, about a topic that has come to define our time, as when he said, "It's so freaking sad to hear people saying we should "kill Jews" or "Kill Palestinians."




“A photo from the Durham County Sheriff's Office shows Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, who was arrested on three counts of murder early Wednesday. Police in Chapel Hill, N.C., have arrested a suspect and charged him with first-degree murder in the shooting of three young Muslims. The shooting occurred Tuesday afternoon; police say that the violence seems to have started after a dispute over parking. The inquiry into the three shootings continues, but the Chapel Hill Police Department says that the "preliminary investigation indicates that the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking." "Our investigators are exploring what could have motivated Mr. Hicks to commit such a senseless and tragic act," said Chief Chris Blue of the Chapel Hill Police Department. "We understand the concerns about the possibility that this was hate-motivated and we will exhaust every lead to determine if that is the case," Blue said. "Our thoughts are with the families and friends of these young people who lost their lives so needlessly."... The case quickly attracted international attention — and sparked suspicions on social media that the victims might have been attacked because of their religion.... In Chapel Hill, student newspaper the Daily Tar Heel reports that Barakat was in his second year at the UNC School of Dentistry, where Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha was planning to start studying in the fall. The paper says Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha was a student at N.C. State University. N.C. State says all three of the victims had attended the school as under-graduates, and that all had earned academic distinctions.”

These young Muslims were ordinary students, not Islamists, from all appearances, and the shooter is a white middle-aged American. The article does say that there was a dispute over parking. It doesn't say anything more. These cases may become more common in the next few years as our conflict with Islamic groups continues. I hope not, as I don't want what is essentially cultural/religious warfare to develop here. There is so much radical commentary from Tea Party sympathizers, however, that I don't feel secure in the matter. White supremacy and Christian dominance is on the move in all parts of the country, and especially in the South. I'm sorry my Alma Mater was tainted with this.





http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/02/10/385263536/new-report-examines-lynchings-and-their-legacy-in-the-united-states

New Report Examines Lynchings And Their Legacy In The United States
All Things Considered
FEBRUARY 10, 2015

Nearly 4,000 blacks were lynched in the American South between the end of the Civil War and World War II, according to a new report by the Equal Justice Initiative.

The report, Lynching in America: Confronting the Legacy of Racial Terror, says that the number of victims in the 12 Southern states was more than 20 percent higher than previously reported.

Lynchings were part of a system of racial terror designed to subjugate a people, says the Alabama-based nonprofit's executive director, Bryan Stevenson.

Interview Highlights

On the difference between white and black lynchings

We're focusing on lynchings of African-Americans because when whites were lynched it was really more about punishment — it wasn't sent to terrorize the white community, it was intended to actually make the white community feel safe.

The lynching of African-Americans, on the other hand, was really a direct message to the entire African-American community — it was designed to traumatize and terrorize.

On state-sanctioned lynchings

In most of the places where these lynchings took place — in fact in all of them — there was a functioning criminal justice system that was deemed "too good" for African-Americans. You had lynching of whites and others in the far West and in the early parts of the 19th century that would be called "frontier justice"; you didn't have functioning justice system and so people took things in their hands.

Here, we had very well established courts of laws, we had very well established criminal justice systems. Often these men were pulled from jails and pulled out of courthouses, where they could be lynched literally on the courthouse lawn.

On the reason behind the lynchings

My thesis is essentially that slavery — the evil of slavery wasn't involuntary servitude. It was this narrative of racial difference, this ideology of white supremacy. And so when reconstruction collapsed, to restore the racial hierarchy you had to use force and violence and intimidation. And in the South that manifested itself with these lynchings.

On the legacy of lynchings

It also resulted in millions of African-Americans fleeing the South, and the geography of black people in America today is largely shaped by the institution of lynching. We have African-Americans in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Los Angeles, New York, Oakland, because millions of people fled the South not as immigrants looking for opportunities but as refugees from terror.

On how to remember the lynchings

There's nothing marked in Montgomery [Ala.], or in most communities in the South, to this history of lynching, and we want to change that. ... We want to erect markers and monuments at lynching sites all over this country. Because I think until we deal with this history, we talk about what it represents, we're going to continue to be haunted by this legacy of terrorism and violence that will manifest itself in ways that are problematic.




“Nearly 4,000 blacks were lynched in the American South between the end of the Civil War and World War II, according to a new report by the Equal Justice Initiative. The report, Lynching in America: Confronting the Legacy of Racial Terror, says that the number of victims in the 12 Southern states was more than 20 percent higher than previously reported. Lynchings were part of a system of racial terror designed to subjugate a people, says the Alabama-based nonprofit's executive director, Bryan Stevenson.... We're focusing on lynchings of African-Americans because when whites were lynched it was really more about punishment — it wasn't sent to terrorize the white community, it was intended to actually make the white community feel safe.... In most of the places where these lynchings took place — in fact in all of them — there was a functioning criminal justice system that was deemed "too good" for African-Americans. You had lynching of whites and others in the far West and in the early parts of the 19th century that would be called "frontier justice"; you didn't have functioning justice system and so people took things in their hands. Here, we had very well established courts of laws, we had very well established criminal justice systems. Often these men were pulled from jails and pulled out of courthouses, where they could be lynched literally on the courthouse lawn.... It also resulted in millions of African-Americans fleeing the South, and the geography of black people in America today is largely shaped by the institution of lynching. We have African-Americans in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Los Angeles, New York, Oakland, because millions of people fled the South not as immigrants looking for opportunities but as refugees from terror.... We want to erect markers and monuments at lynching sites all over this country. Because I think until we deal with this history, we talk about what it represents, we're going to continue to be haunted by this legacy of terrorism and violence that will manifest itself in ways that are problematic.”

Setting up monuments at lynching sites will be fought tooth and nail in the Southern states, I feel sure, just as the gay marriage and abortion rights are being combated around the country now. http://www.eji.org/node/425 is the Equal Justice Initiative, based in Alabama, which gives grants to law students. The following is from that website:

“The Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Alabama, is pleased to announce the availability of a fully funded (with benefits) two-year project fellowship for law school graduates beginning in Fall 2015. EJI is a non-profit law office and human rights organization that provides legal assistance to condemned prisoners, children in the criminal justice system, people wrongly convicted or sentenced, and the poor and vulnerable facing imprisonment. We advocate for more hopeful solutions to the violence, powerlessness, and despair that plague many marginalized communities.

EJI has launched a new initiative on race and poverty that seeks meaningful solutions to long-standing problems. Specifically, we aim to document and contextualize issues surrounding race and poverty in America by examining the legal history of racial subordination, exclusion, and segregation. We will be considering particular remedies designed to address contemporary and historic injuries that many people of color have experienced in the rural south. We are excited about the possibility of giving voice to widespread structural barriers and systems that are limiting opportunities and progress to many rural poor.

In addition, we are challenging excessive and abusive punishments imposed on children across the United States, working on large reform projects relating to racial injustice and economic inequality, and we maintain a large docket of death penalty cases, wrongful conviction cases, and civil rights cases. In addition, we are committed to challenging violence against incarcerated individuals, abuse of power by correctional officers, unsafe prison conditions, mistreatment of mentally ill inmates, and illegal detention of the poor. We work with and provide training to lawyers, law students, community leaders, and low-income communities to improve access to justice. We issue research reports and materials aimed at educating the public and increasing awareness of problems related to criminal justice, race, and poverty.

EJI is seeking lawyers or law graduates with strong advocacy skills who are highly motivated, hard-working, and who embrace our mission and program goals enthusiastically. EJI provides full benefits. To learn more about our work, visit our website at www.eji.org. To apply please send a letter of interest and a resume to Executive Director Bryan Stevenson at bstevenson@eji.org and Staff Attorney John Dalton at jdalton@eji.org. Positions for the Fall 2014 fellowship have been filled. We are accepting applications for the Fall 2015 fellowship from July 8, 2014, until November 3, 2014.

EJI has a strong commitment to diversity and especially encourages people historically underrepresented in the practice of law to apply.”





http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/10/385065816/scientific-pros-weigh-the-cons-of-messing-with-earths-thermostat

Scientific Pros Weigh The Cons Of Messing With Earth's Thermostat
Nell Greenfieldboyce
FEBRUARY 10, 2015

Before anyone tries to cool the Earth with technologies that could counteract global warming, there needs to be a lot more research into the benefits and risks. That's the conclusion announced Tuesday by a scientific panel convened by the prestigious National Research Council to assess "climate geoengineering" — deliberate attempts to alter the global climate.

Geoengineering has been seen as the potential last-ditch option to stave off the worst effects of climate change, given that agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been slow in coming.

The basic idea is simple: Either suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or reflect incoming sunlight away from Earth.

But the prospect of intentionally mucking with the world's climate is hugely controversial. Until recently, even discussing it has been somewhat taboo among scientists. One fear is that nations might fight to control the global thermostat — unilaterally taking action to try to adjust temperatures to their liking.

Another is that the promise of a quick geoengineering fix would discourage the world from doing the hard work needed to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

So several agencies of the U. S. government — including the intelligence community — and the National Academy of Sciences asked an independent committee to assess the state of the art and weigh in.

The committee found that more conventional approaches to removing carbon dioxide, such as reforestation, are low-risk and well-understood but costly and slow. And new technologies designed to directly capture carbon dioxide are immature, the panel said.

Meanwhile, taking steps to reflect more sunlight back into space could work to cool the planet quickly, much as volcanic eruptions have in the past. And it wouldn't take too much money or technological innovation to simply inject aerosols into the stratosphere or brighten marine clouds.

But the risks could be huge. Aside from the threat of damage to Earth's ozone layer, and unknown consequences for global precipitation patterns, there could be political fallout and social upheaval.

The committee recommended against attempting this, but said research was needed to better understand it. And some experts on climate science welcomed that stance.

"I think we have to know. I think we have to know what the risks are and what the benefits might be so we can make informed decisions in the future," says Alan Robock, a climate scientist at Rutgers University who was not on the committee. "Would it be more dangerous to do it or to not do it? That's the question."

Being in favor of research into geoengineering is not the same as being in favor of geoengineering, Robock says. And everyone calling for this research, he says, knows that nothing can replace the need for real action on reducing emissions.

"All of us understand that global warming is real, it's being caused by humans, and it's going to have bad consequences on the average," says Robock. "And so we're all in favor of mitigation [and in] not putting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in the first place."

David Keith, a climate science expert at Harvard University, points out that other nations have already set up dedicated research programs to look at geoengineering; the U.S. has lagged behind.

"I hope this time the government listens and actually gets over its fears — in some ways healthy fears — and authorizes a real, broad research program," Keith says. "Right now, if you talk with senior people in Washington, D.C., in the science-funding community, there are many people who, behind a closed door, will say, 'Yeah, we'd really like to fund some work on solar geoengineering but we're afraid of all the flak we'll get if we do it.' "

Keith has one proposal to put a minuscule amount of sulfate particles into the atmosphere, as a test of the effect on ozone and whether that effect could be managed.

"Whether or not you think it's a useful idea, it's incredibly small, in terms of an environmental impact," he says, noting that the pollution released would be the equivalent of a minute or so of a commercial airline flight.

"The central, biggest fear is the fear that just even talking about this, or researching it and popularizing it, will lessen the strength of our commitment to cut emissions," says Keith. "That is the underlying fear — separate from all the science — that really is the thing that makes people squeamish."

That, and the idea that some nation might take matters into its own hands and start messing with the planet.

Keith notes that although the intelligence community has a legitimate interest in trying to understand long-term risks to national security, he doesn't think it's a good idea for the intelligence community to be seen as a major sponsor of this scientific assessment.

"Because the main thing that's so important," he says, "is that we have this be transparent technology, and that we attempt to build international cooperation from the beginning."




“Geoengineering has been seen as the potential last-ditch option to stave off the worst effects of climate change, given that agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been slow in coming. The basic idea is simple: Either suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or reflect incoming sunlight away from Earth.... Until recently, even discussing it has been somewhat taboo among scientists. One fear is that nations might fight to control the global thermostat — unilaterally taking action to try to adjust temperatures to their liking. Another is that the promise of a quick geoengineering fix would discourage the world from doing the hard work needed to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So several agencies of the U. S. government — including the intelligence community — and the National Academy of Sciences asked an independent committee to assess the state of the art and weigh in.... Aside from the threat of damage to Earth's ozone layer, and unknown consequences for global precipitation patterns, there could be political fallout and social upheaval. The committee recommended against attempting this, but said research was needed to better understand it. And some experts on climate science welcomed that stance. "I think we have to know. I think we have to know what the risks are and what the benefits might be so we can make informed decisions in the future," says Alan Robock, a climate scientist at Rutgers University who was not on the committee. "Would it be more dangerous to do it or to not do it? That's the question."... "And so we're all in favor of mitigation [and in] not putting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in the first place." David Keith, a climate science expert at Harvard University, points out that other nations have already set up dedicated research programs to look at geoengineering; the U.S. has lagged behind.... Yeah, we'd really like to fund some work on solar geoengineering but we're afraid of all the flak we'll get if we do it.' " Keith has one proposal to put a minuscule amount of sulfate particles into the atmosphere, as a test of the effect on ozone and whether that effect could be managed. "Whether or not you think it's a useful idea, it's incredibly small, in terms of an environmental impact," he says, noting that the pollution released would be the equivalent of a minute or so of a commercial airline flight. "The central, biggest fear is the fear that just even talking about this, or researching it and popularizing it, will lessen the strength of our commitment to cut emissions," says Keith.... That, and the idea that some nation might take matters into its own hands and start messing with the planet. Keith notes that although the intelligence community has a legitimate interest in trying to understand long-term risks to national security, he doesn't think it's a good idea for the intelligence community to be seen as a major sponsor of this scientific assessment. "Because the main thing that's so important," he says, "is that we have this be transparent technology, and that we attempt to build international cooperation from the beginning."

It's clear that the “lack of belief” in global warming is at the grass roots level of our “conservative” movement, and not among the top best educated people. Republican politicians fear the backlash of our fundamentalist religious voters who are, by and large, keeping them in office. The Intelligence community, the National Academy of Science and “several federal agencies” do not doubt the theory of climate change due to man made causes. Actually doing any of these proposed engineering techniques, however, could damage our Ozone layer, change and damage the precipitation patterns – which may already be occurring if last year's droughts are a result – and be manipulated by one nation or another to their political advantage. In addition, the idea of “sucking” the CO2 out of our atmosphere sounds like something that would be difficult to impossible. What means would be used for that?

My problem with the things discussed here is that the techniques mentioned could simply fail to work at all or produce results in an unpredictable way or extent. It will be an experiment, after all. Is a mistakenly induced new Ice Age better than global warming? Besides, one theory of global warming predicts the cooling of our Gulf Stream as a direct result of desalination in the northern Atlantic waters, which could on its own produce a new Deep Freeze. Adding crystals or chemicals in the atmosphere to produce cooling by that means could simply make the result worse.

Better, better to simply use more passive methods such as planting millions of trees and other green plants of all kinds, and in addition put a stop to the running of our coal fired electricity facilities. Then there's the usefulness of a marked slowdown on every citizen's day to day driving, which would make a very useful change. We could walk to the store rather than driving. Then there's always eating less beef.

As for climate engineering projects there are quite a few suggested in the Wikipedia article called “List of proposed geoengineering schemes.” Maybe some of these things could work.


Climate engineering
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Climate engineering, also referred to as geoengineering, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of reducingglobal warming.[1][2][3] Climate engineering has two categories of technologies-carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. Carbon dioxide removal addresses a cause of climate change by removing one of thegreenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Solar radiation management attempts to offset effects of greenhouse gases by causing the Earth to absorb less solar radiation.

Geoengineering has been proposed as a potential third option for tackling global warming, alongside mitigation and adaptation.[4] Scientists do not typically suggest geoengineering the climate as an alternative to emissions control, but rather an accompanying strategy.[5] Reviews of geoengineering techniques for climate control have emphasised that they are not substitutes for emission controls and have identified potentially stronger and weaker schemes.[6][7][8] The costs, benefits, and risks of many geoengineering approaches to climate change are not well understood.[9][10]
No known large-scale climate engineering projects have taken place to date. Almost all research has consisted of computer modelling or laboratory tests, and attempts to move to real-world experimentation have proved controversial. Some limited tree planting[11] and cool roof[12] projects are already underway. Ocean iron fertilization has been given small-scale research trials.[13]

Most experts and major reports advise against relying on geoengineering techniques as a simple solution to climate change, in part due to the large uncertainties over effectiveness and side effects. However most experts also argue though that the risks of such interventions must be seen in the context of risks of dangerous climate change.[14] As a rule of thumb it would appear that the scale of risks and costs of each climate engineering option appear to be somewhat inverse: The lower the costs, the greater the risks.[14][unbalanced opinion] Some have suggested that the concept of geoengineering the climate presents a moral hazard because it could reduce political and public pressure for emissions reduction.[15] Groups such as ETC Group[16] and individuals such as Raymond Pierrehumbert have called for a moratorium on deployment and out-of-doors testing of geoengineering techniques for climate control.[17][18]

Several organizations have investigated geoengineering with a view to evaluating its potential, including the US Congress,[19] NASA,[20] the Royal Society,[21] and the UK Parliament.[22] The Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies was convened to identify and develop risk reduction guidelines for climate intervention experimentation.[23]

Environmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth[24] and Greenpeace[25] have typically been reluctant to endorse solar radiation management, but are often more supportive of some carbon dioxide removal projects, such asafforestation and peatland restoration. Some authors have argued that any public support for geoengineering may weaken the fragile political consensus to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[26]


“List of proposed geoengineering schemes”
Wikipedia

Solar radiation management, cloud modification

Atmospheric projects[edit]
General proposals[4]

Reflective aerosols or (atmospheric) dust[5][6][7]
Reflective metal flakes[8]
Reflective engineered nanoparticles[9]
Stratospheric sulfur aerosols[10][11][12][13]
Marine cloud brightening[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]
Ocean sulfur cycle enhancement[13][22][23][24]
Ocean mixing[25][26]
Reflective balloons[27][28][29]
Modified ship /aircraft exhaust composition[30]
Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering
Cloud seeding[edit]
Burning sulfur[31]
Liquid nitrogen[32]
Silver iodide[citation needed]
Cirrus cloud seeding using airliners[33] to reduce reflectivity.[33]
Terrestrial albedo modification[edit]
Cool roof[34]
Reflective plastic sheeting covering desert[35][36] and glaciers[37]
Building thicker sea ice[38][39]
Land management / Bio-geoengineering[edit]
Tropical reforestation[40]
Grassland modification[41]
High-albedo crops.[42][43]
Ocean schemes[edit]
Oceanic foams[44]
Ocean hydrosols[45]
Bering Sea dam[46][47]
Space projects[edit]
Space sunshade[48]
Mining moon dust[49][50][51] or asteroids.[52]
Diffraction grating or lens in space, (L1 point)[53][54][55]
Lunar spectrum shifting – to accelerate chlorophyll metabolic clocks[56]
Greenhouse gas remediation[edit]

Main article: Greenhouse gas remediation
See also: Climate change mitigation
Carbon sequestration[edit]

Main article: Carbon sequestration
Biological processes[edit]

Ocean iron fertilization[57][58][59][60]
Ocean urea fertilisation[61]
Reforestation[62]
Peat production[63]
Ocean mixing[25][26][64][65][66][67]
Physical processes[edit]
Biochar burial[68][69][70]
Bio-energy with carbon storage[71][72][73]
Burying biomass[74][75]
Biomass ocean storage[76][77]
Carbon capture and storage[78][79][80]
Chemical techniques[edit]
Mineral carbonation / mineral sequestration.[81][82][81][83][84]
Carbon negative cement[85][86][87]
Oil shale ash[88]
Carbon air capture[89][89][90][91][92][93]
Ocean acid neutralisation[94][95][96][97][98][99][100]
Ocean hydrochloric acid removal[101]
Other greenhouse gas remediation[edit]
CFC laser photochemistry[102]