|
SUNDAY
1/19, 8 PM, BENEFIT SHOW FOR BANGLADESHI WORKERS & FAMILIES!
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| Occupy Boston Announcement
Dear All,
In August, employees of Cambridge's Insomnia Cookies struck, and
joined the IWW. They were fed up
with lousy pay and conditions. Their demands included $15/hr, health care, and a
union, and they were swiftly terminated. Ever since, workers have stayed strong
and maintained their struggle, which has grown into an organizing drive at the
boutique cookie business. Insomnia pays rock-bottom wages, charges $1.35 for
cookies that cost the company .10 to make, and refuses to pay workers'
compensation. Bike delivery workers report that if they get hurt in traffic, the
boss' response is, "Why are you late?" In response to a series of
protests against the company's labor practices, Insomnia falsely reported
picketers were blocking the sidewalk in front of the Cambridge store, giving
Harvard and Cambridge cops an excuse to bring police violence, and phony charges of assaulting cops, down on
a union member.
Undeterred, the
workers and their allies are keeping up pressure on the company with continuing
pickets
of local stores. Students at Harvard, BU and elsewhere have called for a boycott of
the company. The National Labor Relations Board issued a
Complaint against Insomnia for illegally firing workers for union activity.
Recently SEIU Local 509 donated $1,000 to the campaign, a magnificent act of
solidarity.
In Solidarity,
Geoff
| ||||||||||
They took the flag down five minutes later when ordered to by tribal leaders. This shows that the tribes control Falluja.Already over 100 civilians have been killed in this violence, violence that has been facilitated by US weapons. The Independent reported that Iraqi security forces are bombing Falluja with Hellfire missiles sold to them by the US. But the US has supplied the Iraqi state with far more than this single weapon system. Recently, Congress has shown some reluctance to continue arms trade with the Maliki government, for fear that it would use the weapons for internal repression, a fear that appears to have some justification.
A team of security and arms experts, meeting this week in Washington to discuss the matter, has concluded that the range of the rocket that delivered sarin in the largest attack that night was too short for the device to have been fired from the Syrian government positions where the Obama administration insists they originated.***The authors of a report released Wednesday said that their study of the rocket’s design, its likely payload and its possible trajectories show that it would have been impossible for the rocket to have been fired from inside areas controlled by the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
In the report, titled “Possible Implications of Faulty U.S. Technical Intelligence,” Richard Lloyd, a former United Nations weapons inspector, and Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argue that the question about the rocket’s range indicates a major weakness in the case for military action initially pressed by Obama administration officials.***To emphasize their point, the authors used a map produced by the White House that showed which areas were under government and rebel control on Aug. 21 and where the chemical weapons attack occurred. Drawing circles around Zamalka to show the range from which the rocket could have come, the authors conclude that all of the likely launching points were in rebel-held areas or areas that were in dispute. The area securely in government hands was miles from the possible launch zones.In an interview, Postol said that a basic analysis of the weapon – some also have described as a looking like a push pop, a fat cylinder filled with sarin atop a thin stick that holds the engine – would have shown that it wasn’t capable of flying the 6 miles from the center of the Syrian government-controlled part of Damascus to the point of impact in the suburbs, or even the 3.6 miles from the edges of government-controlled ground.He questioned whether U.S. intelligence officials had actually analyzed the improbability of a rocket with such a non-aerodynamic design traveling so far before Secretary of State John Kerry declared on Sept. 3 that “we are certain that none of the opposition has the weapons or capacity to effect a strike of this scale – particularly from the heart of regime territory.”“I honestly have no idea what happened,” Postol said. “My view when I started this process was that it couldn’t be anything but the Syrian government behind the attack. But now I’m not sure of anything. The administration narrative was not even close to reality. Our intelligence cannot possibly be correct.”Lloyd, who has spent the past half-year studying the weapons and capabilities in the Syrian conflict, disputed the assumption that the rebels are less capable of making rockets than the Syrian military.“The Syrian rebels most definitely have the ability to make these weapons,” he said. “I think they might have more ability than the Syrian government.” [He's right.]***They said that Kerry’s insistence that U.S. satellite images had shown the impact points of the chemical weapons was unlikely to be true. The charges that detonate chemical weapons are generally so small, they said, that their detonations would not be visible in a satellite image.The report also raised questions whether the Obama administration misused intelligence information in a way similar to the administration of President George W. Bush in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. [Correct, indeed.] Then, U.S. officials insisted that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had an active program to develop weapons of mass destruction. Subsequent inspections turned up no such program or weapons.“What, exactly, are we spending all this money on intelligence for?” Postol asked.***![[]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tVCm0GJx3qDaK7A12yD_xQMV9OOMEUvmxB7_sLjzrSF2-gVcqlmwaKo7uPfGtrRiFIHCez2_L-K_kyytTlbNEzXy4Cvn0zsCU1gh1Kv4f0cB9KnAYyB2uBZPBpSrfOhZGZApAZDATBwg=s0-d)
Even the New York Times – one of the main advocates for the claims that the rockets came from a Syrian government base – has quietly dropped the claim.
But the U.S. is still taking the position that the only acceptable outcome for the coming Syria negotiations is for Assad to be replaced by the US-backed transitional government.
As with Iraq, the “facts” are being fixed around the policy.
New Iran agreement includes secret side deal, Tehran official saysBY PAUL RICHTER
Tribune Washington BureauJanuary 13, 2014
WASHINGTON Key elements of a new nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers are contained in an informal, 30-page text not yet publicly acknowledged by Western officials, Iran's chief negotiator said Monday.
Abbas Araqchi disclosed the existence of the document in a Persian-language interview with the semiofficial Iranian Students News Agency.
The new agreement, announced over the weekend, sets out a timetable for how Iran and the six nations, led by the United States, will implement a deal reached in November that is aimed at restraining Iran's nuclear ambitions.
When officials from Iran and the world powers announced that they had completed the implementing agreement, they didn't release the text of the deal, nor did they acknowledge the existence of an informal addendum.
In the interview, Araqchi referred to the side agreement using the English word "nonpaper," a diplomatic term used for an informal side agreement that doesn't have to be disclosed publicly.
The nonpaper deals with such important details as the operation of a joint commission to oversee how the deal is implemented and Iran's right to continue nuclear research and development during the next several months, he said.
Araqchi described the joint commission as an influential body that will have authority to decide disputes. U.S. officials have described it as a discussion forum rather than a venue for arbitrating major disputes.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that the text of the implementing agreement would be released to lawmakers. He said the six parties were weighing how much of the text they could release publicly.
Asked late Monday about the existence of the informal nonpaper, White House officials referred the question to the State Department. A State Department comment wasn't immediately available.
Ray Takeyh, an Iran specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, said Iran and the other six countries may have written the nonpaper to record understandings that they didn't want to release publicly. The governments may plan to release "just a short text, with broad principles and broad strokes," Takeyh said.
The Nov. 24 deal between Iran and the six powers - the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany - aims to freeze Iran's nuclear progress for six months. During that period, the two sides will try to negotiate a longer-term deal aimed at ensuring that Tehran's nuclear program remains peaceful. The agreement has come under fire in Iran and the United States from critics who contend it is harmful to their side.
In his interview, Araqchi touched on the sensitive issue of how much latitude Iran will have to continue its nuclear research and development.
U.S. officials said Sunday that Iran would be allowed to continue existing research and development projects and with pencil-and-paper design work, but not to advance research with new projects. Araqchi, however, implied that the program would have wide latitude.
"No facility will be closed; enrichment will continue, and qualitative and nuclear research will be expanded," he said. "All research into a new generation of centrifuges will continue."
The research and development issue has been an important one for many U.S. lawmakers, who fear that Iran will try to forge ahead with its nuclear program while the negotiations are underway. At an administration briefing for senators Monday, members of both parties raised concerns about the centrifuge research issue, aides said.
President Barack Obama on Monday again hailed the implementing agreement and appealed to Congress not to impose new sanctions on Iran, for fear of driving the country from the bargaining table.
"My preference is for peace and diplomacy, and this is one of the reasons why I've sent the message to Congress that now is not the time for us to impose new sanctions; now is the time for us to allow the diplomats and technical experts to do their work," Obama said. "What we want to do is give diplomacy a chance and give peace a chance."
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/13/214365/new-iran-agreement-includes-secret.html#emlnl=World_Newsletter#storylink=cpy
Washington Post
January 17, 2014
Iraq’s Maliki says he has asked for weapons from U.S., will also seek training for troopsLoveday Morris and Ernesto Londoño
b Iraq has asked the United States for new arms to beat back the dramatic resurgence of al-Qaeda-linked militants in a western province and would like U.S. troops to train its counterterrorism forces, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said in an interview Thursday.
The Iraqi leader said he provided the wish list after a phone call with Vice President Biden on Tuesday. U.S. officials said it might be easy to deliver those weapons, which include assault rifles and artillery, to Baghdad soon.
“Some is on hand, and we can supply it quickly,” a senior American diplomat said Thursday, speaking on the condition of anonymity to be candid.
The request for stepped-up U.S. assistance is adding urgency to a debate over the types of weapons that Washington ought to provide to Maliki’s government and the leverage that aid could give the United States.
Despite the stunning revival of the Sunni insurgency, with militants carrying out an intense wave of attacks over the past year and seizing control of key cities in Anbar province, Maliki said he had no regrets that his administration did not reach a deal with Washington that would have kept some U.S. troops in Iraq after the 2011 pullout.
“Since the American withdrawal, we’ve had a friendly relationship, but this strong bilateral relationship doesn’t mean we need American forces here,” a weary-looking Maliki said in the interview, conducted in his office in Baghdad’s heavily barricaded Green Zone.
U.S. officials have watched Iraq’s soaring violence with alarm over the past year, as an insurgency that the American military took credit for decimating has reemerged as a powerful regional force. But they also have come to see the crisis as an opportunity to retain influence in Iraq, and they worry that if they’re unable to meet its urgent needs, Baghdad will increasingly turn to other countries for materiel.
“We’re at a point where there is an opportunity to reinvigorate the partnership,” said retired Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik, who led the command that trained and equipped Iraq’s security forces in 2008. “We ought to take that opportunity.”
The weapons Maliki has requested are a small piece of the massive list of defense items that Iraq is trying to buy from the United States. Baghdad is also seeking Apache helicopters, but the prospective sale has been snarled in Congress, where lawmakers have sought assurances that Iraqi security forces won’t use the aircraft to crush political opponents or crack down on dissent in Sunni communities.
Dubik said that such concerns are legitimate but that they also provide Washington with an opportunity to nudge Maliki to govern more inclusively, an objective that the Obama administration regards as vital in the run-up to parliamentary elections scheduled for spring. “I think we’re right in trying to get assurances that the equipment will be used properly,” he said. “Therein lies part of the opportunity.”
Since 2005, the Pentagon has processed military orders for the Iraqi government worth nearly $10.5 billion. Iraq has initiated other orders that, if approved, could raise that sum to nearly $25 billion, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service.
U.S. military officials say that keeping the Iraqi armed forces reliant on American weapons systems would give Washington leverage for decades and foster a relationship built during the Iraq war.
Because the U.S. defense export system is slow and sometimes stymied by politics, Iraq in recent years has begun to turn to Russia, South Korea and other countries that have more nimble military sales programs.
“Iraq has needs, and it also has resources,” a senior U.S. official told reporters in a recent briefing conducted on the condition of anonymity. “We don’t actually gain leverage over the Iraqis by withholding these systems. We tend to cede that leverage to our strategic competitors.”
Maliki said during the interview that he would support a new U.S. military training mission for Iraqi counterterrorism troops in Jordan, marking the first time he has expressed support for a plan that the Pentagon has been contemplating in recent months. U.S. military officials have not provided details on the scope or timing of such a training mission.
The Iraqi leader said he is “satisfied that we will achieve victory against al-Qaeda.” But he cautioned that the situation is complicated and intertwined with the sectarian conflict in next-door Syria.
“The whole region’s events are connected,” he said. “To solve the problem in Iraq, we cannot look at it in isolation from the other events in the region.”
Maliki deflected blame for the ongoing crisis in his country, saying the Sunni violence has been “exported” to Iraq by another Arab country,
_______________________________________________
1 attachment
