Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 5, 2011
The Maoists In India And Open Thread

Let me recommend a very well written piece in The Caravan magazine about the "Maoists" in India: The Bloody Crossroads – The tragic fate of one village and the deadly consequences of India’s faltering struggle against the Maoist insurgency.

The issue fits the global picture in a smaller, but still quite big, area. Plutocrats stealing land rich with resources and the local people, threatened with losing their livelihood, fighting against the theft. Troops were called in and wage a bloody COIN campaign against the natives which in the end seems to fail.

Use also as open thread ..

Comments

A quote from an article in the Guardian

Most legal opinion in the United States has accepted the White House’s rationale that the US is at war with al-Qaida.

Does that mean all prisoners claiming that they are fighting for al-Qaida now are protected by the Geneva Convention?

Posted by: hans | May 5 2011 19:40 utc | 1

Thanks for the tip: a very informative article.

Posted by: bevin | May 5 2011 19:43 utc | 2

No Hans, it means that “most legal opinion in the United States” accepts anything that the White House does.

Posted by: bevin | May 5 2011 19:44 utc | 3

Besides the Geneva Convention does not mention illegal combatants.
Oh sure, it has extensive text about all prisoners being treated as soldiers until it can be decided by a court wheter they are in accordance with the laws of war. But it does not mention the words “illegal combatants”. Or maybe it does, the point is that if USA says that Geneva Conventions does not apply, then it does not apply.
And apparently they do not even bother to hire decent propagandists anymore.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | May 5 2011 20:35 utc | 4

CBS Evening News tonight reported that the helicopters used in the raid are a new stealth version with rotors which make a quieter whup-whup sound. The one that lost its tail could not be completely destroyed by the Seals, and experts were able to detect the stealth coating and new rotors. Heh. How very interesting. Especially for our “competitors.”
So…maybe there wasn’t an inside guy in the Pakistan military? No cooperation? Maybe they stealthiness was “just that good” that it got by? Hhhmm.
Or, maybe there was assistance and the US was eager to try out their new toy.
Oh, and now the secret is out about this new helicopter.
I don’t recall which links led me to some comments by people familiar with the technology, but the report answers some questions and those commenters were spot on.

Posted by: jawbone | May 5 2011 22:56 utc | 5

Re: Just entering another nation’s territory? Obama said this raid had set a precedent for future presidents… I imagine he meant only presidents of the US, as the US will view it’s territorial boundries as sacred.

Posted by: jawbone | May 5 2011 22:59 utc | 6

Re: illegal combatants
A fluid battlefield situation can justify an extraordinary ‘take-no-prisoners’ policy, assuming that soldier-captors don’t have access to a custodial/judicial apparatus for detaining and processing captives.
But if courts are functioning and accessible, there’s no excuse for not using them, or for suspending habeas corpus.
The spirit of the laws of war is about restraining the actions of the captors, not about parsing the status of the captives, whether combatant, non-combatant, enemy combatant, or ‘illegal combatant’.

Posted by: Watson | May 5 2011 23:29 utc | 7

Link for #6 — WH sees raid as precedent.

Posted by: jawbone | May 6 2011 0:07 utc | 8

the terminator of north american indians giving
*technical support* to the war on south asian indians
what a poetic injustice !

Posted by: denk | May 6 2011 1:22 utc | 9

denk @ 9: Good link, but depressing. Same old story eh?

Posted by: ben | May 6 2011 1:41 utc | 10

Speaking of “Just entering another nation’s territory”… I’ve been wondering about those US “hikers” who somehow stumbled into Iran, two of whom seem to be facing trial. I think it happened while MoA was on hiatus, and I haven’t seen anybody talking about it.
Anybody have any theories on this? It’s hard (but not impossible) to believe they were just that dumb that they were looking for some new trails, decided Iraq was a good bet, and then just accidentally ended up in Iran. …! and, if that were the case, why the seeming overreaction by Iran?

Posted by: david | May 6 2011 3:33 utc | 11

ben [10]
*,depressing. Same old story eh?*
moral of the story….
if u’re the *ic*, aka fukus [courtesy debs]
or its franchise
there’s no crime too big that u cant get away with

Posted by: denk | May 6 2011 5:25 utc | 12

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/nationwide-fuel-contamination-suspected-buses-and-trucks-reportedly-affected-1.360050
Guess which country is getting blamed. A clue starts with an I and ends with N

Posted by: hans | May 6 2011 7:42 utc | 13

The ObL murder seems to be accepted. Not much fuss or demo’s being held in Pakistan by the people, very surreal. Amazing a crime without a body and the world just accepts it!

Posted by: hans | May 6 2011 13:15 utc | 14

denk @ 12: Yep. And I believe that ALL the factions responsible for your stated horrors, and they are, all work for mega-corporate america.The US gov, and our military work for the best interests of our mega-corporations, not for rank and file US citizens.

Posted by: ben | May 6 2011 18:14 utc | 15

yes ben
the trouble begins one fine afternoon,
when the *elites* decided that making fridges , cookers are for third world peasants.
*they* are meant for better things…..such as taking over a god damned country
and the rest is history

Posted by: denk | May 7 2011 5:23 utc | 16

meet the newly minted *mr hr*, hmdl
here’s his illustrious credentials…..
endorsing the rape of exyugo, iraq, afghan etc
supports extrajudicial executions on foreign land, no less
hobnobs with the likes of bush, blair, obama
and apparently oblivious to *the biggest grab of tribal lands after Columbus *, a joint op between his mentors in washington n bharat, his adopted country, mounted against the indigenuous of india,
like i say, i exclude *humanrights* from my vocab coz its the most abused word of the century.

Posted by: denk | May 7 2011 15:55 utc | 17

How do you talk to kids about bin Laden’s death?

The death of the terrorist mastermind and the grisly details of his death may have you kids confused about justice and revenge. Psychiatrist Gail Saltz and development specialist Robyn Silverman offer advice for discussing the subject with your children.

The ethics of USA,USA,USA!
America, where we kill people who have killed people to, show other people that killing is wrong!
Of all the things we at moon have witnessed over the years, why is this THE one thing that makes me want to not ever post again, sign off the Internet for good, and go quietly into blissful ignorance, like the vast majority of the average American?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 9 2011 5:53 utc | 18

As one who has only recently arrived at VOIP communication, this story has marred my day. I know there are open source alternatives to Skype, but I doubt that I will be able to convince my interlocutors to abandon it. Perhaps the more technically adept will be able to offer useful advice in this regard.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | May 10 2011 8:49 utc | 19

Once an asshole …
Tony Blair used children’s cash to set up office: Report

LONDON: Former British Premier Tony Blair has landed into a controversy for allegedly using some 400,000 pounds received from a fund for disadvantaged children to set up an office in a five-star hotel in West Asia, a report said.
Prime Minister David Cameron has revealed the sum came from Britain’s Department for International Development, which works to “eliminate world poverty”, the ‘Daily Express’ newspaper reported.
But, it was spent on rooms at the exclusive American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, where Blair spends one week a month in his role as peace envoy to the Middle East, the British newspaper claimed.

Posted by: b | May 10 2011 13:48 utc | 20

I never saw any reason to doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii to his alleged parents..
I thought the controversy typical of US politics, quarrels over trivia designed by all the participants to solder their own group, or to distract…
The whole affair is reminiscent of small town medieval politics, where blood lines, family, favoritism, sexual relations, rumors, etc. occupy the front stage. The Trig-truther (handicapped son of Sarah Palin) hoopla is another example.
However it went so far (the Donald trumpeting and so on) that I was compelled to look it up.
1, The law.
(I also looked into the recent long form Obama birth certificate, and will post about that if there is any interest.)
For the birth of a child to one US citizen and one ‘alien’, in wedlock, outside the US and its possessions:
For birth abroad between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html
(see also PDF at bottom for the long version)
Ann became 14 on Nov 29, 1956. She gave birth to Obama on August 4th, 1961. = Less than 5 years.
If she had left US territory, shortly before the birth, due to any circumstances whatsoever, and gave birth ‘abroad’, Obama would not have acquired US citizenship at birth. (Note: ‘citizenship’ and not ‘natural born citizen.’ 1)
By definition, young mothers married to ‘aliens’ could not claim US residence of more than 5 years between their 14th b-day and giving birth before their 19th b-day.
Hawaii became the 50th state in August, 1959. Dunham family moved to Hawaii, from the continental US, in 1960, her US residency is not in question, simply it was too short after age 14 for a birth in foreign parts to transmit citizenship.
Had she been unmarried, Obama’s place of birth would have been immaterial. (The baby then has no ‘alien’ father, no other affiliation. All I have written concerns the mother case.)
This is the reason you nowhere read ‘birthers’ or other purists claiming that the Dunham-Obama marriage was invalid, which might be argued, as O Sr., when he married Ann, was ‘married’ with two children, and not divorced. Interpreting all that, however, would depend on the reading of Kenyan law and custom, and its translation or application to US law, at the time. O Sr.’s previous marriage was not validated in the US, for sure (all his documents of which there are lots make no mention), which is why O Sr. and Ann could and did marry as soon as they realized she was pregnant.
The law quoted up top was amended in 1986, Public Law 99-653, shortening the ‘years of stay’, and it had a retroactive scope of some kind. It would take an expert attorney to unwind the matter further as it would rest on all kinds of detail and precedent, as well as the previous marriage. (See bottom of p. 17 in the PDF.)
At that point, however, had Obama been born in Kenya, according to the rules he would have been a non-US citizen for 25 years, presumably ‘Kenyan’ or ? – i.e. born in a British Crown Colony that became independent when Obama was 2-3 years old.
So, the birther hoopla does *rest on* the law, though most don’t seem to realize it themselves.
I assumed that Obama’s non-US characteristics (black but not African-American – white in his stances and education – lived his childhood+youth outside the continental US – lived in Indonesia, a Muslim country – was called Barry S. – etc.), ordinary racism, Republican Hate, were the only spur. Made to hang on the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ about which endless arguments could be proffered.
1. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural- born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
PDF:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

Posted by: Noirette | May 10 2011 14:16 utc | 21

Perspective.

Posted by: Monolycus | May 12 2011 3:45 utc | 22

interesting two-part interview w/ “bin ladin`s media adviser, ayman al-fayid”, translated from ilaf, a london-based saudi online daily, and compiled & distributed by the NTIS. not familiar enough w/ all the material to make a judgement on every claim & assertion in it, but interesting stuff, on the whole
part one – Bin Ladin`s Media Adviser: the United States Either Killed Him or Has Been Detaining Him Since 2003
part two – The United States Had No Role in the Establishment of Al-Qaeda Organization
the latter has yet another account of the origin of the name al-qa’idah that i had never run across before

Once, the members of the “group of 23” were conferring in the command room to study the situation of the Afghan mujahidin. It is a room in which we once received Shaykh Hafiz Salamah, leader of the popular resistance in Suez, and also Shaykh Ahmad al-Mahallawi, and we discussed the means to unify them in one group; Shaykh Abu-Usamah considered that the Islamic groups were one of the causes of Muslim disunity, and he believed that Muslims are one nation, and not divergent groups.
The conferees were: Abu-Abdallah Usama Bin Ladin, Dr Abdallah Azzam, Abu-Ubaydah al-Banshiri, Abu-Hadiyah al-Kurdistani, and Ali al-Rashidi. Each of them proposed a name for the new group. Here, Dr Abdallah Azzam pointed at me and said: “What is your suggestion? As long as God says `Conduct their affairs by mutual consultation (Sura Al-Shura, from Verse 38),` let us listen to the children.” This is because I was the youngest among them. I spoke rejecting all the proposals. Dr Azzam replied laughing: “Do you see it now; he is a dictator like his father;” and he pointed at Shaykh Abu-Usamah Al-Masri, who considered me as his son. I explained that the new entity ought to reject all the other groups, and the aim was to unite the Arab Afghans in order to become a nucleus for uniting all Muslims across earth, and hence the new entity should not be a group or movement otherwise there would be no difference from the others. I said that Prince of the Faithful Umar Bin-al-Khattab called Medina “Al-Qaeda al-Aminah (the Secure Base)” in order to be the nucleus of the secure Muslim society, which would be far-removed from division, and removed from it all the elements of sedition, such as the Jews and the Magi, and allocated one third of the army to protect it. They became convinced of the name, and Al-Qaeda was established in 1988.
interviewer: But there are many other explanations of the name attributed to some experts?
All the explanations adopted by Dr Diya Rashwan, Amr al-Shawbaki, and Abd-al-Rahim Ali are unfounded. Moreover, they do not understand the foundations on which Al-Qaeda was established. They and other experts consider that the United States is the one that was behind the establishment of Al-Qaeda. This also is not true, because the United States did not contract agreements with the mujahidin, but it contracted agreements with the then ruling regimes, such as Al-Sadat and Husni Mubarak in Egypt, King Khalid in Saudi Arabia, and Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan. Al-Qaeda was a revolutionary concept or organization that operated according to the principle of unity of the revolution and revolution unification. It wanted to trigger revolution by the peoples against all regimes so that after this revolution the nation unites.

Posted by: b real | May 14 2011 4:16 utc | 23

should have also added then this bit from the first part

interviewer: What is the current influence of Al-Qaeda after the killing of Bin Ladin recently, or his disappearance, as you say, in 2003?
Al-Qaeda has gone through four stages. The first stage was the will and the formation; it was the period of its establishment. The second is the double infiltrations, i.e. the positive and negative infiltration; the positive infiltration was by the jihadi organizations and groups that were operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and their members aimed to join Al-Qaeda because it was the richest; these include Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was the Amir of the Jihad Group in Afghanistan. The third stage is the collapse and the post-collapse stage, which took place after the 11 September events, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the operations of the destroyer USS Cole and others. The fourth stage is the great deception, which is represented by the “fictitious Al-Qaeda” created by the United States when it promoted that there was one Al-Qaeda in Iraq, another in the Arab Maghreb, a third in Saudi Arabia, and in other countries of the Muslim world, claiming that they are criminal organizations that work toward annihilating the society. Therefore, Al-Qaeda as a revolutionary organization no longer exists or has any real influence.
interviewer: This means that there is no existence at all of Al-Qaeda in the world now?
No, it exists, but only in two places or countries, Afghanistan and Yemen. In the former, because Al-Qaeda is linked to the Taliban Movement, which still controls the land there. In the latter it exists because of the special circumstances of Yemen. As for the Al-Qaeda that carried out the 11 September explosions, it is fictitious, it is the great deception.

Posted by: b real | May 14 2011 4:20 utc | 24

b #20. a five-star hotel in West Asia….. the exclusive American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem
west asia? hmm

Posted by: annie | May 14 2011 23:54 utc | 25