If South African president Jacob Zuma’s peace mission fails, Nato will deliver its heaviest blow to Libyan leader’s forces Nato has only one question as it prepares to unleash Apache helicopters against the forces of Muammar Gaddafi this week, and Captain Ali Mohammed, one of the defenders of the besieged rebel city of Misrata, can supply the answer. If, as most pundits predict, tomorrow’s peace mission to Tripoli by South African president Jacob Zuma fails, Nato will hit the Libyan leader harder than it has ever hit him before. British Apaches, together with French Tiger attack helicopters, will launch surgical strikes on Gaddafi’s forces besieging Misrata. They have the ability to destroy individual gun positions in the town of Zlitan, west of Misrata, with less risk to the civilian population kept there as human shields. But there is a problem. This kind of war takes time, and time is the commodity Nato does not have as critics complain it has extended the original United Nations no-fly zone mandate into what is regime change in all but name. The big question is whether the defenders will crumble under the onslaught, or fight with the same tenacity shown by their rebel enemy in Misrata. “If you use Apaches, it is sure they will run away,” said Mohammed. “There is a big difference between Gaddafi’s men and ourselves. I am defending my home, my family, my city. But Gaddafi’s forces do not believe in what they are doing.” The captain has led a band of fighters in this shell-scarred city, not just surviving the onslaught but pushing pro-Gaddafi forces back to the outskirts. Yet Gaddafi’s troops continue to rain death on the city outskirts, which shuddered under a bombardment of hundreds of mortars and missiles on Friday, fired from launchers too far back for the rebels to counter. To respond, they need the Apaches, four of which are on the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean, cruising somewhere beyond the horizon visible from Mohammed’s position. A second vessel, the French amphibious assault carrier Tonnerre, has four equally ferocious Tiger attack helicopters, plus a dozen of the more elderly Gazelles. All are armed with Hellfire missiles which have the ability to be launched from five miles off with pinpoint accuracy, precisely destroying gun positions and machine gun nests, leaving the local civilians unharmed. It is these weapons that the alliance hopes will finally break the will of Gaddafi’s forces. Fast jets continue pounding targets in both Tripoli and behind the front lines. In the skies across Libya, British and American Reaper drones, which can stay on patrol for 14 hours, circle endlessly. They watch the few highways out of Tripoli day and night, using their own Hellfire missiles to destroy any vehicle they see, in effect making it impossible for Gaddafi to reinforce or supply his units at Misrata and those further west near Benghazi. But his firepower has its limits. The UN resolution mandating Nato’s action prohibits the use of ground troops, leaving the alliance needing to win with only the lightly armed rebel troops to actually take and hold ground. Additionally, Apaches are vulnerable; slow and ponderous, they dare not venture over enemy territory for risk of being shot down by machine gun fire. Instead they are likely to linger over rebel lines, engaging only Libyan positions in the immediate vicinity. Given enough time, the Apaches can take out gun positions one by one, but time is not on Nato’s side. Many members, notably Germany and Turkey, were reluctant partners from the start and at the United Nations China and Russia have complained that the western alliance did not consult over the extension of a mandate designed to protect civilians into what is a full-scale war. Nato needs victory quickly by breaking the will of Gaddafi’s troops. “Sixty per cent of Gaddafi’s army do not want to fight,” says Abdulla Ali, a rebel army spokesman in Misrata. “They are forced there. If they do not fight they are shot.” Mohammed says Nato has instructed his forces to stay behind a “red line” marked out along the Misrata front, allowing Nato to kill anything it sees west of that line. It is an instruction he intends to obey. His dark eyes betray the strain of fighting through the streets of his city for the past 70 days. He stands, clad in a green shirt, pale jeans and black sandals amid a sand-encrusted checkpoint of corrugated iron and a few battered plastic chairs. Around his chest is the shoulder strap of a battered AK-47 machine gun, on his shirt a small badge with the picture of Ramadan Swehli, hero of the city’s resistance against Italian occupation nearly a century ago, superimposed over the rebel red, green and black tricolour. However, before the Apaches are unleashed, Nato has decided to give diplomacy a final shot. The key part of this plan fell into place on Friday when Russia’s president Dmitry Medvedev announced – possibly through gritted teeth – that he now supported Nato’s demand that Gaddafi step down immediately and unconditionally. That message will be delivered by Zuma in Tripoli tomorrow, coupled with the threat that if the Libyan leader refuses, Nato will unleash what will be the heaviest attack the alliance has mounted. Yesterday brought a clear sign of its increasing impatience with the regime as a rare daytime air strike was launched on the capital of Tripoli. For diplomats, the problem is not with Zuma’s negotiating skills, but with the fact that the message he conveys to Gaddafi offers no carrots, only sticks. Capitulation means he faces certain death if he stays in Libya. If he flees, any country willing to take him will shortly receive demands from the UN to hand him over to the International Criminal Court, whose judges are expected to issue an arrest warrant for crimes against humanity within weeks. The chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, has already called for one of his sons, Saif, to be indicted, and more charges against three more members of the regime are expected to follow later this year. In Misrata, few rebels expect the Libyan dictator to agree to step down, even in the face of Nato’s bolstered firepower. “He will not listen – he will stay and fight,” said Osama Alfitory, a fighter from Benghazi who volunteered to come and help in Misrata, for him a brother-city. “This guy is insane. I think he believes he will win in the end.” Nato hopes that if its renewed assault begins – which could happen as early as Tuesday night – Gaddafi’s army will start to think differently. Muammar Gaddafi Nato Libya Jacob Zuma Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Africa guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Sarah Palin is launching her East Coast bus tour tomorrow during a motorcycle rally to honor veterans, but some organizers aren’t happy about it. “She wasn’t invited,” Rolling Thunder organizer Ted Shpak tells MSNBC. “She’s not invited to speak. We’re not endorsing her … (but) we can’t stop her from coming…
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: Bradblog James O’Keefe has had a mixed blessings week. The IRS has granted his ridiculously hacky “investigative” group C3 (non-profit) status . In its application, Project Veritas said it planned to pursue as many as a half-dozen journalism projects and conduct five two- to three-day training sessions for people interested in learning how to do such projects on their own. “I can’t tell you the secret sauce of it, but we do have a training method,” Mr. O’Keefe said. “There are many people learning this method and learning how to expose abusive power in creative ways.” He said he would work as the organization’s “muckraker in chief,” for which he will be paid about $120,000 a year, according to the group’s application. It raised $2,367 last year, according to the filing, and expects that figure to grow to $1.65 million over the next three years, though Mr. O’Keefe described that as “a sort of dream.” The group has hired a firm led by Richard Viguerie, a conservative strategist, to help it raise money. Charities are constrained by law from participating in lobbying and political campaigns, and in response to a question posed by the I.R.S., Project Veritas specifically said it had no plans to lobby on behalf of specific legislation.“We’re designed to expose malfeasance, waste, fraud and corruption, to expose things for what they are,” Mr. O’Keefe said. “That’s not policy work, that’s educational work.” Jeffrey S. Tenenbaum, a lawyer specializing in nonprofit matters, looked at the Project Veritas Web site and said he could see nothing that would cause the group to run afoul of the rules on politicking. I don’t know, seems to me that illegal acts like attempting to break and enter into Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office for the purpose of illegally wiretapping her and whatever creepy plans he had with CNN journalist Abbie Boudreau on the boat might have tipped off the IRS that O’Keefe deserves no such classification. It’s not his partisanship; Heritage Foundation is a C3 organization too. It’s his fast and loose playing with ethics and rules that should work against him. But luckily for all of us, a federal judge is not so easily persuaded by O’Keefe’s machinations. O’Keefe and his partner Hannah Giles are being sued in San Diego by ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera. Giles previously tried to get out of the suit by claiming that all the recording was done by O’Keefe and she was there merely as a prop. O’Keefe, for his part, claimed that his First Amendment right as a “citizen journalist” absolved him of liability. The judge didn’t buy either argument. Bradblog : According to Maria Dinzeo of Courthouse News Service : Juan Carlos Vera claimed James O’Keefe III and Hannah Giles visited his office in August 2009, and conspired to create video and audio tapes of him, even after asking him if their conversation would be confidential. … [Lorenz ruled] that the law “is directed to the surreptitious recording of confidential communications and not the manner or method of recording the conversation.” Given the meaning of the word “record,” Lorenz found Giles equally responsible. Lorenz also rejected O’Keefe’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which he argued that First Amendment protections for journalists supersede the California Privacy Act. Since there was a mutual understanding that the conversation was confidential, Lorenz found that the privacy law “is not an overbroad intrusion on exposé newsgathering in which O’Keefe participates.” “Exposé newsgathering” is not what O’Keefe traffics in, as demonstrated again most recently by, ironically enough, the “news” website of Fox “News” host Glenn Beck after a similarly deceptive and secretly video taped smear of an NPR employee by O’Keefe last March. But O’Keefe’s long track record of deceptive video hit-jobs was not at issue in this particular legal argument. In his ruling [PDF] , Judge Lorenz highlighted specific portions of the CA law which is violated by “Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication.” The ruling goes on to further cite the statute which reads “The term ‘confidential communication’ includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto.” “California’s law is quite clear,” Lorenz wrote in response to the First Amendment arguments by O’Keefe and Giles , “that persons who engage in news gathering are not permitted to violate criminal laws in the process.” Now the question remains if the IRS will continue to allow Project Veritas (a misnomer if ever there was one) its C3 status with a convicted criminal at its helm.
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: Bradblog James O’Keefe has had a mixed blessings week. The IRS has granted his ridiculously hacky “investigative” group C3 (non-profit) status . In its application, Project Veritas said it planned to pursue as many as a half-dozen journalism projects and conduct five two- to three-day training sessions for people interested in learning how to do such projects on their own. “I can’t tell you the secret sauce of it, but we do have a training method,” Mr. O’Keefe said. “There are many people learning this method and learning how to expose abusive power in creative ways.” He said he would work as the organization’s “muckraker in chief,” for which he will be paid about $120,000 a year, according to the group’s application. It raised $2,367 last year, according to the filing, and expects that figure to grow to $1.65 million over the next three years, though Mr. O’Keefe described that as “a sort of dream.” The group has hired a firm led by Richard Viguerie, a conservative strategist, to help it raise money. Charities are constrained by law from participating in lobbying and political campaigns, and in response to a question posed by the I.R.S., Project Veritas specifically said it had no plans to lobby on behalf of specific legislation.“We’re designed to expose malfeasance, waste, fraud and corruption, to expose things for what they are,” Mr. O’Keefe said. “That’s not policy work, that’s educational work.” Jeffrey S. Tenenbaum, a lawyer specializing in nonprofit matters, looked at the Project Veritas Web site and said he could see nothing that would cause the group to run afoul of the rules on politicking. I don’t know, seems to me that illegal acts like attempting to break and enter into Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office for the purpose of illegally wiretapping her and whatever creepy plans he had with CNN journalist Abbie Boudreau on the boat might have tipped off the IRS that O’Keefe deserves no such classification. It’s not his partisanship; Heritage Foundation is a C3 organization too. It’s his fast and loose playing with ethics and rules that should work against him. But luckily for all of us, a federal judge is not so easily persuaded by O’Keefe’s machinations. O’Keefe and his partner Hannah Giles are being sued in San Diego by ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera. Giles previously tried to get out of the suit by claiming that all the recording was done by O’Keefe and she was there merely as a prop. O’Keefe, for his part, claimed that his First Amendment right as a “citizen journalist” absolved him of liability. The judge didn’t buy either argument. Bradblog : According to Maria Dinzeo of Courthouse News Service : Juan Carlos Vera claimed James O’Keefe III and Hannah Giles visited his office in August 2009, and conspired to create video and audio tapes of him, even after asking him if their conversation would be confidential. … [Lorenz ruled] that the law “is directed to the surreptitious recording of confidential communications and not the manner or method of recording the conversation.” Given the meaning of the word “record,” Lorenz found Giles equally responsible. Lorenz also rejected O’Keefe’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which he argued that First Amendment protections for journalists supersede the California Privacy Act. Since there was a mutual understanding that the conversation was confidential, Lorenz found that the privacy law “is not an overbroad intrusion on exposé newsgathering in which O’Keefe participates.” “Exposé newsgathering” is not what O’Keefe traffics in, as demonstrated again most recently by, ironically enough, the “news” website of Fox “News” host Glenn Beck after a similarly deceptive and secretly video taped smear of an NPR employee by O’Keefe last March. But O’Keefe’s long track record of deceptive video hit-jobs was not at issue in this particular legal argument. In his ruling [PDF] , Judge Lorenz highlighted specific portions of the CA law which is violated by “Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication.” The ruling goes on to further cite the statute which reads “The term ‘confidential communication’ includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto.” “California’s law is quite clear,” Lorenz wrote in response to the First Amendment arguments by O’Keefe and Giles , “that persons who engage in news gathering are not permitted to violate criminal laws in the process.” Now the question remains if the IRS will continue to allow Project Veritas (a misnomer if ever there was one) its C3 status with a convicted criminal at its helm.
Continue reading …With Memorial Day just around the corner, it’s time to fire up that BBQ. But why stick to just burgers and dogs when cooking outside? Here are our five favorite foods that turn out surprisingly fantastic when cooked over coals. More grilled recipes from Endless Simmer: Grilled Sweet Corn with Chili Lime Butter Grilled Trout with Charred Cilantro Grilled Sliders with Onion Marmalade
Continue reading …With Memorial Day just around the corner, it’s time to fire up that BBQ. But why stick to just burgers and dogs when cooking outside? Here are our five favorite foods that turn out surprisingly fantastic when cooked over coals. More grilled recipes from Endless Simmer: Grilled Sweet Corn with Chili Lime Butter Grilled Trout with Charred Cilantro Grilled Sliders with Onion Marmalade
Continue reading …Bill Nye “The Science Guy” was on Fox News's “America's News Headquarters” Saturday trying to make the case that despite it being “very difficult to mathematically connect” this year's tornado activity to global warming, “Tornadoes are almost certainly a consequence.” When host Uma Pemmaraju asked a seemingly simple question, “Are other countries seeing the same type of activity, the intensity of these tornadoes picking up in those regions as well,” “The Science Guy” first seemed completely stumped, and then gave a rather absurd answer (video follows with transcript and commentary): BILL NYE: The tornadoes very difficult to mathematically connect to climate change, but the rains, the extra warmth in the atmosphere, the extra water vapor in the atmosphere, that’s, those are facts. That’s the real deal. Now, we, we are patriots. We are from the U.S. I am. And you would like the U.S. to be the leader in addressing this problem. We would like to be out in front in trying to deal with whatever it is that’s holding in all this heat and creating all this extra water vapor in the atmosphere. Tornadoes are almost certainly a consequence. It is indeed telling that “The Science Guy” didn't once mention the impact of this year's La Ni
Continue reading …Bill Nye “The Science Guy” was on Fox News's “America's News Headquarters” Saturday trying to make the case that despite it being “very difficult to mathematically connect” this year's tornado activity to global warming, “Tornadoes are almost certainly a consequence.” When host Uma Pemmaraju asked a seemingly simple question, “Are other countries seeing the same type of activity, the intensity of these tornadoes picking up in those regions as well,” “The Science Guy” first seemed completely stumped, and then gave a rather absurd answer (video follows with transcript and commentary): BILL NYE: The tornadoes very difficult to mathematically connect to climate change, but the rains, the extra warmth in the atmosphere, the extra water vapor in the atmosphere, that’s, those are facts. That’s the real deal. Now, we, we are patriots. We are from the U.S. I am. And you would like the U.S. to be the leader in addressing this problem. We would like to be out in front in trying to deal with whatever it is that’s holding in all this heat and creating all this extra water vapor in the atmosphere. Tornadoes are almost certainly a consequence. It is indeed telling that “The Science Guy” didn't once mention the impact of this year's La Ni
Continue reading …