- Israeli settlers killed as peace talks set to begin in Washington
- In speech, Obama shifts war rhetoric from Iraq to Afghanistan
- Rampant deforestation in Pakistan a factor in current flood devastation
- New guidelines aim to end culture of corruption in gas and drilling oversight agency
- Mining project in Alaska could threaten wild salmon run
- Louisiana businesses say BP negligent on payment for services
- AK Senator Lisa Murkowski concedes Republican nomination
- More lawmakers accused of ethics violations
- Federal court temporarily blocks Orlando ordinance banning the public feeding of homeless people
- Cross-border skirmish between Azerbaijan and Armenian troops threatens delicate peace
- Alleged WikiLeaks source undergoes mental evaluation
Palestinian, Israeli and other world leaders are meeting with President Obama in Washington ahead of tomorrows Middle East talks, but a deadly attack on West Bank settlers cast a heavy shadow on those talks. FSRNs Ghassan Bannoura has the story.
Last night, President Obama addressed the nation from the Oval Office for just the second time. He declared an end to the combat mission in Iraq and at the same time outlined a plan for continued war in Afghanistan. Analysts say that in trying to walk this line, Obama may have difficulty appeasing any side with his speech. Tanya Snyder has more.
Suicide bomb attacks in Lahore, Pakistan today have left dozens dead and nearly 200 people injured. The blasts targeted a mourning procession of Shiites. The violence comes as the country deals with whats been called the worst natural disaster in the country's history. Floods have affected an estimated 20 million people, leaving thousands homeless and more at risk of disease. But some environmental groups say rapid deforestation and poor land management has contributed to the disaster.
We're joined by James Dalton, water management adviser at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
Such is the political hysteria over 'illegal aliens' that legislative reform is paralysed. Only President Obama can break the logjam
A month after a federal judge struck down most of Arizona's tough new immigration law, the White House campaign to stigmatise the GOP as the party of bigotry and intolerance has backfired. Rather than rally independents, it's further polarised white swing voters against the Democrats.
And its real purpose to galvanise disaffected Latino voters hasn't borne fruit either. It's time for Obama to change course.
With Republicans still hostile to comprehensive immigration reform, Democrats prefer to punt on immigration until after the mid-terms. But with the GOP surging fast, that's likely to delay further progress until after the 2012 elections and perhaps even longer.
America, already convulsed by nativism on a scale not seen since the 1920s, can't afford to wait that long. And neither can the president's restive Latino base. We need to act now.
As the nation's chief executive, Obama has the power to institute policy action on immigration that does not require a formal vote by congress. It's not a power he should use lightly, but it's there, and current circumstances warrant its use. There are two areas of executive action on immigration that the president should consider.
First, in deference to those seeking a legalisation program, Obama should issue an executive order to temporarily suspend the deportation of certain classes of illegal aliens. "Deferred enforced departure", or DED, as it's known, wouldn't give aliens green cards, but it would protect them from deportation for a set period. It could also serve as a prelude to full-scale legalisation, if congress so chooses.
Two obvious candidates for DED are the children of illegal aliens who migrated when they were still minors, and the illegal alien spouses of US soldiers in uniform. Their numbers are less than 9% of the total illegal alien population. Many in both groups have lived in the US for years.
The GOP has labeled DED and other similar options an "executive amnesty". It accuses Obama of threatening an end-run around congress. But it doesn't and shouldn't apply to all 11 million illegals. And aliens who qualify don't necessarily have the right to stay in the US permanently; it's only a temporary, but sustained, reprieve.
Ironically, a handful of defence hawks including vocal "amnesty" opponents like representatives Mike Pence (Republican, Indiana) and Sam Johnson (Republican, Texas) have already pressed Obama to grant DED to military spouses. But they still view illegal alien minors about 800,000, currently as simply "law-breakers".
Senators Richard Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) and Richard Lugar (Republican, Indiana) have co-sponsored the so-called Dream Act to allow these minors to get green cards right away. To qualify, they would have to go to college or enlist in the US military. The Pentagon, in search of fresh recruits, strongly supports this bill. But the bulk of the GOP isn't budging and probably won't, unless pushed.
As a stopgap, Obama has already sent word to the department of homeland security not to target illegal aliens guilty of only minor crimes. But with so much GOP hostility, he's been reluctant to protect specific classes of illegal aliens, like the Dream kids. It's time to take that step now.
Presidents in both parties Ronald Reagan, no less than Bill Clinton have previously extended DED or "temporary protected" status to large classes of illegal aliens, including Central American and Liberian asylum-seekers. Arguably, these quasi-refugees faced danger back home, had they been deported. But everyone knows this was largely a fiction in the Central American case. It simply made sense, politically, to grant them a temporary stay.
It's important, however, that Obama couple any concession of this kind with continued efforts to tighten immigration enforcement. The president, under GOP pressure, has already signed a bill to beef up border enforcement. Now, on his own initiative, he should take similar action at the workplace to deter illegal hiring.
How? By ordering that "E-Verify", the workplace verification system that's currently in restricted use, be extended nationwide and made mandatory for all employers. A dozen states, including Arizona, have already mandated use of E-Verify. And congressional Republicans, as well as Blue Dog Democrats, are among its staunchest supporters. They'd be hardpressed to oppose the president for taking up their cause.
Executive action is risky. But it's far less risky, politically, than convening a "lame-duck" session of congress, as some Democrats like senate majority leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) now propose, to try to ram through the Dream Act or other broader immigration measures, much as they did with healthcare reform.
Most outgoing Democrats aren't going to play ball, especially if they have to vote to expand enforcement. And even those who survive the mid-terms still have to face the voters in 2012. Supporting legalisation in a GOP-controlled congress could well cost them their seats.
As president, Obama is uniquely placed to step in and exercise Solomon-like leadership on behalf of Democrats and Republicans alike. Recent polls show that a majority of voters including a majority of GOP voters support expanded enforcement coupled with some kind of legalisation.
At a time when the public discourse on immigration is degenerating into near-hysteria, and congress remains paralysed, even-handed executive action can point the country forward. It sends a powerful signal to voters that the president still has the courage to stick his neck out, even when a nervous and recalcitrant congress, including members of his own party, won't.
The entire country Democrats, Republicans and independents alike would stand up and cheer.
Israeli PM names non-negotiable issues as Hillary Clinton warns of cost of continued conflict
Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, opened peace talks with the Palestinians today by saying that two issues recognition of his country as a Jewish state and arrangements to ensure it does not come under attack from within an independent Palestine state are key to any deal.
Netanyahu called the two issues the "pillars to peace" at the opening of face-to-face talks with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, in Washington.
The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, launched the negotiations by calling for the two men to show themselves as bold and courageous statesmen and reach an comprehensive peace agreement within the one-year deadline set by Barack Obama.
"We understand the suspicion and scepticism that so many feel borne out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes," she said. "But by being here today you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change."
Clinton noted that everyone at the negotiating table had been there before, in Netanyahu's case when he was prime minster 14 years ago.
"Those of you here today, especially the veterans who are here, you have returned because you have seen the cost of continued conflict," she said. "The core issues at the centre of the negotiations territory, security, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and others will get no easier if we wait, nor will they resolve themselves."
Netanyahu responded by repeating his assertion that he sees Abbas as a "partner for peace".
"Together we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict. This will not be easy. A true peace, a lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides from my side and from your side," said Netanyahu
"But the people of Israel, and I as their prime minister, are prepared to walk this road and to go a long way in a short time to achieve a genuine peace that will bring our people security, prosperity and good neighbours."
However, the Israeli prime minister said there were two issues he regards as central to any agreement: "legitimacy and security".
"Just as you expect us to be ready to recognise a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people we expect you to be prepared to recognise Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," he said. "I think this mutual recognition between us is indispensable to clarifying to our two peoples that the conflict between us is over.
"I said too, a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of Israel ... New forces have risen in our region, Iran and its proxies and the rise of missile warfare [with Hamas attacks from Gaza]. A peace agreement must take in to account security arrangements against these real threats.
"President Abbas, I'm fully aware and I respect your people's desire for sovereignty. I'm convinced that it's possible to reconcile that desire with Israel's security."
Abbas responded by noting that his Palestine Liberation Organisation has recognised Israel's legitimacy in earlier accords going back to the 1993 Oslo agreement, although they do not mention it explicitly as a Jewish state. However, diplomats do not believe that will prove a significant stumbling block.
Security may prove more problematic. Among other things, Israel wants to keep control of the border between the West Bank and Jordan, which would mean a Palestinian state there would be entirely surrounded by the Israeli military.
Abbas said he believes a deal is possible. "We're not starting from scratch because we had many rounds of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government," he said.
But the Palestinian leader called for an end to all Jewish settlement construction in the occupied territories, which is likely to be an open sore at the talks. Netanyahu has so far declined to commit himself to extending a partial freeze on building in the settlements in the West Bank, although not occupied East Jerusalem, when it expires later this month. The Palestinians see the issue as a litmus test of his intent.
The first issue is to agree an agenda. The US says that all the biggest issues, from drawing final borders and the fate of the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories to Israel's security demands, will be on the table.
Diplomats said they were surprised by the strength of Netanyahu's insistence that he is committed to making an "historic compromise" in search of a durable peace settlement.
But the difficulties of agreeing that compromise were highlighted after Netanyahu's defence minister, Ehud Barak, said the day before the talks that Israel could meet a Palestinian demand to divide Jerusalem so that the mainly Arab east of the city can become a Palestinian capital.
"The Arab neighbourhoods in which close to a quarter million Palestinians live will be theirs," Barak told Haaretz newspaper.
One of Netanyahu's aides immediately contradicted Barak, saying the prime minister's position at the talks will be that the city must remain fully under Israeli control.
"Our position is that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel," the aide said.
Our dear Appalachian-Lukacsian-Burnettian comrade (did I forget anything?) known by the initials VM certainly piqued my interest this morning with that business in the comment thread about the State Department and Arizona and the UN. So I looked into it, and yes it's true, but...
The UN used to have a high commission on human rights. That's the one Libya chaired. Thus discredited, the high commission was replaced by a new body called the UN Human Rights Council in 2006. Under its rules, apparently all member nations are required to submit evaluations of their own human rights records. As nearly as I could find out this morning, this is to be done quadrennially, so this seems to be the first one conducted by the US (i.e., the Bush administration wasn't obligated to do one). It's officially called a universal periodic review, or UPR.
The UPR process (more than you need to know, but...) involves a series of public discussions and consultations held over the previous year, arranged by State in conjunction with local nonprofits, churches and universities. Eleven were held. Here's the list.
The result of these meetings is the report itself, a 29-page document that list the US human-rights record on a number of fronts: freedom of speech, assembly and worship; fairness and equality; et cetera. It's broken into six sections, the fifth of which is entitled "A commitment to values in engagement across our borders," which is broken into three sections: national security, immigration and trafficking.
In the immigration section there are five paragraphs. The first is glorious-history boiler plate. The second is about immigration detention. The third describes the so-called 287(g) program, under which the federal government may delegate to states and localities immigration enforcement. Then the fourth graf says in its entirety:
A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.
And that's it. Three sentences that are as objective and straightforward as they could possible be, just describing a situation. There is no appeal to the UN to do anything. There is no assertion that this is a major problem. There isn't even an adjective describing the law as bad. It's the 95th out of 100 numbered paragraphs, and it's actually one of the shorter grafs in the report.
As fate would have it, this morning I was emailed a write-up of the UPR by Barbara Crossette, the excellent former New York Times journalist who covered the UN and diplomacy for many years and now writes syndicated pieces. I don't have a link, since I got it in an email. Maybe you can find it somewhere. In what reads to me like about a 1,300-word piece, she doesn't even mention the fact that the UPR mentions Arizona.
She focuses on what any reasonable news person would focus on reading it, which is the language about gay rights in America, which is clearly the most newsworthy language and something that, if those kind of people want to get mad about something, maybe they should focus on.
Crossette describes what the US's participation in this process actually means:
A periodic review "package" consists of not only the country's own assessment of how it thinks it has met its obligations under various international and national laws and conventions, but also input from nongovernmental organizations or other interested parties, the office of the high commissioner and finally experts from three other countries -- in the case of the United States, those will be Cameroon, France and Japan. The US review will be on the agenda of the Human Rights Council in November. The council has no enforcement powers; it can merely pass resolutions and make statements. But its actions have a large international audience. And this will be the first appearance by the United States in such a review process. The Obama administration joined the Human Rights Council last year, reversing the Bush administration's hostile policy toward it and global human rights monitoring in general as it affected the United States. In preparing its first review, the Obama administration met with human rights activists and community groups around the country.
In other words, the Bush administration shunned this process, and the Obama administration is participating in it. That's a change. If you think that's a bad change, fine. If you think it's a good one, fine. Let's debate that.
But that's not what's going to happen over the next few days, if our Misanthrophic friend and some of the rest of you are right, which you might well be. By next week, half of America might believe that Obama - not some State Department functionary, not even Hillary C., but Obama himself - wants to "force" Arizona's law to undergo review by the UN or something. And we'll be off to the races again.
Having said all this, I still think it was unwise to include a mention of the law in there. But having now read the report, I can't honestly say that if I'd been in the room, reading that brief and anodyne language, I'd have seen any political red flags. I might have, I might not have.
Apple announces social networking service which will display the music interests of friends via iTunes, iPhones and iPod Touch
Having cornered the MP3 player, mobile phone and computer tablet markets with the iPod, iPhone and iPad devices respectively, last night Apple announced its latest expansion into social media with Ping.
Ping will be integrated into Apple's latest iTunes software update and will enable users, or "Pingers", to follow musicians, friends and others to see details including what music they're buying and what concerts they're attending.
Steve Jobs, Apple's chairman and chief executive, said the information will arrive in a long stream of updates, similar to the way Facebook and Twitter work.
"Be as private or as public as you want. The privacy is super-easy to set up," he said adding that users can choose to automatically accept followers or decide on a follower-by-follower basis similar sounding controls to those on Twitter.
The service is available immediately to more than 160 million iTunes users, Jobs said, and will also be available across the iPhone and iPod Touch ranges.
The feature is believed to have been based on the technology Apple acquired with the purchase of the former online music store Lala.com last year.
The iTunes logo will no longer feature a CD mirroring the change in the program's focus.
Jobs unveiled a range of other upgrades to its products and services, including a new version of Apple TV which will allow users to stream television programmes and films.
The company is also releasing a revamped range of iPods, including an iPod touch with front- and rear-facing camera, Jobs told an assembled crowd of journalists, bloggers and analysts in California.
Until now the Apple TV device was "never a huge hit", admitted Jobs.
The box originally allowed users to buy films and television programmes, but the latest version, which is smaller and, at $99, much cheaper than its $229 predecessor, will only allow the renting, rather than purchasing, of content.
Users will pay $4.99 for high-definition films on the day they come out on DVD, while the rent of high-definition TV shows will be $0.99, Apple announced.
"We've sold a lot of them, but it's never been a huge hit," Jobs said of Apple TV. The new version will be available within a month.
Jobs also introduced a new design across the range of iPods, including the latest Nano, featuring a rotatable screen and a new Shuffle which sees the return of buttons its predecessor was voice activated.
The new iPod Touch will have front- and rear-facing cameras, the latter of which will be able to record HD video content, Jobs added.
</td></tr></table>And just as Israel has gradually increased restrictions of where we can go, the boundaries of what is permissible to do as a Palestinian have narrowed markedly. We have reached a point where peaceful protest is unacceptable to the Israeli state and military legislation has been constructed to criminalize and throw in jail anyone who dares to publicly voice dissent. Mohammed Khatib comments.
</td></tr></table>The BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights recently published Rights in Principle -- Rights in Practice, which examines a rights-based approach to crafting durable solutions for Palestinian refugees. The Electronic Intifada contributor Adri Nieuwhof interviews BADIL director Ingrid Jaradat Gassner on the organization's work and the new book.
</td></tr></table>There are few villages in historic Palestine which invoke the memories of the Nakba (the 1948 dispossession of the Palestinian people) as does Lifta. However, Lifta's architectural legacy is under threat as Israel moves to Judaize the formerly pluralistic Palestinian village.Peak oil has happened or will happen some time around this year, and its consequences could threaten the continued survival of democratic governments, says a secret Germany military report that was leaked online.
According to Der Spiegel, the report from a think-tank inside the German military warns that shrinking global oil supplies will threaten the world's economic foundations and possibly lead to mass-scale upheaval within the next 15 to 30 years.

PHOENIX - The U.S. Justice Department sued Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Thursday, saying the Arizona lawman refused for more than a year to turn over records in an investigation into allegations his department discriminates against Hispanics.
UPDATED...
NEW ORLEANS -- A shallow-water production rig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded this morning, causing the thirteen crew members aboard to abandon the structure.
Coast Guard rescuers are en route to the scene of the fire, 90 miles south of Vermilion Bay, Coast Guard Petty Officer Bill Colclough said. Twelve of the workers are in immersion suits, designed to protect them from hypothermia. One is reported injured.
Once plucked from the Gulf, the injured will be taken Terrebone General Medical Center in Houma, Colclough said.

Hours before peace talks were set to begin in Washington, Jewish settlers defiantly announced plans on Thursday to launch new construction in their West Bank enclaves in a test of strength with Palestinian Islamists.
Naftali Bennett, director of the settlers' Yesha council, said settlers would begin building homes and public structures in at least 80 settlements, breaking a partial government freeze on building that ends on September 26.

UNITED NATIONS - The number of women raped by rebel groups during last month's raid of more than a dozen villages centred around Walikale, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), has risen to over 240, U.N. officials told reporters here today.
Following the Jul. 30 to Aug. 3 raid, rebels are now believed to have continued pillaging in and around neighbouring areas of Mubi and Pinga: In addition to those previously reported, an additional 75 rape victims have been identified.












