up state news

UpState News
Home
News
Blog
Contact Us
Search
News Flash
  • 13:38 - 22.03.2010 News >> Latest

      Why celebrity love lives are ruining our relationshipsThe love tangles of the rich and famous are making us wonder whether anybody is faithful any moreRead Article   

    Read more...
  • 10:17 - 01.10.2009 News >> Latest

       From The Times of London October 1, 2009 Sixty Years On After six decades of Communist rule, China must decide what it is for and how it will accept its global responsibilities Sixty years ago, his armies victorious, Mao Zedong stood at the Gate of Heavenly Peace in Tiananmen Square and announced a new era for China after a terrible civil war and the horrors of Japanese occupation. The new national anthem urged the Chinese: “Stand up, those who refuse to be slaves!” and the Communists confidently proclaimed the People’s Republic of China, “the people’s government”. As Mao’s doctor, Li Zhisui, later wrote in his memoirs, the leader was “China’s saviour, the messiah in the flesh”. But revolutions, like Saturn, devour their own children. By a cruel irony of history there followed 30 years when the Chinese people were crushed and repressed, with a debauched and brutal Mao presiding over the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which between them claimed tens of millions of lives. The whitewashed Mao now being presented to Chinese people is a myth based on lies. The China of today was made not so much by the advent of Mao in 1949 but by that of Deng Xiaoping 30 years later. It was Deng who in 1979 had the courage and vision to introduce economic reforms that put China on the road to the free market, giving it wealth at home and influence abroad. It should be a subject of great joy and celebration, not just to the Chinese but to people around the world, that hundreds of millions have been lifted out of misery to new lives of health, wealth and, at least in material terms, choice. Yet Deng himself, fearful that reform would lead to the collapse of communism, perpetuated the founding myth of Mao by declaring in 1981 that 70 per cent of what the “Great Helmsman” had done was right, even if 30 per cent of it was wrong. This, too, was not just a lie but an absurd oversimplification. A nation that cannot debate its past and cannot be candid about its present failings and achievements will struggle to make the most of its future and, in the case of China, build a society worthy of a 21st-century superpower.
    Related Links Chinese reporter recounts birth of nation
    Many younger Chinese are not taken in by the airbrushed cult of Mao the revolutionary hero. They are more interested in opportunities to get rich offered by the market economy — sometimes to the point of capitalist excess. For them, Mao is simply a face on kitsch mugs and T-shirts. China’s current rulers cling to the belief that they can combine Mao with McDonalds, capitalism with one-party rule, for which the official euphemism is “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. But they do not trust their own people: today’s regimented parade will take place in streets cleared of all but approved spectators, with…

    Read more...
  • 06:38 - 10.02.2010 News >> Latest

     Be not afraid of Palin Page: Welcome to the pantheon of punditry, governor. It's more fun than being president.

    Read more...
  • 00:08 - 24.02.2009 News >> Latest

      

    Read more...
  • 11:22 - 10.05.2010 News >> Latest

     How conservatives will attack Elena KaganPresident Obama is still an hour and a half away from formally announcing his choice of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice John Paul Stevens's retirement, but red flags are already being raised by some on the right.Expect Republicans to attack Kagan for attempting to bar military recruiters from the Harvard Law campus a few years ago when Kagan was dean. This issue was front-and-center during Kagan's confirmation hearing last year for her current post. Then, 31 senators voted against her -- even though the solicitor general enjoys a far shorter term than a Supreme Court justice. The few Republicans who gave her the thumbs up for the executive post -- including the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Orrin Hatch (Utah), Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.) John Cornyn (Texas) -- might not be sure votes this time around. Because Kagan has not served as a judge on the lower courts -- she was nominated by President Clinton but never received a floor vote for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- she has little in the way of a paper trail. While this may be helpful in one respect, some conservatives will use it to argue that she lacks the necessary experience to fill a high court slot. Contrast this with Justice Sonia Sotomayor's nearly two decades' worth of decisions from trial and appellate courts. Ed Whelan, a conservative commentator and former Scalia clerk, has asserted that Kagan's lack of "real-world experience," because of her long tenure in academia and in high government posts, perhaps makes her even more insulated from the experiences of most Americans than those who spend years cloistered in the judicial monastery.Some may also make an issue of the possibility that Kagan may have to step aside from deciding a number of cases because of her involvement in the administration. As solicitor general, Kagan has had a hand in determining the administration's legal positions on a broad range of matters -- from "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act to national security issues involving states secrets and the rights of those held in the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to challenge their detentions in court. Because of her role, Kagan would be forced to recuse herself from deciding these cases if they come before the Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall was the last person to rise to the court after having served as solicitor general, and he had to recuse himself from some four dozen cases -- although that was at a time when the court heard many more arguments than it does today.I don't think any of these issues are disqualifying, or should be. Kagan is brilliant, clearly has the intellectual heft to master the job despite a lack of judicial experience, and has a proven ability and willingness to work with people of all political stripes. She passionately opposed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"…

    Read more...
Al-Qaeda is a wounded but dangerous enemy Print E-mail

 

A U.S. Predator drone flies above Kandahar, Afghanistan. One of the unmanned craft is thought to have killed the leader of Pakistan's Taliban.

A U.S. Predator drone flies above Kandahar, Afghanistan. One of the unmanned craft is thought to have killed the leader of Pakistan's Taliban. (Kirsty Wigglesworth/associated Press)

 

 Al-Qaeda is a wounded but dangerous enemy

By Joby Warrick and Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 8, 2010

In the past six weeks, Americans have witnessed two jarringly different -- but completely accurate -- views of al-Qaeda's terrorist network. One image was that of terrorist leaders being hunted down and killed by satellite-guided, pilotless aircraft. The other was of an agile foe slipping past U.S. defenses and increasingly intent on striking inside the United States.

New assessments of al-Qaeda by the top U.S. counterterrorism experts offer grounds for both optimism and concern a year after President Obama took office. Officials say al-Qaeda's ability to wage mass-casualty terrorism has been undercut by relentless U.S. attacks on the network's leadership, finances and training camps. But even in its weakened state, the group has shifted tactics to focus on small-scale operations that are far harder to detect and disrupt, analysts say.

The deadly November shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Tex., and the failed Christmas Day attempt to bomb an airliner -- both examples of the low-tech approach -- have raised the fear level in Washington and across the country. Some terrorism experts say the worst could be still to come as a wounded jihadist movement thrashes about in search of a victory.

"The noose is tightening, and al-Qaeda's leadership is accelerating efforts that were probably in place anyway," said Andy Johnson, former staff director of the Senate intelligence committee and now national security director for the Washington think tank Third Way.

In the past year, Johnson said, the "good guys have been scoring the points," killing key al-Qaeda leaders and disrupting multiple plots. But pressure on al-Qaeda in Iraq and Pakistan has forced terrorist operatives to flee to new havens, such as Yemen, and step up the search for weaknesses in Western defenses. While battered, "the enemy is unwavering and determined," he said.

On target

The U.S. ability to strike al-Qaeda's nerve center was on display recently with news of the apparent death of the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, a close ally to al-Qaeda in the lawless frontier along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Hakimullah Mehsud, who suffered severe injuries in a missile strike in mid-January, was the second leader of the group to find himself in the path of a CIA Predator aircraft in the past six months. He also was closely linked to the Dec. 30 suicide bombing that killed seven CIA officers and contractors in Afghanistan's eastern Khost province.

U.S. drones have struck al-Qaeda and Taliban targets inside Pakistan 12 times this year, putting the Obama administration on a course to surpass 2009's record-setting 53 strikes, according to a tally by the Web site Long War Journal.

In testimony before two congressional panels last week, top U.S. intelligence officials said the campaign has shaken al-Qaeda's core leadership, the small band of hardened terrorists led by Osama bin Laden. The attacks, combined with a successful squeeze on al-Qaeda's cash supply, have impeded the group's ability to launch ambitious, complex terrorist operations on the scale of the Sept. 11, 2001, strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the officials said.

"Intelligence confirms that they are finding it difficult to be able to engage in the planning and the command-and-control operations to put together a large attack," CIA Director Leon Panetta said Tuesday in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

But intelligence officials also warned lawmakers of worrisome new evidence of al-Qaeda's ability to adapt. In an annual "threat assessment" to Congress, spy agencies described the emerging threat as more geographically dispersed and also low-tech, favoring lone operatives and conventional explosives.

'Short-term plots'

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, who presented the assessment to House and Senate panels, said the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 over Detroit is emblematic of an evolving threat that relies on "small numbers of terrorists, recently recruited and trained, and short-term plots." The new tactics are less spectacular but also much harder to detect and disrupt, he said.

The suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, is a Western-educated young man who was apparently recruited because he had a U.S. visa and no record of ties to terrorist groups. Officials say that he was trained and equipped by one of al-Qaeda's rising affiliates, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and that he had a bomb made of a common military explosive sewn into his underwear, deliberately designed to thwart the kinds of safeguards put in place after 9/11.

The foiled plot came on the heels of the Fort Hood shooting rampage. That attack, and the arrest of an Army major apparently inspired by al-Qaeda, crushed the widely held perception that Americans were immune from the kind of violent home-grown extremism seen in Muslim enclaves in Western Europe. Blair acknowledged that intelligence agencies are newly concerned that Americans may be traveling overseas for training and returning to the United States to carry out terrorist strikes.

"A handful of individuals and small, discrete cells will seek to mount attacks each year, with only a small portion of that activity materializing into violence against the homeland," he said.

Blair testified that he thought another attempted strike by terrorists was "certain" in the next six months. The assertion was a response to a question by the Senate intelligence panel's chairman, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), about the likelihood that al-Qaeda would try to launch a major attack on Americans in the near future. But Blair also suggested that the rash of news about terrorist plots in recent weeks has created a false impression that the threat is new.

"We have been warning since September 11 that . . . al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists remain committed to striking the United States," he said. "What is different is that we have names and faces to go with that warning. We are therefore seeing the reality."

Terrorism experts and administration officials have described the Dec. 25 bombing attempt as a wake-up call that helped expose gaps in security that are now being addressed. But some analysts say the dramatic successes against al-Qaeda in Pakistan may have led U.S. officials to miss signs that the terrorist threat was morphing in new directions. Now the administration is scrambling to respond to both threats at once, said Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University terrorism expert and senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

"Until Northwest Airlines Flight 253, the prevailing assumption was that we could fight and win by drone attacks. But the threats are diverse and spreading," Hoffman said. "Both administrations -- Bush and Obama -- had a tendency to focus on one threat, one enemy, emanating from one place. The use of predators in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a very effective tactic. But it's a tactic, and it's not a substitute for a strategy."

 

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

 

 

 
< Prev   Next >
Links
DownState News
Latest News

© 2010 Up State News - created by JiaWebDesign web design and development