SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15203)11/5/2003 12:45:35 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793624
 
"Gypsys, Tramps and Thieves,"

Would be a good assessment of what Safire thinks of the people running Russia. They now have an economy the size of Poland, no hope in the near future, and a bunch at the top working on a total Dictatorship. Our only concern is the Nukes.
_________________________________________

November 5, 2003
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Siloviki Versus Oligarchy
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WASHINGTON

Russia today is ruled by Vladimir Putin's siloviki, former K.G.B. men and military officers who have the nation by the throat. That power-hungry mafia (the Russian word is rooted in "power") brooks no opposition from either the small band of democratic reformers or the political leftovers from the Yeltsin regime.

Only one power center posed a threat to the siloviki's domination of Russian life. This was the group of oligarchs, who became the super-rich by ripping off the old Soviet Union's natural resources when Communism collapsed.

The K.G.B.'s Putin came to power by making a deal: we of the siloviki run the country, and you oligarchs can keep your ill-gotten gains — provided you cut us in on some of the money and stay out of politics.

Not all the new billionaires went along with the new corruption. Boris Berezovsky, manipulator of Yeltsin, had delusions of staying on as the man behind the throne, while Vladimir Gusinsky had hopes of creating a free national media network, not beholden to the Kremlin bosses. Putin confiscated all he could of the wealth of both men, who would not do his bidding, and chased them out of Russia.

But along came smooth, likable Mikhail Khodorkovsky, oiliest of oilmen. This youthful robber baron, after amassing his $8 billion, became an exemplar of economic transparency — openly declaring corporate income and paying taxes, accessible to interviewers — thereby beguiling foreign investors, who wanted to believe that free enterprise and the rule of law had come at last to Russia.

"Open Mike's" plan was to tout his Yukos oil stock, then merge with Exxon Mobil and become as rich as Bill Gates. But he apparently felt the need for more political protection than the siloviki would sell. Accordingly, this oligarch of all oligarchs began to ladle out largesse to the starving political parties. This ranged from the Communist Party, allied with the Putin followers, to Vladimir Zhirinovsky's ultranationalists, and included the democratic reform parties behind Grigory Yavlinsky and Boris Nemtsov.

President Putin, fresh from his love-in at Camp David with President Bush, decided that Open Mike was getting too big for his briuki. With parliamentary elections coming up next month and his presidential re-coronation scheduled for March, Putin could afford no media editorial backsliding — or the infusion of money to his opposition to purchase time or space. He ordered the arrest, trial, conviction and jailing of Khodorkovsky and the seizure of his billions in stock. All this was to be done legally by the siloviki's men in black robes, of course, with Putin pretending to have no part in it.

Reaction to the cuffing of Open Mike was predictable: the Russian stock market tanked, the U.S. State Department tut-tutted, Exxon Mobil and other investors ran for the hills, and even the visiting Ariel Sharon of Israel told Putin in Russian that he was making a mistake. Putin's chief of staff and other holdovers from the early Yeltsin era quit in disgust or were quickly forced out.

This reaction bothered the siloviki not a whit; they pretended the political arrest was no different from our investigating Enron. As other oligarchs dived under their desks, Russian voters were delighted at pictures of one of the envied richies enchained.

Some of Khodorkovsky's flunkies are putting out word that their boss may run for political office from jail. That could happen in the U.S. — the election of the Vermont congressman "Spittin' Matt" Lyon in our post-Revolutionary era is an example — but in Putin's Russia, where mass media coverage is tightly controlled, the notion of a grass-roots national insurgency by a half-Jewish multibillionaire is laughable.

Yesterday I asked the reformer Yavlinsky, one of the few who fought the takeover of the economy by the oligarchs in the early 90's, what he thought of Putin's crackdown. "The cure is worse than the disease," was the guarded response on the global cellphone: we are evidently back to the chilling days of K.G.B. snooping on communications.

Which side to root for in the struggle for Russia's political soul: oligarchy or siloviki? Which door: the Lady or the Tiger? I remember the same choice in the war between Iran and Iraq. We can root only for both sides to lose.
nytimes.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15203)11/5/2003 1:50:03 AM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793624
 
American Muslims Told to Leave Major U.S. Cities

Tuesday, November 04, 2003

By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

foxnews.com

An Al Qaeda (search) Web site is running a warning issued to Muslims to leave Washington D.C., New York City and Los Angeles because of implied imminent terrorist attacks, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Titled "A Warning to Muslims in America," the directive was issued by the previously unknown "Islamic Bayan Movement" and first ran on the Global Islamic Media Web site on Monday, according to MEMRI, which translated the communiqué.

It has since been published on the Al Qaeda-run site Al Faroq (search), a MEMRI release said. The Global Islamic Media site has published several messages from Jihad groups around the world in recent months.

As of Tuesday, there had been no increase in the Pentagon's yellow terror alert status. Yellow represents an "elevated" status on the five-point chart.

"Our Muslim brothers in America, we ask you to immediately leave the following cities: Washington, D.C., New York, and Los Angeles," reads the communiqué, which frequently quotes the Quran.

"We are serious in our warning," the message states. "The next few days will prove to you the truth of this warning … To the oppressive rulers of America we say: Expect our terms following the first strike of Allah's believing soldiers [Quran, Chapter 59, Verse 2-3]."

The directive claims that U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan "are the only ones who know the bitter truth" about the situation overseas.

"How would they not when they see every day dozens of casualties from among their friends, the soldiers who die and nobody, even not their stupid rulers, is sorry for them," the communiqué states. "Then they hear the lies and distortion their rulers [tell] their people and the peoples of the world regarding the number of their dead …"

The communiqué refers to the "sufferings" of Muslims, saying they are victims of oppression, imprisonment and murder.

It ends with another verse from the Quran [Chapter 9, Verse 14]: "Fight them: Allah will punish them at your hands, and will humiliate them, and will help you to overcome them, and will relieve the minds of the believers."

In conjunction with the memo, Al Qaeda's Al Faroq posted a photo of the Chinook helicopter shot down on Sunday with a caption in Arabic that reads: "We shall bring down and destroy the values of the Hubal of this generation." Fifteen Americans died in the helicopter attack.

Hubal was a pre-Islamic-era Meccan idol used by Muslims to symbolize the U.S., according to MEMRI.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15203)11/5/2003 4:49:49 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793624
 
The Supremes drop the first "shoe" in the Terrorists cases.
Volokh: It takes just one Justice's vote to call for a response; and while the Court will always ask for a response before granting certiorari (i.e., agreeing to hear the case), I believe that most times that it calls for a response, it nonetheless ends up not granting (since it takes four votes, not just one, to grant). The odds are almost always against a grant of cert, even in a troubling case like this one. Still, I'm glad that someone out there is concerned about the case.
___________________________________


White House Told To Justify Secrecy
High Court Issues Order in Terror Case

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 5, 2003; Page A06

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it wants the Bush administration to defend the secrecy that enveloped lower federal courts' proceedings involving one of the 1,200 Arab and Muslim men detained by federal authorities after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In a brief order, the court called on Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson to respond to a Florida resident's claim that lower courts violated the Constitution when they agreed to keep even the existence of his case a matter of strict confidentiality. The court's action comes a month after Olson informed the justices that he did not plan to respond.

The court's order suggests that the justices are keeping a watchful eye on the government's legal approach to the war on terrorism, including its assertion that much of that war must be conducted in secret, even though the court has yet to accept a case for full argument and decision.

Earlier this year, the court turned down a request from media organizations to rule on the constitutionality of the administration's policy of secret immigration-court proceedings in terrorism-related cases, despite conflicting rulings by lower courts. Olson told the justices then that the policy was justified by the government's need to keep information useful to terrorists from leaking, and that Supreme Court intervention was unnecessary since such hearings were largely completed.

Yesterday's case raises a somewhat different issue: whether the Constitution permits federal district and appeals courts -- presumably at the administration's request -- to keep the public in the dark about an individual's constitutional challenge to government detention, known as a petition for habeas corpus.

Lawyers for Mohamed Kamel Bellahouel, 34, an Algerian immigrant, told the justices in their brief -- the public version of which itself contains several pages of whited-out material -- that a Florida federal district judge and a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit violated the First Amendment when they heard Bellahouel's case without even noting the case on the court's publicly available docket, and without publicly explaining their reasons for doing so.

Courts may conduct proceedings in secret, the lawyers argued, but they must at least offer a public accounting of the reasons for doing so.

"The facts of Petitioner's case would make a significant contribution to the national debate about the detention and treatment of Middle Eastern persons and there is no legitimate government interest in permitting court-suppression of his ordeal," the brief said.

But some facts of Bellahouel's case, including his name, have leaked out and have been reported in the Florida press, thanks in part to a clerical error at the 11th Circuit that left some information on the Internet for a few hours earlier this year.

Bellahouel, a waiter at a Miami area Middle Eastern restaurant, was detained by the INS on a visa violation in October 2001 and then turned over to the FBI as a material witness in the Sept. 11 hijacking investigation. An FBI agent's affidavit said that he had waited on a table occupied by hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, and later went to a movie with a third hijacker, Ahmed Alnami.

Bellahouel testified before a Virginia grand jury before being released on a $10,000 immigration bond in March 2002.

The government still seeks to deport him for violating a 1996 student visa. But Bellahouel, who denies any involvement in terrorism, is married to an American, and his attorneys have said that in such cases spouses usually may adjust their status.

Bellahouel's Supreme Court petition notes that the 11th Circuit ruled in March that the district court in Miami should place Bellahouel's case on its public docket, but that no other information about it should be released. The 11th Circuit's own ruling was kept under seal and not publicly docketed, the petition notes.

The case is M.K.B. v. Warden, No. 03-6747. There is no deadline for Olson to file his response; the court will not decide whether to hear the case until he does.
washingtonpost.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15203)11/5/2003 5:09:58 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793624
 
What will happen in Cuba when Castro dies? Excellent rundown. "The Week"
___________________________________________________

Cuba after Castro
The Bush administration has announced the formation of a committee to “plan for the happy day when Castro’s regime is no more.” What will happen in Cuba when Castro dies?

Is Fidel near the end?
That is anybody’s guess, but rumors about his failing health have circulated for years. Castro is 77 years old, and, depending on which speculative diagnosis you prefer to believe, is suffering from everything from prostate cancer to heart problems to Parkinson’s disease. On doctors’ orders, he gave up his trademark cigars years ago. In 2001, Castro collapsed two hours into a speech under a blazing Caribbean sun, sparking a new flurry of rumors. But over the past year, the Maximum Leader has been very active—and more defiant than he has been for decades. Clearly, he does not intend to go gently into that good night.

What’s gotten into him?
Castro has been enraged by the Bush administration’s open talk about undoing his life’s work—Cuba’s communist revolution. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have expressed the hope that Cuba becomes a democratic, capitalist nation, and earlier this year, a State Department official began holding meetings in Cuba with prominent dissidents. Castro ordered 75 of them arrested, and executed three men who hijacked a boat to defect. The jailings and executions sparked strong criticism from around the world—including Castro’s European trading partners, who’ve helped Cuba recover from losing $6 billion a year in aid from the Soviet Union. Castro called Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi a “clown” and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar “the little Führer with the mustache.” But Castro’s deepest enmity is reserved for the “lawless cowboy,” George W. Bush, who, he says, is secretly planning “where, how, and when Cuba will be attacked.”

Might that happen?
No, unless Osama bin Laden turns out to be hiding in Havana. But Bush has made it clear that he shares the goals of the anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Miami, who hope to lead a democratic uprising when Castro dies. The Cuban exiles, as it happens, are a key voting bloc in Florida, and may help Bush win the state’s electoral votes in 2004. Over the past year, the president has deliberately tightened enforcement of existing U.S. sanctions on Cuba, including the ban on Americans traveling to the island. Both the House and Senate have voted to lift the travel ban, but Bush has vowed to veto the bill.

Could Fidel’s regime collapse?
That’s unlikely. Many Cubans revere Castro, who came to power by leading a revolutionary uprising in 1959. Others fear him. His control over the country is complete. Prudently, Castro installed his brother, Raul Castro, to run Cuba’s military, to prevent a coup. Last year, Fidel responded to demands for political reform by amending Cuba’s constitution to make the communist system “untouchable.” “Only death will separate Castro from his control of the Cuban people,” Arch Kielly, a Cuban-American military veteran, said in The Dallas Morning News.

Is Cuba ready for that day?
The Cuban government says it is prepared for a peaceful transition, but no one can predict how the population will react. Until recently, Cubans avoided speaking directly of the day Castro would die; the safer euphemism was “when Fidel ceases to exist physically.” But the government now acknowledges that the day will come. After his public fainting spell in 2001, Castro apologized in advance to the Cuban people for any “passing unpleasantness” that might accompany his demise.

What is Fidel’s plan?
He wants to hand over the reins to his brother, Raul, who is 71. “Raul is very healthy,” Castro told NBC’s Nightly News. “He has the most experience. Therefore, I think he has the capacity to succeed me.” As military commander, Raul Castro has been installing loyalists, or raulistas, in positions of authority for several years. The old-timers at the top of the Communist Party have been replaced by a new generation of leaders in their 30s and 40s. “Things are well arranged,” Raul Castro says.

Will Fidel’s plan work?
If the military remains loyal to Raul, it may. Raul will probably try to keep Fidel’s death quiet for a few days, until he can move soldiers into place to prevent a violent uprising. But Cuban exiles in Miami are planning on retaking their homeland and the property Castro seized in the revolution; for years, several exile groups have been conducting military training in Florida. Unless the post-Fidel leadership quickly enacts drastic reforms giving Cubans more freedom, says Mark Falcoff in his book Cuba: The Morning After, there’s likely to be an invasion by exiles, or a popular uprising, or both. But Falcoff and other observers believe that a rapid transition to freedom and democracy is unlikely, since all of Cuba’s institutions are geared to perpetuate the current totalitarian system. Still, many suspect that Castro’s communist dictatorship cannot survive for long without Castro. “No one will be able to fill the void,” says essayist Roberto Luque Escalona, a Cuban exile. “His regime is an edifice constructed on one pillar. It cannot stand once the pillar has fallen.”

Fidel’s family ties
Raul Castro may not be the only Castro in Cuba’s future. Like President Kim Jong Il of North Korea, Fidel Castro has had a rather complicated personal life, fathering eight known children with his ex-wife and several mistresses. For years, the Cuban press studiously avoided any mention of Castro’s personal life or family members, some of whom have left the country. (One daughter, Alina, by mistress Natalia Revuelta, moved to Spain and has denounced Castro’s repressive regime.) But as Mark Falcoff reports in his book Cuba: The Morning After, two of Castro’s sons suddenly appeared in Cuban newspapers last year. One of them, Fidel Castro Diaz-Balart, looks strikingly like his father in his revolutionary youth, right down to the long beard. Diaz-Balart, who is Castro’s only legitimate son, was trained in the Soviet Union as a nuclear physicist, and has served as head of the Cuban Atomic Energy Agency. The other son who has received some public attention is Antonio Castro del Valle, an orthopedic surgeon. Some observers speculate that their appearance in the press signals that Fidel is hoping that one or both will play some major role in Cuba’s government after his death, possibly even succeeding Raul as the country’s leader.
theweekmagazine.com