Habeas and [the tort of] False Imprisonment

I was a little alarmed when a friend showed me an article which explained how in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, prisoners charged with misdemeanor offenses were incarcerated for over a year "doing 'Katrina time'" because "Governor Blanco effectively suspended habeas corpus ... for six months." [link to article]. The US Constitution of course reads: "[t]he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Without going into the specifics of whether the Governor actually tried to suspend habeas, it is first worth noting that no state actor [state supreme court, governor, legislator, police officer, etc] can violate your federal rights like habeas corpus, due process, speedy trial, etc.  They may try, but you are always free to file a habeas petition in federal court; the federal constitution trumps pretty much everything.

Again, without investigating the veracity of the allegation, let's say you were arrested and it took six months before you were released without charge, or you were held for a year for a charge that had a maximum penalty of one month.  This sounds like unquestionable unjust imprisonment, which could have been challenged with a habeas petition.  But let's say you didn't challenge it while you were imprisoned - you didn't have a lawyer, your lawyer was overworked and didn't think of habeas, or your lawyer mistakenly believed habeas could be overruled by a governor.  You are not out of luck - you are still entitled to sue for damages under the tort of "False Imprisonment."

As I continue to research habeas corpus issues, I am struck by the similarity of a habeas petition [trying to get out of jail because of unjust imprisonment] and the tort of False Imprisonment [suing for damages because of your unjust imprisonment].  But the beauty of the False Imprisonment tort is that, unlike with habeas, you can sue months and possibly years later, depending upon the statute of limitations.  I doubt there have been many class action suits alleging false imprisonment in the past, but if the allegations are true, there could be a big one coming in Louisiana.

_________________________
Disclaimer - I would like to remind anyone reading this that presently I am law student and not a lawyer.  While I may write about issues I find interesting, I cannot dispense legal advise.  That said, in addition to the tort of false imprisonment, your attorney would be wise to also consider 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights [link].

Google Scholar - Law: One small step that changed the world

With little fanfare, Google today took a big swing at the legal establishment, by giving the world free access to its own database of case law.  This is very big news.  In fact, it is so massively big I'm not sure we can quite appreciate it just yet, but I will certainly try. 

Yesterday, there were three major methods of reading a case.  You could look at a printed court reporter at a law library, or search through the online database of rivals Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis.  As you might imagine, using the online databases is significantly easier, but they came with a price.  As a current law student, I am paying for unlimited access to Westlaw and Lexis as a part of my tuition, but it is very expensive for lawyers or the common citizen (Lexis rates; Westlaw's lack of advertised rates).  This means that even if a common citizen had the knowledge to interpret the law, he could not afford timely access to it.  These factors together made it unlikely that a common citizen could represent himself pro ce in court in any reasonable manner.  That changed today.  The current stories are focusing on this, as it was the general gist of Google's press release.

But this change is just as significant, if not more significant, for lawyers and their clients.  Because together Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis have a monopoly, they could charge lawyers exorbitant amounts to access these databases.  These charges were passed onto the clients, increasing the cost of legal counsel.  This also means that pro-bono (public interest; no charge to client) legal work suffered.  The only way for a lawyer or a law firm to conduct pro-bono work was to pay Westlaw or Lexis out of pocket, or to go to the library and use books - an unappetizing prospect for any busy lawyer.  Because of these two reasons, pro-bono work has been limited in the past.  That changed today as well.

But without comparative analysis, this is all just speculation.  As an example, I was recently assigned to research a false imprisonment case in New York.  (example used with permission).  The case hinged upon whether the detention was done in a "reasonable manner" or a "reasonable time." If you do a search in New York jurisdiction for - "false imprisonment" "reasonable manner" and "reasonable time" - you get 15 results, all cases that I had previously read in Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw as a part of my research.  However, at present there are at least three ways in which Google Scholar - Law is currently inferior to Westlaw and Lexis.  It does not currently contain state or federal statutes, it does not contain summaries of the cases, and it does not say if the case has been overruled (although it does give links to all the cases that cited it so that you could do the work yourself).  I imagine that these oversights will be amended by the time that it is removed from "beta" status, hopefully by the time I join the job market as a lawyer. 

Today Google changed the way that Americans will practice law.  Even if Google Scholar - Law is currently somewhat inferior to its rivals, its low price will mean that it will be swiftly adopted, which will likely force Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis to push down their own prices, or become obsolete.  Today is a good day for the public, for lawyers and for our democracy.  And on a more personal note, I am very happy to say that my summer pro-bono work just got much easier.

Primetime Torture

I recently attended a human rights luncheon about the efficacy of torture. Among the many issues that were discussed, I still find myself thinking about one in particular, the role of torture in the media. For the past several years, the prevalence of torture in the media has been nagging at me. I was working at the FSU movie theater when the movie Saw came out, and I could barely stand to be in the same room as the preview. But Saw became a franchise, and spawned knockoffs such as the Hostel series. Critical movie critics soon dubbed it a new genre, a bit beyond your classic horror movie. For my part, I complained to anyone who would listen thesemovies had no reason being just Rated R, and certainly had no business being advertised on television.

But let's be honest, it wasn't just movies that were embracing torture as a new genre. Television jumped on the torture bandwagon as well. With Primetime Torture by HumanRightsFirst.org, I am happy to say that I now have a source which confirms my suspicions, that the amount of torture in the media greatly increased after 9/11. In addition, they make a very good point:

It used to be that only villains on television tortured. Today, “good guy” and heroic American characters torture — and this torture is depicted as necessary, effective and even patriotic.  Primetime Torture.

It doesn't matter if this increase in torture in the media was a cause or an effect of a shift in public opinion toward the use of torture, it legitimizes and furthers the acceptance of torture. I won't go so far as to say that this is a deliberate propaganda technique, but you've got to admit that it is subtly reminiscent of the "Two Minutes Hate" in George Orwell's 1984.

Wake up America, we're better than that.

An end to the Eastern Europe Missile Shield

I've discussed the Eastern Europe Missile shield once or twice in the past, and I'm happy to see it go as a part of our continued relationship building with Russia.

--

White House to Scrap Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield - NYTimes.com: "President Obama on Thursday announced a reconfigured system that won’t be based in Poland or the Czech Republic, and will be aimed at intercepting Iranian missiles."

Swine Flu - An Alternate Narrative

You would have to be living under a rock not to have heard about the H1N1-A or "Swine Flu," it's been heavily covered on every news outlet since it emerged. This latest flu is the latest example of how sensational American news has become, especially on international issues. But before I get to the Swine Flu, I’d like to mention a slightly older story that I find is a relevant back-story to the current debate.

Starting around 2006, a new national debate began on illegal immigration began, and throughout it all a few radical themes emerged. These themes were based on much older racial stereotypes, but in this case they were coated in a loose venire based on legal status. One of these themes emerged which is quite relevant to today’s topic - that Mexican illegal aliens are spreading disease into the United States.

Here we are today with a disease which seems to have begun in Mexico, which has spread into America. As you would imagine the anti-immigrant radicals are, as a friend put it, frothing at the mouth. This is because this international crisis conforms to the previous narrative, that Mexicans are bringing disease into America. But extremists aside, a slightly milder version of this narrative is still prevalent across the media – the Mexican people made a dangerous new flu and gave it to us.

It is important to remember that it has not been proven that H1N1-A came from Mexico, just that the first confirmed case is from Mexico, and an unexpectedly high majority of the deaths have been in Mexico as well.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the flu, but I do watch international news very closely, and I am disturbed how one very important element of this story has escaped the attention of the vast majority of American mass media: since January, Mexico City has been under severe water shortages. For more than three months, Mexico City – the largest city in the world – has essentially been having rolling blackouts with its water supply.

“In some parts of the capital [Mexico City] washing hands has become a luxury. In recent months, some neighborhoods - all of them poor - have been without water service for two weeks at a time.” (NPR)

After quite a bit of searching online, I have been able to find no American news outlet other than NPR who has even related extreme water shortages in the world’s largest city to the outbreak of the new flu. Lack of water is a natural correlation, aren't you supposed to wash your hands and drink plenty of fluids? Regardless, now that the connection has been made, let me put forward an alternate narrative.

This flu season, a slightly new version of the flu virus emerges somewhere in the world. This flu has the exact same mortality rate as the standard seasonal flu, and so it doesn’t attract any attention . . . until people in Mexico City with the flu begin dying. Someone decides to do a genetic analysis of what what’s causing the illness and to his or her surprise, it turns out to be a new type of flu. Cautious governments around the world quickly react, fearing a 1918 style pandemic. The flu spreads like a pandemic around the world, but as it turns out this new version of flu is essentially exactly as dangerous as the normal flu. As world governments breathe a collective sigh of relief, the story begins to subside, all the while ignoring the true story. The Swine Flu panic began because the Mexican Government can’t provide for its citizens; the Mexican government - not the Mexican people - is at fault. While the Swine Flu crisis may have been resolved, the underlying problem remains – the Mexican people are dying because they don’t have access to clean water. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why they're trying to emigrate to America.

--
Update:
Laurie Garrett, a Pulitzer prize winning author on pandemics, made a comment that industrial pig farms in the United States are a more likely source for the origin of the swine flu.  (Video clip; after minute 4). "So take that Lou Dobbs."

Normalization between China and Taiwan on the Horizon?

When there’s so much going wrong with the world, good news often falls through the cracks. I was pleasantly surprised this morning when I read that the leaders of China and Taiwan met today. Chinese President Hu Jintao thanked Taiwan for Taiwanese relief aid following last month’s earthquake in Sichuan province and said "As long as both sides across the strait are concerned about each other and make exchanges with each other, a peaceful and stable development of relations across the strait can be expected."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/28/asia/beijing.php

Thoughts?

An Update on Kenya

This update on Kenya is brought to IRWatch by our from Senior Correspondent Carl M. (who is too lazy to set up his own Blogger account).

Today I attended a seminar on Kenya's political climate. It was "headlined" by one of the few female parliamentary candidates that ran in 07. She talked a lot about the post-election violence, as well as highlighting the problems facing women in the country's political arena.

She was, as you were, disgruntled by western media outlets labeling of the "tribal violence". Her stance on the issue was that it was, at it's core, political protests against corruption. Violence to this and other issues, such as land use, was encouraged, and even paid for by tribal elders. This lead to much of the violence being along tribal lines, but not for tribal differences, rather it was over land use issues that the government has failed to resolve.

There were numerous cases of "warring" tribes taking each other in from the violence.

Another speaker pointed out that half the deaths in Kenya were caused by police in response to the protests. Live rounds were regularly used by riot police the moment anti-government protests turned violent. I do not know the source of her numbers, but the scenario is quite believable.

Concerning technology in Africa, one of the main reasons the populace believed they were robbed of the election is the widespread use of texting. Landlines are fairly rare, but cell phones are apparently quite common. Local election results were posted at each polling place. This information was spread through texting, and it was widely held by the populace that the challenging candidate won by a large margin. When results were delayed and eventually announced in favor of the incumbent, the protests that eventually turned violent began.

A Look at Eastern European Missile Defense

We all know that the current Russian administration doesn't like proposed missile shield in Eastern Europe. In a previous post (Former Prime Minister of Russia on the Eastern European Missile Shield), we've established that even pro-western Russian moderates such as Yegor Gaidar are "extremely worried about this [ABM] program". But what is the government's official stance on this program? In May of 2007, two proponents of this policy were called before Congress and asked to explain if the United States and Europe need a European missile defense system. Together they presented the following argument:

The world’s most threatening and unstable regimes can develop and deploy lethal nuclear arsenals and the ballistic missiles to deliver them to Europe and even the United States ... The Intelligence Community estimates that Iran could develop long-range missiles capable of reaching all of Europe and the United States by 2015 if it chooses to do so ... The missile defense system that we are proposing to place in Europe—in cooperation with Poland and the Czech Republic—would provide an extra layer of protection against possible missile attacks not only to the United States, but also to NATO allies and other European friends ... We cannot have U.S. security decoupled from that of our NATO allies. We cannot take a unilateral or isolationist approach to security.

...

The 10 interceptors we hope to field in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic would have little or no capability against Russia’s large strategic offensive force, which could overwhelm the U.S. system’s limited number of interceptors regardless of their location. In theoretical one-on-one engagements, U.S. interceptors located in Europe would have little or no capability to intercept Russian ICBMs launched at the United States as the U.S. interceptors are too slow to catch Russian ballistic missiles.

There is no reason to believe that traditional nuclear deterrence would not work both ways in relations between Europe and Iran. The real problem is that Europe is not sufficiently motivated to take military action against Iran, especially after the 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate which stated with high confidence that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons.

In addition, these plans made unilaterally with Poland and the Czech Republic because NATO was not willing to collectively sign onto the process. This unilateral action left the United States holding the bill for the cost of the system. But though the fiscal cost is significant, the diplomatic cost pales in comparison. It needlessly served to worsen US relations with Russian and led to Russia suspending its participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty (-BBC News).


_______________
Full transcript of the hearing:
Do the United States and Europe need a missile defense system? : joint hearing before the Subcommittee on Europe and the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, first session, May 3, 2007.

"Japan plans Tokyo missile shield"

Missile Shields aren't just for Eastern Europe and Alaska anymore. According to the BBC:

The Japanese military carried out their [Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)] assessment in the capital overnight.

According to a military spokesman, the two sites surveyed were Shinjuku Park, a business hub in central Tokyo, and a site in Ichigaya, not far from the Imperial Palace and key government offices.

...

PAC-3 missile defence systems have already been installed at two bases in Japan, with authorities planning an expansion to a total of 11 sites by 2011.

The Japanese government is also co-operating with the US on ship-based missile defence systems.

In December 2007, a Japanese warship successfully shot down a mock ballistic missile off Hawaii, in the first test of a system that will ultimately be installed on four destroyers.

Interesting. While Japan has more of a definable threat from North Korea than Eastern Europe from Iran, this leads me to bigger questions. Is the US actively proliferating ABM technology? Certainly seems that way.

______________
Source
BBC News - Asia Pacific, Japan plans Tokyo missile shield

Encirclement of Russia via NATO?

This perspective is from Robert Alvarez and is in interesting contrast to the previous one I posted from Peter Brooks (here). At the time, Robert Alvarez was a senior policy adviser and U.S. Secretary of Energy for National Security.

The Russian under Putin has asserted in a more authoritarian manor, none the less he enjoys a great deal of popular support... At the same time the United States has been pushing the envelope in my opinion in terms of encirclement of Russia through NATO alliances, particularly in terms of seeking to have NATO troops in Ukraine and places like that. And given the long history of Russia and its extreme sensitivity about military encirclement, these are not looked upon kindly by Russia.

________________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: July 11, 2006 (Listen to the entire show online: Real Media, Windows Media)

Russia and Oil from a former senior DoD official

This is another interesting perspective from an older Diane Rehm show, this time from Peter Brooks, the former deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Bush Administration.

They [the Russians] are using energy today as Russia's Cold War Red Army, the source of mother Russia's strength.

While I agree that the Russians are in fact using oil as a significant bargaining tool, I think the tone and vocabulary he uses is as interesting as the point he was making.

________________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: July 11, 2006 (Listen to the entire show online: Real Media, Windows Media)

Russia, Chechnya, Iran and the US "War on Terror"

This perspective on Russia's views of Chechnya, Iran and the US "War on Terror" from Andrew Kuchins, the director of the Russia-Eurasia program. This is from an interview from the Diane Rehm Show, this one from July 2006. He gives several interesting perspectives on some of the key issues of contention between the US and Russia.

Diane Rehm: Are there parallels between the US war on terrorism and Russia's differences with Chechnya?
Andrew Kuchins: Well it gets to the way the US and the Russians perceive the war on terrorism, and for the Russians the war on terrorism is primarily Chechnya and the northern Caucasuses, and to a secondary degree would be Central Asia and then Afghanistan, which the Russians care a lot about and that's why the Russians supported us five years ago in taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan. When we get to our military effort in Iraq which we all know the Russians opposed, and when get to Russian concerns about a military operation in Iran which they also oppose, it gets to the differences in how they perceive the war on terror. Especially on Iran, this is interesting I think, for the Russians Iran is viewed more of as a strategic partner, a geopolitical partner. The Iranians have never, to my knowledge, supported terrorist groups or terrorist activities on the territory of the Russian Federation. In fact, the Iranians worked together with the Russians in diffusing the civil war in Tajikistan back in the 1990s, they worked together of course with the Russians and even us to supply the Northern Alliance to take out the Taliban five years ago. So the Russians I think are quite wary about doing something which would associate themselves with punitive actions against Iran.

________________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: July 11, 2006 (Listen to the entire show online: Real Media, Windows Media)

NYU Professor weighs in on increasing tensions between the US and Russia

I've come up with a new way of researching for my thesis, I've been listening to old radio programs that are on US - Russian foreign relations. It works surprisingly well because I can listen during work and after work, go back and transcribe the interesting parts (and even search for the commentors' other works). Here's one I found yesterday: Stephen Cohen, an NYU professor on Russian history, commenting on increasing tensions between the US and Russia. A quick search for his other works included "Failed crusade : America and the tragedy of post-Communist Russia" (Book, 2000), "Second Chance with Russia" (article, 2001), "The Struggle for Russia" (article, 2003), "The Media's New Cold War" (article, 2005), "The New American Cold War" (article, 2006), and "The Soviet Union, R.I.P?" (article, 2006).

You always have to ask how another country has seen us. We have a habit in the United States of always asking how we see things or how we should see things. But in such an important relationship as between the United States and Russia, it is important to understand, in my judgment, that there has grown in Moscow the view, it's very widespread and it's even among the people we used to call democrats, that Russia has been betrayed by the United States. Not once, not twice, not three times but repeatedly since the end of the Soviet Union. That American policy is essentially based on three things: broken promises, the military encirclement of Russia, by which they mean the movement of NATO forces and American forces around Russia, and a persistent view left over from the Soviet era in American policy that when push comes to shove that Russia has no legitimate interest apart from those of the United States. Russians now, many Russians, I'm talking about those in the policy elite not ordinary folk, see this and see it with bitterness in their hearts and in their minds because they expected something different from the United States. Now, the question for us should be, "is that a reasonable fact based interpretation of our behavior in Russia?" I believe that is substantially a reasonable perspective of the dynamics of American policy going back to the Clinton administration and continuing through the bush administration. So therefore this question if whether they've helped or not with terror has to be put in that context. … They did more than any other country in the world to help the United States fight the land war in particular in Afghanistan against the Taliban. We could go into all of the details which range from intelligence to the decision to allow the United States to use a Russian trained force inside Afghanistan. They also acquiesced to the stationing of American military bases in Central Asia, which Russia considers its Mexico, its backyard. The questions the Russians now ask themselves, instead of asking what more Russia did, is what they got in return. What did Russia get in return for that contribution during the first six months to a year of the war against terrorism? And there view is that they didn't get anything. In fact they were betrayed; NATO continued to move eastward. For example, the Americans have made clear, breaking an implied promise, that they are not leaving Central Asia. For example, the sudden arrival of American troops in Georgia also in the Caucus, in Russia's border. So the world is not only how Russia is seen from Washington, but how America is seen from Moscow. You've got to somehow put those two views together and that's the job of diplomacy.


...

If you were to ask me what factor most of all in Russia will influence the fate of democracy, and which factor has most influenced it negatively, since the democratic reforms began with Gorbachov, I would say it's this. When the Soviet Union broke up, all of the property of the Soviet state and that was virtually all the meaningful property in the land, billions and billions of dollars in assets, everything from oil and gas to tv stations, and railway lines, and buildings flew into the air and the struggle to catch it became the driving force, the quest for property, vast property, incredible property, became the driving force of Russian politics. And when most of that property was caught, by a very small group of people we call Oligarchs, but not only them, others who were in that oligarchical system, it was regarded as fundamentally illegitimate by the Russian people, in part because so many Russians at the same time fell into terrible poverty, where they remain today. It's those two circumstances, mass poverty and mass perception that wealth in Russia is illegitimate that has driven forward an anti-democratic politic. Just think about how Mr. Putin became president and why. Yeltsin, who had presided over these developments, fearful for his own security, wanted in power a man he was sure could protect him, and so Putin was chosen because who and what he was, put into power and maintained there. And it is interesting that Yeltsin has remained silent on all of this.

Cohen was wrong on this point, the next day Yeltsin and Gorbachov would speak out together against this move by Putin, read more about in this article from the Jamestown Foundation. Unfortunately the original source from the Moscow News has been removed.

___________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: September 15th, 2004 (Listen Online: Real Media)

Former Prime Minister of Russia on the Eastern Europe Missile Shield

Back in December 3rd, I heard an interesting interview on the Diane Rehm show on U.S. - Russian Relations. One of the panalists was Yegor Gaidar, a self described pro-American former Prime Minister of Russia. He made some very interesting points regarding the proposed missile defense system in Eastern Europe.

Diane Rehm: Dr. Gaidar, President Putin is also opposed to a US missile defense system in Europe, please talk about why.

Yegor Gaidar: Well that is extremely delicate, the problem. And I am afraid that not even the high ranking officials in both the [US] State Department and my own [Russian] Ministry of Foreign affairs do understand the technical details like speed of the rockets, possibly the material targeting, possibility of the defense of decision making process, and I cannot share this information with you I am afraid. But to tell you frankly, if I would be in the place of President Putin, taking in mind that I am one of the last persons who could be accused of anti-Americanism in Russia, I would be extremely worried about this program. Not because of its anti-missile capabilities, they are entirely unimportant for Russian security, but because I know very well the systems which were elaborated in my country with double targeting anti-missile and ground to ground. I know when they were elaborated, I don't know when they were tested, I don't know the technical characteristics.

Our military thinks that they know about the similar systems elaborated at approximately the same years in the United States, so they inevitably because of their profession they have to count, to regard this system as potentially ground to ground system with they flying time of four minutes to Moscow. When we installed the missiles with the eight minute flying time to Washington [during the Cuban Missile Crisis] the world was the closest to the destruction of the ?? (pronounced. mi-no-na). And that is not eight minute, it is four minute flying time.

Of course, once again for one single second, I myself do not regard them as offensive missiles targeted to Moscow. But if you would place yourself in the position of Chief of Russian general staff, can you, just because you believe that America does not have any offensive intentions against Russia, to ignore this danger, then you would be irresponsible and unprofessional.

While I am not convinced that the anti-missile capabilities are 'entirely unimportant,' this does bring up several points worth considering. How far is this issue alone deepening the divide between the US and Russia? If the control of this system was a joint control between the US and Russia, how far would it go to alleviate tensions? For that matter, how far would discontinuing the program go to alleviate tensions? Are we, in America confident that this missile shield is exclusively to protect against Iranian missiles (which last I checked could barely get to Israel, much less to Europe or America)? And perhaps most importantly, is this missile shield making the United States safer?

___________
Source:
Diane Rehm Show: December 3rd, 2007 (Listen Online: Real Media, Windows Media)

"Tribalism" and the News from Kenya

I have been mulling over the current violence in Kenya since the New Year, trying to congeal my feelings into coherent thought. I had previously heard that the Kenyan electoral system was revered as being one of the best in Africa, and of course this violence is a tragedy. Three hundred people have died in rioting, many burned to death seeking sanctuary within a church. From what I understand, the violence was sparked by a close election, the confusion of the news media being shut down during the election, the unilateral declaration of victory by the incumbent and the statement from the election chairperson saying that he could not say who had actually won.

However I believe one of the biggest problems with this issue is its coverage in the news. I not a person who comments on the political correctness of words, however I do have a problem with inaccurate and misleading terminology. In particular, I am referring to the words tribal and tribalism. A quick scanning of headlines on Kenya include "Tribalism Isn't on the Ballot, But in Kenya It's Key Issue" (- Washington Post), "Tribalism's latest stalking ground" (- National Post) and "Old scores settled in Kenya's tribal war" (- Daily Telegraph).

So what's the problem here? The word "tribalism" incorrectly simplifies a complex situation, worse yet it is a slur. It conjures up images of nomads, of pre-industrial society, and of irresolvable blood rivalries. Thus the use of the word tribalism is at best inaccurate, and at worst bigoted. Is it too much to ask for accuracy and dare I say it a little nuance in our news? The spark was a close election and confusion, the fuel was political opportunists using existing racial mistrust as tool to get themselves more power in the chaos.

Additional Source:
Diane Rehm Show: January 3rd, 2007 (Listen Online: Real Media, Windows Media)

_________________________
Addendum:
I found this BBC article after writing my editorial. I thought I would add it because it comes to many of the same conclusions and goes into more depth on the details.

"Tribal violence spirals in Kenya," screams the front page banner in the International Herald Tribune. "Kenya plunges into interethnic violence," says Le Monde.

But headlines can be misleading.

It is certainly true that the post-electoral violence in Kenya has taken on a tribal character.

Members of the incumbent (and controversially re-installed) President Mwai Kibaki's Kikuyu tribe have been pitted against other smaller tribes.

But that is only part of the story.

A more complete headline might be: "Tribal differences in Kenya, normally accepted peacefully, are exploited by politicians hungry for power who can manipulate poverty-stricken population. ..." - BBC Africa News

Pakistan Delays Elections

The Pakistani government postponed national elections for six weeks until Feb. 18, raising fears of a violent reaction by the supporters of slain opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and protests from other opposition parties.

News of the delay could spark protests by opposition groups -- including Ms. Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party -- which have demanded that the vote be held as scheduled, in hopes of capitalizing on sympathy arising from Ms. Bhutto's assassination Thursday.

Ms. Bhutto's husband ... has called a meeting of its leaders for today to discuss unleashing street demonstrations. ...

"We will not accept the delay in the polls even for one day," said Farhatullah Babar, a spokesman for the PPP. "We will resist any attempt to postpone the elections," he added, warning of the potential for further violence after several days of rioting in the wake of Ms. Bhutto's death. -Wall Street Journal

So now there will be massive protests, will now have to watch what the Pakistani government does to quell these protests and if the protests become violent

Financial Winners and Losers in 2007

Acknowledging of course that stock markets are only a small window on the actual health of economies, it is interesting to note the winners and losers in 2007 in the major world stock markets.

American Stock Markets:
Nasdaq: +9.8%
Dow Jones: +6.4%
S&P 500: +3.5%

World-wide winners:
Shanghai Composite: +97%
Hong Kong Blue Chips: +39%
Germany's DAX: +22%
London's FTSE: +3.8%
France's CAC: +1.3%

And I'm sorry to say to my Japanese friends that Japan's Nikkei was the big loser of 2007 with an overall decline of 11%.

残念だけど不幸中の幸いだ。

__________________________
Sources: Forbes (Asian Markets), Reuters (US Markets), AFP (European Markets)

Growing Tensions in Pakistan

Of course, all the news media have been covering that Benazir Bhutto's husband and son have become the new Co-Chairmen of the Pakistan People's Party. Much more importantly is what the PPP has been saying (italics added):

The PPP's new leadership indicated yesterday that the party, seared by the tragedy, has now become a formidable enemy to the embattled Mr. Musharraf. "Cooperation with him is out of the question now," said Taj Haider, a senior PPP official and former senator. "What we are doing is accusing Gen. Musharraf of murdering Benazir Bhutto." ...

Harnessing suspicions of government involvement has become the key campaign plank of the PPP ahead of the national election Jan. 8 that is set to install a new prime minister to share power with Mr. Musharraf. The issue of Islamist extremism has virtually disappeared from the public debate. ...

The party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif -- which just two days ago declared it would boycott the election -- indicated yesterday that it will take part in the vote if PPP also participates. ...

In contrast, Mr. Musharraf's allies -- until now the most vocal backers of the Jan. 8 election -- have started to call for a delay. ...

PPP officials yesterday cautioned against any moves to prevent the Jan. 8 vote from occurring on schedule. ...

Should the government embark on this path, he added, the PPP will respond "on the streets," with massive unrest.

- Wall Street Journal (italics added)

Even if Musharraf had nothing to do with Bhutto's assassination, he now finds himself in a no win situation. Even before Bhutto's assassination, the January 8 elections were going to be seen as less than legitimate because the state of emergency was only lifted on December 15 (- BBC South Asia). And now his own supporters are pressuring him to 'postpone' them. Both will undoubtedly lead to further unrest and lead us all further from the goal of containing the Al Qaida and Taliban forces.

Nawaz Sharif on Bhutto's Assassination

"Pakistani opposition leader Nawaz Sharif announced Thursday his party was boycotting next month's elections following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. He demanded that President Pervez Musharraf resign immediately.

"The holding of fair and free elections is not possible in the presence of Pervez Musharraf. After the killing of Benazir Bhutto, I announce that the Pakistan Muslim League-N will boycott the elections," Sharif told a news conference, referring to his party. . . "I demand that Musharraf should quit immediately," he said. "Musharraf is the cause of all the problems. The federation of Pakistan cannot remain in tact in the presence of President Musharraf." "

- Seattle Times, NPR 2pm newscast

This warrants very close international attention.

News on the Arctic Corridor

"Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years..." - BBC Science News

If true, this will have very interesting international ramifications. It will be interesting to watch Russia and Canada on this in the coming years.

Addendum-

"Only days after a Russian submarine planted a flag on the seabed at the North Pole, Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, announced plans for new military bases in Canada’s Northwest Territories..." -London Times