Young, black and unemployed: the tragedy of the 44%
Nearly half Britain's young black people are jobless. We've created an inequality timebomb

Share 57 reddit this
Comments (94)

White House to finally answer: When is killing Americans okay?
Get short URL email story to a friend print version
Published: 05 March, 2012, 22:45

How exactly can the Obama administration get away with killing American citizens? The answer to that question and many more may be revealed Monday afternoon by United States Attorney General Eric Holder.
Attorney General Holder is expected to deliver a speech at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois on Monday, and an official close to the Obama-appointee say that the legal justification for the targeted killings of twp Americans will finally be addressed, months after the US assassinated two of its own overseas.
Two US-born citizens with alleged terrorist ties were executed in a “targeted kill” carried out by the CIA last year in Yemen. Despite never formally filing charges or bringing the men to court, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were struck dead by a planned drone strike in September. Since then, the White House has defended the assassinations but has done little to formally address how, when or why the federal government is given the power to single out and kill its own citizens. Holder is expected to finally footnote those killings with an explanation Monday afternoon.

U.S. to offer legal backing for 'targeted killing'-source
3/5/2012COMMENTS (0)

WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Monday plans to outline how U.S. laws empower the government to kill Americans overseas who engage in terrorism against their home country, a source familiar with the matter said, months after a drone strike killed a U.S.-born cleric who plotted attacks from Yemen.

Civil liberties groups have been pressuring the administration to offer justification for what has been described as a top-secret "targeted kill" program in which Americans who have joined al Qaeda or other militants are deemed legitimate targets to be killed overseas.

Attorney General Eric Holder plans to address the issue and the underpinning legal principles for using lethal force during remarks at Northwestern University School of Law on Monday afternoon in Chicago, the source said Sunday on condition of anonymity.

The Obama administration has stepped up using unmanned aerial drones against terrorism suspects including the September killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born cleric who went into hiding in Yemen who had been directing al Qaeda militants to launch several attacks against the United States.

U.S. officials have refused to talk much publicly about the program but some officials said last year that Americans like Awlaki could be placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior U.S. government officials which then informs the president of its decisions.

Holder will likely couple the justification with another argument that the administration has repeatedly made about terrorism: both traditional criminal courts and military tribunals work to prosecute terrorism suspects, the source said.

The speech will be the latest attempt by the administration to address the issue, an unusual break from past precedent of eschewing virtually any discussion about the top-secret program.

Defense Department lawyer Jeh Johnson last month referred to the so-called "targeted kill" program, saying that it pursued legitimate military targets overseas and rejected suggestions that the United States was engaged in assassination.

"Under well-settled legal principles, lethal force against a valid military objective, in an armed conflict, is consistent with the law of war and does not, by definition, constitute an 'assassination,'" Johnson said at Yale Law School.

The American Civil Liberties Union on Feb. 1 sued the Obama administration in federal court, demanding that Holder's Justice Department release what it believes are legal memoranda justifying targeting Americans overseas using lethal force.

The ACLU called such power a "breathtaking assertion" and warned that it would be available to future presidents as well.

"At bottom, the administration is asserting the unreviewable authority to kill any American whom the president declares to be an enemy of the state," Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU's deputy legal director, said in a statement.

U.S. officials have linked Awlaki to several plots against the United States, including the 2009 Christmas Day attempt by a Nigerian man to blow up a U.S. commercial airliner as it arrived in Detroit from Amsterdam with a bomb hidden in his underwear.

河村氏南京発言 日中の歴史認識共有は難しい(3月7日付・読売社説)













(2012年3月7日01時27分 読売新聞)

Despite historical differences, Japan, China must boost ties
The Yomiuri Shimbun

Nagoya Mayor Takashi Kawamura's remarks on the Nanjing Incident have cast a shadow over Japan-China relations.

During a courtesy call last month by a Chinese Communist Party leader from Nanjing, a sister city of Nagoya, Kawamura said, "I doubt whether what you call the Nanjing Massacre took place [in the way it has been described]."

Nanjing immediately suspended exchange programs with Nagoya in protest. The Chinese Foreign Ministry criticized the mayor's comment by saying, "Irresponsible remarks that distort historical facts deeply hurt the feelings of the Chinese people."

Cultural exchange events scheduled to begin in Nanjing on Friday under the sponsorship of the Japanese government have been postponed. The decision is believed to have been made out of consideration for the safety of performers. However, it was regrettable.

Various kinds of events are scheduled this year to mark the 40th anniversary of the normalization of bilateral relations. The two countries should deal with the current situation in a coolheaded manner to prevent the bilateral relationship from being strained further and impacting adversely on diplomatic and economic ties.


Claims vary over death toll

The Nanjing Incident occurred in December 1937 when the Imperial Japanese Army occupied Nanjing, which was China's capital at the time. Prisoners of war were executed and civilians were raped by Japanese soldiers. But there are differing views on how many Chinese died.

In 2006, Japan and China launched a joint study of historical issues from the academic standpoint, rather than the political. But discussions failed to accomplish much because of Chinese political constraints.

A report released by the joint research committee two years ago presented the views of academicians from both countries.

The Japanese side said, "Various figures, for example 20,000 and 40,000, have been presented, with a maximum number of victims put at 200,000." However, the Chinese side repeated Beijing's official view that 300,000 people were killed in Nanjing.

In clarifying his remarks, Kawamura said he had meant that no organized massacre occurred that claimed the lives of 300,000 people. We can sympathize with his remarks if he really meant that. But there is no denying he was indiscreet.


Views unlikely to change

Kawamura said he wanted to visit Nanjing to discuss the Nanjing Incident. He insisted that resolving a thorny historical issue through frank discussions between the two countries would contribute to improving bilateral friendship.

But is such a discussion possible in China today? Even if talks are held in China, where freedom of speech is not guaranteed, it is hard to imagine the Chinese supporting his view and rejecting the government's official claim that 300,000 people died.

It will be extremely difficult for the two countries to agree on historical matters. After taking this into consideration, it is necessary to work toward building a constructive bilateral relationship.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, March 7, 2012)

(Mar. 8, 2012)




The Social Construction of Race and Decolonizing Sociological Research Methods

[I]t is commonly observed as a fixed characteristic of human populations… [W]hile it is a biological fiction, it is nonetheless a social fact” (32). James means here that our perceptions of race have materialized to become reality, even though race itself is an illusion. This is the paradox of race: that it is at once fact and fiction; although race is socially constructed, its legacies and consequences are very real, and permeate our society in tangible and intangible ways.

Despite the fluidity and social construction of race, essentialized notions of race are ever-present in common discourse today. Particularly in the U.S., the dominant idea that there are four racial groups (White, Black, Asian, and American Indian) assumes that each of these groups is a separate category that has always existed, has always been homogeneous, and as such, has never intermingled with other groups.

A Latino can be visibly “Black,” “White,” or anywhere in between the racial spectrum, yet because of geographic location of origin, still be characterized “Hispanic.” However, Hispanics view race as a continuum, and not as a fixed category. In fact, almost half of Hispanic Americans report themselves as “White” on the census. Despite this, dominant American culture is not yet ready to see Hispanics as “White,” because they are not Euro-American with Nordic phenotypes (38-39). Thus, the implication of the “Hispanic” question is two-fold. First, despite scholarly critiques of essentialized notions of race, contemporary understandings of “race” are still simplistic and treat race as biology. Secondly, the Hispanic question implies that Euro-American Whiteness is seen as the standard by which others should compare themselves, understand themselves, and thus self-identity.

Rather than engaging in sociological enquiry to question systems of inequality and racial stratification that construct concepts of race, colorblind sociologists have historically posed people of color as the problem, as the object of study, and of race as a causal factor for these problems (330). This, of course, is no coincidence. Zuberi explains that contemporary research methods were born out of the Eugenics movement, during which White male scholars used scientific methods to justify the racial hierarchy and supposed inferiority of people of color vis a vis a Positivist mindset (8)

EU campaign video is 'racist, sexist and imperialistic'
An EU campaign video designed to promote Europe has been accused of being racist, sexist and imperialistic, after showing a Western woman being attacked by Asian and African warriors.
By Hannah Furness1:28PM GMT 06 Mar 2012

パキスタン出身男性殺害容疑、親類の男ら逮捕へ 群馬




Tendenko: Surviving the Tsunami
We ask if a code promoting self-preservation in a tsunami could account for one Japanese community's high survival rate.
Witness Last Modified: 06 Mar 2012

「2ちゃんねる」を強制捜査 覚醒剤書き込み放置の疑い 警視庁
2012.3.7 07:01 (1/3ページ)[ドラッグ]








(2012年3月7日07時45分 読売新聞)



投稿日時 - 2005-06-12 22:24:01

回答者:noname#58431 回答日時:2005/10/18 18:17
〒100-8929 東京都千代田区霞が関2-1-1東京都公安委員会
電話 03-3581-4321(代表)内線(19152・3)
参照URL http://www.kouaniinkai.metro.tokyo.jp/osirase.html
関東管区警察局 埼玉県さいたま市中央区新都心2-1

Shayne Bowden
勤務先: Deterra出身校: シドニー大学居住地: 福岡県福岡市言語: 英語、日本語血液型: A型出身地: シドニー

2003年3月から現在 · 福岡県福岡市







(2012年3月7日10時25分 読売新聞)