Here's something that both the Dems and Republicans can probably chuckle about together and possibly agree upon. Osama bin Laden is blaming the U.S. for Climate Change. Of course, the SOB leaves out India and China, as well as his family's construction company (The bin Laden Group). The latter is one of the largest builders of refineries in the world. Just, accept America, you can't do any good!
The ensuing article was published today in the Washington Post. The link is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901463.html
Bin Laden blasts US for Climate Change
By LEE KEATH and SALAH NASRAWI
The Associated Press
Saturday, January 30, 2010; 2:24 AM
CAIRO -- Osama bin Laden sought to draw a wider public into his fight against the United States in a new message Friday, dropping his usual talk of religion and holy war and focusing instead on an unexpected topic: global warming.
The al-Qaida leader blamed the United States and other industrialized nations for climate change and said the only way to prevent disaster was to break the American economy, calling on the world to boycott U.S. goods and stop using the dollar.
"The effects of global warming have touched every continent. Drought and deserts are spreading, while from the other floods and hurricanes unseen before the previous decades have now become frequent," bin Laden said in the audiotape, aired on the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera.
The terror leader noted Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and painted the United States as in the thrall of major corporations that he said "are the true criminals against the global climate" and are to blame for the global economic crisis, driving "tens of millions into poverty and unemployment."
Bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders have mentioned global warming and struck an anti-globalization tone in previous tapes and videos. But the latest was the first message by bin Laden solely dedicated to the topic. It was also nearly entirely empty of the Islamic militant rhetoric that usually fills his declarations.
The change in rhetoric aims to give al-Qaida's message an appeal beyond hardcore Islamic militants, said Evan Kohlmann, of globalterroralert.com, a private, U.S.-based terrorism analysis group.
ad_icon
"It's a bridge issue," Kohlmann said. "They are looking to appeal to people who don't necessarily love al-Qaida but who are angry at the U.S. and the West, to galvanize them against the West" and make them more receptive to "alternative solutions like adopting violence for the cause."
"If you're looking to draw people who are disenchanted or disillusioned, what better issue to use than global warming," he said. While the focus on climate may be new, the tactic itself is not, he said: Al-Qaida used issues like the abuse of prisoners by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay to reach out to Muslims who might not be drawn to al-Qaida's ideology but are angry over the injustices.
Bin Laden "looks to see the issues that are the most cogent and more likely to get popular support," Kohlmann said.
The al-Qaida leader's call for an economic boycott helps in the appeal - providing a nonviolent way to participate in opposing the United States.
"People of the world, it's not right for the burden to be left on the mujahedeen (holy warriors) in an issue that causes harm to everyone," he said. "Boycott them to save yourselves and your possessions and your children from climate change and to live proud and free."
Al-Jazeera aired excerpts of the message and posted a transcript on its Web site. The tape's authenticity could not be independently confirmed, but the voice resembled that of bin Laden on messages known to be from him. The new message comes after a bin Laden tape released last week in which he endorsed a failed attempt to blow up an American airliner on Christmas Day.
Maybe the Supreme Court's decision in United Citizens v FEC, the 2010 decision that stands for the proposition that corporations have unfettered right to spend as much money as they want to "express" their free speech, and influence politics, will nopw give bin Laden the opportunity to influence U.S. politics.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Rights to Drinking Water
In 1992 Stephen McCaffrey authored a seminal article proposing a human right to water. In the intervening years a stream of scholarship affirming the right has followed McCaffrey’s lead. Today, the existence of a human right to water is seldom challenged and it now appears to be well rooted in international human rights law. Nevertheless, to date there has been little to no scholarship about what the practical contours of the right should be.
If legal tools are to benefit the world’s poor and disenfranchised they cannot be void due to the impossibility of implementation. This is the problem with the purported human right to water. It is quixotic. International lawyers then must ferret out the means to provide those who have little or no access to potable water and proper sanitation with a suite of meaningful and workable legal options.
A. The Dilemma with the Right
There are two fundamental problems with the “right”. First it is unenforceable. Indeed, it is axiomatic that there can be no right without a remedy. Moreover, as Joseph Vining has observed, “[t]hat which evokes no sense of obligation is not law. It is only the appearance of law . . . .” Thus, the putative right is of little help or solace for those who have no access to potable water or the millions who die annually due to its privation.
Second, the rights scholars do not address how the issue of privatization of water utilities, especially the failure of corporate privatization and the comodification of water, should fall within the penumbra of the right. Indeed, these issues have yet to be addressed, leaving this area of the law unsettled and crammed with practical pitfalls.
A. The Enormity of the Problem
“Safe drinking water, sanitation and good hygiene are fundamental to health, survival, growth and development.” Accordingly, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) recently observed that “[s]afe drinking water and basic sanitation are so obviously essential to health that they risk being taken for granted.” Unless people gain access to sources of drinking water that are clean, safe and reliable “[e]fforts to prevent death from diarrhea or to reduce the burden of such diseases as ascaris, dracunculiasis, hookworm, schistosomiasis and trachoma are doomed to failure . . . .”
The problem is so pervasive that former South African President Thabo Mbeki recently asserted that “[w]e have a duty to fight against domestic and global apartheid in terms of access to water.” Indeed, the United Nations recently declared that “[o]vercoming the crisis in water and sanitation is one of the great human development challenges of the early 21st century. [In addition, s]uccess in addressing that challenge through a concerted national and international response would act as a catalyst for progress in public health . . . .”
Unfortunately, the average person in the developing world will not realize the universal availability of faucets or water piping at home “in the short – or even medium term.” Consequently, these people will be bereft of safe water for the foreseeable future. Of course, the burdens of polluted water, lack of access to potable water, as well as basic sanitation falls on the poor. Not only are they much “less likely to have access to safe water and sanitation, but they are also less likely to have the financial and human resources to manage the impact of this deprivation.”
Additionally, the poor are treated less equitably because the laws and policies of many states offer scant protection for the vulnerable. Even where these laws are on the books, they are seldom enforced. The rural poor also have little or no access to the political process, and comprise “[s]ome 80% of those who have no access to improved sources of drinking water.” Indeed, in 2002 the World Health Organization (“WHO”) estimated that more than 1.1 billion people worldwide lack clean drinking water and that “2.6 billion people have no sanitation . . . .” WHO also estimates that at least 1.8 million people die annually from diarrheal diseases (including cholera); with children below the age of five, mostly in developing countries, constituting 90% or 1.6 million of these deaths. This figure is five times the number of children who die annually from HIV/AIDS. Of the deaths caused by diarrhoeal disease, fully 88% are ascribed to unsafe water and deficient sanitation.
It is for these reasons that in 2003 WHO declared that the providing water to the peoples of the developing world was an urgent priority. Similarly, in 2000 the United Nations adopted the Millennium Development Goals. The Goals’ aim is to halve the number of people who do not have access to water by 2015. Nevertheless, without any financial support these programs have done little.
Finally, the “[l]ack of basic sanitation indirectly inhibits the learning abilities of millions of school-aged children who are infested with intestinal worms transmitted through inadequate sanitation facilities and poor hygiene.” It also adds to a higher rate of wasteful and unproductive time due to adult illness and the need to stay home taking care of children. If the world’s poor are to climb out of their morass, their status quo must change. One option for those who seek to aid these folk is privatization. There are of course problems with privatization. These include obstacles grounded in possible litigation before the World Trade Organization and national Supreme courts, as well as suspension in or from the practice of legal regimes, which provide water via public or privatized sources. In addition, those that use tanks to distribute water may also face actions to suspend these actions by corporate entities, who may claim that there rights are being infringed upon. These corporations may seek indemnification for loss of profits.
If legal tools are to benefit the world’s poor and disenfranchised they cannot be void due to the impossibility of implementation. This is the problem with the purported human right to water. It is quixotic. International lawyers then must ferret out the means to provide those who have little or no access to potable water and proper sanitation with a suite of meaningful and workable legal options.
A. The Dilemma with the Right
There are two fundamental problems with the “right”. First it is unenforceable. Indeed, it is axiomatic that there can be no right without a remedy. Moreover, as Joseph Vining has observed, “[t]hat which evokes no sense of obligation is not law. It is only the appearance of law . . . .” Thus, the putative right is of little help or solace for those who have no access to potable water or the millions who die annually due to its privation.
Second, the rights scholars do not address how the issue of privatization of water utilities, especially the failure of corporate privatization and the comodification of water, should fall within the penumbra of the right. Indeed, these issues have yet to be addressed, leaving this area of the law unsettled and crammed with practical pitfalls.
A. The Enormity of the Problem
“Safe drinking water, sanitation and good hygiene are fundamental to health, survival, growth and development.” Accordingly, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) recently observed that “[s]afe drinking water and basic sanitation are so obviously essential to health that they risk being taken for granted.” Unless people gain access to sources of drinking water that are clean, safe and reliable “[e]fforts to prevent death from diarrhea or to reduce the burden of such diseases as ascaris, dracunculiasis, hookworm, schistosomiasis and trachoma are doomed to failure . . . .”
The problem is so pervasive that former South African President Thabo Mbeki recently asserted that “[w]e have a duty to fight against domestic and global apartheid in terms of access to water.” Indeed, the United Nations recently declared that “[o]vercoming the crisis in water and sanitation is one of the great human development challenges of the early 21st century. [In addition, s]uccess in addressing that challenge through a concerted national and international response would act as a catalyst for progress in public health . . . .”
Unfortunately, the average person in the developing world will not realize the universal availability of faucets or water piping at home “in the short – or even medium term.” Consequently, these people will be bereft of safe water for the foreseeable future. Of course, the burdens of polluted water, lack of access to potable water, as well as basic sanitation falls on the poor. Not only are they much “less likely to have access to safe water and sanitation, but they are also less likely to have the financial and human resources to manage the impact of this deprivation.”
Additionally, the poor are treated less equitably because the laws and policies of many states offer scant protection for the vulnerable. Even where these laws are on the books, they are seldom enforced. The rural poor also have little or no access to the political process, and comprise “[s]ome 80% of those who have no access to improved sources of drinking water.” Indeed, in 2002 the World Health Organization (“WHO”) estimated that more than 1.1 billion people worldwide lack clean drinking water and that “2.6 billion people have no sanitation . . . .” WHO also estimates that at least 1.8 million people die annually from diarrheal diseases (including cholera); with children below the age of five, mostly in developing countries, constituting 90% or 1.6 million of these deaths. This figure is five times the number of children who die annually from HIV/AIDS. Of the deaths caused by diarrhoeal disease, fully 88% are ascribed to unsafe water and deficient sanitation.
It is for these reasons that in 2003 WHO declared that the providing water to the peoples of the developing world was an urgent priority. Similarly, in 2000 the United Nations adopted the Millennium Development Goals. The Goals’ aim is to halve the number of people who do not have access to water by 2015. Nevertheless, without any financial support these programs have done little.
Finally, the “[l]ack of basic sanitation indirectly inhibits the learning abilities of millions of school-aged children who are infested with intestinal worms transmitted through inadequate sanitation facilities and poor hygiene.” It also adds to a higher rate of wasteful and unproductive time due to adult illness and the need to stay home taking care of children. If the world’s poor are to climb out of their morass, their status quo must change. One option for those who seek to aid these folk is privatization. There are of course problems with privatization. These include obstacles grounded in possible litigation before the World Trade Organization and national Supreme courts, as well as suspension in or from the practice of legal regimes, which provide water via public or privatized sources. In addition, those that use tanks to distribute water may also face actions to suspend these actions by corporate entities, who may claim that there rights are being infringed upon. These corporations may seek indemnification for loss of profits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)