DOCSLIB.ORG

A. History of Violence: Atrocity Crimes Through the Centuries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A. History of Violence: Atrocity Crimes Through the Centuries HUMANITY AND NATIONAL SECURITY: THE LAW OF MASS ATROCITY RESPONSE OPERATIONS Keith A. Petty∗ At the point when you decide to punish, you have already failed.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 102 I. History of Mass Atrocities: Preventative and Response Measures ......................................................................................................... 105 A. History of Violence: Atrocity Crimes Through the Centuries ............................................................................ 106 B. Global Failure to Prevent Mass Atrocities .......................... 110 C. Modern Developments in Atrocity Prevention and Response ............................................................................ 117 1. Humanitarian Intervention ............................................. 118 2. Responsibility to Protect ................................................ 121 D. The United States and Mass Atrocity Prevention & Response Operations ......................................................... 124 1. Full Spectrum Approach ................................................ 126 2. Military Preparedness .................................................... 127 E. Atrocities in Syria ................................................................. 131 II. The Legality of Atrocity Response When the United Nations Fails to Act ...................................................................................................................... 133 A. Jus ad Bellum & Atrocity Response ..................................... 134 1. Law and the Use of Force: Article 2(4) in Context ........ 136 B. The Emergence of Contingent Sovereignty .......................... 148 ∗ LL.M., 2012, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School; LL.M. with distinction 2008, Georgetown University Law Center; J.D., 2002, Case Western Reserve University, School of Law; B.A., 1999, Indiana University. Currently a Major in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps, the author serves as the Senior Defense Counsel at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. Previously assigned as a legal advisor to battlefield commanders in Iraq, focusing on targeting, detention, and rule of law issues. Served as a prosecutor at the Guantánamo Bay Office of Military Commissions on several cases, including U.S. v. Khadr. Clerked for a judge at the Trial Chambers of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The views expressed in this Article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government. The author is indebted to the advice and assistance gratiously provided by Lieutenant Colonel Richard DiMeglio, Lieutenant Colonel Gary Johnson, Major Keirsten Kennedy, Professor John N. Moore, Professor Sean Murphy, Professor Eric Jensen, Professor Gregory McNeal, and the extraordinary editing team at the Michigan Journal of International Law. Any errors are my own. 1. Benjamin B. Ferencz, Commentary, Origins of the Genocide Convention, 40 CASE W. RES. J. INT’L L. 13, 26 (2008). 101 102 Michigan Journal of International Law [Vol. NNppp C. Nonlegal Considerations: Morality and Justification ......... 153 D. Syria and Unilateral Intervention ........................................ 156 III. Developing a Legal Norm for Atrocity Response .............................. 157 A. Norm Development Through Action and Discourse ............ 158 B. Leadership: The Will to Act ................................................. 163 C. Mass Atrocity Response Is a National & Global Security Interest ............................................................................... 167 D. Overcoming Pretext ............................................................. 169 IV. Proposed Threshold for Unilateral Atrocity Response Operations172 A. Objective Threat of Atrocity Crimes .................................... 173 B. Intervention Is Necessary ..................................................... 174 C. Proportionate Response ....................................................... 177 D. Regional and Coalition Coordination ................................. 177 E. Intervening States’ Reports to the UNSC ............................. 178 F. Intervening States’ Jus Post Bellum Planning ..................... 179 G. MARO Threshold Applied to Syria ...................................... 180 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 184 Introduction Among the greatest threats to global security is the slaughter of civilians. This is due to the inconsistent reaction of the international community to genocide and other atrocity crimes. Whether it was the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in Turkey in 19152 or Rwandan Tutsis in 1994,3 mass murderers act with impunity when there is not a forceful response. Contrast these situations to Vietnam’s intervention in Cambodia in 1978 that put an end to the Khmer Rouge’s nightmarish killing fields, 4 or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) intervention in Kosovo in 1999 that protected ethnic Albanians from Serb brutality.5 Even though atrocities like these have been the hallmark of oppressive regimes throughout recorded history, they continue today in places like Syria partly as a result of the uncertain legality of the use of force to respond to these crimes. Strict interpretation of state sovereignty and the United Nation’s monopoly on authorizing force significantly limit effective response measures, allowing grotesque human rights violations to continue. In order to break the atrocity cycle, states must have the authority to use force to prevent and respond to atrocity crimes when the United 2. See discussion infra note 36. 3. See discussion infra note 50. 4. See discussion infra note 45. 5. See discussion infra notes 49, 122 and accompanying text. Season 201x] Humanity and National Security 103 Nations fails to act. A new strategy, led by the United States, is emerging in response to atrocity crimes. 6 The doctrine of Mass Atrocity Response Operations (MARO)7 is developing as a result of several high-level reports and strategic publications highlighting the urgent need for more effective measures.8 Further support came on August 4, 2011, when President Barack Obama issued a presidential directive to create an interagency “Atrocities Prevention Board.”9 This interagency body is tasked with coordinating a government wide approach to preventing mass atrocities.10 Of the many possible actions that can be taken to prevent atrocity crimes, military action—noncombat or outright intervention—must be included as a key element to deter and suppress violence. Still, due to the uncertain legality of intervention to halt atrocities, the new U.S. strategy could have a short life span largely due to inflexible interpretations of the U.N. Charter’s prohibition on the use of force and traditional notions of state sovereignty. Until now, scholarship has failed to address the application of MARO when there is no U.N. authorization. This article proposes that the United States take the lead in developing a new norm allowing states to intervene to protect civilians from atrocity crimes when multilateral institutions fail to act. This can be accomplished in two complimentary ways. First, the United States should engage the world community—the United Nations, states, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the public, and the media—in a discursive process challenging the failure of the status quo to effectively stop the next Rwanda. Highlighting the institutional and practical ineffectiveness of the current legal regime will demonstrate that atrocity prevention is a global and state priority in need of a new normative standard. Second, during the interpretive phase of a positive norm, like-minded states should work together to respond to mass atrocities with force if necessary and use the developing norm as the basis for intervention. Instead of waiting for global consensus on the positive law, which may never occur, 6. See SARAH SEWALL ET AL., MASS ATROCITY RESPONSE OPERATIONS: A MILITARY PLANNING HANDBOOK 97 (2010) [hereinafter MARO HANDBOOK]. 7. Mass Atrocity Response Operations (MARO) are the future of U.S. military initiatives to halt mass murders. The military intervention of MARO is a subset of atrocity response measures falling under the full spectrum of Mass Atrocity Prevention and Response Operations (MAPRO), which include diplomacy, intelligence gathering, economic, and other measures to prevent and respond to atrocity crimes. See id. 8. See MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT & WILLIAM S. COHEN, PREVENTING GENOCIDE: A BLUEPRINT FOR U.S. POLICYMAKERS (2008) [hereinafter GENOCIDE REPORT]; MARO HANDBOOK, supra note 6, at 23. 9. Directive on Creation of an Interagency Atrocities Prevention Board and Corresponding Interagency Review, 2011 DAILY COMP. PRES. DOC. 1 (Aug. 4, 2011) [hereinafter Presidential Directive]. The Atrocities Prevention Board was formally activated in April 2012. See President Obama Announces Creation of Atrocities Prevention Board, HUM. RTS. FIRST (Apr. 23, 2012), http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/04/23/president-obama- announces-creation-of-atrocities-prevention-board/. 10. Presidential Directive, supra note 9. 104 Michigan Journal of International Law [Vol. NNppp this approach contributes to the gradual development of a customary norm—even when violating
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Mechanisms for the Prevention of Atrocity Crimes
    Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal Volume 11 Issue 3 Global Approaches to Atrocity Prevention: Theory, Practice, and the State of Article 5 the Field 3-2018 National Mechanisms for the Prevention of Atrocity Crimes Samantha Capicotto The Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation Rob Scharf The Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp Recommended Citation Capicotto, Samantha and Scharf, Rob (2018) "National Mechanisms for the Prevention of Atrocity Crimes," Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: Vol. 11: Iss. 3: 6-19. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.11.3.1502 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol11/iss3/5 This State of the Field is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. National Mechanisms for the Prevention of Atrocity Crimes Samantha Capicotto The Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation New York, NY, USA Rob Scharf The Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation New York, NY, USA What is a National Mechanism? National Mechanisms for the Prevention of Genocide and other Atrocity Crimes are officially established bodies that include representatives from multiple areas of government relevant to the prevention of atrocity crimes.1 ” Atrocity crimes” refers to three legally defined crimes under international law: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.2 National Mechanisms have been established to lead the development of a coordinated national strategy for the prevention of such crimes on behalf of their government.
    [Show full text]
  • International Security, Human Rights and the Responsibility to Protect
    International Security, Human Rights and the Responsibility to Protect Remarks delivered by Dr. Simon Adams in Moscow, Russia on 30 October 2013 at a conference on “State Sovereignty and the Concept of ‘Responsibility to Protect’: The Evolution of the International Situation and Russia's Interests.” Hosted by the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia. I want to thank the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the opportunity to participate in this historic event – the first conference on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to be hosted by your government. I want to digress slightly from my suggested topic and start, if I could, by addressing this vexed issue of sovereignty which has gripped our deliberations so far this morning. Sovereignty has never been absolute and that is truer now than at any time since the Treaty of Westphalia. But that is not because R2P has undermined it. It is because the problems of the twenty-first century are quantitatively and qualitatively different from those of previous centuries. Climate change, transnational terrorism, AIDS, mass atrocities, poverty and piracy – these issues are what former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described as “problems without passports.” They require fresh thinking and global partnership. Mass atrocities, in particular, are a threat to all humans as humans. That’s why we define them – politically and legally – as crimes against humanity. That’s why we punish them as an affront not just to their victims, but to all of us as human beings. That’s why they constitute a threat to both international security and human rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Atrocity Prevention and Peacebuilding Key Insights and Lessons from a Global Consultation Convened by Peace Direct
    Atrocity prevention and peacebuilding Key insights and lessons from a global consultation convened by Peace Direct Višegrad Bridge: Bosnia and Herzegovina About this report Contents This report presents the analysis and recommendations of Abbreviations 4 atrocity prevention and peacebuilding experts and practitioners Introduction and methodology 5 from across the globe. Peace Direct held a 4-day online consultation in November and December 2017, in which Definitions and International Frameworks 7 96 participants from the field shared their insights and local Executive Summary 10 experiences. 13 contributing experts facilitated 8 sessions over the course of the consultation covering a variety of topics and Framing session: The peacebuilding and atrocity prevention nexus 14 thematic issues around atrocity prevention. Fostering greater cooperation between peacebuilding and atrocity prevention 15 The report has been edited by Peace Direct while the main Local strategies in atrocity prevention 18 sections of this report include contributions from our guest The role of inclusivity in atrocity prevention 19 experts, as well as from all participants who engaged in the Self-protection on strategies key to atrocity prevention 22 online consultation. The viewpoints presented represent Locally-led reconciliation and healing as atrocity prevention 28 the consensus of participants and experts, while also noting How can sexual and gender-based atrocity crimes be better prevented? 32 dissenting views. Where quotes are unattributed, they are from Youth, peacebuilding and atrocity prevention 39 participants in the online consultation. Engaging the international community in funding and response 44 How local peacebuilders engage with policymakers The contents of this research are the responsibility of Peace on atrocity prevention 45 Direct.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining the Four Mass Atrocity Crimes
    February 2018 Background Briefing: Defining the Four Mass Atrocity Crimes During the 2005 United Nations World Summit, heads of state and government accepted the responsibility of every state to protect its population from four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. The first three crimes are legally defined in various international legal documents, such as the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols, and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Their status as international crimes is based on the belief that the acts associated with them affect the core dignity of human beings, both in times of peace and in times of war. GENOCIDE Genocide means acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, including: • Killing members of the group; • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Victims of this crime are deliberately – and not randomly – targeted because of their real or perceived membership in one of the four protected groups. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable and “substantial.” WAR CRIMES There is no single document in international law that codifies all war crimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Contribution De Simon ADAMS
    Colloque international « L’encadrement de l'usage du veto au Conseil de Sécurité de l'ONU en cas d’atrocités de masse » Regulating the Use of Veto at the UN Security Council in Case of Mass Atrocities Contribution de Simon ADAMS Paris, 21 Janvier 2015 Organisé par l’Ecole des Affaires internationales de Sciences Po (PSIA) et le Centre d’analyse, de prévision et de stratégie du Ministère des Affaires étrangères et du Développement international (CAPS) ©www.sciencespo.fr/psia/content/colloque-encadrement-du-veto The copyright of this paper remains the property of its author. No part of the content may be reproduced, published, distributed, copied or stored for public or private use without written permission of the author. All authorisation requests should be sent to [email protected] The Responsibility Not to Veto “Regulating the use of the veto at the UN Security Council in cases of mass atrocities”, an international colloquium organized by the Paris School of International Affairs of Sciences Po and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France. Paris, 21 January 2015 The international community has a responsibility to protect those threatened by genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. And the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have a responsibility not to veto when the world needs them to respond and to act. That is the principle underlining the French government’s call for an agreement on veto restraint in mass atrocity situations. Those who say that the UN Security Council cannot reform itself, that the politics of cynicism, national interest and narrow opportunism will always win over universal principles, will tell us that this cannot be done.
    [Show full text]
  • 15 November 2020 Issue 54
    15 NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUE 54 A bimonthly bulletin by the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect T h e Responsibility to Protect (R2P) R2P Monitor applies an R2P Monitor: is a global norm, unanimously adopted atrocity prevention lens to » Provides background on populations by heads of state and government at the following situations of at risk of mass atrocity crimes, with the 2005 UN World Summit, aimed at particular emphasis on key events and preventing and halting Genocide, War concern: actors and their connection to the Crimes, Ethnic Cleansing and Crimes threat, or commission, of genocide, CURRENT CRISIS Against Humanity. R2P stipulates that: war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes Mass atrocity crimes are occurring and against humanity. » Every State has the Responsibility urgent action is needed. to Protect its populations from the » O f f e r s analysis of the country’s past four mass atrocity crimes (Pillar I). IMMINENT RISK history in relation to mass atrocity crimes; the factors that have enabled » The wider international community The situation is reaching a critical their possible commission, or that has the responsibility to encourage and threshold and the risk of mass atrocity crimes occurring in the immediate future prevent their resolution; and the assist individual States in meeting is very high if effective preventive receptivity of the situation to positive that responsibility (Pillar II). action is not taken. influences that would assist in preventing further crimes. » If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international SERIOUS CONCERN » T r a c k s t h e international response community must be prepared to take There is a significant risk of occurrence, to the situation with a particular appropriate collective action, in a timely or recurrence, of mass atrocity crimes emphasis upon the actions of the and decisive manner and in accordance within the foreseeable future if United Nations, key regional actors and with the UN Charter (Pillar III).
    [Show full text]
  • What Investigative Resources Does the International Criminal Court Need to Succeed?: a Gravity-Based Approach
    Washington University Global Studies Law Review Volume 16 Issue 1 2017 What Investigative Resources Does the International Criminal Court Need to Succeed?: A Gravity-Based Approach Stuart Ford John Marshall Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Evidence Commons, International Law Commons, and the Rule of Law Commons Recommended Citation Stuart Ford, What Investigative Resources Does the International Criminal Court Need to Succeed?: A Gravity-Based Approach, 16 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 001 (2017), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol16/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Global Studies Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Global Studies Law Review VOLUME 16 NUMBER 1 2017 WHAT INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES DOES THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT NEED TO SUCCEED?: A GRAVITY-BASED APPROACH STUART FORD I. INTRODUCTION There is an ongoing debate about what resources the International Criminal Court (ICC) needs to be successful.1 On one side of this debate are many of the Court’s largest funders, including France, Germany, Britain, Italy, and Japan.2 They have repeatedly opposed efforts to increase the Court’s resources even as its workload has increased dramatically in recent years.3 On the other side of the debate is the Court itself and many of the Court’s supporters within civil society.4 They have taken the position that it is underfunded and does not have sufficient resources to succeed.5 This debate has persisted for years and disagreements over the ICC’s funding level are now a central feature of 6 the Court’s budgeting process.
    [Show full text]
  • Documentation for Accountability
    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals Scholarship & Research 2020 Documentation for Accountability Paul Williams Jessica Levy Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 52 (2020) Documentation for Accountability Jessica C. Levy* & Paul R. Williams‡ Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................... 451 I. Justice Delayed ........................................................................... 452 II. Documenting Atrocities ............................................................ 454 III. Victims Demand Justice ............................................................ 458 IV. Documentation Technology Solutions .................................... 461 V. Conclusion .................................................................................. 465 Millions of civilians as well as combatants have been killed in wars during the last three decades.1 Millions more have died from indirect causes related to the violence, such as starvation and disease.2 State * Jessica Levy is a Research Fellow on Justice, Peace, and Security at the Public International Law & Policy Group. She specializes in post-conflict security reform and transitional justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 230 and the Duty to Prevent Mass Atrocities
    Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 52 Issue 1 Article 11 2020 Section 230 and the Duty to Prevent Mass Atrocities David Sloss Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation David Sloss, Section 230 and the Duty to Prevent Mass Atrocities, 52 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 199 (2020) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol52/iss1/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 52 (2020) Section 230 and the Duty to Prevent Mass Atrocities David Sloss* Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................... 199 I. Introduction ........................................................................... 199 II. Why Civil Liability? ................................................................ 201 III. Which Crimes? ......................................................................... 204 IV. A Modest Proposal ................................................................. 207 I. Introduction Between August and November, 2017, the Myanmar military carried out a series of brutal attacks against Rohingya Muslim communities in Rakhine State in Myanmar.1 An international fact- finding mission appointed by the UN Human Rights Council recommended that “senior generals of the Myanmar military should be investigated and prosecuted in an international criminal tribunal for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.”2 Myanmar’s military used Facebook as “a tool for ethnic cleansing.”3 “Members of * David L. Sloss is the John A.
    [Show full text]
  • Preventing Mass Atrocity Crimes: the Responsibility to Protect and the Syria Crisis Paul R
    Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 45 | Issue 1 2012 Preventing Mass Atrocity Crimes: The Responsibility to Protect and the Syria Crisis Paul R. Williams Jonathan Worboys J. Trevor Ulbrick Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Paul R. Williams, Jonathan Worboys, and J. Trevor Ulbrick, Preventing Mass Atrocity Crimes: The Responsibility to Protect and the Syria Crisis, 45 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 473 (2012) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol45/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 45 Fall 2012 Issues 1 & 2 Preventing Mass Atrocity Crimes: The Responsibility to Protect and the Syria Crisis Paul R. Williams, J. Trevor Ulbrick & Jonathan Worboys CASE WESTERN RESERVE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW·VOL. 45·2012 Preventing Mass Atrocity Crimes: The Responsibility to Protect and the Syria Crisis Paul R. Williams,* J. Trevor Ulbrick,† & Jonathan Worboys‡ CONTENTS I. Introduction................................................................................ 474 II. Background to the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine ........ 477 A. Kosovo ....................................................................................... 478 B. The Right of Humanitarian Intervention......................................... 479 III. Emergence of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine .......... 481 A. Content of the ICISS Report ......................................................... 481 B. UN Evolution of R2P ................................................................... 483 IV. R2P’s Third Pillar and the Use of Force ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • DOWNLOAD Grounding Terrorism on Ground Zero
    Educating Minds and Hearts to Change the World A publication of the University of San Francisco Center for the Volume IX ∙ Number 1 December ∙ 2009 Pacific Rim Copyright 2009 Introduction >>......................................................................John Nelson 1 Editors Joaquin Gonzalez John Nelson Grounding Terrorism on Ground Zero: How 9/11 Informs U.S. Press Coverage of Editorial Political Violence Consultants >>......................................................................Kevin Mack 2 Barbara K. Bundy Hartmut Fischer How the West Lost Us: A Critique of Media Coverage of the Mumbai Attacks Patrick L. Hatcher >>..................................................................Vamsee Juluri 17 Editorial Board Uldis Kruze Man-lui Lau An Interview with Vamsee Juluri Mark Mir >>.....................................................................John Nelson 19 Noriko Nagata Stephen Roddy Kyoko Suda Profile of the Artist: Shalinee Kumari Bruce Wydick >>........................................................................................... 24 Gathering Reactions on the Mumbai Attacks, India’s ‘9/11’ on November 26th, 2008 >>.................................................................Lotika Gulvadi 25 Asia Pacific: Perspectives Asia Pacific: Perspectives is a peer-reviewed journal published at least once a year, usually in April/May. It Center for the Pacific Rim welcomes submissions from all fields of the social sciences and the humanities with relevance to the Asia Pacific 2130 Fulton St region.* In keeping with the Jesuit traditions of the University of San Francisco, Asia Pacific: Perspectives com- San Francisco, CA mits itself to the highest standards of learning and scholarship. 94117-1080 Our task is to inform public opinion by a broad hospitality to divergent views and ideas that promote cross-cul- Tel: (415) 422-6357 Fax: (415) 422-5933 tural understanding, tolerance, and the dissemination of knowledge unreservedly. Papers adopting a compara- [email protected] tive, interdisciplinary approach will be especially welcome.
    [Show full text]
  • Fox News All-Stars
    Page 1 325 of 1000 DOCUMENTS Fox News Network June 4, 2010 Friday SHOW: FOX SPECIAL REPORT WITH BRET BAIER 6:40 PM EST Fox News All-Stars BYLINE: Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Juan Williams SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 2309 words (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We are going to cut through any bu- reaucratic red tape, any problems that we've got, and we will fix the problems that have been identified, and we'll keep on coming back until we have dealt with an unprecedented crisis. This report is sign that our economy is getting stronger by the day. I want to emphasize that most of the jobs this month that we're seeing in the statistics represent workers who have been hired to complete the 2010 census. (END VIDEO CLIP) BAIER: Two stops today. President Obama today earlier in Maryland talking about the unemployment rate dropping to 9.7, but the markets tanked on that news because almost all of the jobs were created were for the census, as he talked about. He's down in the Gulf region right now and he has cancelled a planned trip to Australia and to Indonesia because of the Gulf oil spill. He is dealing with a lot. How is he doing? Let's bring in our panel, Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of "The Weekly Standard," Juan Williams, news analyst for Na- tional Public Radio, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. Not to mention, Fred, that the national debt is increasing, over $13 trillion.
    [Show full text]