The Raw Story

Monday, 16 February 2015

Libya may halt pumping oil as violence intensifies

Libya's National Oil Corporation (NOC) says it could suspend production at all its oilfields if the government fails to curb the rising number of attacks by militants.

The company is worried about the safety of its employees and the possibility staff might leave the extraction sites after repeated armed attacks. NOC wants the country's Defense Ministry to protect the oil pumping facilities.

"If these incidents continue, National Oil Corp will regrettably be forced to stop all operations at all fields in order to preserve the lives of employees," the company warned on its website.

There have been increasing attacks on Libya's oil facilities by armed groups, and the violence reached its peak last week. On Saturday a bomb exploded at a pipeline carrying crude from the country's largest oilfield El Sarir, following Friday's attacks on the nearby Makruk and Bahi oil fields. Nine guards were killed and three workers were taken hostage in an attack on Mabruk earlier this month.

Various militant groups are tearing Libya apart in the worst wave of violence since the 2011 uprising that overthrew the country's leader Muammar Gaddafi. Two de-facto governments are currently acting in the country.

Libya, a member of OPEC, which has Africa's largest proven oil reserves at about 48 billion barrels, was exporting 1.6 million barrels per day before Gaddafi was overthrown. Since then oil production fell from an average of just 430,000 barrels per day in 2014 to an average of 350,000 barrels per day in January 2015.

Brent crude finished last week up 7 percent and up 32 percent from its lowest point this year in mid-January at $61.52 a barrel due to the news from Libya.

Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.

The UK's biggest department store, Selfridges, has provoked outrage after it installed "disgusting" anti-homeless spikes outside its Manchester branch.

"Anti-homeless" metal spikes placed outside the Manchester department store make it impossible for homeless people to sleep there.

Residents in the area have confirmed homeless people "used to sleep" in the exact same place where the spikes are now situated.

This isn't the first time these "inhumane" spikes have sparked controversy in the UK.

Last June, the metal spikes caused a stir on social media when they were placed outside luxury apartments in London.

Following public outrage, London Mayor Boris Johnson ordered the "ugly, self-defeating and stupid" fixtures be removed from the buildings.

The spikes outside the London apartments were removed following protests and a petition which reached over 130,000 signatures.

Furious campaigners have launched a fresh petition against the "intimidating" spikes outside the Manchester department store.

Academic Cathy Urquhart, who launched the change.org petition, said: "We should be looking after the homeless, not demonizing and scapegoating them."

Urquhart told the she was "shocked" when she saw the spikes.

A petition signatory, Richie Young from Blackpool, commented on the page: "Being homeless is not a crime."

"Damn this Government of the Rich for the Rich," Young added.

"If a company of this size and wealth can offer no better contribution to Manchester's homeless problem than to build themselves a fortress then I won't spend my money there," a signatory from Manchester said.

However, a spokesperson for Selfridges told IBTimes UK that the spikes were put in place "as part of a number of measures to reduce litter and smoking outside the store's team entrance, following customer complaints."

Jacqui McClusckey, director of policy and communications for Homeless Link, said: "Sleeping on the streets is dangerous, bad for your health and individuals need support."

In a move that could have ramifications for domestic anti-terrorism efforts, US House Speaker John Boehner said he would let funding for the Department of Homeland Security lapse on Feb. 27 in order to reverse Obama's immigration reform actions.

House Republicans have passed a Homeland Security appropriations bill, but it is contingent upon defunding Obama's 2012 and 2014 executive orders that negated the threat of deportation for an estimated five million undocumented immigrants seeking refuge in the United States.

In the Senate, Democrats have blocked the House funding bill three times, calling for "clean" DHS-funding legislation that would maintain Obama's immigration orders. Obama, meanwhile, has threatened to veto the House measure.

"Senate Democrats are the ones standing in the way," Speaker Boehner told Fox News on Sunday. "They're the ones jeopardizing funding."

Would he let the department's funding expire? "Certainly," Boehner answered. "The House has acted. We've done our job."

.@SpeakerBoehner on #DHS Funding: 'It's Up to Senate Democrats to Get Their Act Together' http://bit.ly/1zIKQNC http://bit.ly/1zIKQNE

— FoxNewsInsider (@FoxNewsInsider) February 15, 2015

In the Senate, however, Republicans do not seem as headstrong about playing with DHS funding to defeat the immigration orders.

"The American people did not give us majority to have a fight between House and Senate Republicans," Arizona Sen. John McCain said on NBC's in reference to last November's midterm election. "They want things done. You cannot cut funding from the Department of Homeland Security. We need to sit down and work this thing out."

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last week that the Upper Chamber was "stuck" and that it was up to the House to make the next move.

Despite this supposedly critical juncture, Congress is taking this week off , meaning lawmakers will have Feb. 24-27 to settle on DHS funding before its expiration.

Lots of our work falls under Homeland Security. Its budget runs out in 2 wks. Chance to scare the public into wanting to fund DHS to the max

— U.S. Dept. of Fear (@FearDept) February 12, 2015

Who goes to work without funding?

Funding expiration would affect some Department of Homeland Security (DHS) services, but not front-line airport or border security, according to reports.

The agency has designated around 85 percent of its workers, or about 200,000 people, as being 'exempt' from a forced furlough given they work in areas that are vital to security or are funded by sources unrelated to the congressionally-approved budget, Reuters reported.

For instance, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) travel screenings at airports would certainly continue, as would the Federal Air Marshal Service, Coast Guard patrols, and disaster relief execution.

You may laugh, but when they defund Homeland Security, who will scan your license plate? Who will put your name into secret databases?

— Popehat (@Popehat) February 16, 2015

While these employees would be required to work, they would not get paid until a funding measure is passed by Congress and signed by Obama.

About 30,000 employees would be sidelined during a department shutdown. Procurement, hiring, training, administrative support, and "the bulk" of management involved in coordinating efforts such as domestic anti-terror operations would all be affected by a funding expiration, according to Reuters.

In addition, E-Verify, a citizenship and visa database used in hiring processes, would not be active.

DHS secretary Jeh Johnson has said an agency shutdown would negatively affect investments in border security and geospatial intelligence operations, as well as the "more aggressive investigations" by immigration and customs officials of criminal organizations involved in drug, cyber, and human trafficking crimes.

The agency shutdown would not hamper the US Citizenship and Immigration Services - the agency charged with enacting Obama's 2012 and 2014 executive actions on immigration reform - as it is funded mostly by fees paid by applicants.

Under the executive order Obama announced in November, undocumented immigrants who have lived in the US for five years or more, and are parents of American citizens or lawful residents, will be subjected to criminal and national security background checks. Once these are completed, they can pay taxes and defer deportation for three years at a time.

The plan also called for the US to increase security at the borders and focus deportation efforts on criminals and potential security threats rather than families.

Congressional Republicans have sought to block the order ever since.

"The House has acted to de-fund the department and to stop the president's overreach when it comes to immigration and his executive orders," Boehner said on Sunday.

"The Congress just can't sit by and let the president defy the Constitution and defy his own his oath of office."

Sounds like Boehner understands the true worth of our homeland security operations. Up to Democrats to stir up fear. http://bit.ly/1DyWTTO

— U.S. Dept. of Fear (@FearDept) February 16, 2015

What if Congress shut down homeland security for a few months and no planes fell out of the sky?

— U.S. Dept. of Fear (@FearDept) February 16, 2015

House Democrats countered that the shutdown would threaten Americans' safety.

"With only four legislative days left until the Republican Homeland Security Shutdown, Speaker Boehner made it clear that he has no plan to avoid a government shutdown that would threaten the safety of the American people," Drew Hammill, spokesman for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, told Reuters.

"The speaker's reliance on talking points and finger-pointing was a sad reflection of the fact that (the) Tea Party continues to hold the gavel as they insist on their futile anti-immigrant grandstanding."

The White House awaits a bill, but Obama's Chief of Staff Denis McDonough told CBS's 'Face the Nation' on Sunday that he doesn't "see exactly how Congress is going to resolve this."

In October 2013, a similar, albeit larger, budget faceoff between Republicans and Democrats caused the the majority of the US government to shutdown for 16 days, putting nearly one million workers on mandatory leave. Yet, as is Washington's custom with its increasingly-frequent budget imbroglios, an eleventh hour agreement spared a potentially damaging debt default.

© Reuters / Mykola Lazarenko

Belarus' President Alexander Lukashenko (R), Russia's President Vladimir Putin (2nd L), Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko (C, front), Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel (2nd R) and France's President Francois Hollande (front L) walk as they take part in peace talks on resolving the Ukrainian crisis in Minsk, February 11, 2015.

The guns in Ukraine have not cooled down yet but the Minsk 2 peace accord is already being predictably assailed in Washington by liberal and conservative hawks alike.

Headlines like "Vlad Putin Wins Again," "The new Ukrainian peace deal may be worse than no deal at all," or "Why Is Putin Smiling About Ukraine?" and the likes are all over the US media.

Never mind that the Minsk Agreement offers at least a brief, fragile window of opportunity for the world to step back from the brink of a nuclear confrontation that would destroy the entire northern hemisphere of the earth. If nothing else, at least it could save some Ukrainian lives. But who cares?

Such negative reactions from US policymakers and media are understandable since the whole Ukrainian mess was concocted to fulfill the ultimate goal of Russia's geopolitical weakening and Putin's regime change under the noble banner of spreading freedom and democracy. So far this goal is far from an achievement so why give peace a chance?

The saddest part of this story is that such a policy totally contradicts US long-term strategic security interests by turning a potential important ally into adversary.

It did not have to be that way. After the collapse of Communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, both Russian elites and the overwhelming majority of the Russian people were ready to join the family of the Western alliance. It was President George Herbert Walker Bush who talked in 1990 about a "Europe whole and free," and the new "security arch from Vancouver to Vladivostok."

Yes, there is no written document confirming his often-quoted pledge to Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the East but there are many credible and trustworthy witnesses who present compelling evidence testifying to Washington's reneging on key oral commitments to Moscow.

According to then-US Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock, who took part in both the Bush-Gorbachev early-December 1989 summit in Malta and the Shevardnadze-Baker discussions in early February 1990: "The language used was absolute, and the entire negotiation was in the framework of a general agreement that there would be no use of force by the Soviets and no 'taking advantage' by the US ... I don't see how anybody could view the subsequent expansion of NATO as anything but 'taking advantage,' particularly since, by then, Russia was hardly a credible threat."

There are other reliable witnesses to these historical events. And there is no doubt that it was Bill Clinton and his administration that made the sharp turn from the movement, albeit slow, towards an US - Russia alliance, to deep division and the current dangerous state of affairs.

George Kennan, one of the most distinguished of American diplomats, later told the he believed the expansion of NATO was "the beginning of a new cold war...I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves.''

Some 19 US Senators, including John Ashcroft (R-MO), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), Harry Reid (D-NV), Arlen Specter (R-PA) and John Warner (R-VA) voted against the bill permitting the expansion of NATO. Some of them said the expansion would "dilute NATO's self-defense mission, antagonize Russia, jeopardize several Russian-American arms-control negotiations and draw a new dividing line - a new Iron Curtain - across Europe."

''We'll be back on a hair-trigger,'' said Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a New York Democrat, warning that enlargement would threaten much worse than a new cold war. ''We're talking about nuclear war.''

This relentless record of broken promises continued when Russia was ravaged by economic crisis through the 1990s. This was a direct result of the catastrophic crash privatization urged on it by the Clinton team when Russia's population shrank disastrously and the hardship of ordinary folks was comparable to what they had experienced during World War II.

Russia's unexpected recovery in the 2000s from this total devastation caught its antagonists by surprise, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama followed the same failed Clinton policies by continuing NATO expansion, unleashing "color revolutions" on former Soviet republics from Ukraine and Georgia to Kyrgyzstan. Under their reckless leads, the United States pressed to break historical and economic ties between Russia and Ukraine going back many centuries using the same slogans of promoting Western values.

© RIA Novosti / Yuryi Abramochkin

Joint press conference by Soviet Communist Party leader, Soviet Supreme Council Chairman Mikhail Gorbachev (right) and US President George Bush in Malta.

Joint press conference by Soviet Communist Party leader, Soviet Supreme Council Chairman Mikhail Gorbachev (right) and US President George Bush in Malta.(RIA Novosti / Yuryi Abramochkin)

The Ukrainian people have not benefited from this policy which the February 2014 violent coup in Kiev and the openly manipulated sham of a democratic election then imposed upon them. The new rump government of President Petro Poroshenko first accepted an association agreement with the European Union under terms certain to impoverish scores of millions of Ukrainians. It has nothing to do with helping Ukraine's economic development but only dangles mythical carrots of unlimited Western aid that neither the US nor the EU in reality have the resources to provide.

Finally, some European leaders are slowly coming to their senses. Merkel and Hollande rightly want to retreat from the brink and such conservative-right leaders like former President Nicolas Sarkozy and National Front leader Marine Le Pen have both made clear their own determination to reestablish good ties with Moscow.

Yet in Washington, the only voices allowed to be heard in the mainstream media unanimously call for the rapid arming of Ukraine as quickly and recklessly as possible. Arch-hawk Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) is predictably in the forefront of this pack, yet incredibly President Obama has allowed senior figures in his own administration and the top US generals to encourage such madness too.

During the most dangerous periods of the Cold War, the dangers were fully realized by the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan administrations. However, there is not the slightest hint of such awareness and responsibility among US policymakers today, either among the incumbent Democrats or the opposition Republicans, who are trying to outdo each other by competing who is more hawkish on Russia. Needless to say that America needs a drastic change in its foreign policy.

There are a few wise men who can make a significant contribution to this cause; one is former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, the man who did more than any other single person to end the Cold War. He must come to Washington and meet with the surviving veterans of the Reagan and George Bush, Sr. administrations he worked so courageously and constructively with back in the 1980s. Together, their voices desperately need to be heard to revive the severed lines of communication between Washington and Moscow and start the process of bringing the world back from the brink of nuclear destruction.

The huge experience and unmatched diplomatic skills of such Americans as George Herbert Walker Bush, Henry Kissinger, James A. Baker III, Brent Scowcroft, Jack Matlock, Pat Buchanan, David Stockman, Dana Rohrabacher and some others make them the obvious partners to take seats at the round table with Gorby.

US: Insects are free in Michelle O's 'healthy' lunches

Advocates are struggling to get students to eat "healthy" lunches - even if they're free.

It's not too hard to see why. Timothy Martinez qualifies for free lunches, but he and his classmates often skip meals and go hungry because the cafeteria food at Bronx Academy of Letters is inedible, according to DNAinfo.

"When they serve us pizza, sometimes it's not reheated all the way and you can see the frozen pieces in the dough," Martinez says. "It's the same thing with the taco meat. And they serve us ices instead of juice," referring to the liquids still being frozen.

"There's not much taste to them," another student, Justin Minaya, says of the sweet potato fries.

"The chicken looks too greasy. It's just frozen food that's been reheated. It's not appetizing."

For these students, it usually means a free school meal or going hungry. More often, they're choosing the latter.

"What they are provided with is unappetizing and unsatisfying," Sarah Camiscoli, a teacher at the school, says. "There is much more effort [on the DOE's part] put into thinking about fine tuning the logistics of state exams rather than the logistics of nutritional needs of students on free lunch."

As more fresh fruits and vegetables are being introduced into school lunches, students are reporting that they're finding more unintended protein in the items.

Raven Nolan posted this photo, thanking First Lady Michelle Obama, the champion of the "healthy" lunch rules:

Meanwhile, Rachel Owens posted this photo, which likely came from Hamilton Southeastern Schools in Indiana:

And another student posted this in November:

Still others:

Back in New York, school administrators defend the "healthy" lunches.

"Issues of school lunch are important to students across the U.S.," says Brandon Cardet-Hernandez, principal of the Bronx Academy of Letters, according to DNAinfo. "It's exciting to see our students talking about food in a community that is often under-resourced."

"We are proud of our work to bring healthy and delicious food options to schools across the city and look forward to continuing to improve these options," city department of education spokesman Harry Hartfield tells the news site.

A powerful 'skunk-like' form of cannabis is linked to a quarter of new cases of psychosis, according to a study.

Researchers at King's College London found the potent form of the Class B drug increased the risk of suffering a serious psychotic episode for daily users by five times - and tripled the risk for casual users.

"This paper suggests that we could prevent almost one quarter of cases of psychosis if no one smoked high potency cannabis. This could save young patients a lot of suffering and the NHS a lot of money," said Sir Robin Murray, Professor of Psychiatric Research at Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King's.

The six-year project followed 800 people aged between 18 and 65 in south London, including 410 who had suffered psychosis and 370 healthy patients.

"Compared with those who never used cannabis, individuals who mostly used skunk-like cannabis were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder if they used it less than once per week, almost three times as likely if they used it at weekends, and more than five times as likely if they were daily users," the paper states.

The study, published in the medical journal The Lancet, suggests some 60,000 people in Britain are thought to be living with mental health conditions involving hallucinations and paranoid episodes made worse by smoking this type of cannabis.

The study also found those who started taking the drug before the age of 15 were at a greater risk.

The team did not find any link for the milder form of cannabis, known as hashish.

"You're not going to go psychotic after a couple of puffs. It's like alcohol - drinking the odd glass of wine is fine, but if you're drinking a bottle of whisky a day you're heading for trouble," Murray said.

Skunk typically contains far more Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) - the main psychoactive ingredient - than other types of cannabis.

"The worldwide trend of liberalization of the legal constraints on the use of cannabis further emphasizes the urgent need to develop public education to inform young people about the risks of high-potency cannabis," the team said.

Medical marijuana is legal in 23 US states, where it can be used for conditions like multiple sclerosis and glaucoma.

A Home Office spokesman told AFP: "Drugs such as cannabis are illegal because scientific and medical evidence demonstrates they are harmful."

British intelligence agency MI5 faces allegations it covered up child sex abuse at a care home in east Belfast for decades to protect its intelligence operations, Northern Ireland's high court will hear on Tuesday.

Victims of child sex abuse which took place in Kincora Boys' Home throughout the 1970s are pursuing a full independent inquiry into the matter.

If successful, the victims' legal challenge will result in a robust inquiry that compels key witnesses to testify. MI5 would also be forced to supply investigators with vital documents.

The Belfast-based court case is the first to address the British state's alleged links to the notorious care home in the 1970s. It begins on Tuesday, and is expected to continue throughout the week.

"One of the biggest scandals of our time" says Amnesty; MI5 & claims of complicity in sexual abuse of children http://bit.ly/1BhwgUb

— vikram dodd (@VikramDodd) February 15, 2015

Former Kincora residents are calling for a full, independent inquiry into the British state's collusion in the abuse, similar to the inquiry set up to investigate Westminster child abuse, chaired by judge Lowell Goddard.

Goddard was recently appointed by Home Secretary Theresa May as the new head of Britain's Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. May has conceded allegations of state involvement in the pedophile ring that infiltrated Kincora Boys' Home should be investigated.

She agreed in January that Britain's Official Secrets Act should be waived to allow ex-military intelligence officers to come forward with evidence.

'One of the biggest scandals of our age'

Amnesty International describes the abuse at Kincora as "one of the biggest scandals of our age." The rights group supports victims' demands for an independent inquiry with full powers.

Patrick Corrigan, Amnesty's Northern Ireland Program Director, told RT: "The allegations could scarcely be more serious - that MI5 used a pedophile ring at the boys' home for its own intelligence-gathering purposes and then blocked police investigations which could have ended the abuse years before it was finally stopped.

"If true, that means that the UK security services used vulnerable boys as nothing more than sexual bait in a blackmail trap. Some people talk about a 'dirty war' in Northern Ireland - but these allegations are stomach-churning and must be fully investigated with an inquiry with the full-powers to do so.

"If proven, those responsible must be held accountable before the law - whether perpetrators of abuse or those who perpetuated that abuse by allowing it continue for years. That would mean prosecutions and the prospect of prison to follow police investigations, and should also mean compensation for the victims."

MI5 accused of covering up sexual abuse at boys' home - via @guardian http://bit.ly/1FTNvd4 #Kincora #CSAinquiry http://bit.ly/1FTNvd9

— Amnesty Int'l NI (@AmnestyNI) February 16, 2015

Lawyers representing the victims will argue that MI5 personnel had knowledge of the child abuse at Kincora, allowed it to continue, and were complicit in protecting those involved from investigation or prosecution, according to documents submitted to Belfast's high court.

One alleged victim, Gary Hoy, entered Kincora with his little brother in the 1970s. He claims the abuse he experienced there severely damaged him in later life.

In a sworn affidavit seen by the , he says, "I find it heart-wrenching that there were security men [who] could have been behind the abuse or involved in it ... Because they were in positions of authority or supposed to be protecting the state they get away with it."

Lawyers for Hoy will argue he suffered abuse at the care home, which is defined under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as torture.

'MI5 cover-up'

Colin Wallace, a former military information officer based in Northern Ireland, said British MPs had been deceived about child abuse at Kincora Boys' Home.

He told the there is undeniable evidence UK government agencies' cover-up of the abuse was concealed from Britain's Parliament.

However, victims' demand for an inquiry with full powers was backed last week by Britain's Home Affairs Select Committee. The committee recommended that Kincora be included in the ongoing child abuse inquiry ordered by Westminster.

Amnesty's Northern Ireland Program Director, Patrick Corrigan, said the committee's recommendation was bad news for those who want Kincora's murky past to remain secret.

"Nothing less than the inclusion of the Kincora home in this inquiry is liable to see the truth finally arrived at and justice finally delivered," he told RT.

Should Kincora be included in the child abuse inquiry? Should MI5 officers be obliged to testify? Yes and Yes. http://bit.ly/1FTNsOe

— tom_watson (@tom_watson) February 15, 2015

A spokesperson for the Home Office, the government department responsible for MI5, said the government is collaborating fully with all "investigations into allegations" relating to the Kincora Boys' Home.

"It is not appropriate to comment further while these investigations are under way," the spokesperson told the .

Three senior staff at Kincora were imprisoned in 1981 for abusing 11 boys in their care. But it is feared the facility hosted many more abusers and victims between 1960 and 1980.

To this day, allegations prevail that a pedophile ring at the children's home was linked directly to the British intelligence services. Two ex-military intelligence officers insist MI5 blocked police inquiries into child abuse that occurred there in the 1970s.

One officer says MI5 was complicit in the abuse that took place, while another claims he reported it to the security services, but no action was pursued.

The Raw Story

Focused on providing independent journalism.

Kiev orders crackdown on Russian TV channels

What I did after police killed my son

Emerging solar plants scorch birds in mid-air

Monday, 16 February 2015

Libya may halt pumping oil as violence intensifies

Outrage as UK's Selfridges department store installs 'anti-homeless' spikes

Congress planning to let Homeland Security funding lapse

The West needs wise leaders to counter Washington war-hawks

US: Insects are free in Michelle O's 'healthy' lunches

High-potency marijuana linked to psychosis

MI5 being investigated for covering up child sex abuse in Northern Ireland

Search

Recent Posts

Popular