| December 16, 2006 |
| by Gordon Prather |
| Two weeks ago, during his Senate confirmation hearings, nominee Robert Gates was asked if he believed the Iranians were trying to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Gates said he did. He was then asked if he believed "the Iranians would consider using that nuclear weapons capability against the nation of Israel." Gates said he didn’t. In fact, he believed the Iranians were seeking a nuclear weapons capability as a "deterrent." After all, Gates noted that – "They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf." Notice that Gates was asked not about nuclear weapons, but about "nuclear weapons capability." What’s the difference? Well, to the Likudniks and their Congressional sycophants, there isn’t any. But, as far as the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group are concerned, there is an enormous difference. As an NPT signatory, Iran has an "inalienable right" to develop "without discrimination" the capability to enrich uranium – subject, of course, to an IAEA Safeguards Agreement, entered into for the exclusive purpose of verifying that no "source or special fissionable material" has been diverted to a military purpose. Furthermore, the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China – as signatories to the NPT– have all undertaken to "facilitate" that development by Iran. Nevertheless, despite at least a dozen quarterly reports by IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei that he could find no indication that Iran had ever diverted any source or special fissionable material to a military purpose, Bush and the Likudniks have managed to get the IAEA Board of Governors to repeatedly violate the IAEA Statute and the UN Security Council to repeatedly disregard the UN Charter, demanding that Iran give up its rights guaranteed by both the NPT and by the IAEA Statute. Now, you might think that the Likudniks – and maybe even Bush and Bobby Gates – know something ElBaradei doesn’t know. That they are not complete idiots. That they don’t really consider an Iranian capability to enrich uranium in an IAEA Safeguarded facility to be tantamount to Iran having nuclear weapons. But no, one of the more interesting revelations elicited by Seymour Hersh from Scott Ritter during their televised public discussion this past October of Ritter’s latest book Target Iran, was that Ritter had cultivated a close working relationship with Israeli intelligence analysts, beginning while a US Marine intelligence officer, assigned to the staff of General Norman Schwartzkopf during Operation Desert Storm, continuing through his seven years as Chief Inspector for the UN Commission on Arms Control in Iraq, even informing the books Ritter has written since resigning from UNSCOM. After praising ElBaradei for having conducted a multi-year program of inspections of unprecedented scope and thoroughness, resulting in no evidence of undisclosed nuclear activity, much less a diversion of source or special fissionable materials, Ritter revealed that Israeli intelligence has also been unable – despite considerable use of on-the-ground "human intelligence" and analysis of spy-satellite images – to find any indication of a hidden Iranian nuclear program. Nevertheless; "Israel has drawn a red line that says, not only will they not tolerate a nuclear weapons program in Iran, they will not tolerate anything dealing with nuclear energy, especially enrichment, that could be used in a nuclear program. "So, even if Iran is telling the truth – Iran says, 'We have no nuclear weapons program. We just want peaceful nuclear energy' – Israel says, 'So long as Iran has any enrichment capability, this constitutes a threat to Israel,' and they are pressuring the United States to take forceful action." So, Bush and Gates and the Likudniks don’t know something about Iran’s nuclear programs that ElBaradei doesn’t know, that our intelligence community doesn’t know, that Congress doesn’t know. Speaking of the Best Congress Money Can Buy, what were they doing while Bush-Bolton-Rice were corrupting the IAEA Board of Governors and emasculating the UN Security Council? Well, busy passing the Iran Freedom and Support Act which, inter alia, declared it "should" be the policy of the United States not to bring into force an agreement for cooperation with the government of any country unless "either on its own initiative or pursuant to a binding decision of the United Nations Security Council, suspended all nuclear assistance to Iran and all transfers of advanced conventional weapons and missiles to Iran." That law was aimed at Russia, an NPT signatory still attempting to honor its NPT commitments to Iran. Then, in their final hours, the 109th Congress enacted the US-India Nuclear Cooperation Act, which, inter alia, declared it "shall" be the policy of the United States to "Secure India's full and active participation in United States efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability and the capability to enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel, and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction." What if India is not assessed by the President to be fully and actively participating in such efforts? He is to provide them a report setting out "(I) the measures the United States Government has taken to secure India's full and active participation in such efforts; "(II) the responses of the Government of India to such measures; and "(III) the measures the United States Government plans to take in the coming year to secure India's full and active participation;"As for the Likudniks, upon emerging from a meeting last week with Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert alluded once again to the possibility of Israeli military action against Iran, saying, "the people of Iran must understand that if they do not accept the request of the international community [to give up their inalienable rights], they're going to pay dearly." |
Saturday, December 16, 2006
So Much for Inalienable Rights
Friday, December 1, 2006
What are 'inalienable rights'? If you don't know, you don't get them
· Test is an unfair barrier for immigrants, say critics
Ed Pilkington in New York
Friday December 1, 2006
The Guardian
A question of nationality ... An immigrant from Sierra Leone waits to become a US citizen during a naturalisation ceremony in Virginia. The new test has beeen criticised for being too difficult for many applicants. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP
If you can't, bang go your hopes of living the American dream. You will never become a citizen of the United States.
At least, you are going to find it harder to do so, as of yesterday. Those three brainteasers appear on a new list of 144 sample questions put out by the federal government that will form the basis of a revised test for anyone seeking to turn themselves into naturalised Americans.
It is the culmination of a five-year struggle to update the citizenship test, which was laid down in 1986 and has remained virtually untouched since. That exam contains 96 questions, mostly of a more amenable nature, such as: What are the colours of our flag? Who was Martin Luther King Jr? When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?
The new list has provoked a heated debate about the nature of citizenship exams and what they are seeking to achieve. Immigrants' rights groups fear that by adding a raft of about 80 new questions, including sections on geography (What is the longest river in the US?), more probing questions on key historical periods (Name one war fought by the US in the 1800s) and highly conceptual queries (What is the rule of law?), will merely erect a new barrier to participation.
Daunting
About 600,000 people become naturalised US citizens every year, but the worry is that many could be put off by the new questions.
"Our main concern is that the test does not became even more daunting an obstacle to citizenship than it is right now," said Fred Tsao, of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.
Mr Tsao pointed out that in addition to the stress of having to pass the exam, there is the financial hurdle: naturalisation currently costs $400 (£203) to complete, and may rise to $800 under current proposals.
His group and other immigration organisations like it have taken to calling the citizenship test "the second wall". The first wall is the physical structure being erected along 700 miles of Mexican border, to keep out illegal immigrants. This second wall, the groups contend, is a barrier to full participation by legal immigrants who have lived and worked in America for at least five years.
But the phrase is disputed by the US citizenship and immigration service. "I absolutely hate that term," said Chris Ratigan, an official within the service. "We are trying to build a wider bridge to citizenship. When someone decides to become an American citizen - and what a wonderful decision that is - we want them to feel that after they raise their hand and take the oath to America they are fully ready to participate in this country."
Under the old test, Ms Ratigan said, there was great inequality about how it was administered. One state might ask only easy questions such as "Who is the president of the US today?", while other states would set the harder ones such as "Who said 'Give me liberty or give me death?'" (Answer: Patrick Henry in 1775.) The pass rate - running at present at 84% on the first sitting of the test and 95% in second and third sittings - would show large local fluctuations as a result.
Under the new system, questions will be weighted according to their difficulty, so that no matter where in the country you are taking the test, your chances of success would be equal.
So how will the new test go down? It will be piloted next year on 5,000 volunteers going for citizenship in 10 states across the country, to reflect the range of likely applicants. After feedback, the list will be whittled down to the best 100. Applicants will have to answer correctly six out of 10 randomly selected questions.
On the streets of New York, the pilot questions received a varied response. Josh, a businessman, found several questions easy. He knew the president has to be over 35, that the tallest mountain is Mt McKinley, that the Mississippi is the longest river and that the early 19th century war was the Spanish-American war of 1812. However, he was stumped by the question: "What group of essays supported passage of the US constitution?" (Answer: the Federalist papers.)
Edwin, a security guard from Puerto Rico, was stumped by several questions. Asked "What does 'We the people' mean in the Constitution?", he replied: "You got me man. We never learnt that stuff in school."
If Edwin is remotely representative of the nation - and he was just one man plucked from a New York Street - then the immigration service appears to be pitching its exam beyond its reach. However, he did get one question almost right. Asked "Who is the speaker-elect of the House of Representatives?", he said: "I know somebody was elected from California. Can't remember her name, but I know Bush ain't too happy about it."
The questions and help for those who need it
The questions
1 What does "we the people" mean in the constitution?
2 Name one example of checks and balances
3 How old must a president be?
4 What territory did the US buy from France in 1803?
5 Name one thing only the federal government can do
6 What is the current minimum wage in the US?
7 Who is the attorney general now?
8 Who governs the people in a self-governed country?
9 What is the "rule of law"?
10 What are "inalienable rights"
11 Name one responsibility that is only for United States citizens
12 When is the last day you can send in federal income tax forms?
13 Name one thing Benjamin Franklin, right, is famous for
14 Name one famous battle from the revolutionary war
15 Name one of the writers of the Federalist papers
16 What group of essays supported the passage of the US constitution?
17 What did Susan B Anthony, right, do?
18 Who was president during the first world war?
19 Where is the Grand Canyon?
20 What is the tallest mountain in the United States?
Full list of question and answers on guardian.co.uk
Acceptable answers
1 The power of government comes from the people
2 The president vetoes a bill; Congress can confirm or not confirm a president's nomination; Congress approves the president's budget; the supreme court strikes down a law
3 35
4 West of the Mississippi; the western US; the Louisiana territory
5 Print money; declare war; create an army; make treaties
6 $5.15
7 Alberto Gonzales
8 The people govern themselves; the government elected by the people
9 Everyone must obey the law; leaders must obey the law; government must obey the law
10 Individual rights that people are born with
11 Vote; serve on a jury
12 By April 15 of every year; by April 15; April 15
13 US diplomat; oldest member of the Constitutional Convention; first Postmaster General of the United States; writer of Poor Richard's Almanac
14 Lexington and Concord; Trenton; Princeton; Saratoga; Cowpens; Yorktown; Bunker Hill
15 James Madison; Alexander Hamilton; John Jay
16 The Federalist Papers
17 She fought for women's rights
18 Woodrow Wilson
19 Arizona; The Southwest; along/on the Colorado River
20 Mt McKinley or Denali