March 4, 2011
The Research and Documentation Unit at the Jerusalem Center for Social and Economic Rights (JCSER) reported that Israeli soldiers and policemen have kidnapped more than 80 Palestinian children in occupied East Jerusalem since the beginning of this year.
The center said that Israel is escalating its violations and attacks against children and youths in Jerusalem by kidnapping them, attacking them and enforcing house arrests.
The Research Unit said that the army and police recently kidnapped nine children from the district of Silwan, and violently attacked and tortured them.
It also stated that the children are tortured during interrogation and, when released, they are forced under house arrest.
The center added that out of the 80 kidnapped and detained children, 40 are from Silwan.
All kidnapped children were interrogated in a number of police stations in Jerusalem and were accused of hurling stones at Israeli soldiers, policemen, and under-cover units of the Israeli army.
Most of them were severely tortured and were violently beaten by the arresting soldiers and officers.
The Center also said that Israeli settlers and settlement guards also participated in the arrests, the transfer to detention center and even the interrogation of the detained children.
In related news, the Israeli Authorities handed on Sunday February 27th, a military order to the residents of al-Omaraa’ residential tower in Beit Hanina in occupied East Jerusalem, informing them that the residential tower will be demolished.
The JCSER reported that the 22 families living in the residential tower were granted ten days to appeal the decision.
Source: Australians for Palestine
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Jordanians Call for Dissolution of Parliament
By HASSAN HAFIDH
AMMAN, Jordan—Protests continued on Friday in the Jordanian capital Amman and other major cities despite bad weather conditions, demanding a quick dissolution of the country's parliament and holding national elections to choose new one.
The demonstrations were called by opposition parties, former lawmakers, independent activists and largely by the powerful Islamic Action Front, or IAF, which has threatened to boycott a political reform dialogue called by King Abdullah II and the new government of Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit.
Inspired by popular revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Arab World, thousands of Jordanians have held protests for weeks to demand greater political reforms that would curb swelling poverty and unemployment. The protests have been largely peaceful and haven't reached the level of violence seen elsewhere in the region.
"We want the parliament to be dissolved and the people's right to elect their own government," the IAF's head of political office Zaki Bani Rsheid told hundreds followers after Friday prayers in the city of Zarka, an Islamist stronghold around 20 miles northeast of the capital.
The heavily policed crowd in downtown Amman also called for Mr. Bakhit to step down. "Out, out Bakhit, the turn is yours," they shouted.
Rolla Jamil, an independent activist said that she took part in all protests. "We have suffered enough, I cannot pay for my flat's rent and my medical bills," she said. "Bakhit should face the same fate as his predecessor, Rafai."
King Abdullah II, who still maintains large popularity among the Jordanians, appointed Mr. Bakhit on Feb. 9, after dismissing the previous government of Samir Rafai, and ordered the new premier to implement some political changes.
The king this week urged political parties to participate in a national dialogue to widen freedoms and public participation in the decision making.
The IAF, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, however, said that it wouldn't engage in any dialogue with the government unless it agrees first to their demands for constitutional reforms so that the prime ministers and cabinet ministers are elected rather than appointed.
"We come out now every Friday to demand changes pertaining the constitution, economic policies and foreign policies," said political analyst and university professor Ibrahim Alloush, in reference to the peace treaty the kingdom signed with Israel.
The demonstration near the main mosque in central Amman also had a small counterprotest of around 100 loyalists to King Abdullah. They shouted: "With our blood and souls, we sacrifice for you Abu Hussein," in reference to the king.
On Saturday, some 10,000 Palestinian residents and Bedouin tribesmen took to the streets of the capital to support the king, the Associated Press reported.
Friday's protests were a continuation of several smaller protests that took place during the week in Amman and other cities. On Wednesday thousands of electricity workers staged protests in Amman calling for salary increases and improvement of their work conditions. The association of Jordanian physicians held a protest Sunday calling for increasing their wages.
Journalists from state-controlled media demonstrated Monday for press freedom. A statement read to the crowd demanded a halt to "intervention in the media" by the Jordanian government, and a change of the state-controlled press "to independent newspapers."
AMMAN, Jordan—Protests continued on Friday in the Jordanian capital Amman and other major cities despite bad weather conditions, demanding a quick dissolution of the country's parliament and holding national elections to choose new one.
The demonstrations were called by opposition parties, former lawmakers, independent activists and largely by the powerful Islamic Action Front, or IAF, which has threatened to boycott a political reform dialogue called by King Abdullah II and the new government of Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit.
Inspired by popular revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Arab World, thousands of Jordanians have held protests for weeks to demand greater political reforms that would curb swelling poverty and unemployment. The protests have been largely peaceful and haven't reached the level of violence seen elsewhere in the region.
"We want the parliament to be dissolved and the people's right to elect their own government," the IAF's head of political office Zaki Bani Rsheid told hundreds followers after Friday prayers in the city of Zarka, an Islamist stronghold around 20 miles northeast of the capital.
The heavily policed crowd in downtown Amman also called for Mr. Bakhit to step down. "Out, out Bakhit, the turn is yours," they shouted.
Rolla Jamil, an independent activist said that she took part in all protests. "We have suffered enough, I cannot pay for my flat's rent and my medical bills," she said. "Bakhit should face the same fate as his predecessor, Rafai."
King Abdullah II, who still maintains large popularity among the Jordanians, appointed Mr. Bakhit on Feb. 9, after dismissing the previous government of Samir Rafai, and ordered the new premier to implement some political changes.
The king this week urged political parties to participate in a national dialogue to widen freedoms and public participation in the decision making.
The IAF, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, however, said that it wouldn't engage in any dialogue with the government unless it agrees first to their demands for constitutional reforms so that the prime ministers and cabinet ministers are elected rather than appointed.
"We come out now every Friday to demand changes pertaining the constitution, economic policies and foreign policies," said political analyst and university professor Ibrahim Alloush, in reference to the peace treaty the kingdom signed with Israel.
The demonstration near the main mosque in central Amman also had a small counterprotest of around 100 loyalists to King Abdullah. They shouted: "With our blood and souls, we sacrifice for you Abu Hussein," in reference to the king.
On Saturday, some 10,000 Palestinian residents and Bedouin tribesmen took to the streets of the capital to support the king, the Associated Press reported.
Friday's protests were a continuation of several smaller protests that took place during the week in Amman and other cities. On Wednesday thousands of electricity workers staged protests in Amman calling for salary increases and improvement of their work conditions. The association of Jordanian physicians held a protest Sunday calling for increasing their wages.
Journalists from state-controlled media demonstrated Monday for press freedom. A statement read to the crowd demanded a halt to "intervention in the media" by the Jordanian government, and a change of the state-controlled press "to independent newspapers."
Jordan's Islamist party says its chief is under police protection after threat
By The Associated Press (CP) – 3 days ago
AMMAN, Jordan — A spokesman for Jordan's powerful Islamic Action Front says its leader has been threatened and is now under police protection.
The IAF is Jordan's largest opposition party and has been the most vocal in recent pro-reform protests, calling for the prime minister to be elected by the people instead of appointed by King Abdullah and that the parliament be dissolved.
Spokesman Abdul-Hamid Qudah said Monday that IAF's leader Hamza Mansour was threatened by unnamed youths over the weekend who called for his "departure." No attack took place.
Mansour spoke to a record crowd of 4,000 pro-reform protesters in downtown Amman in early March.
Qudah says police are now monitoring Mansour's home in Amman and interrogating suspects. Officials were not immediately available for comment.
Copyright © 2011 The Canadian Press.
AMMAN, Jordan — A spokesman for Jordan's powerful Islamic Action Front says its leader has been threatened and is now under police protection.
The IAF is Jordan's largest opposition party and has been the most vocal in recent pro-reform protests, calling for the prime minister to be elected by the people instead of appointed by King Abdullah and that the parliament be dissolved.
Spokesman Abdul-Hamid Qudah said Monday that IAF's leader Hamza Mansour was threatened by unnamed youths over the weekend who called for his "departure." No attack took place.
Mansour spoke to a record crowd of 4,000 pro-reform protesters in downtown Amman in early March.
Qudah says police are now monitoring Mansour's home in Amman and interrogating suspects. Officials were not immediately available for comment.
Copyright © 2011 The Canadian Press.
Kucinich Challenges Claims of Progress in Afghanistan
March 16, 2011
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/
by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich
Washington, Mar 15, 2011
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), author of H. Con. Res. 28, a bipartisan, privileged resolution to direct the President to end the war in Afghanistan by the end of the year, today sent fellow Members of Congress a letter challenging official claims of “progress” in Afghanistan.
See a signed copy here. See Kucinich address the floor here. [see video below] The full text of the letter follows:
Dear Colleague:
Today, many of us are hearing from General Petraeus that “significant” progress is being made in Afghanistan. We have heard it before. Military and civilian leaders have, for years, told lawmakers and the public that they were making “progress” in Afghanistan. For instance:
In a speech to a joint session of Congress in 2004, President Karzai said, “You [Americans] came to Afghanistan to defeat terrorism, and we Afghans welcomed and embraced you for the liberation of our country. … This road, this journey is one of success and victory.”
In a joint press conference with President Karzai after that speech, President Bush said, “Today we witness the rebirth of a vibrant Afghan culture. Music fills the marketplaces and people are free to come together to celebrate in open. … Years of war and tyranny have eroded Afghanistan’s economy and infrastructure, yet a revival is under way.”
At another joint press conference with President Karzai in March of 2006, President Bush said, “We are impressed by the progress that your country is making, Mr. President [Karzai], a lot of it has to do with your leadership.”
In February of 2007, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry told National Public Radio that Afghanistan was “on the steady path, right now … to, I believe, success.”
In April 2008, President Bush told news reporters, “I think we’re making good progress in Afghanistan.
October 2008, General McKiernan, Commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, told the press “We are not losing in Afghanistan.” In May 2009, he was replaced by General McChrystal.
October 2008, President Bush said Afghanistan is “a situation where there’s been progress and there are difficulties.”
November 2009, President Obama, visiting troops in Afghanistan, reportedly said, “Because of the progress we’re making, we look forward to a new phase next year, the beginning of the transition to Afghan responsibility.”
December 2009, General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander, predicted that the US troop buildup in Afghanistan will make “significant progress” in turning back the Taliban and securing the country by the coming summer. “By next summer I expect there to be significant progress that is evident to us,” McChrystal said in congressional testimony.
In January 2010, General McChrystal was asked by Diane Sawyer, “Have you turned the tide?” McChrystal answered, “I believe we are doing that now.”
In May 2010, General McChrystal told Congress that he saw “progress” in Afghanistan.
In May 2010, President Obama told the press that “we’ve begun to reverse the momentum” in Afghanistan.
In June 2010, Secretary Gates told a Congressional committee that we are “making headway” in Afghanistan. In June 2010, General McChrystal was replaced by General Petraeus.
In August 2010, General Petraeus said, “there’s progress being made” in Afghanistan.
In February 2011, General Petraeus said, “We have achieved what we set out to achieve in 2010” which was to reverse the insurgency momentum, solidify our accomplishments, and build on successes. “We took away safe havens and the infrastructure that goes with it.”
The President has requested another $113.4 billion to continue the war in Afghanistan in FY12. That sum will be on top of $454.7 billion already spent (and borrowed) on the war to date. On Thursday, March 17, 2011, Congress will have the opportunity to consider whether all of this “progress” has been worth the money. It is time for Congress to exercise fiscal responsibility and to assume its Constitutional responsibilities and end the war in Afghanistan. Vote YES on H. Con. Res 28 and direct the President to end this war by the end of the year.
Sincerely,
/s
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/
by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich
Washington, Mar 15, 2011
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), author of H. Con. Res. 28, a bipartisan, privileged resolution to direct the President to end the war in Afghanistan by the end of the year, today sent fellow Members of Congress a letter challenging official claims of “progress” in Afghanistan.
See a signed copy here. See Kucinich address the floor here. [see video below] The full text of the letter follows:
Dear Colleague:
Today, many of us are hearing from General Petraeus that “significant” progress is being made in Afghanistan. We have heard it before. Military and civilian leaders have, for years, told lawmakers and the public that they were making “progress” in Afghanistan. For instance:
In a speech to a joint session of Congress in 2004, President Karzai said, “You [Americans] came to Afghanistan to defeat terrorism, and we Afghans welcomed and embraced you for the liberation of our country. … This road, this journey is one of success and victory.”
In a joint press conference with President Karzai after that speech, President Bush said, “Today we witness the rebirth of a vibrant Afghan culture. Music fills the marketplaces and people are free to come together to celebrate in open. … Years of war and tyranny have eroded Afghanistan’s economy and infrastructure, yet a revival is under way.”
At another joint press conference with President Karzai in March of 2006, President Bush said, “We are impressed by the progress that your country is making, Mr. President [Karzai], a lot of it has to do with your leadership.”
In February of 2007, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry told National Public Radio that Afghanistan was “on the steady path, right now … to, I believe, success.”
In April 2008, President Bush told news reporters, “I think we’re making good progress in Afghanistan.
October 2008, General McKiernan, Commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, told the press “We are not losing in Afghanistan.” In May 2009, he was replaced by General McChrystal.
October 2008, President Bush said Afghanistan is “a situation where there’s been progress and there are difficulties.”
November 2009, President Obama, visiting troops in Afghanistan, reportedly said, “Because of the progress we’re making, we look forward to a new phase next year, the beginning of the transition to Afghan responsibility.”
December 2009, General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander, predicted that the US troop buildup in Afghanistan will make “significant progress” in turning back the Taliban and securing the country by the coming summer. “By next summer I expect there to be significant progress that is evident to us,” McChrystal said in congressional testimony.
In January 2010, General McChrystal was asked by Diane Sawyer, “Have you turned the tide?” McChrystal answered, “I believe we are doing that now.”
In May 2010, General McChrystal told Congress that he saw “progress” in Afghanistan.
In May 2010, President Obama told the press that “we’ve begun to reverse the momentum” in Afghanistan.
In June 2010, Secretary Gates told a Congressional committee that we are “making headway” in Afghanistan. In June 2010, General McChrystal was replaced by General Petraeus.
In August 2010, General Petraeus said, “there’s progress being made” in Afghanistan.
In February 2011, General Petraeus said, “We have achieved what we set out to achieve in 2010” which was to reverse the insurgency momentum, solidify our accomplishments, and build on successes. “We took away safe havens and the infrastructure that goes with it.”
The President has requested another $113.4 billion to continue the war in Afghanistan in FY12. That sum will be on top of $454.7 billion already spent (and borrowed) on the war to date. On Thursday, March 17, 2011, Congress will have the opportunity to consider whether all of this “progress” has been worth the money. It is time for Congress to exercise fiscal responsibility and to assume its Constitutional responsibilities and end the war in Afghanistan. Vote YES on H. Con. Res 28 and direct the President to end this war by the end of the year.
Sincerely,
/s
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress
Israel attack worshipers at Aqsa Mosque
14-03-2011
Al Qassam website - Violent clashes broke out Sunday morning at the Aqsa Mosque between Palestinian worshipers and Israeli troops who desecrated the Mosque along with Jewish settlers.
Palestinian eyewitnesses said the suspicious and blasphemous moves made by the settlers in the Mosque’s courtyards prompted the Palestinian worshipers to glorify the name of God, but all of a sudden the Israeli troops attacked them violently injuring one of them and detaining three others.
They added that the Israeli occupation forces intensified their presence at the Aqsa Mosque following the clashes.
In a related context, an Israeli court banned a Palestinian young man from Umm Al-Fahm city in the 1948 occupied lands called Mohamed Jabareen from entering the Aqsa Mosque for one month on a charge of glorifying the name of God inside the Mosque
Source:Al-Qassam
Link: http://www.qassam.ps/news-4286-Israel_attack_worshipers_at_Aqsa_Mosque.html.
Al Qassam website - Violent clashes broke out Sunday morning at the Aqsa Mosque between Palestinian worshipers and Israeli troops who desecrated the Mosque along with Jewish settlers.
Palestinian eyewitnesses said the suspicious and blasphemous moves made by the settlers in the Mosque’s courtyards prompted the Palestinian worshipers to glorify the name of God, but all of a sudden the Israeli troops attacked them violently injuring one of them and detaining three others.
They added that the Israeli occupation forces intensified their presence at the Aqsa Mosque following the clashes.
In a related context, an Israeli court banned a Palestinian young man from Umm Al-Fahm city in the 1948 occupied lands called Mohamed Jabareen from entering the Aqsa Mosque for one month on a charge of glorifying the name of God inside the Mosque
Source:Al-Qassam
Link: http://www.qassam.ps/news-4286-Israel_attack_worshipers_at_Aqsa_Mosque.html.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Kucinich, Jones, Ron Paul, 7 other Members Introduce Bipartisan Resolution to End Afghan War
Posted on March 10, 2011 by dandelionsalad
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/
by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich
Washington, Mar 9, 2011
Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Walter Jones (R-NC) and eight others today introduced a bipartisan, privileged resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 28, which, if enacted, would require the President to withdraw all U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2011.
The bill is cosponsored by Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Walter Jones (R-NC), Pete Stark (D-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX), Bob Filner (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Michael Honda (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Keith Ellison (DFL-MN) and John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI).
Read Kucinich’s prepared remarks from a press conference announcing the resolution here. [see below.]
Following the press conference, Kucinich immediately took to the House floor to call upon his colleagues to support the resolution. See video of his address here. [see video below.] His statement from the floor follows:
“Today a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress has introduced a privileged resolution calling for a vote in this congress to end the war in Afghanistan.
“More than 60% of the American people want us out of there. This war is already approaching a cost of a half a trillion dollars. We have Americans who are losing their jobs; their wages are being knocked down. We have Americans losing their homes, losing their retirement security; they can’t send their kids to colleges they want. And we are spending all this money on a war that is a waste of time, money, blood, and treasure to try to prop up a corrupt regime in Afghanistan.
“Now, our occupation over there is fueled an insurgency. It’s time for this Congress to take the Constitutional responsibility under Article 1, Section 8. We haven’t done that with respect to Afghanistan. It’s time for us to do that. Let’s have an up or down vote. That’s what this resolution is about. I urge all Members of Congress to consider supporting the privileged resolution that ends the war in Afghanistan.”
***
Statement Upon the Introduction of War Powers Resolution on Afghanistan
by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich
Washington, Mar 9, 2011
Statement of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich
Introduction of War Powers Resolution on Afghanistan
Press Conference
March 9, 2011
Last week, nine Afghan children between the ages of nine and fifteen were killed by a NATO strike after being mistaken for insurgents. General Petraeus issued an apology and promised to investigate the killings. According to The New York Times, news of their deaths sparked anti-U.S. protests. They were killed in the Pech Valley, an area of Afghanistan once considered vital to U.S. military strategy. But now the U.S. military will soon be withdrawing from after realizing that our presence was destabilizing the area. Today we intend to introduce legislation that invokes the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which, if enacted, would require the President to withdraw U.S. Armed Forces out of Afghanistan by December 31, 2011.
We can no longer ignore such incidents as just a part of the reality of war. It is also clear that our country can no longer afford the human, financial or economic cost of the wars we have been engaged in for the last decade.
As we approach the one-year anniversary of the commitment of an additional 30,000 troops and over $36 billion to the surge in Afghanistan, the Administration is assuring us of progress at the same time that it continues to push the withdrawal date further back.
We have been asked this Congress to support cuts to vital social service programs our constituents depend on, such as the Community Development Block Grants, the WIC program which provides low-income expecting mothers and infants with proper nutrition, and vital job training programs at time when there are nearly 5 eligible workers for every job opening in this country. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the average American family of four almost $13,000 last year. Yet completely absent from the debate on fiscal responsibility is the cost of the wars our nation is waging abroad.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the war in Afghanistan has cost us over $455 billion to date. This cost does not include the billions in long-term funding that will be needed to provide returning veterans with the benefits and care they will require. On Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated, without specifics, that the U.S. is “well positioned” to begin withdrawing troops in July but committed the country to at least another 3 years in Afghanistan.
Desperately needed unemployment benefits were filibustered last year because the costs to provide them were not offset with spending cuts or revenue increases. But we are not required to offset the costs of war, even when the war is completely funded by borrowed money – money we have to pay back with interest.
We are told we should cut funding for assistance to low-income families with one hand, while with the other hand tens of billions of dollars are approved for a war that does nothing to further our national security. U.S. aid is being spent to prop up a corrupt central government, while the Afghan people experience high rates of poverty and displacement. We cannot claim to be negotiating with the Taliban, while at the same time conducting air strikes and night raids to take out Taliban strongholds across the country. This is not about the deficit or austerity. This is about priorities.
If we were to withdraw 50,000 troops from Afghanistan by July, we would save $25 billion by the end of the year, $75 billion by the end of 2012 and $175 million by the end of 2014.
The events transpiring across the Middle East have demonstrated that U.S. backing of antidemocratic and authoritarian regimes – some of them our allies in the supposed “Global War on Terror” – brings less stability to the region, not more. It also demonstrates that democratic movements can flourish in the region without our interference and without our help. These significant events demand of us a new direction in our foreign policy.
The American people are being asked to shoulder the costs for wars that undermine our national, moral and economic security and opposition is growing. We must ask ourselves whose nation we are building when we ask people here at home to give up benefits they have earned in order to nation-build abroad.
If we accept the premise that we need to stay in Afghanistan until the Taliban is eradicated, we will be there forever. The realization that our presence in the Pech Valley was destabilizing is one that applies to our presence across the country. Pech Valley is becoming less like the exception and more like the rule. The Taliban is only a threat to us as long as we are occupying Afghanistan. It is time to end this war.
***
Kucinich Announces Privileged Resolution to End the War in Afghanistan
DJKucinich on Mar 9, 2011
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/
by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich
Washington, Mar 9, 2011
Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Walter Jones (R-NC) and eight others today introduced a bipartisan, privileged resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 28, which, if enacted, would require the President to withdraw all U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2011.
The bill is cosponsored by Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Walter Jones (R-NC), Pete Stark (D-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX), Bob Filner (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Michael Honda (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Keith Ellison (DFL-MN) and John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI).
Read Kucinich’s prepared remarks from a press conference announcing the resolution here. [see below.]
Following the press conference, Kucinich immediately took to the House floor to call upon his colleagues to support the resolution. See video of his address here. [see video below.] His statement from the floor follows:
“Today a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress has introduced a privileged resolution calling for a vote in this congress to end the war in Afghanistan.
“More than 60% of the American people want us out of there. This war is already approaching a cost of a half a trillion dollars. We have Americans who are losing their jobs; their wages are being knocked down. We have Americans losing their homes, losing their retirement security; they can’t send their kids to colleges they want. And we are spending all this money on a war that is a waste of time, money, blood, and treasure to try to prop up a corrupt regime in Afghanistan.
“Now, our occupation over there is fueled an insurgency. It’s time for this Congress to take the Constitutional responsibility under Article 1, Section 8. We haven’t done that with respect to Afghanistan. It’s time for us to do that. Let’s have an up or down vote. That’s what this resolution is about. I urge all Members of Congress to consider supporting the privileged resolution that ends the war in Afghanistan.”
***
Statement Upon the Introduction of War Powers Resolution on Afghanistan
by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich
Washington, Mar 9, 2011
Statement of Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich
Introduction of War Powers Resolution on Afghanistan
Press Conference
March 9, 2011
Last week, nine Afghan children between the ages of nine and fifteen were killed by a NATO strike after being mistaken for insurgents. General Petraeus issued an apology and promised to investigate the killings. According to The New York Times, news of their deaths sparked anti-U.S. protests. They were killed in the Pech Valley, an area of Afghanistan once considered vital to U.S. military strategy. But now the U.S. military will soon be withdrawing from after realizing that our presence was destabilizing the area. Today we intend to introduce legislation that invokes the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which, if enacted, would require the President to withdraw U.S. Armed Forces out of Afghanistan by December 31, 2011.
We can no longer ignore such incidents as just a part of the reality of war. It is also clear that our country can no longer afford the human, financial or economic cost of the wars we have been engaged in for the last decade.
As we approach the one-year anniversary of the commitment of an additional 30,000 troops and over $36 billion to the surge in Afghanistan, the Administration is assuring us of progress at the same time that it continues to push the withdrawal date further back.
We have been asked this Congress to support cuts to vital social service programs our constituents depend on, such as the Community Development Block Grants, the WIC program which provides low-income expecting mothers and infants with proper nutrition, and vital job training programs at time when there are nearly 5 eligible workers for every job opening in this country. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the average American family of four almost $13,000 last year. Yet completely absent from the debate on fiscal responsibility is the cost of the wars our nation is waging abroad.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the war in Afghanistan has cost us over $455 billion to date. This cost does not include the billions in long-term funding that will be needed to provide returning veterans with the benefits and care they will require. On Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated, without specifics, that the U.S. is “well positioned” to begin withdrawing troops in July but committed the country to at least another 3 years in Afghanistan.
Desperately needed unemployment benefits were filibustered last year because the costs to provide them were not offset with spending cuts or revenue increases. But we are not required to offset the costs of war, even when the war is completely funded by borrowed money – money we have to pay back with interest.
We are told we should cut funding for assistance to low-income families with one hand, while with the other hand tens of billions of dollars are approved for a war that does nothing to further our national security. U.S. aid is being spent to prop up a corrupt central government, while the Afghan people experience high rates of poverty and displacement. We cannot claim to be negotiating with the Taliban, while at the same time conducting air strikes and night raids to take out Taliban strongholds across the country. This is not about the deficit or austerity. This is about priorities.
If we were to withdraw 50,000 troops from Afghanistan by July, we would save $25 billion by the end of the year, $75 billion by the end of 2012 and $175 million by the end of 2014.
The events transpiring across the Middle East have demonstrated that U.S. backing of antidemocratic and authoritarian regimes – some of them our allies in the supposed “Global War on Terror” – brings less stability to the region, not more. It also demonstrates that democratic movements can flourish in the region without our interference and without our help. These significant events demand of us a new direction in our foreign policy.
The American people are being asked to shoulder the costs for wars that undermine our national, moral and economic security and opposition is growing. We must ask ourselves whose nation we are building when we ask people here at home to give up benefits they have earned in order to nation-build abroad.
If we accept the premise that we need to stay in Afghanistan until the Taliban is eradicated, we will be there forever. The realization that our presence in the Pech Valley was destabilizing is one that applies to our presence across the country. Pech Valley is becoming less like the exception and more like the rule. The Taliban is only a threat to us as long as we are occupying Afghanistan. It is time to end this war.
***
Kucinich Announces Privileged Resolution to End the War in Afghanistan
DJKucinich on Mar 9, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Jordanian journalists call for press freedom
Monday, March 7, 2011
By Joel Greenberg
AMMAN, JORDAN - In the first protest of its kind here, journalists from state-controlled media demonstrated Monday for press freedom and demanded the ouster of the editor of the main government-controlled newspaper.
"We're fed up. We've reached the point where there's no turning back," said Amer Smadi, a veteran broadcaster currently with state radio and formerly a news anchor on Jordanian television. "We have nothing to fear now. I've been waiting to say this all my life."
Inspired by the anti-government uprisings sweeping the Arab world and mounting calls for change at home, about 200 journalists from official and independent media rallied near the headquarters of Al-Rai, the main state-controlled paper. They then marched to the building, shouting slogans and calling for the dismissal of the government-appointed editor of Al-Rai, Abdel Wahab Zgheilat.
"We want press freedom, not government censorship!" they chanted. "We want the liberation of the media! Self-censorship destroys professionalism!"
A statement read to the crowd demanded a halt to "intervention in the media" by the Jordanian government and security agencies, and a change of the state-controlled press "to independent newspapers."
In an apparent sign of greater official tolerance of such protests, Information Minister Taher Adwan, a former newspaper editor, arrived at the rally and expressed his support, rejecting "intervention by any party" in media work. "There can be no economic or political reform if we don't start with the media," he said.
Al-Rai and other government-controlled newspapers have responded to growing protests calling for limits on the powers of King Abdullah II by highlighting gatherings where Jordanian tribes and other groups have pledged their allegiance to the monarch.
After thousands marched in central Amman on Friday demanding "reform of the regime," Al-Rai ran a headline that combined news of the loyalty pledges with the protest. Two pictures of equal size showed the crowds of anti-government protesters and a small group of demonstrators in support of the king.
Sami Zubeidi, a columnist at Al-Rai, said that his work was regularly censored, and he accused Zgheilat of taking orders from the Jordanian intelligence service. "I have to practice self-censorship," he said. "I know our newspaper's threshold." He said he had been called in for questioning several times by the authorities.
"In the media our king says that the 'sky is the limit' for free speech, and in reality he lets his security agencies stifle the press," Zubeidi said. "He tells the intelligence to keep a low ceiling on the media."
In an interview in his office, Zgheilat denied that he was in regular contact with the intelligence services or that he practices political censorship, saying that he intervened only when columnists engaged in personal attacks. "We know the limits of freedom of the press," he said. "There are issues that you can't touch: the regime and the military. These are the rules. I don't need to get orders for that."
Smadi, the veteran broadcaster, said that in 20 years of work for Jordanian television, there was "no freedom to say what we want," but now there were signs of change. A mere three months ago, he said, the journalists' protest could have been violently broken up by the police.
"We don't know what will happen six months from now," he added, suggesting that a crackdown was also possible. "But if I have to end my career, at least I will be saying something I believe."
Source: Washington Post
Link:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030702135.html.
By Joel Greenberg
AMMAN, JORDAN - In the first protest of its kind here, journalists from state-controlled media demonstrated Monday for press freedom and demanded the ouster of the editor of the main government-controlled newspaper.
"We're fed up. We've reached the point where there's no turning back," said Amer Smadi, a veteran broadcaster currently with state radio and formerly a news anchor on Jordanian television. "We have nothing to fear now. I've been waiting to say this all my life."
Inspired by the anti-government uprisings sweeping the Arab world and mounting calls for change at home, about 200 journalists from official and independent media rallied near the headquarters of Al-Rai, the main state-controlled paper. They then marched to the building, shouting slogans and calling for the dismissal of the government-appointed editor of Al-Rai, Abdel Wahab Zgheilat.
"We want press freedom, not government censorship!" they chanted. "We want the liberation of the media! Self-censorship destroys professionalism!"
A statement read to the crowd demanded a halt to "intervention in the media" by the Jordanian government and security agencies, and a change of the state-controlled press "to independent newspapers."
In an apparent sign of greater official tolerance of such protests, Information Minister Taher Adwan, a former newspaper editor, arrived at the rally and expressed his support, rejecting "intervention by any party" in media work. "There can be no economic or political reform if we don't start with the media," he said.
Al-Rai and other government-controlled newspapers have responded to growing protests calling for limits on the powers of King Abdullah II by highlighting gatherings where Jordanian tribes and other groups have pledged their allegiance to the monarch.
After thousands marched in central Amman on Friday demanding "reform of the regime," Al-Rai ran a headline that combined news of the loyalty pledges with the protest. Two pictures of equal size showed the crowds of anti-government protesters and a small group of demonstrators in support of the king.
Sami Zubeidi, a columnist at Al-Rai, said that his work was regularly censored, and he accused Zgheilat of taking orders from the Jordanian intelligence service. "I have to practice self-censorship," he said. "I know our newspaper's threshold." He said he had been called in for questioning several times by the authorities.
"In the media our king says that the 'sky is the limit' for free speech, and in reality he lets his security agencies stifle the press," Zubeidi said. "He tells the intelligence to keep a low ceiling on the media."
In an interview in his office, Zgheilat denied that he was in regular contact with the intelligence services or that he practices political censorship, saying that he intervened only when columnists engaged in personal attacks. "We know the limits of freedom of the press," he said. "There are issues that you can't touch: the regime and the military. These are the rules. I don't need to get orders for that."
Smadi, the veteran broadcaster, said that in 20 years of work for Jordanian television, there was "no freedom to say what we want," but now there were signs of change. A mere three months ago, he said, the journalists' protest could have been violently broken up by the police.
"We don't know what will happen six months from now," he added, suggesting that a crackdown was also possible. "But if I have to end my career, at least I will be saying something I believe."
Source: Washington Post
Link:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/07/AR2011030702135.html.
Jordanian protesters ratchet up demands but stop short of urging king's ouster
Friday, March 4, 2011
By Joel Greenberg
AMMAN, JORDAN - Enas Hamed went out Friday for the first time to join thousands of people marching through central Amman to demand an overhaul of Jordan's political system, a growing weekly demonstration that is posing a mounting challenge to King Abdullah II.
Hamed, a 27-year-old homemaker who was joined by her mother-in-law, said such political participation was new to her.
"I saw what happened in Tunis and Egypt, so it's possible in any country with any government," she said, referring to the uprisings that toppled two autocratic leaders. "It gave us the courage to go forward to this demonstration. I love my country, and I want it to change."
The protesters are not calling for the removal of the king or the monarchy, which many Jordanians still see as a vital unifying force in a country with a large Palestinian population and numerous rival tribes.
Yet organizers from the Muslim Brotherhood, Jordan's largest opposition group, and members of smaller leftist parties have ratcheted up their chants: "The people want to reform the regime!" they roared, echoing the battle cry of the Egyptian revolution: "The people want to topple the regime!"
The protesters called for the ouster of the king's latest appointee, Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit, whom they accused of corruption and presiding over rigged elections during a previous term as premier. They called for the dissolution of parliament, widely regarded as an unrepresentative assembly chosen in a fraud-marred vote, and demanded an elected cabinet, replacing the current system in which the prime minister is appointed by the king.
In a call addressed to King Abdullah, they shouted: "Change the policy, not the people."
Pictures of the monarch, seen everywhere in Jordan, were noticeably absent from the protest, though marchers carried Jordanian flags. Ranks of police separated the protesters from a small group of pro-monarchy demonstrators, who walked ahead, proclaiming their loyalty to the king. Last month, men armed with sticks and metal rods attacked anti-government demonstrators, injuring eight.
The protests appear to be attracting a wider circle of Jordanians, both religious and secular, who are finding them an outlet for discontent stoked by economic hardship, including rising prices and unemployment and a growing gap between rich and poor.
"We want to fix the system," said Yazid Arman, 27, a Web developer who said he was protesting for the first time. "We want the liberty to express ourselves, and we need justice in the distribution of resources."
Attacking the king and undermining the monarchy would only lead to internal strife, Arman said. "The change has to be step by step," he added.
Maneuvering to prevent the unrest from accelerating, Abdullah and top officials have sought to reassure Jordanians that real change is coming and that their voices are being heard.
"When I say reform, I want real and quick reform," Abdullah declared in a recent speech to cabinet ministers, legislators and judges.
After Bakhit's government narrowly won a vote of confidence in parliament on Thursday, the prime minister announced plans to create new jobs and prevent price hikes for basic goods and utilities. And the head of Jordan's Public Security Department, Lt. Gen. Hussein Majali, promised in a public letter to the king to protect citizens' right to free speech.
So far, both protesters and authorities have managed their confrontations so as to avert the deadly clashes seen in neighboring Arab countries. But debate is growing about the king's authority.
"The government is a sham, and it takes orders from the king and the security agencies," said Murad Adaileh, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood's Islamic Action Front. "The people should have a role in governing the country."
Hamed, the homemaker and first-time demonstrator, said the monarchy was essential to hold the country together. "It's an umbrella for us," she said, "and it preserves the country's stability."
Asad al-Zagha, a member of a leftist party, noted that insulting the king is banned in Jordan. Asked why the protesters were not criticizing the monarch, who holds ultimate power, he replied: "We can't. We criticize the government - and ask him for things."
By Joel Greenberg
AMMAN, JORDAN - Enas Hamed went out Friday for the first time to join thousands of people marching through central Amman to demand an overhaul of Jordan's political system, a growing weekly demonstration that is posing a mounting challenge to King Abdullah II.
Hamed, a 27-year-old homemaker who was joined by her mother-in-law, said such political participation was new to her.
"I saw what happened in Tunis and Egypt, so it's possible in any country with any government," she said, referring to the uprisings that toppled two autocratic leaders. "It gave us the courage to go forward to this demonstration. I love my country, and I want it to change."
The protesters are not calling for the removal of the king or the monarchy, which many Jordanians still see as a vital unifying force in a country with a large Palestinian population and numerous rival tribes.
Yet organizers from the Muslim Brotherhood, Jordan's largest opposition group, and members of smaller leftist parties have ratcheted up their chants: "The people want to reform the regime!" they roared, echoing the battle cry of the Egyptian revolution: "The people want to topple the regime!"
The protesters called for the ouster of the king's latest appointee, Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit, whom they accused of corruption and presiding over rigged elections during a previous term as premier. They called for the dissolution of parliament, widely regarded as an unrepresentative assembly chosen in a fraud-marred vote, and demanded an elected cabinet, replacing the current system in which the prime minister is appointed by the king.
In a call addressed to King Abdullah, they shouted: "Change the policy, not the people."
Pictures of the monarch, seen everywhere in Jordan, were noticeably absent from the protest, though marchers carried Jordanian flags. Ranks of police separated the protesters from a small group of pro-monarchy demonstrators, who walked ahead, proclaiming their loyalty to the king. Last month, men armed with sticks and metal rods attacked anti-government demonstrators, injuring eight.
The protests appear to be attracting a wider circle of Jordanians, both religious and secular, who are finding them an outlet for discontent stoked by economic hardship, including rising prices and unemployment and a growing gap between rich and poor.
"We want to fix the system," said Yazid Arman, 27, a Web developer who said he was protesting for the first time. "We want the liberty to express ourselves, and we need justice in the distribution of resources."
Attacking the king and undermining the monarchy would only lead to internal strife, Arman said. "The change has to be step by step," he added.
Maneuvering to prevent the unrest from accelerating, Abdullah and top officials have sought to reassure Jordanians that real change is coming and that their voices are being heard.
"When I say reform, I want real and quick reform," Abdullah declared in a recent speech to cabinet ministers, legislators and judges.
After Bakhit's government narrowly won a vote of confidence in parliament on Thursday, the prime minister announced plans to create new jobs and prevent price hikes for basic goods and utilities. And the head of Jordan's Public Security Department, Lt. Gen. Hussein Majali, promised in a public letter to the king to protect citizens' right to free speech.
So far, both protesters and authorities have managed their confrontations so as to avert the deadly clashes seen in neighboring Arab countries. But debate is growing about the king's authority.
"The government is a sham, and it takes orders from the king and the security agencies," said Murad Adaileh, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood's Islamic Action Front. "The people should have a role in governing the country."
Hamed, the homemaker and first-time demonstrator, said the monarchy was essential to hold the country together. "It's an umbrella for us," she said, "and it preserves the country's stability."
Asad al-Zagha, a member of a leftist party, noted that insulting the king is banned in Jordan. Asked why the protesters were not criticizing the monarch, who holds ultimate power, he replied: "We can't. We criticize the government - and ask him for things."
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
New Hampshire Moves to Criminalize TSA Grope-down Procedures
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 2, 2011
New Hampshire may soon criminalize the TSA’s intrusive pat-downs and naked body porno scanners as sexual assault.
Debate has moved forward on HB628-FN, a bill that would make “the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault,” according to WMUR in Manchester.
“Let’s put their name on the sex offender registry, and maybe that will tell them New Hampshire means business,” said bill co-sponsor Rep. Andrew Manuse, R-Derry.
“That is a crime in this state, and we should charge them every single time,” added bill co-sponsor Rep. George Lambert, R-Litchfield.
TSA officials did not comment on the legislation. They insist so-called airport security checkpoints are under federal jurisdiction. “We have to understand that if things need to be changed, they have to be done at the federal level, not the state level,” said Democrat Rep. Laura Pantelakos.
In November, a California district attorney said he would charge TSA agents with sexual assault if they conducted the new pat-down procedures in his state.
“TSA does not have any special immunity from everybody else,” said Steve Wagstaffe, San Mateo County’s chief deputy district attorney. “If an employee of TSA inappropriately touches the privates of another person, and they do so with a sexual or lewd intent, then that’s either a misdemeanor (if it’s over the clothing) or a felony crime (possible when touching the skin).”
TSA grope-down behavior gained national attention when flier John Tyner told TSA agents “don’t touch my junk.” Tyner secretly recorded his TSA pat down experience on his iPhone. After the computer programmer refused to fly and obtained a ticket refund, TSA officials ordered him to return to the security inspection to complete his screening. Tyner was later threatened with a $10,000 fine for refusing to be sexually abused by the federal government.
Outraged citizens organized a national opt-out day in response to the TSA’s new grope and sexual abuse procedures.
“Groping, naked X-Ray scans, and invasive searches by government bureaucrats — probably not what you had in mind as part of your holiday travels,” Congressman Bob Barr of Liberty Guard wrote as the campaign kicked off prior to Thanksgiving. “Like many Americans, you might even be having second thoughts about flying this holiday season to avoid these invasions to your privacy at our nation’s airports.”
In response to the campaign, the TSA deactivated many naked body porno scanners around the country and waived sexual assault grope-down procedures.
“Considering recent hardline statements made by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole, this apparent sudden reversal in the TSA’s direction warrants additional scrutiny,” said Joe Seehussen, President of Liberty Guard. “We’d like to know if we can expect a policy shift from the TSA or if they were merely attempting to shut down the public outcry regarding their search procedures.”
Infowars.com
March 2, 2011
New Hampshire may soon criminalize the TSA’s intrusive pat-downs and naked body porno scanners as sexual assault.
Debate has moved forward on HB628-FN, a bill that would make “the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault,” according to WMUR in Manchester.
“Let’s put their name on the sex offender registry, and maybe that will tell them New Hampshire means business,” said bill co-sponsor Rep. Andrew Manuse, R-Derry.
“That is a crime in this state, and we should charge them every single time,” added bill co-sponsor Rep. George Lambert, R-Litchfield.
TSA officials did not comment on the legislation. They insist so-called airport security checkpoints are under federal jurisdiction. “We have to understand that if things need to be changed, they have to be done at the federal level, not the state level,” said Democrat Rep. Laura Pantelakos.
In November, a California district attorney said he would charge TSA agents with sexual assault if they conducted the new pat-down procedures in his state.
“TSA does not have any special immunity from everybody else,” said Steve Wagstaffe, San Mateo County’s chief deputy district attorney. “If an employee of TSA inappropriately touches the privates of another person, and they do so with a sexual or lewd intent, then that’s either a misdemeanor (if it’s over the clothing) or a felony crime (possible when touching the skin).”
TSA grope-down behavior gained national attention when flier John Tyner told TSA agents “don’t touch my junk.” Tyner secretly recorded his TSA pat down experience on his iPhone. After the computer programmer refused to fly and obtained a ticket refund, TSA officials ordered him to return to the security inspection to complete his screening. Tyner was later threatened with a $10,000 fine for refusing to be sexually abused by the federal government.
Outraged citizens organized a national opt-out day in response to the TSA’s new grope and sexual abuse procedures.
“Groping, naked X-Ray scans, and invasive searches by government bureaucrats — probably not what you had in mind as part of your holiday travels,” Congressman Bob Barr of Liberty Guard wrote as the campaign kicked off prior to Thanksgiving. “Like many Americans, you might even be having second thoughts about flying this holiday season to avoid these invasions to your privacy at our nation’s airports.”
In response to the campaign, the TSA deactivated many naked body porno scanners around the country and waived sexual assault grope-down procedures.
“Considering recent hardline statements made by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole, this apparent sudden reversal in the TSA’s direction warrants additional scrutiny,” said Joe Seehussen, President of Liberty Guard. “We’d like to know if we can expect a policy shift from the TSA or if they were merely attempting to shut down the public outcry regarding their search procedures.”
Jordan PM promises election law this year
AMMAN, Jordan (AP) — Jordan's prime minister promised Sunday to introduce laws some time this year that would give Jordanians a greater say in politics, but angry opposition leaders said the pace of reform is too slow.
A growing protest movement in Jordan is seeking far-reaching political reforms that would restrict the authority of Jordan's King Abdullah II. Currently, the king can dissolve the Cabinet and parliament by decree.
In a speech to parliament Sunday, Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit, appointed by the king earlier this month, said he is serious about reforms. "I'm not opting for a temporary containment policy, but real reform is a gradual process," he said.
The prime minister said he needs time for a public dialogue about new legislation.
However, Islamist opposition leader Zaki Bani Ersheid said al-Bakhit's speech was "pathetic, disappointing and frustrating."
"Reform isn't gradual and won't take a year. It must be immediate and I mean within one month at the latest," said Bani Ersheid of the Islamic Action Front, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, Jordan's largest opposition group.
"We're not willing to take promises anymore," he said. "It's not only laws that must be amended, but there must also be constitutional changes that would allow for the prime minister and the Cabinet to be elected."
Al-Bakhit told lawmakers that his priority was to change a controversial election law, which the Brotherhood and other critics claim favors conservative tribal loyalists of the king.
The ultimate goal is to have future governments formed from a parliamentary majority, al-Bakhit added.
Jordanian protesters demanded that the prime minister be chosen through elections, not by the king.
Al-Bakhit said the other laws to change this year include bolstering the country's 34 political parties and legislation that would widen press freedoms.
He also promised a decentralization law that would grant far greater autonomy to distant towns and to amend the municipal elections law, which the Brotherhood says has reduced votes in its favor.
Al-Bakhit also pledged to fight corruption and favoritism.
For eight consecutive Fridays, Jordanians have held street demonstrations to demand political change, lower food prices and the dissolution of a parliament they say was chosen on the foundation of a flawed electoral law.
So far, the protests have been largely peaceful and the crowds are much smaller than in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
In one concession, the Cabinet last week revoked a legal provision requiring protesters to seek police permission before holding public rallies.
Source:www.google.com/hostednews
The Associated Press
A growing protest movement in Jordan is seeking far-reaching political reforms that would restrict the authority of Jordan's King Abdullah II. Currently, the king can dissolve the Cabinet and parliament by decree.
In a speech to parliament Sunday, Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit, appointed by the king earlier this month, said he is serious about reforms. "I'm not opting for a temporary containment policy, but real reform is a gradual process," he said.
The prime minister said he needs time for a public dialogue about new legislation.
However, Islamist opposition leader Zaki Bani Ersheid said al-Bakhit's speech was "pathetic, disappointing and frustrating."
"Reform isn't gradual and won't take a year. It must be immediate and I mean within one month at the latest," said Bani Ersheid of the Islamic Action Front, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, Jordan's largest opposition group.
"We're not willing to take promises anymore," he said. "It's not only laws that must be amended, but there must also be constitutional changes that would allow for the prime minister and the Cabinet to be elected."
Al-Bakhit told lawmakers that his priority was to change a controversial election law, which the Brotherhood and other critics claim favors conservative tribal loyalists of the king.
The ultimate goal is to have future governments formed from a parliamentary majority, al-Bakhit added.
Jordanian protesters demanded that the prime minister be chosen through elections, not by the king.
Al-Bakhit said the other laws to change this year include bolstering the country's 34 political parties and legislation that would widen press freedoms.
He also promised a decentralization law that would grant far greater autonomy to distant towns and to amend the municipal elections law, which the Brotherhood says has reduced votes in its favor.
Al-Bakhit also pledged to fight corruption and favoritism.
For eight consecutive Fridays, Jordanians have held street demonstrations to demand political change, lower food prices and the dissolution of a parliament they say was chosen on the foundation of a flawed electoral law.
So far, the protests have been largely peaceful and the crowds are much smaller than in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
In one concession, the Cabinet last week revoked a legal provision requiring protesters to seek police permission before holding public rallies.
Source:www.google.com/hostednews
The Associated Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)