Argentina v. United Kingdom

Argentine President Christina Fernandez issued a decree Tuesday that stated that any ships that would seek passage through southern Argentine waters including around the Falkland Islands would require prior permission by the Argentine government. The problem is, Argentina doesn't control the Falkland Islands, Great Britain does. But now the controversy ensues. The United Kingdom is set to search for oil around the shores of their Falkland Islands this week, but now, they can not legally reach the islands per Argentina's new legislation. The decree apparently comes from Argentina's disapproval of the proposed oil drilling near their country and near a set of islands they feel are rightly theirs.
This is an interesting legal issue, because the UK does control the waters they are drilling in, but they are cutting it awfully close to Argentina's. Plus, directly surpassing this decree could cause a renual of tensions between the two countries who went to was over the islands as recently as 1982. It seems natural for Argentina to be defensive over the drilling around the islands, but I am surprised that Great Britain has decided to directly defy another country's pleadings and wishes and drill anyways. It seems highly disrespectful for the UK to do this, but perhaps they feel like this is the situation to assert their authority and ownership over these islands once and for all.

Links:

A real life Bourne Identity.

Much has been unfolding in recent days about the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a top Hamas official, in Dubai. Apparently killed by a professional hit squad, suspected of being funded by the Irsaeli Mossad. The Hamas leader was apparently given several electric shocks prior to being suffocated in his hotel room. It is unclear how the murders entered the room. Just today, 11 people were identified as potential suspects in the murder, all of whom were found to be carrying false passports and only remaining in the country for one day. It appears that Mahmoud was followed from Syria to Dubai where he was supposedly making an arms purchase for Hamas. I just thought this article was interesting because it shows how incredibly detailed investigations can get, and yet even with this amount of analysis, the 11 suspected murderers go unharmed. These are some interesting photos released from the government of the tracking of the suspected murderers:

HAMAS KILLING

Police in Dubai have issued arrest warrants for 11 suspects they want to question about the killing of a senior Hamas official in Dubai. The suspects include six men travelling on false British passports.

Three other suspects, including one woman, were travelling on false Irish passports. Two further suspects had French and German papers. Dubai police say they appeared to be a professional hit-squad.

Dubai police say the suspects only spent a day in the country. Here two of them are seen arriving at a local shopping centre. Three others were filmed arriving at the same centre. The suspects did not make contact by phone.

Police allege that one of the suspects, pictured on the left pulling a trolley, went to a hotel to put on a disguise. He is seen entering a men's toilet and later left wearing a wig.

Their alleged victim, Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh is seen at the hotel reception, circled in red above. At the bottom of the image the head of one of the suspects can just be seen. As Mr Mabhouh leaves, the suspect follows.

Mr Mabhouh is followed into the lift by a number of the suspects, including two pictured here in tennis gear. It is thought he had been followed from Syria to Dubai where he wanted to buy weapons for Hamas.

When Mr Mabhouh leaves the lift, the police say he was followed by one of the suspects, who appeared to be trying to establish which room he was staying in. He was later killed in his room.

Links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8518481.stm

http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article311399.ece

Bad, Iran. Go sit in the corner.

Obama announced that several serious sanctions will be brought against Iran for thier 'misbehaviors' regarding their enrichment of uranium to 20% as opposed to the 3.5% they claimed they were enriching. It is in agreement in the UN, now including Russia's approval of the sanctions, that Iran was not in the right to lie about their existing nuclear program. The US has stood by the idea that Iran is clearly in attempts to construct a nuclear bomb. China, a member of the UN Security Council has remained silent on the issue thus far, but the US still plans to bring action against Iran for their actions.

It is unclear to me if the assumption that Iran was attempting to make a nuclear bomb can be made, simply because they were enriching 20% uranium, where as they would need up to 90% enriched to produce a bomb. However, their actions are suspect, and I am not sure if their word can be trusted at this point. Perhaps sanctions is the best way presently to address the problem. My only issue is that if we already say we can not trust Iran, how can we assume this was their only illegal plant? I feel that we should be searching like crazy for another plant hidden somewhere that could be producing even more enriched uranium.

Links:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/163a765e-15a8-11df-ad7e-00144feab49a.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577345,00.html

What does Russia want with war ships?

Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with French officials recently to voice US concerns over the sale of a Mistral-class amphibious assault ship to Russia. Gates says that they are very concerned over any new arms sales taking place in the region, especially because they are not currently at war. In addition, many of the previous Soviet republics expressed renewed fear of Russian arming. Georgia seemed to express the most concern having just ended a war with the Russian government and their proximity to the Black Sea that could be a potential docking station for the new ships. It is slightly questionable why the Russian government would seek to by new warships when they are currently in a peace state. Gates suggested that the world can not continue to treat Russia with Soviet era skepticism if there is no precedence.

I agree that our bipolar view of Russia really needs to be steadied - either we like them or we don't. Although we may be wary of some of the Russian government's recent actions, it is unfair to treat them with the same reacitonary caution simply because they used to be Communist. If we want to become a more approachable, accepting country, we cannot hold Russia to a double standard any more. I think we need to commit to either a position of full-time skepticism and distrust, or take a leap of faith and be completely trusting and open to the Kremlin (while of course increasing covert intelligence of the region to back up our trust). Trust is a tricky thing, but essential to the prospering of the world.



Links:

www.newyorktimes.com/2010/02/09/world/europe/09gates.html?ref=politics

http://www.csmonitor.com/

Health care is apparently still alive.

Obama recently announced that he would be holding a bipartisan meeting with the Senate in an attempt to finally reconcile some of the differences between the two sides. The session is apparently intended to allow the Republicans their promised public meeting to air their grievances against the health care bill. Hopefully, Obama says, the Senate will be able to move on with the bill once the Republicans have had their sufficient time to relay their opinions.

I think that with this special session, Obama is attempting to, for lack of a better word, expose the Republicans as simply being purposefully stubborn in regards to the bill. I think that he hopes that once the Republicans are documented on film available to the public as receiving their requested attention and not offering any better health care plans, they will be forced to become more accepting to the proposed bill. If they continue to be stubborn and protest the bill for no apparent reason, the public will begin to see that the Republicans are not in fact fighting in their best interest, but stagnating the entire legislative system of America. Hopefully, something good will come out of the session, like a new idea or two, or at the very least, force a few Republicans to stop acting like idiots and pass the bill.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/us/politics/08webobama.html?ref=politics

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0819338820100208

Quick, everyone get under their desks!

The top three intelligence officials in the US held a meeting with the Senate yesterday informing them they had information of an almost guaranteed terrorist attack within the next 6 months. Dennis Blair of the National Intelligense and Panetta of the CIA stated that there was overwhelming signs and cyberintelligence that the something bad is coming. They said that they don't expect another 9/11 because Al Qaeda seems to be focusing on smaller attacks that are less easy to detect. However, during the hearing, the witness testimonies were apparently disrupted several times by the break out of bickering of the Senators. It appears that for some time, the Senators fought over which court the December 25th bomber should have been tried in.

Our own Senators are going to kill us. Can no one seem to just focus on the problem at hand, and put their own personal opinions and grudges aside? I am shocked that the country even runs at all - that just shows me how little our Senators actually do. So here's the situation: an almost guarenteed terrorist attack on US soil within the next 6 months. Now, what are we going to do about it? We need to act. Now. If we don't want to physically attack anyone right now, we should at least be hyper-monitering the incoming intelligence and crossreferncing the data to make sure we don't miss anything anymore. We can't afford another devastating attack. I also have to reiterate that the extreme stubborness of the people in office these days is going to kill the entire structure of US government. There should never be a situation in the Congress when the top US intelligence official is trying to warn people of an attack and old white men in suits start fighting with each other during his speech like preschoolers in a schoolyard.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/politics/03intel.html

http://online.wsj.com/aricle/SB10001424052748703385045750.html

Gay rights, the new health care?

With the health care debate simmering down it appears that gay rights may be taking the forefront of legislators minds.  Most recently, the two top officials of Defense have announced their support of repealing the "don't ask don't tell" law.  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Andrew Mullen, announced that he finds the "don't ask don't tell law" completely unfair and rather offensive.  Many top officials believe that the act didn't make any sense in the first place and that performance in the military is not any different among gays and nongays.  Senator McCain says he definitely does not want the law repealed, claiming it will be a complete and total disruption in the military's structure which can not be afforded during two wars.  

This is ridiculous, and utter discrimination.  If we are to be a truly "fair" country, I don't see why gay rights would be exempt from the law.  Just like African Americans attained equal rights, and race/gender can not be used to discriminate, gays should not be persecuted.  How is a different sexual orientation any different from a different gender?  Many say that being gay goes against the Bible, and this is why they oppose it.  But there were slaves in the Bible too, does that mean that we should all have slaves too?  No, especially because this claim is made based on a religious belief, when the Church and State are supposed to be separate from each other.  Choosing to discriminate against gays should be as much viewed as a hate crime as one against a person of a minority race.  America, it seems, is a country of hypocrites; we go all over the world promoting democracy and equality when we don't even have it secured at home.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/politics/03military.html?ref=politics

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Pentagon+moves+tell/2513655/story.html

Will Utah ever change?

Utah lawmakers decided last Friday that they will not pursue to pass a law that would ba discrimination against gay men and lesbians in the workplace and in housing. Rather, the officials say they will spend a year studying the matter. The officials and the LDS Church say they disapprove of discrimination, but don't think being gay should be legal.

This is outrageous to me. First of all, I'm almost positive that the Constitution does not say anything about the 'legality' of choosing to prefer a different sex than the majority of the population. Second of all, I think the actions of the officials could almost be considered a hate crime because they are deliberately allowing the discrimination of a whole population, and by not equalizing the playing field, endorsing the continued discrimination. Plus, they pulled such a lazy, pathetic move by pretending to actually care, and 'research' the situation. Postponing the passage, just like Congress postponed the slave issue, to continue to delay progress and ignore a real issue. Essentially, Utah has taken a step backwards about 5o years and decided not to just turn the other way on the whole issue of gay discrimination, but actually deny the passage of an anti-discrimination law. That's messed up, and in my opinion, completely unAmerican.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/us/31utah.html?ref=politics

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=5202&MediaType=1&Category=26