Alexander Litvinenko is seen lying in his hospital bed in this file photograph taken in London Nov. 20. Litvinenko died on Nov. 23 in a London hospital three weeks after he was poisoned in what friends said was a plot orchestrated by the Kremlin. (Reuters Photo)

The continuing propaganda campaign directed at Vladimir Putin's Russia has taken a bizarre turn with the alleged "poisoning," in a London restaurant, of Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB agent now associated with exiled Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky (the article was published on Nov. 21). According to the story being put out by Litvinenko and his friends, a meeting with Italian researcher Mario Scaramella was swiftly followed by Litvinenko's sudden collapse. The diagnosis: thallium poisoning. As far as much of the news media and certainly the numerous Russophobes in the punditocracy are concerned, it's no mystery as to who's responsible: according to their "logic," since Litvinenko is a vehement critic of the Putin administration, Putin and his KGB were clearly responsible. Case closedÉ
A recent Washington Post editorial on the subject is typical: the Post admits "there's no concrete evidence as yet that the FSB or Mr. Putin is behind the poison attacks," but these people don't need evidence, either concrete or circumstantial, just as they didn't need it in the case of Anna Politkovskaya. Although there is nothing but speculation connecting the Russian government to Politkovskaya's death, Western reporters and pundits were virtually unanimous in declaring Putin the culprit.
According to one would-be Sherlock Holmes, the fact that Politkovskaya was shot by some thug in the elevator of her apartment building on Putin's birthday proved that the wily former KGB chieftain masterminded her demise.
The same quality of "evidence" is on display in the Litvinenko affair. The stricken man opposed Putin and wrote a book accusing the Russian government of being behind the 1999 terrorist attacks carried out in Russian cities, for which Chechen terrorists were blamed. Therefore, Putin was behind this purported assassination attempt. As an indication of Litvinenko's credibility, he also claims that the KGB secretly funds al-Qaeda and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Litvinenko, in short, is a raving lunatic, who just so happens to enjoy the patronage of a very wealthy man with a very big grudge against Putin and Russia in general: Boris Berezovsky, the exiled oligarch who used his Communist connections to buy up whole sectors of the Russian economy dirt cheap during the rigged "privatizations" of the Yeltsin era, and fled the country when faced with charges of corruption. With much of his vast fortune still intact, Berezovsky has become Putin's nemesis, allying himself with Chechen terrorist leaders, what passes for Russian liberals, and American neoconservatives in a popular front for regime change in the Russian Federation.
The cockamamie narrative being woven around the sudden and very mysterious illness visited on Litvinenko is a direct takeoff on the Yushchenko "poisoning," which goes unsolved to this day in spite of having Ukraine's full investigative capacities allegedly focused on exposing the plotters. That way it's so much easier to blame the KGB.
The attempt to portray the Russians as mad poisoners intent on assassinating their political opponents no matter where they try to find refuge is a powerful propagandistic theme that, although unsupported by any facts, winds its way through the media narrative on the wings of pure supposition. These people don't care about facts: it's all speculation, unsupported by evidence that passes the most perfunctory smell test.
If ever there was an attempted frame-up, then the Litvinenko "poisoning" is it. They won't really ever know what poisoned Litvinenko, and they can't detect enough thallium in his system, or indeed much of anything.
Here is yet another link in the long chain of manufactured incidents meant to provoke a confrontation with Russia. An aggressive propaganda campaign aimed at the Russians has been in high gear for quite some time, and it appears to be reaching a crescendo with this Litvinenko nonsense.
The Russophobes' lobby includes all sorts of unlikely bed partners, including neoconservatives playing footsie with Chechen "freedom fighters" in the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya. What do avidly pro-Israel neocons and radical Chechen terrorists have in common?
Hatred of Putin and his Russian nationalism is apparently enough to get them to work together.
Justin Raimondo
ANTIWAR.COM

The political hubbub that greeted Jack StrawÕs comments on the veil seems to have inspired a new continental fashion. Latest to join the fray is the Dutch government, which in the run-up to the general election announced plans to ban the wearing of the burqa and face veil in public. By doing so, it has raised what is becoming a Europe-wide campaign to a new level of authoritarianism. Naima Azough, a Dutch Green MP, points out that the ban would apply to fewer than 100 women.
ÒThis didnÕt come from public pressure,Ó she says, Òbut was initiated by the immigration minister, Rita Verdonk, whose Liberal-Conservative party is scrambling for far-right votes.Ó The result will simply reinforce the perception of Muslims that they will never be accepted in Dutch society.
Of course, the dress code of Muslim women was making headlines across Europe long before Straw weighed in. The wearing of the headscarf by teachers is already forbidden in schools in several German states. In Belgium, the minister-president of the Walloon-Brussels region last year authorized state schools to ban the headscarf. The result has been the creation of ghettoized schools.
In each European country, veil mania seems to follow a similar pattern: A public statement by a prominent politician results in a frenzied political and media response, conveniently diverting attention away from unpopular government policies or political crises.
France provided the political laboratory. In April 2003, the headscarf row came out of nowhere; within a year it had been outlawed in state schools. No serious demands to ban the headscarf had ever come from teaching bodies, students or the public. It simply wasnÕt seen as a problem before April 2003: Of the 10 million students in French state schools, only 1,250 wore the headscarf.
So who or what sparked ÒlÕaffaire du foulardÓ? Fran�oise Lorcerie, the editor of ÒThe Politicization of the Veil in France, Europe and the Arab World,Ó points the finger at FranceÕs interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, who, in a generally well-received speech to the Union of French Muslim Organizations in April 2003, sparked uproar in the hall when he reminded the audience that wearing the headscarf on national ID card photos was ÒunlawfulÓ.
Responding to a climate of his governmentÕs own making, President Chirac set up the powerful Stasi commission, named after its Catholic chair, to investigate Òhow secularism could be enforced in the republicÓ. MPs of all parties kept up the pressure, introducing parliamentary bills to ban the headscarf.
Public opinion then turned, from being almost evenly divided at the start of the campaign to 76 percent in favor of a ban within a year.
Partly as a result of this extraordinary diversion, the Raffarin government was able to face down large-scale public opposition to pension reform.
For Pierre TŽvanian, the author of ÒLe Voile MŽdiatique,Ó the headscarf Òunveiled another genuine problemÓ, later confirmed by last NovemberÕs social explosion in the French suburbs: ÒAn ingrained postcolonial racism that crosses all social divides and political formations, even the most progressive.Ó
The Dutch governmentÕs proposed ban on both niqab and burqa in all public spaces takes things to a new and disturbing level. The implication is clear: Niqab or hijab-wearing women, and through them European Muslims, are being asked to submit not to the law of the land, but to each countryÕs dominant way of life.
The more governments and media foment hysteria over headscarves and niqabs, the more it seems a pan-European Islamophobic consensus is being built, as politicians search for scapegoats for social problems and pretexts to legislate in the Òwar on terrorÓ.
GUARDIAN.CO.UK

An Afghan girl waits to receive food aid from the World Food Programmme with women in Kabul, Oct. 30. (Reuters File Photo)

A report in the western media that sheds light on the dismal state of womenÕs education in Afghanistan makes sorry reading. In a country devastated by two decades of civil strife and a foreign military invasion, the women have been the worst sufferers. Their misery was compounded by the orthodox misogynist policies adopted by the Taliban when they came to power in the mid-nineties.
Women were banned from taking up jobs--many school teachers were left unemployed--and girls were not allowed to step out of their homes and attend school. With the Taliban ousted from power, many of these policies have officially changed. But unfortunately, the socio-cultural legacy of the Taliban years and the breakdown of law and order still linger on.
The government may not be the oppressor now. But the male members of the family and the Taliban dissidents in the southern areas have taken it upon themselves to restrict womenÕs mobility and freedom by resorting to violence.
As a result, even five years after the fall of Kabul and the advent of the Karzai administration, only 15 per cent of Afghan women are literate.
Data is not available for female school enrolment but it is plain that women still have a long way to go. Their uplift will not be quick, all the funds being poured into womenÕs education notwithstanding.
It is now plain that the social development of a people, especially a badly depressed class, has to be addressed holistically. For instance, just opening schools and employing teachers will not ensure the enrolment of all girls. It is important that all men and women are made aware of the rights of women and the importance of giving them dignity, education and self-empowerment.
All three are interlinked and one without the other will not make any difference to the status of women. The Afghan government claims to be working hard to eliminate domestic violence and laws are on the anvil to provide women protection against all kinds of violence. The Afghan women have fought a courageous battle for their freedom--one still recalls the role played by RAWA in the days when the Taliban ruled the roost. This struggle must go on if the Afghan women are to reach their goal of emancipation.
DAWN.COM

Since late October, instability has hit the Central African Republic (C.A.R.) as a rebel movement in the northeast is threatening the government in Bangui. The rebels have taken control over towns in the northeast of the country, such as Birao, Ouanda Djalle and Sam-Ouandja, near the Chad-Sudan border. There is concern, however, that the rebels will push south toward Bria, a diamond mining town, and then possibly make an attempt against the capital.
The rebels are joined together in the Union of Democratic Forces for Unity (U.F.D.R.) and claim to be former fighters who helped install President Francois Bozize into power in 2003. They have demanded that Bozize agree to power sharing talks with the rebel movement. The leader of the group, Michel Detodia, has accused Bozize of only empowering those within his ethnic group and of excluding the rest from power.
Bozize seized power in a coup with the help of Chad in 2003 and won elections in 2005. Before the elections, C.A.R. experienced 11 attempted coups in just ten years.
The C.A.R. army, which consists of approximately 4,500 soldiers, is being assisted by 380 African peacekeeping forces part of the Central African Monetary and Economic Community (C.E.M.A.C.), of which C.A.R. is a member. The peacekeeping force has been active in C.A.R. since 2002.
In the wake of the latest violence and instability, Chad and other members of C.E.M.A.C. have stated that they will send more troops to C.A.R. to help protect the country against the insurgency to the north.
Currently, C.A.R. forces have had little effect on the rebel contingent since its military is ill-equipped and has little control over the north.
As a result of this deficiency, C.A.R. is most interested in receiving military support from France, since it sees Paris as the one power that could effectively put an end to the rebel movement. On November 4, and in repeated pleas after, Bangui requested Paris' assistance. France, which closed down its unpopular military base in the country in 1997, said in mid-November that it would assist Bangui in "logistic support and providing intelligence thanks to aerial reconnaissanceÉ[to] help the C.A.R. armed forces regain control of their territory."
France is already involved in a similar operation in Chad, where it helped the government repel a rebel attempt on the capital in April by providing intelligence gathered by French warplanes.
Overall, the current conflict is yet another symptom of developments in the region encompassing Chad, Sudan and C.A.R. The oil discoveries in western Sudan and southern Chad have increased the economic stakes for power factions within these countries. Control of the government, or at least the oil-producing regions of these countries, means the ability to tap into economic largesse and the influence that this wields. In Sudan and Chad--both poor and corrupt countries--this motivation is strong.
As long as the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region continues unresolved, Khartoum's lack of oversight in the area provides a rear base for both Chadian and C.A.R. insurgents that are seeking to gain control of their respective countries. More concerning, however, is the risk of a regional war should troops from either Chad or C.A.R. support attacks on Sudanese territory. The latest reports coming out of C.A.R. offer evidence that Chadian soldiers and military vehicles have already been deployed on the roads around Bria. The coming weeks will determine the path of this new outbreak of hostilities.
PINR.COM

Buried within a recent government brief in the case of Guantanamo Bay inmate Majid Khan is one of the more disturbing arguments the Bush administration has advanced in the legal struggles surrounding the war on terrorism.
Mr Khan was one of the Al Qaeda suspects who was detained in a secret prison of the CIA and subjected to ÒalternativeÓ interrogation tactics--the administrationÕs chilling phrase for methods most people regard as torture. Now the government is arguing that by subjecting detainees to such treatment, the CIA gives them Òtop secretÓ classified information--and the government can then take extraordinary measures to keep them quiet about it.
If this argument carries the day, it will make virtually impossible any accountability for the administrationÕs treatment of top Al Qaeda detainees. And it will also ensure that key parts of any military trials get litigated in secrecy.
Mr Khan is one of 14 people transferred to Guantanamo earlier this year from the CIAÕs secret prison programme. After his transfer, lawyers seeking to represent him asked for an order granting them access on the same terms as lawyers representing other detainees. The government objected on two main grounds. It contended that the court lacks jurisdiction because of two new laws that strip federal courts of authority over detainee matters. That may well be correct, and Judge Reggie B. Walton agreed last week that any consideration of counsel access should wait until the court of appeals rules on the jurisdictional question.
But the government also argues that Mr. Khan is different from previous Guantanamo inmates; their lawyers are cleared to see information classified at the ÒsecretÓ level. The CIA programme, however, involves top-secret information, so lawyers for Mr. Khan would have to be cleared at a higher level--and access would have to take place under more restrictive circumstances.
The trouble is that at least some of the secrets the government is trying to protect are the very techniques used against people such as Mr Khan--and its means of protecting them is to muzzle him about what the CIA did to him. CIA official Marilyn A. Dorn said in an affidavit that Mr Khan might reveal Òthe conditions of detention and specific alternative interrogation procedures.Ó In other words, grossly mistreating a detainee now justifies keeping him quiet.
The problem with this argument is not just its Kafkaesque sheen. If the courts accept it, it would have vast practical implications. The integrity of any military trials of the high-value detainees will depend on their excluding evidence obtained by unduly coercive means. By the logic of the governmentÕs argument, however, all of that litigation will have to take place in secret.
Detainees are also supposed to be able to appeal their status as enemy combatants to the federal appeals court here in Washington. The governmentÕs logic would all but assure that the bulk of any such appeal would be secret as well. So accepting this theory would mean that no claim of torture could be resolved in a transparent and accountable fashion.
Given the importance of open trials for the high-value detainees, itÕs hard to imagine a principle that would more thwart the effort to bring them credibly to justice.
WASHINGTONPOST.COM