Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Terrorism today is an individual – PM

Terrorism today is an individual – PM
logoBy Yusuf Ariff-July 13, 2017
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe says that human rights cannot be enforced just by passing laws as it cannot take place without the confidence building measures.
“We are addressing the issues of the missing persons. These are difficult ones. There needs to be confidence building measures before you get into it,” he said addressing the Inaugural Session of the 8th SAARC Interior/Home Ministers Meeting held in Colombo today (13).
He stated that there are some who think you pass the laws and you enforce human rights. “Okay we want human rights but it cannot take place without the confidence building measures.”
Wickremesinghe said that it has shown as in those who try to bring up the politics of extremism, of race, of religion are not finding the support and those who try to use extremism are now sometimes brought before the courts of law and action taken.  
“These are essential building blocks. It has taken us nearly one and a half years for the steering committee of the constituent assembly to decide to right a report but I think that one and a half years was worth it because we discussed, we argued, now we are putting it down and actually very little went out to the media.”  
He also said that terrorism has taken a different form today and that the issue now is how face this new type of terrorism.
“We also realize that terrorism has taken a different form. I don’t think we will ever find the type of terrorism you had where one side in the terrorist movement, in the arms struggle could even put about a brigade or so together to take on the Sri Lanka Army. That is over.” 
“But it doesn’t mean the end of terrorism. Terrorism today is an individual. There are terrorists who are not recruited to the cause but who joins the cause looking at it on the website and on the internet,” he said. 
The Prime Minister said that these are some of the issues that they have to face. “How do we face this new type of terrorism?”
He stated that several South Asian countries from Afghanistan to Maldives are still dealing with major issues of terrorism.
He said that it also means that the countries in the region should all be committed not to allow or tolerate any acts of terrorism and to condemn and to take effective action in the case of terrorism in the region. “That’s a commitment that we have to have.” 

Why is Sri Lanka’s youth stepping down from agriculture?

1
Young men attending to a vegetable cultivation in Nuwara Eliya. Due to the lack of economic and social protection, the majority of the youth in Sri Lanka lack confidence about their future in the agricultural industry – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara
  • An industry sector evaluation-Wednesday, 12 July 2017
logoIntroduction
At present youth represent 20% from the total population in developing countries. This is a significantly large resource for the economic development in any developing nation.

Youth in Sri Lanka’s rural areas were neglected for many years especially in social and economic development aspects. Due to this most young people residing in rural areas are moving to the metropolis seeking more opportunities to match their aspirations. Contribution from young people to agriculture and its development is decreasing.

Currently for food security and poverty eradication purposes policy makers are working towards social and economic development for a higher youth engagement in agricultural. Despite the work of policy makers, the participation of the youth in agriculture is decreasing. Many young people already engaged in the agriculture sector are moving to the service industry by seeking better opportunities to match their life aspirations.
3
Reasons why young people step down from agricultural activity
The first reason identified for youth not involving in the agricultural industry is the very low levels of social protection, social recognition, pay and the overall sustainability in the industry. Due to these negative factors youth in Sri Lanka have lost interest in agriculture, in turn you may find them moving out from geolocations involved in the industry to more urbanised and cosmopolitan areas even in regards to their field of work.

Secondly most young people find it unprofitable to engage in agriculture due to the lack of technology and innovation involved within the industry. Technology and youth must develop simultaneously for there to be maximum output within the industry. This gap in development is identified as a critical point behind the negative mind set in of the youth in Sri Lanka towards engaging in the agricultural industry.

Thirdly the commercial value of the Sri Lankan agricultural industry is decreasing. Authorities are not prioritising the commercial value of the industry especially in its financial and marketing aspects to attract young people to engage in this sector.

Lack of financial and non-financial sources for agricultural investment is the fourth reason. Youth who are engaged in agriculture face obstacles when obtaining funds for investments in agricultural. The lack of resources can lead to low returns, profitability and overall sustainability of agricultural businesses and those involved in it.
(DISCLAIMER: UNLOCKED is a space for Sri Lankan youth to express their views and opinions on development with the aim of creating positive change in the world. The views expressed in the blogs are solely those of the authors. UNDP Sri Lanka and Daily FT does not represent or endorse the views expressed in these blogs. Read more about the UNLOCKED initiative www.lk.undp.org.)
Poor decision making by the policymakers have lead this industry to a negative growth rate. Appropriate decisions are not taken to develop the industry with the engagement of the youth. There by the industry is less attractive in terms of productivity and profitability. Since profitability and social security in agriculture is low youth engagement is in turn low.
Suggestions for higher contribution
Appropriate training and development activities should be implemented among youth for them to use modern facilities and technologies within the agricultural industry. Required skills and competencies should be developed to provide for a sustainable future in this sector. Development of said skills can be facilitated by government and by private vocational training development institutions.

As per the 2014 NHDR, so far any possible incentive for improvement by private sector institutions is curbed by the strong government presence that already exists in vocational education and training. Additionally, financial resources should be made available for youth who are engaged in agricultural. Considering the economic and social impact the development of this industry brings, there should be open accessibility to financial resources.

Another crucial way forward is that there should be a boost in the image of agriculture in the youth mindset. Creating a positive image can lead to a better involvement of young people in the industry. For this to happen the advantages of economic and social benefits that is provided by agriculture should be highlighted. Sri Lankan youth would be further encouraged if private and government entities made way for such benefits for them to participate in agriculture and its activities.

The required skill set to achieve higher productivity and higher efficiency needs to be establish within the youth population including vocational and professional development. Government and private institutions can participate to achieve said development. All key competencies and skills in modern technology and agriculture must be made available for young people to confidently involve in agriculture.

Finally, technology and innovation needs to be improved in the agriculture industry. With government intervention, the cost of the technology can be made affordable which will in turn be beneficial to the economy.

Due to the lack of economic and social protection, the majority of the youth in Sri Lanka lack confidence about their future in the agricultural industry. This situation has a direct influence to the national economy in the long run and should be addressed by all stakeholders involved.

(Madura Thivanka schooled in Anuradhapura Central College and graduated with an island rank at the GCE Advanced Level examinations. He is currently a senior lecturer for an international campus in Sri Lanka and Head of the Business Management Division. His first degree was obtained in 2011 from Staffordshire University UK and in 2015 he obtained an MBA from Cardiff Metropolitan University.

In 2014 he started his own business based on the Sri Lankan travel and tourism industry. He is currently reading for a doctorate from the University of Wales. His many hobbies include conducting research on consumer behaviour, human behavioural pattern changes, strategic management and marketing management.)

Megapolis Champika’s Mega lie - builds parks in the air !


LEN logo(Lanka-e-News - 13.July.2017, 8.00AM) Megapolis minister Champika Ranawake while saying ‘our work is of elephants’ has begun  to lie  profusely and deliberately. Posing off as a hero and making a display that the  tasks of elephants are also his has made  the habit of lying  daily  a fad .
The minister who attended a Daham pasala development program on the 10 th said, a park very much bigger than Vihara Maha Devi park , 250 acres in extent is to be  constructed at the center of the Port city which is now under development , and that construction is scheduled to commence next June. This revelation of this empty zero pretending to be a hero  is an absolute lie .  That is the Megapolis minister has now become a  Mega liar !
After the advent of this government the Port city agreement signed by the deposed and discarded Rajapakses with China was renewed.  Under the old agreement 45 hectares were demarcated for a park,  roads  and  lanes for strolling , and 13 hectares were set aside for the  artificial beach.  
Under the new agreement , 28 hectares in extent was increased  in respect of the park , roads ,strolling lanes and artificial beach. This addition resulted because the car racing zone  of 28 hectares in the Rajapakse plan  was withdrawn subsequently. Therefore ,it is to be noted the 13 hectares set aside for the artificial beach was not  increased even by an inch. It is only the land demarcated for park , roads and lanes for strolling that was increased by 28 hectares , meaning that the total land allocation towards those amenities now is hectares 73. That is 180 acres. 
If the land is allocated only for the park ,without an inch  being yielded  for roads and lanes , that extent will therefore  be only 180 acres. Hence , minister Champika saying that a park 250 acres in extent is going to be built  is a deliberate lie. Either he is a confirmed Mega liar or he does not know arithmetic.  
The mental power of  Champika who obtained his basic degree to  qualify as an engineer in the eighties, and could not do any post graduate research thereafter seems to be destroyed  by corrosion. Little wonder he has forgotten even basic arithmetical calculations.
In fact if his engineering knowledge was at the level it ought to be, as an engineer of power and energy he would not have become a  minister of power and energy and a fool with the Norochcholai debacle which collapsed 37 times .When the infamous corrupt Rajapakses agreed in respect of  the Norochcholai debacle lured by  illicit commissions , if Champika was a true and trustworthy engineer he could have put his foot down and rejected it. It is obvious he kept silent either because of his engineering   incompetence   and  disabilities or he too lined his pocket with part of the colossal  commission collected by the Rajapakses.
In any case if minister Champika who is also an engineer says a park 250 acres in extent can be built on 180 acres land , this must be a wonder of wonders more marvelous  than the ‘Hanging gardens of Babylon ‘ which park is reckoned as  a world’s wonder. In other words the extra 70 acres of his park has to float  in the air! 
Champika who has an extraordinary affinity for things that dangle above and below must be having his own exclusive  plans to construct a park  suspended in the air though such a park is not in the Port City project plan. 
---------------------------
by     (2017-07-13 02:39:10)

How some lawyers trivialize legal proceedings

How some lawyers trivialize legal proceedings

Jul 13, 2017

The case of torture of Mr. Daundalage Pushpakumara came up on the 12th July 2017 at the Court of Appeal in Sri Lanka. The court was considering a petition filed by Pushpakumara, seeking leave to appeal in his case bearing number CA: A12/16. Attorney-at-Law, Mr. J. C. Weliamuna appeared on behalf of the appellant/victim along with Attorney-at-Law, Mr. Pulasthi Hewamanna. Mr. Nalin Ladduwahetty P.C. appeared for the respondent police officer.

The case came up before two judges. The submissions made on behalf of victim/appellant were both on questions of law and facts. A fundamental question of law that was raised is concerning Section 200 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The lawyers appearing for the victim/appellant argued that the trial judge had wrongly applied the law and that it is a fundamental misdirection that besets the lower court judgment. Explaining this argument further, Mr. Weliamuna stated that the trial judge, by the end of the trial, had already come to the conclusion, that the offence of torture was committed against the victim/appellant and that the crime has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr. Weliamuna argued further that on the basis of this finding by the trial judge, the application of Section 200 (1) is impossible in the case. The reason for the argument is that Section 200 (1) is applicable only when the judge wholly discredits the prosecution case or when the evidence does not disclose the commission of the offence charged, or any other offence. As against this, the trial judge had already concluded that the offence of torture has occurred. The victim/appellant’s lawyers argued that the application of section 200 (1) therefore in this case by the trial judge is wrong.
Mr. Weliamuna also argued that the trial judge further erred in law by applying the provision for reasonable doubt, when applying Section 200 (1). The question bringing up the issue of reasonable doubt arises only when the trial is completed. In this case, the trial was not over. Further Mr. Weliamuna argued that there was overwhelming evidence to identify the accused and therefore the trial judge also erred on facts in this case.
Despite all these arguments on questions of law and facts in the case, the lawyer appearing for the respondent made the following arguments: (i) that since the Attorney General had not appealed against the acquittal, the victim/appellant is not entitled for an appeal. This argument was however opposed by the State Counsel representing the AG’s department who argued that the settled position in law of Sri Lanka is that the aggrieved party could appeal, subject to obtaining a leave to appeal from the court, about which this hearing was all about; (ii) that there is a discrepancy in the medical evidence, provided in the trial by two medical officers. This argument could also not be substantiated since the trial judge had already concluded that the act of torture has been committed upon the victim/appellant; and (iii) that the trial court’s application of Section 200 (1) in the case is right.
During the hearing, when the lawyer appearing for the victim/appellant was substantiating his arguments, the lawyer for the respondent came up with a rather strange argument it was not the police that tortured the victim/appellant, but Fr. Nandana Manatunga, the caretaker of the victim/appellant. The lawyer was ignorant of the fact that Fr. Nandana only came to know the victim/appellant after the incident. During the trial, a witness mentioned Fr. Nandana's name, while answering questions concerning where the victim/appellant is being cared for after his torture at the hands of the police. From this submission, it was clear to everyone related to this case, and to all who were attending the hearing that the respondent’s lawyer has neither studied the case, nor willing to maintain professional discipline in court.
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is of the opinion that this statement against Fr. Nandana, a mere caregiver to the victim/appellant, post the crime, amounts to professional misconduct by the respondent’s lawyer. This lawyer also by the way is a Presidents’ Counsel and a Senior Lawyer in the country.
Professional privileges of lawyers to make statements in court do not include making false and defamatory statements against third parties who are not before the court. Fr. Nandana has informed that he felt shocked by this statement and affirmed that he will consult his lawyers on what action he could take against this senior lawyer who is unnecessarily making false accusations against him in the court.
The above details of a hearing that happened today at the Court of Appeal in Sri Lanka highlights the triviality into which the legal process have plummeted in Sri Lanka. The incident also brings to light how careless and malicious some lawyers are in this country.
- AHRC-

Whilst Rajitha Boasts Of Eradicating Dengue, Bags Of Reeking Garbage Pile Up At His Ministry

logo
Even as thousands fell victim to the dengue epidemic amidst a worsening garbage crisis, Sri Lanka’s health ministry appeared to be among the most ‘unhealthiest’ of places in the city, as dozens of bags with reeking garbage continued to pile up at the medical supplies division within the health ministry, an eyewitness told the Colombo Telegraph.
The medical supplies division which is located within the ministry of health on Deans Road, Colombo 10 is the main organisation responsible for providing all pharmaceuticals, surgical, laboratory and radioactive items for all government hospitals and other government healthcare institutions across the country. Sources pointed out that even though all medical supplies are stored in an enclosed area, having so much of garbage pile up next to this vital division is cause for concern.
The eyewitness said that the garbage has not been cleared for days, and the pile of reeking garbage continues to increase. The eyewitness also expressed his disgust over the government and health minister Rajitha Senaratne’s failure to take steps to clear the garbage from the health ministry, and especially next to the medical supplies division.
“Minister Rajitha Senaratne keeps boasting about taking steps to eradicate dengue from the country, but he can’t even clear up the garbage from his ministry,” the eyewitness lamented.

Read More

Congress Will Rubber-Stamp Whatever War Powers Donald Trump Wants

Senators and representatives say they want to scrutinize the White House’s use of the military, but don’t kid yourself.
Congress Will Rubber-Stamp Whatever War Powers Donald Trump Wants

No automatic alt text available.BY MICAH ZENKO-JULY 13, 2017

Since 9/11, three U.S. presidents have been allowed to threaten or use military force with few checks or balances from Congress and the courts and with hardly any sustained media coverage. Each president has relied on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) as the domestic legal basis for these operations, which passed both houses of Congress three days after 9/11 — with just one member, Rep. Barbara Lee, voting against it. Four days later, President George W. Bush signed the bill into law. (Although now largely forgotten, that same day Bush also signed a series of covert findings that have authorized CIA paramilitary activities ever since.)

The AUMF authorizes all “necessary and appropriate force” against “those nations, organizations, or persons” involved specifically with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But the Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump administrations have used it as the legal basis for military activities (including ground combat operations, airstrikes, detention of enemy combatants, and training missions) at least 38 times in 14 different countries. Most recently, on June 6 President Trump used authority granted by the AUMF to justify the continued deployment of forces to the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The only major use of force since 9/11 not covered under the AUMF was the 2011 Libya regime change intervention, for which the Obama Office of Legal Counsel concluded that “congressional approval was not constitutionally required,” because the operations served “sufficiently important national interests” and were not expected to reach the level of “war.”

Since casting her lone “no” vote in 2001, Rep. Lee has made at least seven attempts to repeal, or “sunset,” the AUMF. Each attempt died in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs or, in the case of her 2016 amendment to the defense authorization bill, failed in a vote on the House floor. This year, on June 29, Lee offered an amendment to the House defense appropriations bill that was approved by a full committee voice vote. The amendment would repeal the AUMF 240 days after the appropriations bill is signed into law and would apply to “each operation or other action that is being carried out pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force initiated before such effective date.”

Over the next few weeks, consideration of the appropriations bill, which now includes the Lee amendment — combined with related legislation introduced by Sens. Tim Kaine and Jeff Flake — could finally force a serious debate about the AUMF on Capitol Hill. Of course, there are many ways that Congress could drop Lee’s amendment from the appropriations bill without much debate, but given the mounting pressure, it’s unlikely that the provision could be killed at this point without attracting controversy.

So a long overdue debate about the 2001 AUMF will likely happen. But it’s unlikely to lead to the law’s repeal or even be substantive enough to have any impact on ongoing or planned military deployments. The reason is simple: Members of Congress are overwhelmingly inclined to support or tolerate whatever legal and policy justifications presidents and their advisors have provided for the use of force. Congress may say it wants to judge AUMF on the merits, but in practice it prefers to outsource its thinking about it to the executive branch.

A few progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans have pointed out the absurdity of how the AUMF has been applied to militant groups that did not exist in 2001 and how it has served as a congressional endorsement of a borderless and open-ended war that officials in Washington warn will be “multigenerational.” The war against al Qaeda and affiliated groups has morphed into a war against “radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth,” as President Trump promised soon after taking the oath of office.

Yet, once administration officials claim that their military activities are justified under the AUMF because they are essential to “protect the American people,” the vast majority of representatives and senators simply accept that claim and cease questioning the continued relevance of the 2001 law. Some on Capitol Hill believe that it would simply be too hard to craft new and narrower legislation that is both broadly supported and does not pose undue constraints on the military. Others have contended for years that, given the inability of Congress to pass government appropriation bills on time, it’s impossible to squeeze a real debate into the legislative calendar. Unsurprisingly, when I spoke last week with staffers from both the Senate and House armed services committees, I was told that revisiting the AUMF has received little attention or interest behind closed doors from members of the 115th Congress.

Furthermore, senior civilian and military officials have emphasized repeatedly that the AUMF provides them with sufficient authority and they require all the legal authorities they currently have; as Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted in March: “We do assess that we have the legal authority to do what we’re doing right now.” Any effort to reduce those existing authorities, or allow them to terminate after 240 days without a new AUMF in place, would be attacked vigorously in private meetings on the Hill and in public congressional testimony by Defense Department officials.

The Pentagon actually wants a new AUMF — but only for the sake of improving morale among U.S. and allied troops. In March, the head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Joseph Votel, said: “I do believe an updated authorization certainly would send a stronger commitment to uniformed military of our commitment and desire to support them.” Similarly, that same month, Defense Secretary James Mattis claimed: “I think it’d be a statement of the American people’s resolve if you did so,” adding, “A firm statement by the U.S. Congress would hearten our allies as well as give our troops a sense of purpose.” Finally, Dunford proclaimed in June: “My recommendation to the Congress was that they pass an authorization of use of military force.… Our men and women that are in harm’s way would see a clear and unmistakable support from the American people.” Congress, however, never presses Pentagon leadership to explain just how renewed congressional endorsement would send such positive signals. It is clear, in any case, that the military does not want its freedom of action limited in any way.

My brilliant colleague Rosa Brooks described the AUMF debates perfectly in 2015: “I’ll let you in on a little secret: notwithstanding the word ‘authorize,’ the existence or non-existence of a new AUMF will have essentially zero effect on whether the president feels empowered to bring force against [the Islamic State] or anyone else.” If Congress were truly interested in conducting rigorous oversight of ongoing military activities, it could begin doing so today. However, congressional hearings focus almost exclusively on members asking Pentagon officials if they need to buy more weapons produced in that member’s district or just thanking them for their service.

The best way Congress could thank service members would be to fulfill its constitutional role by overseeing how the armed forces are manned, trained, equipped, and operate. The recent surge in attention to AUMF reform has been in lieu of, not in line with, such desperately overdue oversight.
Photo credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images

Revised Senate health-care bill still lacks the votes to pass

Washington reacts to competing Senate health plans. (Lee Powell, Rhonda Colvin, Victoria Walker, Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)



Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) released a new proposal to overhaul the Affordable Care Act on Thursday after spending three weeks reworking it to win over wavering lawmakers on the right and in the center.

But within hours, it was clear that Senate leaders still didn’t have the votes to fulfill their long-standing quest to replace former president Barack Obama’s 2010 health-care law.

The new draft would lift many of the ACA’s regulatory requirements, allowing insurers to offer bare-bones policies without coverage for services such as preventive or mental-health care. It would also direct billions of dollars to help lower- and middle-income Americans buy plans on the private market.

However, the draft leaves in place deep proposed cuts to Medicaid — and at least three Republicans quickly signaled opposition to the bill, casting doubt on McConnell’s plans to pass the bill next week.



“The revised Senate health-care bill released today does not include the measures I have been advocating for on behalf of the people of Arizona,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in a statement, adding he planned to offer amendments to change it.

The GOP’s continuing push — and continuing struggle — to make good on a campaign promise it began invoking seven years ago to “repeal and replace” Obamacare reflected the peril Republicans face whether they pass a bill or not.

On the one hand, the ACA has provided medical coverage for millions of Americans — and has grown more popular as a result. Moderate Republicans remained concerned Thursday that the new proposal would make insurance unaffordable for some ­middle-income Americans and throw millions off the rolls of Medicaid, the public insurance for disabled and low-income Americans.

Yet conservatives continued to push for a more wholesale rollback of the ACA — highlighting the danger for all Republicans of failing to achieve a promise most of them made on the campaign trail.

“The new Senate health care bill is substantially different from the version released last month, and it is unclear to me whether it has improved,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a conservative who has pushed for a full Obamacare repeal, said in a statement. “I will need time to study the new version and speak with experts about whether it does enough to lower health insurance premiums for middle class families.”

Looming even larger was the reality that Republicans, despite their control of both chambers of Congress and with President Trump in the White House, have made little progress on an ambitious agenda that McConnell had hoped to move on to next week after a vote on the health-care bill. Among their goals are major tax legislation, raising the debt ceiling and passing a defense authorization bill.

Republican leaders seemed to acknowledge Thursday the difficult path ahead, with several speaking privately about internal divisions on how to pass the bill — and to prevent further defections.



“We will have the votes when we start voting,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.).

McConnell’s new draft was the result of weeks of negotiations with conservatives and moderates. For those on the right, the plan incorporated a proposal from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) allowing insurers to offer minimalist policies as long as they offer more-comprehensive ones as well. Cruz said the provision would give consumers greater choice and lower-cost premiums.

For those in the center, the new proposal would spend an additional $70 billion offsetting consumers’ costs and $45 billion to treat opioid addiction.

Republicans financed these changes by keeping a trio of Obamacare taxes targeting high earners — a 3.8 percent tax on net investment income and a 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax on individuals making $200,000 a year or couples earning $250,000, along with a tax on insurers with high-paid executives. 
Lawmakers such as Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said repealing those taxes would give too much relief to the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

The new measure has won Cruz’s backing, but Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), another conservative who said the measure still does not do enough to unravel Obamacare, remained opposed to voting on the bill, as did centrist Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

“My strong intention and current inclination is to vote no on the motion to proceed,” Collins told reporters, referring to the procedural vote required before the legislation can reach the Senate floor. 
Collins added that she hopes Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) will be willing to work with Republicans to fix the legislation. “I have had numerous Democrats come to me and say they want to work with us on the bill,” she said. “I’m going to take them at their word.”

Even as McConnell negotiated with individual members, the outlook for the bill was complicated when Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) debuted an alternative proposal.

In a joint interview with CNN on Thursday, Cassidy and Graham said they would take the billions of dollars the federal government now receives in taxes under the ACA and direct that revenue to the states.

The plan did not appear to be gaining traction — Graham said he would vote to start debate on McConnell’s bill — but its introduction underscored the extent to which a growing number of GOP senators have started looking beyond the current effort, with diminishing confidence that it will prevail.

“I don’t see this as the end if this bill were not to pass,” Collins said. “I see it as the beginning of the kind of process that I would have liked to have seen in the first place.”

The surprise announcement from Graham and Cassidy came just before Senate GOP leaders released their revised health-care proposal.

The McConnell plan would allow Americans to pay for premiums with money from tax-exempt health savings accounts, an idea that many conservatives have pushed for — a tax break that primarily would benefit the upper middle class.

The plan’s proposed rollback of Medicaid expansion under the ACA, as well as a proposal to slow the overall growth of the program starting in 2025, gave a number of Republican moderates pause Thursday.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who came out against the original draft of the bill, said he was not yet willing to vote yes to move the bill to the floor. “I’m in the same position I’ve been in, looking at the language and looking forward to the analysis,” he said.

Cassidy and Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said they need to see the Congressional Budget Office score, due next week, before making a decision.

“We are going to look at it, read it, understand it and see the CBO score,” Hoeven told reporters. He said that he was encouraged by changes intended to help lower-income Americans but that, “at this point, I’m reserving judgment.”

In a sign of the challenge McConnell still faces to round up votes, he huddled Thursday afternoon in his office with Portman and Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Those lawmakers hail from states that have extended Medicaid under the current law to cover able-bodied, childless adults. Capito, who opposed the earlier bill, said in a statement she still has “serious concerns” about the revised draft.

With Vice President Pence prepared to cast a tiebreaking vote and no Democrats expected to support the bill, Republicans need the support of 50 of their 52 members to pass the legislation.

Senate leaders and Trump officials are aware that moderate Republican holdouts may be the bill’s biggest threat.

Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, made a presentation to a group of Republican senators from Medicaid-expansion states Thursday afternoon. She promised to do everything possible to minimize the number of uninsured, by giving states maximum flexibility in how they could use some of the money from the bill’s $182 billion state stabilization fund.

Nearly 15 million Americans would lose their Medicaid coverage by 2026 under the Senate bill, according to the CBO. Verma sought to minimize that outlook, saying states could use the stabilization funding to heavily subsidize private coverage for these Americans — even though the size of the fund does not come close to the bill’s $772 billion in cuts to the program over the next decade.

Cruz said the new bill was a “substantial improvement” over the first version and argued that a focus on reducing premiums was the best way to unite fractured Republicans. He touted his proposal as a means of accomplishing both.

“It’s not what the federal government mandates you have to buy — it’s your choice what health insurance is the best for you and your family,” Cruz said.

Critics, including insurers, say that providing the option of skimpier plans would draw younger, healthier consumers into a separate risk pool. That development would drive up rates for the Americans buying more-comprehensive coverage on the individual market, which could in turn destabilize the entire market.

The revised bill would establish a $70 billion fund to subsidize insurers providing both kinds of plans “for the associated costs of covering high-risk individuals,” according to a GOP summary of the bill. It would also allow individuals buying catastrophic plans to get a federal tax credit if they would be otherwise eligible, which is now barred under current law.

Larry Levitt, senior vice president for special initiatives at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said in an interview that “healthy people could end up with much lower premiums” on the private insurance market, though the proposal’s regulatory changes could upend coverage for those with costly medical conditions.

“There are many provisions in this bill that destabilize the individual insurance,” he said. “Then it attempts to restabilize it by funneling an enormous amount of money to insurers.”

The Senate bill also includes a limited exemption for members of Congress, which Republicans said was due to procedural limitations in Senate budget rules. Cruz introduced a measure to strike the exemption Thursday afternoon, saying in a statement, “While this exemption was included in the Senate health care bill out of procedural necessity, we must still be diligent in ensuring that Members of Congress are treated just like other Americans under this law.”

Senate leaders are leaving themselves the option of jettisoning the Cruz proposal after they get the nonpartisan CBO score, which will gauge the Cruz amendment’s impact on the budget and the overall number of uninsured.

Cornyn said Thursday that he expects the CBO will release two scores for the bill but would not confirm what those scores would include or when they will be released.

“We are expecting a CBO score, but I can’t tell you exactly what the format will be,” Cornyn told reporters, adding that the Cruz amendment would be scored.

Paige Winfield Cunningham and David Weigel contributed to this report.

Pakistan PM's daughter, heir apparent in corruption probe crosshairs

FILE PHOTO: Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif looks out the window of his plane after attending a ceremony to inaugurate the M9 motorway between Karachi and Hyderabad, Pakistan February 3, 2017.
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - A damning judicial report into the family wealth of Pakistan's Prime FILE PHOTO: Maryam Nawaz, the daughter of Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif gestures as she speaks to media after appearing before a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) who is investigating Sharif family's wealth in Islamabad, Pakistan July 5, 2017.

Drazen Jorgic-JULY 13, 2017

Minister Nawaz Sharif threatens not just his premiership, but has also imperiled the political career of his daughter and heir apparent.

Maryam Nawaz Sharif, 43, has in recent years gained greater influence within Sharif's inner circle, and is credited with steering him to embrace more pro-women and liberal causes in a deeply conservative nation of 200 million people.

Her feisty social media persona and combative tweets in defense of her father have often pitted her against Sharif's rivals.

Now those opponents sense an opportunity to scupper any plans to build a Sharif dynasty around her after a Supreme Court-appointed panel accused her of committing a criminal offense in a 254-page report leaked to the media this week.

"It nips her career in the bud," Sherry Rehman, vice president of the opposition Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP), told Reuters. "It does kill any aspirations for the dynasty - through her at any rate."

The Joint Investigations Team (JIT) set up by the court alleges the Sharif family's wealth does not match their income, and accused Maryam and her brothers of signing forged documents to obscure ownership of offshore companies used to buy posh London flats.

Maryam, also known as Maryam Safdar, "rejected" the report and tweeted to her 3.5 million followers that "every contradiction will not only be contested but decimated" in the Supreme Court.
Her 67-year-old father, serving a third stint as prime minister, faces widespread calls to resign but his allies say the report is biased and inaccurate. Maryam did not respond to Reuters requests for comment.

Maryam and her brothers were named last year in the Panama Papers leak as owners of offshore companies used to buy luxury flats in London, prompting opposition politician Imran Khan to threaten mass protests unless the Supreme Court investigated.


Khan, a former cricket star who leads Pakistan's third party, has been one of her harshest critics and recently called her a "princess", tapping into opposition anger that she appears to wield power within the government without holding any office.

The second life of Ghassan Kanafani


Ghassan Kanafani at his Beirut office. (Assafir)

As'ad AbuKhalil- 12 July 2017

In the early 1970s, three Palestinian intellectuals – Ghassan Kanafani, Majed Abu Sharar and Kamal Nasser – collaborated to form the Palestine Liberation Organization’s information office.

Within a decade, Israeli terrorists managed to kill all three – Kanafani in 1972, Nasser in 1973 and Abu Sharar in 1981.

The Zionist movement has never bothered to distinguish in its killing campaigns between civilians and military targets: in fact, on many occasions the Israeli government (or even the Zionist movement before the establishment of the occupation state) targeted civilians on purpose to create terror among the population. Presumably, Israel wanted to kill Kanafani and silence his voice. Yet the plan did not work as intended.

Forty-five years this month since his assassination, Kanafani’s presence is ubiquitous.

On Arab social media, even among the young generation who are not accustomed to reading books, one notices him everywhere. His image is made the profile picture of countless Arabs, and quotations from his articles fill the social media space. His drawings, posters and designs are quite common these days. They stand as symbols for revolution and Palestine and more.

The publication of his love letters to Syrian writer Ghada Samman (who conveniently never published any of her letters to Kanafani) in 1992 produced a new image of Kanafani. The love letters are quoted widely by Arab women on social media, and his romantic yearnings for Samman are now the stuff of love legends, in the same league of Romeo and Juliet – or Qays and Layla among the Arabs.

I never knew Ghassan Kanafani: he was murdered when I was only 12. Yet I heard about him from an early age; I don’t remember when I did not recognize his name. My uncle, Naji AbuKhalil, worked with Kanafani at Huriyyah, the mouthpiece of the Arab Nationalist Movement. The magazine was the headquarters of avant-garde intellectuals who spoke of arts, literature and politics. Those were the people who introduced Arab readers to French leftist writers and who spoke of the Palestinian cause in peculiarly Marxist language – a language which was sharply demarcated from the stale and archaic language of orthodox Arab Marxists who never recovered from their subservient approval of Soviet support for the 1947 United Nations partition plan for Palestine.

Concerned with liberation of Palestine

I remember how fondly my uncle would talk about Kanafani, and how much his one-sided love story with Samman bothered his friends. Kanafani was very popular among men and women, and yet he was fixated on Samman. His friends would urge him to end his fixation to no avail: Samman occupied Kanafani’s heart but not his mind, which was filled with concerns with the larger project of the liberation of Palestine. Kanafani was also seen as vulnerable: he suffered from diabetes and would have to inject himself daily with insulin. Sometimes he would faint, and had to be fed sweets.

Kanafani was known among the café society of Lebanon and had a sense of humor. He and my uncle once conspired to mock the new “free verse movement,” which was championed by right-wing Lebanese who were associated with Shi’r (Poetry) magazine. Once, Kanafani and my uncle (among others, if I remember correctly) sat together and patched various disconnected sentences and sent it to a publication. Sure enough, the poem was published with high praise for the new talent of a person (using a fictitious name of the conspirators).

But Kanafani was also known to us and others as a prolific Lebanese columnist and journalist. He was essential in the life of major publications at the time. He edited the Filastin (Palestine)
supplement to the highly popular al-Muharrir newspaper (al-Muharrir was an Arab nationalist newspaper which represented the counter-current to the right-wing An-Nahar, which expressed the views of US and Gulf policies). Al-Muharrir was essential in disabusing many young Lebanese of the various Lebanese nationalist myths, and also in inculcating us with strong convictions about Palestine.

Kanafani also wrote in al-Hawadeth magazine and also in Al Anwar newspaper. At Al Anwar, Kanafani started the cultural weekly supplement. He also wrote in al-Hawadeth using the name Rabie Matar and used the name Faris Faris at Al Anwar. But his mainstream and very successful Lebanese media role came to an end after 1967.

In the wake of the defeat of the 1967 War, the various branches of the Arab Nationalist Movement were to transform into country-specific Marxist-Leninist organizations. The Palestinian branch would emerge as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) in late 1967. Unbeknownst to many, the idea of the magazine which came to personify him was not his own idea. It is still not known that the man who launched Al-Hadaf magazine, the mouthpiece to this day of the PFLP, was none other than Wadie Haddad.

Haddad had a great media sense and knew that information was part of the Palestinian struggle. He was also concerned that most of the left-leaning intellectuals of the Arab Nationalist Movement were gravitating toward Nayef Hawatmeh, the arch-rival of George Habash, Haddad’s closest comrade and friend. Haddad allocated the money and assigned Kanafani to launch the project, which came about in 1969.

Kanafani’s imprint

Al-Hadaf was not like any other magazine before or since. It would leave its imprint on revolutionary media worldwide. From the offices of Al-Hadaf on Corniche al-Mazraa in Beirut, Kanafani designed and produced some of the most spectacular posters of the Palestinian revolution.

He made Arab Marxist revolutionary ideas cool and trendy, unlike the boring media of the Lebanese Communist Party. He combined art with literature and information, all for the purpose of the liberation of Palestine. The magazine was also keen on transparency: it published all the financial contributions it received from around the world. Sometimes they were money transfers from Arab students in Western countries (before that was banned as an act of terrorism) to donations in kind from poor residents of the Palestinian refugee camps.

The magazine, and Kanafani personally, were the first to bring attention to the status of Arab poets (especially Mahmoud DarwishSamih al-Qasim and Tawfiq Zayyad) to larger Arab audiences. He broke with a silly taboo that looked with suspicion at those Arabs who stayed behind living under the rule of the Israeli occupation state.

Al-Hadaf was the banner of the PFLP, and people from around the globe flocked there to meet Kanafani and also to join the organization. Kanafani’s open-door policy was a weakness and many enemy intelligence operatives were able to study him up close and follow him. In the weeks before his assassination, workers at Al-Hadaf noticed that a more than usual number of Western women were visiting Al-Hadaf, always posing as journalists.

Kanafani never tired of explaining the Palestinian cause to anyone who asked. His English was not fluent but he managed to express himself clearly and strongly (in this interview, for example, Kanafani is sharp and does not concede one point to a journalist speaking from a mainstream Western perspective).

Some dogmatic hardliners would sneer at Kanafani for spending time with Western reporters and he would always answer by explaining that he would not stomach outbidding or one-upmanship from people who did not understand his work for the Palestinian cause. He would explain how he left a secure job at Al Anwar, which paid him 2,000 Lebanese pounds, to work for a job with the PFLP which paid him 700 pounds (Kanafani would add that Al Anwar also paid him a bonus month’s salary in addition to various benefits).

Habash and Haddad both greatly admired Kanafani. Haddad would interrogate him about the international situation before he planned or executed any operation. Kanafani would also share with both men latest debates in the West about the Palestinian cause. Habash considered him his closest friend and would say upon his death: I lost half of me. Some would say that Habash was never the same after the assassination of Kanafani. When the PFLP held its Third National Congress in 1972, Habash assigned Kanafani to write the political reportfamously known as “Tasks of the New Stage.”

Israel’s calculation

It was clear that the Israelis knew the talents of someone like Kanafani and his services to the Palestinian cause, even if he never played any military role in the movement. Israel would rather have people like Mahmoud AbbasMuhammad DahlanYasser Abed Rabbo and Jibril Rajoub around. Those people continue to damage the Palestinian revolution while Kanafani served the cause every single day of his life.

Declassified American archival reports show keen interest in the case of Ghassan Kanafani. The Americans and the Israelis were bothered by Kanafani’s media role, and some US documents would make specific references to press conferences he held. Weeks before his assassination, Kanafani was roughed up by thugs in West Beirut. An-Nahar published the story and mocked the claim by Kanafani. When Wadie Haddad heard of this, he was troubled. His associates would say: but if this was the Mossad, they would have killed him instantly. Haddad said at the time: not necessarily. Not necessarily. Haddad’s hunch was right.

It is not clear what the incident had to do with the assassination which came weeks later. Kanafani never took security precautions. He had a routine and it was known where he went: to Al-Hadaf and to the various coffee shops frequented by journalists at the time. He also spent his Sundays with his family. His enemies found it easy to track him, especially as he lived (uncharacteristically) in East Beirut, a stronghold of Lebanese right-wing, anti-Palestinian parties.

Israel has never had to justify its killing of an artist, poet, calligrapher and journalist. Israel (and the Zionist movement before it) never bothered to explain the pattern of killing, of targeting, Arab civilians. People in the West said of Israeli murder: but Kanafani was a politburo member of the PFLP at the time of his death. The truth – rarely revealed – is that Kanafani was posthumously made a member of the politburo. Kanafani in his life had no patience for the life of a member of an organization which is consumed with long and boring meetings.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that Kanafani’s legacy is enjoying a rebirth as he is discovered by a new generation of Arabs. Various websites are dedicated to him, and his books are published in various editions (and pirated in various editions). Who would believe that a man who was only 36 when he died would have such a lasting influence? Count that as yet another Zionist miscalculation.


As’ad AbuKhalil is a professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus.

Turkish filmmaker arrested after release of Erdogan 'execution' trailer


Ali Avci arrested in Istanbul hours after promo for coup film released, showing deaths of president's family and his impending execution

The trailer shows the moments before the apparent execution of Erdogan (screengrab)

Suraj Sharma's picture
Suraj Sharma-Thursday 13 July 2017

ISTANBUL, Turkey – A Turkish producer has been arrested as a coup conspirator after the release of a film trailer that shows the moments before the apparent execution of the president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Ali Avci was arrested at his house hours after the release of the trailer for Uyanis - "Awakening" - and was charged with being a supporter of the US-based Turkish preacher Fettulah Gulen, whom authorities hold responsible for orchestrating last July's failed coup.   
According to Avci, the film is based on the night of the coup and contains scenes where Erdogan's family members are killed by putchists and one where a general holds a gun to Erdogan's head as he prays.
Erdogan's fate in the film was unclear from the trailer. The film was in the post-production stage, according to Avci.
The president's supporters were enraged by the scenes where his family is killed and he himself is threatened with death.
The pro-government news site Superhaber ran the story on the trailer on Wednesday with the headline "Stop this disgrace".
The trailer also drew strong responses on social media.

Translation: The disgrace of a film called Uyanis will be banned. 
How is this even possible... the trailer of the disgraceful film called Uyanis has been broadcast.  

Translation: Stop this disgrace. The great disgrace in the film Uyanis.
RT_Erdogan's family is killed and a gun pointed at his head. This nation will ask for justice regarding you all.

Other users were in a more humorous mood. One said the producer should have been arrested when the earlier Erdogan biopic he produced flopped.
Translation: The director of Uyanis has been arrested for being a FETO member.
He should actually have been detained when the film Reis only got a rating of 1.6 out of 10 on IMDB.

Avci is also the producer of Reis, a biopic detailing Erdogan's childhood in an Istanbul working-class area and his rise to power.
The film, released in March, was a major flop.
Erdogan did not attend any screenings of the film, which was released at more than 300 screens in Turkey alone.
Police also said Avci was harbouring another wanted Gulenist in his Istanbul house when they went to arrest him, according to the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet.
Fetullah Karabiber, an academic at Istanbul's Yildiz Technical University, was being sought by police and is believed to be a user of ByLock, an encrypted messaging system that, according to officials, Gulenists used to communicate with each other.
Read more ►
The government has organised a wide range of events to mark the anniversary of the defeat of the coup attempt.
Public building and spaces in Istanbul have been adorned with giant posters and signs inviting the public to these commemorative events.
One set of such posters, however, has come in for criticism for depicting Turkish soldiers crying and with their heads bowed in defeat.
Critics said the demeaning of Turkish soldiers is unacceptable and sends the wrong message that the entire armed forces were behind the coup attempt.
Meanwhile, chaotic scenes were reported during the court session where the case of those involved in trying to assassinate Erdogan while on holiday in Marmaris on the night of the coup was being heard after one of the suspects arrived in a t-shirt with the word Hero in English printed across the front.
Gokhan Guclu, one of those implicated in the case, refused to change his t-shirt. He was sent back to prison.