C.A.R. tense after local militias disarmed

Anne Look

February 16, 2014

The C.A.R. capital Bangui remains tense Sunday, one day after French and African troops embarked on a major operation to disarm local militias known as the anti-balaka. Those groups are accused of carrying out revenge attacks against Muslims. The attacks have caused tens of thousands to flee the capital in recent weeks.

It is here in the Boye Rabe neighborhood, the fiefdom of the anti-balaka, that French and African troops went door to door Saturday confiscating weapons and munitions and rounding up anti-balaka leaders.

The troops say they were acting at the request of state judicial authorities.

C.A.R.'s interim government has declared war on the anti-balaka. French and African Union troops say they are public enemy number one.

Here in Boye Rabe, anti-balaka members say if it is war they want, it is war they will get. They say they are getting ready. They say if the authorities want to provoke them, they will respond.

Read it all here.

Where is our National Spine?

By the Rev. Marek P. Zabriskie on Sunday, December 16, 2012

William Bullitt was born in Philadelphia to family of wealthy lawyers and railroad magnates. After graduating from Yale in 1912, he covered the First World War as a correspondent for the Philadelphia Public Ledgerand later joined the State Department.

In 1918 President Woodrow Wilson took Bullitt with him to attend the Paris Peace Conference. Bullitt and six other diplomats soon resigned protesting the terms of the Versailles Treaty. “This isn’t a treaty of peace,” wrote Bullitt. “I can see at least eleven wars in it.”

President Roosevelt appointed Bullitt as the American ambassador to France in 1936. Bullitt witnessed the storm clouds of war building across Europe. Four years later, when the French government left Paris on June 10, 1940, the streets were silent. The stores were shut. The French left Bullitt, an American, in charge of Paris.

As he attended a prayer service two days later at Cathedral of Notre Dame, Bullitt was seen weeping for the city that he loved. The Secretary of State urged him to leave Paris, but Bullitt believed it his duty to stay and take a stand. Paris was surrounded by the German army. When a Frenchmen fired on German truce officers on the outskirts of Paris, the Germans ordered an all-out air and artillery assault to destroy Paris the following morning.

Bullitt had only a few hours to save one of Europe’s greatest cities. Two and a half hours before Paris was to be destroyed, Bullitt persuaded the Germans to call off the attack His intervention spared the City of Lights. He took a stand and made a difference. One of the greatest things that you can ever do in your life is to stand and make a difference.

Sometimes evil lurks on the horizon, and we can see it slowly advancing. We saw it with Hitler and Stalin. We have watched it recently in Syria and see it in Russia, China, North Korea and Egypt. Other times, evil bursts out of nowhere without warning as it did on Friday when a psychologically deranged young man killed 26 people – most of them children. It was the second worst school massacre in US history. “Our hearts are broken today,” said President Obama. He spoke for all of us.

“Evil visited this community today,” said the governor of Connecticut. He was right. Innocent children had their lives cut short. This morning, I ask you, “Can we take a stand? Can we make a difference to prevent senseless violence?”

In response to a reporter’s question about whether this was an appropriate time to speak about gun control, President Obama said, “Today is not the day.” I admire many aspects of our President, but I think that he was categorically wrong. We keep postponing the conversation about gun control. To speak about it now is not to politicize the shootings or to take advantage of them for any reason, it is rather to say we must stop this madness. We must take a stand.

How long can we live in denial? How long can we shed our collective responsibility? How long can we allow our elected congressman, senators, governors and president to be more focused on re-election than protection, on securing campaign funds than securing our children’s safety, and on kowtowing to the National Rifle Association instead of doing the right thing?

Friday’s attack comes after a year of fatal shootings in movie theaters, shopping malls, street corners and city sidewalks across America. Since the Columbine High School shooting in 1999 there have been over 40 school massacres in our country and hundreds of potentially similar acts that were stopped before they were carried out. Have we grown so accustomed to reading and watching violence that we expect it to be part of our daily life and even school life?

I for one am sickened by our country’s proclivity for weapons and violence. We feast on violent films, police shows and violent video games such as Assassin’s Creed, which shows you how to load assault weapons and kill, and we wonder why psychologically disturbed Americans mimic what they see and what we know to be wrong. The problem is complex. It involves an entertainment industry that grows rich on providing violent content. We are wrong to purchase, and we are wrong to watch it. It involves how we fail to care for the fragile and psychologically disturbed, to identify people who could be dangerous and reach out to help them.

There are complexities involved in protecting people’s freedom while insuring that they cannot harm others. We have to do a better job. I believe that we must also develop stronger gun laws. The killer in Newtown fired over a100 rounds of ammunition in a few minutes. No one should be allowed access to guns that can do such damage. His mother was also culpable for owning and not securing weapons of such force and taking her son often to a shooting range.

Our Founding Fathers never dreamed of assault weapons and this kind of firepower we now have when they called for the right to bear arms in the Constitution. You and I can go out and buy a semi-automatic weapon today quicker and easier than renewing our driver’s license. American politicians are silent and impotent on this issue. They are in the pocket of the NRA. I am told that starting halfway across Pennsylvania our commonwealth becomes ultra conservative with hunters who won’t support any gun control. Do we lack the spine to stand up to them and make a difference?

Each year 100,000 Americans are shot by a bullet, and 30,000 of them die. We grieve that more than 50,000 Americans died in Vietnam, but every two years more Americans die from gun violence. It is senseless. Our nation is pouring billions of dollars into protecting our citizenry from terrorism, yet our own citizens are terrorizing us with guns.

Thirty years ago, I worked as a police reporter. I had an office at the newspaper and one at the police department. On my office wall at the police department was a poster with a red, white and blue revolver. It read, “Last year, handguns killed six persons in England, two in Scotland, five in France, 11 in Germany, 14 in Australia, and 23,431 in the United States. God bless the United States.”

One day, I attended a gun show as a reporter and slid my reporters pad into my pocket. “Looking for an automatic weapon, buddy,” asked one gun dealer. “This is a semi-automatic weapon, but a guy over there sells a kit that can make this into go automatic.” Another dealer tried to sell me a device that would allow me to launch a grenade from a rifle. No citizen should have these things – not one.

Gun dealers are a danger to our society, and I deeply regret not having done more as a priest to speak out and do more to prevent violence. Hillary and I are meeting on Tuesday with local clergy who have committed to address this issue. We want your ideas about how we can make a difference. Tell us how we can work together to make a difference.

What if we could start a movement with churches to promote gun control? What if we took a stand? Could we make a difference? Like Ambassador Bullitt intervening to spare the City of Light, could we do the right thing? We launched The Bible Challenge in 2011. Today, over 2,000 churches in 30 countries are participating. Could we do something similar for gun control?

Our church in particular and Episcopalians in general are great with outreach. We serve the poor, and we brighten futures. Working to change society and pass legislation, however, is slow, unglamorous work. It doesn’t bear quick fruit or make us feel good overnight. We may wait for years to see any result. Waging war on guns is an action that we must do together. Can we take a stand? Can we make a difference?

I was at a party several years ago with Governor Rendall, and we spoke about how politicians and churches could work together to reduce violence. He agreed. I gave him my card. He promised to have someone contact me. I never heard a word. Like most politicians I think he lacks the courage to stand up to the National Rifle Association.

The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America. I believe that the NRA is a force for evil. Jesus knew that evil is often masked as something good. When the NRA lobbied to stop the government from banning “cop killer bullets,” I knew that they were immoral. Every NRA supporter must bear collective responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans each year.

While it may not cheer you to hear a sermon like this before Christmas and I don’t relish doing it, we must use our pulpits to speak out. Jesus must be shocked by our inability to speak and act. The Prince of Peace is meaningless in a world that has succumbed to violence. Who wants to join a church that doesn’t fight for things that are right? Can we take a stand? Can we make a difference?

The prophet Zephaniah writes, “I will remove disaster from you…. I will deal with your oppressors…. I will save the lame, and gather the outcast and I will change their shame into praise.” These words ring hallow unless we work for safety and call our politicians to accountability, demand that they reach across the aisle and do what is best for our nation.

Without being prophetic, the Church is impotent. For too long we have majored in minor issues while being silent on the big topics of our day – topics like the proliferation of weapons, the possibility of nuclear destruction, human trafficking, HIV/AIDS that kills 1,800,000 people each year and the gross inequality of wages where an athlete, entertainer or executive can earn $25,000,000 a year while a worker cannot feed his family. Is there no accountability, no shame, no guilt and no moral compass left in America? Can we take a stand? Can we make a difference?

If the crowds were to ask John the Baptist today, “What should we do?” John would say, “If you have a politician who won’t support gun control, vote him out of office. If you have church leaders who fail to do what is right, don’t follow them. If you know someone who thinks that individuals should be able to own assault weapons, tell them they are immoral. Jesus would never pack a weapon. If you know someone who is mentally unstable and dangerous, warn others and insure that they get help. Can we take a stand? Can we make a difference?

Jesus condemned violence at all times. He chastised a follower lifting a sword to strike an oppressor and immediately healed the injured party. Jesus died rather than fight his oppressors. That is our ultimate role model.

The media does not help. The press refuses to print positive stories about the Church. The Philadelphia Inquirer no longer has a religion reporter, but scores of sports reporters. What does that say about our culture?

Years ago, James Forbes, one of America’s greatest preachers preached at the consecration of an Episcopal bishop. He said that when he was a child his mother took him to attend a bishop’s consecration that was held in a big athletic center because there were too many people to fit into the cathedral. During the service, the man who was being made a bishop knelt down alone. The bishops stood around him in a circle and placed their hands on him. Forbes could not see what they were doing. He leapt to his feet and shouted, “Mama, mama, what are they doing?” She said, “Son, they are taking out his spine.”

Do you have a spine? Does the Church have backbone? Can we take a stand? Can we make a difference? My friends, on this Third Sunday of Advent which we call “Stir Up Sunday” because the Church calls our faith to stir us up, the Church doesn’t need anymore spineless politicians. We don’t need any more church leaders or Christians without a backbone. What we need are people who have the courage to take a stand and to make a difference. The Prince of Peace is coming. Smooth out the valleys. Straighten out the crooked roads. Prepare his way.

Will you stand up and make the world safer? Only if you say, “Yes,” and mean it in your heart and do something about it, can we utter the words of the prophet Isaiah and trust in them when he says, “Comfort, O comfort, my people” and know that comfort will come to us and to our nation. Amen.

From here.

Dems Bristle at Obama-Holder Botched Gun Operation

Four House Democrats have suggested that they'll break ranks and join Republicans to vote against Holder for his refusal to turn over documents related to Operation Fast and Furious.

Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah was the first to cross the party line, announcing his intention on Tuesday. Matheson, the New York Times reminds us, is running for reelection in the country’s most Republican district currently represented by a Democrat.

Reps. John Barrow of Georgia, Nick Rahall of West Virginia and Collin Peterson of Minnesota have also suggested they'll vote with Republicans. Citing unnamed sources, Fox News reports that when all is said and done, as many as 20 House Democrats may cross the party line.

All four were among the 31 Democrats who sent a letter to Obama last year expressing their concern over how the botched gun-walking operation was handled.

Read more here.

The Problem of Guns

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

- Justice Antonin Scalia, for the majority in District of Columbia v Heller (U. S. Supreme Court 2008)

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, drafted in 1791, grants to US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. With this right come certain responsibilities, including:

• Abiding by laws and holding valid permits


• Proper training in the use of firearms


• Proper maintenance and cleaning of firearms


• Securing firearms so that they are not easily stolen or available to children


• Responsible use of firearm for competitive sharp shooting, self-defense, and for hunting.

The problem of gun violence could be dealt with more effectively if the following things were to happen:

• Make murder with a gun a capital offense, no exceptions, no reduced sentences.


• Stiffen sentences for convicted arms traffickers.

• Provide incentives for people to report suspicions of gun violence


• Restrict


• Restrict gun sales to persons age 30 or older (unless in uniform service)

Related reading:  7th Circuit Agrees with Sotomayor on Guns

Morocco and Algeria in Arms Race?

Moroccan Military Officers

22 September - Morocco and Algeria are the African countries that saw the greatest increase in arms spending during the last decade. The arms race sparks fear about a new conflict over Western Sahara.

According to new data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a think tank that collects data on international arms transfers, total military expenditure in Africa in 2009 was US$ 27.4 billion. Out of this, North Africa spent US$ 10 million in arms last year.

Military expenditure has been increasing all over Africa during the last decade. Indeed, by 2009, spending had increased by 62 percent compared to 2000 on a continental scale. This increase is however relatively low, compared to all other regions than Europe.

In an African context, the North is standing out, together with oil producing nations. Over the last decade, military expenditure increased by 107 percent in North Africa, compared to 42 percent in sub-Saharan Africa, SIPRI figures reveal.

African oil producers stand for the largest part in the increased military expenditure on the continent during the last decade. On top, the new oil producer Chad has increased its spending on arms by an incredible 663 percent. In sub-Saharan Africa, oil producers Nigeria (101 percent increase) and Angola (40 percent) remain the biggest arms spenders, next to South Africa.

In the North, two countries stand out as large arms spenders with rapidly growing defence budgets. Morocco increased its military expenditure by 127 percent from 2000 to 2009, according to SIPRI. Neighbour and foe Algeria at the same time increased spending by 105 percent.

Algeria and Morocco, even before the increased spending during the last decade, both were among Africa's top-three spenders on military equipment. The increase therefore even strengthens the ongoing arms race between the two neighbours.

The accelerating arms race came during a decade when the conflict over Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara was deepening. While earlier peace deals have collapsed and new negotiations came at a stalemate, the exiled Saharawi government - based in Algeria - has increasingly threatened to call off the ceasefire and return to war.

While the Saharawis, since the 1991 ceasefire, are lagging strongly behind in the arms race with the Moroccans, Algeria has managed to renew its already larger and better equipped army. The Moroccan-Algerian arms race indicates that both the Rabat and Algiers governments do not exclude a future armed conflict between the two countries over the Western Sahara issue.

afrol News earlier has reported that Morocco in 2009 was to double its defence budget in real terms, reaching 16 percent of total state expenditures. The Moroccan press had calculated Morocco's defence budget for 2009 to reach Dirham 34 billion (US$ 3.5 billion); or three times the 2005 budget.

But the boost in Moroccan arms spending is mainly a reaction to Algeria's very high defence spending over decades. Algeria counted for 89 percent of total arms imports to the North African region (excluding Egypt) in the 2005-09 period and thus strongly increased its military upper hand versus Morocco, according to SIPRI.

The SIPRI report, which makes reference to afrol News' article, discusses an Algerian-Moroccan "arms race", although concluding that the scientific definition of the term "arms race" would call for data of an arms import competition during "20-30 years". However, Morocco's new military acquisitions in 2008 and 2009 were "lending weight to arms race fears."

While the SIPRI analysis expresses concerns over the increased military build-up in the Maghreb, it concludes that "the likelihood of interstate conflict between Algeria and Morocco is low." Still, SIPRI holds that "these reactive acquisitions do not contribute to an improvement in Algerian-Moroccan relations."
From here.

Nigerians Intercept Large Shipment of Weapons

Kano — SECURITY operatives attached to the Mallam Aminu Kano International Airport (MAKIA) early yesterday morning impounded a Ukrainian cargo plane loaded with a range of sophisticated weapons.

The cargo plane with registration number UR-CAK, and a crew of four was believed to be heading to Equatorial Guinea when it suddenly made a technical landing in Kano at about 2.00 a.m. yesterday.

Security sources at the airport told Vanguard that the circumstances of the landing made curious security operatives on duty to undertake a full search of the cargo plane's hold and its contents.
Vanguard further gathered that in the course of the search, the security operatives discovered ordnance of various nature and assorted sophisticated arms and ammunition in several quantities.

Consequently, all four crew members were arrested and taken out of public glare, ostensibly for questioning. Further, a Nigerian who claimed to be a clearing agent was seen making frantic moves to secure the release of the cargo plane. He was also taken into custody.

When Vanguard visited the airport yesterday afternoon, heavily armed military personnel had been deployed and have taken over the security of the airport, while the area where the Russian-built plane was parked at the hanger was cordoned off.

It was also learnt that the Air Force has been placed on alert to confront any suspicious plane that may breach the nation's airspace. Efforts to take photo shots of the Ukraine cargo plane painted in white, with red stripes was rebuffed by the security operatives.

The Airport Commandant, Group Captain Abagboyi was not available to confirm the development, while efforts to secure the comments of the Director-General of State Security Services in Kano also failed as the Director, Bello Tukur told Vanguard he was out of the city on official duty.

But an Army general who declined to be named confirmed the development to Vanguard when contacted, saying the military has commenced full investigations into the circumstances surrounding the arrival of the cargo plane and its contents in Nigeria.

Similarly, Emmanuel Ojukwu, an Assistant Commissioner of Police who is also the Force spokesman confirmed seizure of the plane by military authorities, but declined to give further details.

From here.

7th Circuit Agrees with Sotomayor on Guns

Where does Sotomayor fall on the question of gun control? Tony Mauro has this observation:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit today ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms cannot be held to restrict state gun control laws until the Supreme Court rules that the right applies to the states.

As a result, the ruling in National Rifle Association v. Chicago will likely give Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor some much-needed political cover against criticism of a similar Second Amendment ruling she joined in on the 2nd Circuit earlier this year, Maloney v. Cuomo. In that case, using the same reasoning, the 2nd Circuit panel upheld a New York ban on numchucks, weapons made of two bars joined by a cord. Today's ruling by 7th Circuit chief judge Frank Easterbrook specifically states, "We agree with Maloney." Judge Richard Posner, like Easterbrook a leading conservative on the court, joined the ruling as did Judge William Bauer.

"It can't be a big strike against her that she decided it was not in her authority to incorporate the Second Amendment against the states," said Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center, which argued in favor of incorporation in the Chicago case on the basis of the Constitution's "privileges or immunities" clause.

The Easterbrook decision noted that the Supreme Court in last year's D.C. v. Heller decision, which struck down a D.C. handgun ban, nonetheless left open whether the right to bear arms applies to state regulation. Since nineteenth century precedents that went against incorporation still stand, Easterbrook said appeals courts are not entitled to "strike off on their own." As a result, the 7th Circuit panel declined to apply Heller to laws in Chicago and Oak Park Illinois that ban the possession of most handguns. How and whether to apply a right to states is "for the justices rather than a court of appeals," Easterbrook wrote. The nine-page decision was issued a week after the case was argued.

The ruling today deepens a circuit split on the issue that will almost certainly draw the attention of the Supreme Court. While both the New York and Chicago rulings go against incorporation, the 9th Circuit's decision April 20 in Nordyke v. King did apply the Second Amendment to the states. Nordyke is under consideration for en banc review. Petitioners in the New York case, now titled Maloney v. Rice, have until June 29 to file their appeal to the Supreme Court. If that is the case the Court agrees to review to resolve the split, and if Sotomayor is confirmed as a justice, custom would keep her from participating because she ruled on it below. But if another case becomes the vehicle for the next major Second Amendment ruling, she could join in.

Read it all here.

Parting on Guns and Global Warming

Many years ago, political scientists came up with a theory that elites lead public opinion. And on some issues, they clearly do. But on some issues, they don't. Two examples of the latter phenomenon are conspicuous at a time when Barack Obama enjoys the approval of more than 60 percent of Americans and Democrats have won thumping majorities in two elections in a row. One is global warming. The other is gun control. On both issues, the elites of academe, the media and big business have been solidly on one side for years. But on both, the American public has been moving in the other direction.

Read Michael Barone's article here.

Mumbai and Gun Control

At the Jewish outreach centre, bystanders pelted the terrorists with stones in a vain attempt to ward off the attack, but had to retreat when the terrorists opened fire with automatic rifles. Our citizens were trying to ward off the terrorists with stones! I cannot think of a more extreme example of how helpless the government has rendered it's own citizens. In the absence of guns, and thus incapable of offering any resistance, they were simply like lambs to the slaughter. On that fateful day, this was a story repeated again and again all over Mumbai: unarmed civilians, slow & inept emergency services, and mindless slaughter of innocents.

But we live in a democracy; hence at the end of the day it is each one of us who is to blame. It is we the people who must ask our representatives hard questions; it is we who must bring the right to bear arms to the forefront of the political agenda. We have the power to effect change through our votes and with elections just a few months away, let us not forget the lessons of Mumbai, let us not forget those that lost their lives there, many of who could have been saved if just a few of us were armed.

As citizens it is incumbent on us to make sure we don't allow another tragedy like Mumbai to take place. As free men and women it is our responsibility to take measures to protect ourselves as best we can, using the best available tools and it's high time we demanded them as a right!

Abhijeet Singh is a software engineer and business manager. He is a chess buff and competitive rifle-shooting champion. He has lived and worked in Mumbai, and currently resides in New Delhi.

Read Singh's full commentary here.