Jumat, 30 September 2016

Shimon Peres: A Final Farewell - Newsweek

At the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin, the former prime minister's longtime partner and rival, Shimon Peres, looked out at the sea of dignitaries who came to pay their respects and allegedly quipped: "He beat me again!"

Peres lived for more than 25 years after Rabin passed and historians will dispute who contributed more to Israel's history. However, on Friday on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem, on a warm and sunny day, Peres received the funeral he would have wanted. From the moment word spread[1], shortly after his death, that U.S. President Barack Obama would be attending, it was clear Peres would receive the type of memorial that the last leader of his generation deserved. 

Since it became clear that Peres was dying, there has been a melancholy feeling throughout Israel. At the funeral ceremony, Peres's son, Yoni shared that when he asked his father what he wanted to be inscribed on his tombstone, the 93-year-old Peres answered without hesitation: "Went Before His Time." Most Israelis probably chuckled when they heard this remark, but their real concern is (as one person told me this morning in Tel Aviv), the fact "we have no one to replace him and his generation." 

I spoke to Isaac "Bougie" Herzog, head of the the country's political opposition and someone who has known Peres almost all his life. Herzog's father was one of Peres's close friends and worked with the former president in many different roles. Last night, he lamented that Israel was faced with the same problem the U.S. had had after the founding fathers were gone. I mentioned that that situation did not necessarily go well then for the U.S., and Herzog replied that was Israel's challenge today: How does the nation move forward without great leader?

Before the funeral began, members of the Joint Arab List, an alliance of Arab parties in Israel, announced they were not going to attend the funeral. "The memory of Peres among the Arab public is different than the narrative discussed in the past few days, and I understand that complex messages such as these are hard to hear the moment after a person dies," said Ayman Odeh, the group's chairman told the press[3] on Thursday. "To Peres's credit, he pursued peace while building a partnership with members of the Arab public, and the evidence is that 90 percent of the Arab public voted for him in the 1996 elections." Yet "there is strong opposition in Arab society," Odeh added, "to the architect of the occupa tion who introduced nukes to the Middle East, and I regret that as president he elected to support Netanyahu and his policies." The decision of the Arab List not to attend the funeral was met by universal condemnation across the Israeli political spectrum. Even those who naturally sympathetic to the group were perplexed and disappointed by the decision.

The other Arab members of the Knesset, Israel's parliament, however, were present—as was Abu Mazen, head of the Palestinian Authority, despite pressure from his base. In death, Peres accomplished something that has eluded Obama and other world leaders for years: He brought Abu Mazen and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the same place.

As the funeral began, Peres's daughter Tzvia talked about her two fathers—the public one and the private one; the dad and the politician. She shared moving stories about the private Peres, who few knew well. But what differentiated the speeches were those that spoke referred to Peres the man and those that talked more about his ideas. Both Netanyahu and President Reuven Rivlin gave moving speeches about the man. They commended Peres's immense contributions to Israel's defense, while carefully dancing around the issue of the Dimona nuclear facility. Rivlin gave tribute: "To your last moments, you believed in peace—but that we must have both a strong military, as well as a strong democracy to attain peace."

09_13_SS_Shimon_Peres_14 Shimon Peres, shown here in an archive portrait from 1981, died on Wednesday morning local time at a Tel Aviv area hospital. GEORGES GOBET/AFP/Getty

Netanyahu spoke of much of the same about Peres: "You gave us a protective shield that will last for generations but at the same time never stopped working for peace," he said. In a rare, and seemingly candid moment, the prime minister said that he and Peres had disagreed on many things, but in a way, they were both right: Israel needs to be strong, but only peace can bring real security. Netanyahu's eulogy was personal, as he spoke of his close connection to Peres, which started more than 40 years ago, when Peres gave the eulogy for his brother, Yoni, after the Entebbe operation. They were once rivals, Netanyahu said, but had become close friends. "Shimon, you once said, one of the few times you cried was when you heard my brother had been killed," Netanyahu said. "Today, I cry for you. I loved you!"

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton spoke next, and transitioned from Peres the man to Peres the visionary. Clinton told the crowd how Peres always looked toward the future, how he was always interested in what it could bring. The former president ended his speech by recalling Peres 80th birthday party, ended with a Jewish-Arab choir singing John Lennon's "Imagine." Peres, he explained, could always imagine all people living in harmony, and now Clinton said, it was time for the world to do the same.

Next was Amos Oz, Israel most renowned living author. He had been a friend of Peres for 40 years. He spoke about when they first met four decades ago, on Kibbutz Hulda (where Oz lived at the time). He noted that Peres was a hawk back then and how they argued for hours. Oz talked about Peres's greatest secret—that he was naïve enough to try to accomplish what no one else dared attempt. Oz spoke was the first to directly tackle the failure of the peace process when he said there is no choice, but to reach peace, since neither Israel, nor the Palestinians are going anywhere. On the other hand, he said, the two sides are not going to suddenly start loving each other. Therefore, the only solution is to split our home, and become a two-family house. Oz ended by divulging that for years, at 5 p.m. on Fridays, he and Peres would speak on the phone for an hour (about the state of the country and what could be done.) Oz promised that as long as he was alive, those conversations would continue.

09_14_Peres_Obit_01 Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres, then Israel's foreign minister, shake hands in Davos, Switzerland, on January 29, 1994. While not as glamorous as the military heroes Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin, Peres and his accomplishments were every bit as important to the new state of Israel, Marc Schulman writes. reuters

President Obama spoke last. It says something about the unique relationship between Israel and the United States, that the final eulogy at the state funeral, for someone who is considered the last of the country's founder fathers was given by an American leader. Obama began his remarks by recognizing Abu Mazen for coming and for reminding the audience that there is "unfinished business of peace." 

He then told the story of Peres's life, starting from the moment he left Poland—when his grandfather told him: "Shimon, stay a Jew." Peres was still a teenager "when his grandfather was burned alive by the Nazis in the town where Shimon was born," Obama said "The synagogue in which he prayed became an inferno. The railroad tracks that had carried him toward the Promised Land also delivered so many of his people to death camps."

Obama later spoke about the tremendous contributions Peres made toward Israel's defense, as well as his moves towards peace: "I knew that his pursuit of peace was not naïve," the president said. "He [Peres] understood, in this war-torn region, where too often Arab youth are taught to hate Israel from an early age—he understood just how hard peace would be. " Obama reminisced how Peres had once told him that "we [Israel] had won all of our military victories, but had not won the one victory toward which we continue to aspire—to be released from the need to win anymore military victories." The Jewish people, Obama quoted Peres as saying, were not made to rule another.

It was a moving speech, and one that was very well received by most Israelis observers.  A well known commentators said that if only he had come here in 2009 and given that speech the history of the Middle East might have been different. But in an embarrassing after note on Friday, the White House Press Office sent out a correction to the transcript of the President's remarks. Those remarks listed the location of the ceremony as Mount Herzl, Jerusalem, Israel. The correction crossed Israel out.

During Obama's prior visit, the White House was careful to only write Jerusalem as the location of his events. Mt. Herzl is in West Jerusalem in the area that was part of the country prior to 1967, but according to the original United Nations partition plan, Jerusalem was intended to be an international city, not a divided one. The U.S. has never de jure recognized any part of the city as Israel, while de facto doing business in Jerusalem as if it is.

Marc Schulman is the editor of HistoryCentral.com

Try Newsweek: Subscription offers[4]

References

  1. ^ word spread (europe.newsweek.com)
  2. ^ (europe.newsweek.com)
  3. ^ told the press (www.haaretz.com)
  4. ^ Try Newsweek: Subscription offers (www.newsweek.com)

California toughens laws against rape after Brown signs bills inspired by Brock Turner case - Los Angeles Times

Months after outrage over the six-month sentence for sexual assault given to former Stanford swimmer Brock Turner, Gov. Jerry Brown[1] on Friday broadened the power of judges to treat sex crimes as rape at sentencing and agreed that the crime's punishment must include time in state prison[2].

< p>The governor's decision to sign the two bills, AB 701 and AB 2888, comes as heated debate raged this year over what's been called the mishandling of sexual assault investigations on U.S. college campuses and by police agencies and courts. But strengthening punishment for sex offenders posed a challenge for Brown, as the state undertakes a broader effort to move away from a focus on prison sentences. 

Brown released a message with the bill that provides mandatory minimum sentences for additional sex crimes cases, saying he was generally opposed to such a proposal. 

"Nevertheless, I am signing AB 2888, because I believe it brings a measure of parity to sentencing for criminal acts that are substantially similar," he said.

The bills' supporters lauded Brown's approval, saying the harsher consequences for sex crimes help strengthen a criminal justice system that often fails and places blame on victims. At a news conference at the Santa Clara County district attorney's office, state and local leaders said the bills' passage was an example of government working.

"The national awakening about campus sexual assaults started by Emily Doe's powerful letter continues to grow, changing our minds and our laws," Santa Clara Dist. Atty. Jeff Rosen later said in a statement on the victim impact statement in the Turner case. "While prisons are not appropriate for every person convicted of a crime, rapists belong in prison." 

But some crime victim advocates and associations said the new laws will disproportionately affect poor and minority defendants who receive little or no legal representation. Natasha Minsker, director of the ACLU of California Center for Advocacy and Policy, called the sentencing bill a well-intentioned measure, but said it would only create more injustices within a flawed criminal justice system.

"Those who will bear the brunt of this law wi ll be defendants whose parents can't afford to hire the best attorneys money can buy, defendants who take plea deals for a lesser sentence even if they are innocent because they know judges won't have any discretion during sentencing, and defendants who are mentally ill or who themselves suffered from severe sexual abuse," Minsker said in a statement.

Political observers had questioned what action Brown would take. As governor in 1977, he signed into law a strict sentencing system. But he has since said he regrets those policies and has spoken out against implementing other tough-on-crime measures in recent years.

On Wednesday, Brown signed a bill[3] by state Sen. Connie Leyva (D-Chino) that was filed in the wake of sexual assault allegations against comedian Bill Cosby, which removes the statutes of limitations for specified sex crimes. But he rejected another proposal[4] this week that would have imposed minimum fines and mandatory-minimum county jail terms for people convicted of buying sex.

Inspired by accusations against Bill Cosby, California lawmakers move to lift time limits on rape cases »[5]

Debate is now likely to turn to the governor's closely watched November ballot measure, which would allow some inmates serving time for nonviolent crimes to more quickly become eligible for parole.

Both proposals signed Friday will go into effect Jan. 1. They were filed after Turner was sentenced to six months in jail[6] and three months probation for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman. He was released after three months of incarceration.

The light punishment provoked outrage nationwide and has since sparked a campaign to recall[7] Santa Clara Judge Aaron Persky, who presided over the case.

Assembly Bill 2888[8] will prohibit a judge from handing a convicted offender probati on in certain sex crimes such as rape, sodomy and forced oral copulation when the victim is unconscious or prevented from resisting by any intoxicating, anesthetic or controlled substance.

Assemblymen Evan Low (D-Campbell) and Bill Dodd (D-Napa), who coauthored the bill, have said the legislation closed a loophole in sentencing guidelines. 

"This sends the strongest possible message that rape is rape, and in California, if you do the crime, you're going to do the time," Low said in a statement Friday. "Judge Persky's ruling was unjustifiable and morally wrong, however, under current state law it was within his discretion. While we can't go back and change what happened, we have made sure it never happens again." 

Currently under the law, those convicted of rape using physical force must serve prison time. But offenders like Turner who are convicted of sexually assaulting someone who is unconscious or incapable of giving consent because they are intoxicated, can receive a lesser sentence based on a judge's discretion.

The other bill, Assembly Bill 701[9] by Assemblywomen Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) and Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton), will expand the legal definition of rape[10] so it includes all forms o f nonconsensual sexual assault when a judge is deciding the sentence of a defendant and connecting victims with services.

Rape has previously been defined as "an act of sexual intercourse" under certain conditions of force, duress or lack of consent. Other types of sexual assault, such as penetration by a foreign object, were categorized as separate offenses. 

Garcia said she was moved to file the bill when reading the impact statement written by the victim in the Turner case. The victim was not allowed to call the crimes committed against her "rape" under California's laws.

"I wanted to make sure that one piece was righted," Garcia said. "There is a lot of work we still have to do to end rape culture in our country. But calling rape what it is, is a great first step."

In Santa Clara, Alaleh Kianerci, who prosecuted the Turner case, told reporters that when she asked Emily Doe if she would share her letter[11] with the community, she did not know "it would be the world."

jazmine.ulloa@latimes.com[12]

Follow @jazmineulloa[13] on Twitter

 

ALSO

Heated debate over tougher punishment for sex crimes as some worry it could unfairly affect California's minorities [14]

California could soon expand the definition of rape as a result of the Stanford sexual assault case [15]

Updates on California politics[16]

Can Alabama Finally Move on From a Decade of Controversy Brewed by One Man's Hate? - Slate Magazine

Protesters at Judge Roy Moore's hearing.
Protesters at Judge Roy Moore's hearing in Montgomery, Alabama.

Ashley Cleek

MONTGOMERY, Alabama—Outside the Alabama Supreme Court on Wednesday, groups of protesters, who had traveled from across the country to show their support for Chief Justice Roy Moore, held signs declaring, "Judge Moore Is Right," "It's Not OK to Be Gay," and "Sodomy Ruins Nations." On the other side of a massive rainbow flag that served as a separating barrier, gay rights activists and their allies blasted pop music and waved signs proclaiming "#NoMoore" and "No Hate in Our State."

This week, for the second time in 13 years, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore sat in defense in his own courtroom, charged with having violated the canons of judicial ethics in his doomed quest to keep same-sex marriage out of Alabama. And on Friday, for the second time in his Supreme Court career, he was removed from the bench for ethical violations.

At the center of this trial was a four-page order Moore wrote to state probate judges in January, informing them that—regardless of what a federal judge or even the U.S. Supreme Court might say—in Alabama, marriage law remained the same and they were not to grant licenses to same-sex couples. Moore penned his order more than seven months after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, legalizing same-sex marriage across the U.S., and a little more than six months after a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ordered all of the state's 68 probate judges to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Throughout 2015 and 2016, while Moore was drafting orders and giving media interviews, the Southern Poverty Law Center was filing complaints against Alabama's chief justice to the Judicial Inquiry Commission, which decides whether a state judge has committed an ethical violation. In May 2016, the Judicial Inquiry Commission charged Moore with six ethics violations relating to his January order. Following the charges, Moore was suspended from the court (with pay) until the Court of the Judiciary issued a verdict. On Friday, that verdict came in[1]: Moore directed the state's probate judges to disobey a federal order, interfered with the legal process, and demonstrated that he, the highest judge in the state, is unwilling to follow clear law.

To his followers, Moore is a national hero, one of the last jurists in the U.S. willing to stand up to what they see as federal tyranny and the moral downfall of the country. When Moore entered the courtroom, about 100 of his supporters gave him a standing ovation. "We love you, judge," Kay Day, a longtime Moore supporter from south Alabama, yelled down to a smiling Moore.

The only witness in the hearing was Moore himself, who sat in a small, red swivel chair before a brown desk stacked with papers and exhibits. During his testimony, Moore was lively and jocular, as he was asked by his attorney to read through portions of his year's worth of memos, ending with his unconstitutional order. Moore and his lead attorney Mat Staver, of the Liberty Counsel[2], have argued that the letter was nothing more than a "status report," a chief justice responding to the questions and confusions of the state's 68 probate judges. (By the time of Moore's order, more than two-thirds of Alabama's 68 probate judges were issuing marria ge licenses to same-sex couples as required by law.)

Moore argued in his testimony that he "never told the probate judges what to do," but that his letter reiterated the fact that the Alabama law barring same-sex marriage was still in effect. "As it is today," Moore added.

"The [Judicial Inquiry Commission] can't read an administrative order," Moore argued to the chief judge of the Court of the Judiciary, Michael Joiner, who sat in Moore's former chair. Moore and his lawyer appeared to be trying to say that the administrative order merely repeated what the law in Alabama was and did not "change the status quo." In the balcony, Moore's supporters repeated his and his lawyers' admonishments of the Judicial Inquiry Commission. "This is political theater," Staver argued in an interview before the trial. Staver said that not only were the charges false but that the court itself was corrupt and on a witch hunt to get rid of the controversial chief justice. Moore's supporters compared this trial to that of Jesus by Pontius Pilate. In their retelling, Moore, of course, takes on the role of Jesus.

"I don't defy federal court orders when they're within the law," Moore argued in court. Of course, this is not how federal court orders work: Federal court orders are the law.

In cross-examination, lead prosecuting attorney, John Carroll questioned why Moore felt he alone did not have to follow "the supreme law of the land."

"What is the supreme law of the land?" Moore struck back at Carroll. The prosecutor refused to answer, and the audience in the balcony fell into a tense silence. "Debate him," Day whispered.

This is the heart of the issue. According to Moore and Staver, the decisions of Alabama's highest court are not subservient to those of a federal district judge. This goes against 200-plus years of constitutional interpretation that does put state courts below federal ones, of course.

"The state courts and the federal courts have co-equal authority," Staver argued in a phone interview before the trial. "And one does not have to follow the other if they are making a decision on the U.S. Constitution." This is not how the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution works, though.

At specific issue in this case was Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage. In 2006, Alabama amended the state constitution, with the support of 81 percent of the voters, passing the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, which legally defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

In January 2015, Judge Callie Granade, a federal judge in the Southern District of Alabama, ruled that Alabama's laws against same-sex marriage were unconstitutional and for a few brief months, Alabama became the 37th state where same-sex marriage was legal.

But immediately, Moore began a game of "constitutional chicken" with the federal courts. A few days after Granade's order, the chief justice wrote letters to Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley saying he would stand with the governor to oppose "judicial tyranny." In May 2015, Granade stayed her injunction, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court would make a decision on marriage equality.

Finally, last summer, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was now legal across the country, Granade ordered Alabama's probate judges to issue marriage licenses. "The game is over," explained prosecutor Ashby Pate to the courtroom. But Moore continued to demand that the 68 probate judges of Alabama (who are elected and not required to be lawyers) defy a federal court order and a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. That is not allowed by Alabama's judicial ethics standards, which the court settled on Friday.

During the proceedings, both sides were quick to mention Moore's removal from the bench in 2003 for violating a federal court order to remove the massive monuments of the Ten Commandments that he had directed be installed at the courthouse. (In 2012, Moore was elected back into office.)

Moore says he has never denied what happened in 2003. "It was a decision that I made," he testified. And it was a decision that brought Moore a lot of support across the state and the country. To the Christian right, Moore became a martyr willing to stand up to federal government overreach and the removal of religion from American jurisprudence. (When I sneezed in the bathroom, one of Moore's supporters said, "God bless you!" Then quickly joked, "Oh, I said God in the courthouse. I hope no one complains to the [Judicial Inquiry Commission] about me.")

For years, Moore has been clear and vocal in his opposition to gay rights and same-sex marriage. In one opinion in a 2002 custody case involving a gay mother, Moore wrote that homosexuality is "inherently immoral[3]" and that the state had the power to punish gay parents through, "confinement and even execution." Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, explained in a phone interview that Moore had placed the Ten Commandment tablets in his courtroom to indicate to all who entered "that religious law reigns supreme" in Alabama. "George Wallace used race to further his political agenda," explained Cohen. "Moore is using religion to [further] his political agenda."

Now that he's been suspended, Moore is too old to run to reclaim his position on the court once again. (There is an age limit of 70 to seek re-election for the Alabama Supreme Court, and he will be over that limit when his term expires.) His lawyer says they will appeal the court's ruling. Some of his supporters believe that Moore could run for state attorney general or governor next time around and that this verdict might serve as Moore's stepping stone to a higher level.

While Alabama voters in the recent past have supported Moore in his re-election to the state Supreme Court, that was by a small margin[4]. The turnout for this week's trial was also a markedly small group, many from out of state. So while Moore will continue to be a vocal advocate for the Christian right, it seems that his role in politics may be over. (He did once record a Christmas album[5], so maybe there 's a career change ahead?) And maybe Alabama can finally move on from more than a decade's worth of controversy brewed by one man's hate.

References

  1. ^ that verdict came in (judicial.alabama.gov)
  2. ^ the Liberty Counsel (www.slate.com)
  3. ^ inherently immoral (caselaw.findlaw.com)
  4. ^ a small margin (blog.al.com)
  5. ^ Christmas album (www.al.com)

At a Hospital in Aleppo, Evidence of a Detested Weapon - NBCNews.com

Russian-made cluster bombs — weapons that kill indiscriminately and inflict long-lasting damage — were used in an attack on at least one hospital in the ravaged Syrian city of Aleppo earlier this week, a video obtained by NBC News appears to show.

The video shows two unexploded submunitions amid the rubble at the M10 hospital in rebel-held eastern Aleppo following a Wednesday morning airstrike. Several experts and sources independently identified the devices as Russian-made ShOAB 0.5 cluster submunitions, bomblets delivered by an air-delivered scattering device called the RBK-500. Both are known to be used by both the Russian and Syrian air forces.

However, it is difficult, even for specialists in unexploded ordnance disposal, to definitively identify such munitions in the field. The ShOAB 0.5 is visually similar to a U.S.-made series of bomblets.

Image: Medics inspect the damage outside a field hospital after an airstrike in the rebel-held al-Maadi neighbourhood of Aleppo

Medics inspect the damage outside a field hospital after an airstrike in the rebel-held al-Maadi neighbourhood of Aleppo, Syria on Sept. 28, 2016.