Knowledge is better than ignorance . . .

There is precisely one sense in which it is possible for me to "like" a news article that explains how the massacre at Srebrenica was, through at best wilful blindness and at worst malice aforethought, allowed to occur by the UN in general and the UK and the US in particular. Namely that it is better to know than to remain in doubt.

It was clear at the time that the UN "safe areas" had become nothing of the sort. It was also soon clear that "something bad" had happened when Srebrenica had been overrun by the Serbs. The magnitude of what happened has become clear over the years as the count of recovered bodies of the victims have mounted. Now, the long suspected if not understood but relatively unspoken "why" has been laid out for all to read.

It is good to see comprehensive descriptions and analyses of what and why Srebrenica was allowed to occur. It is even better that confirmation of what was often "wondered at" by many has been published while many of those involved in the decision making process are still alive.

How Britain and the US decided to abandon Srebrenica to its fate (article by Florence Hartmann and Ed Vulliamy in The Guardian July 4, 2015)

Le sang de la realpolitik - L'affaire Srebrenica (about to be published eBook by Florence Hartmann; referenced in the above referenced article)

FLORENCE HARTMANN GUILTY FOR TELLING THE TRUTH (as if the world needed it, yet another demonstration of what happens to whistleblowers)

Srebrenica_massacre (Wikipedia's article on the Srebrenica massacre)

Srebrenica massacre (Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the Srebrenica massacre)

Serbia asks Russia to veto UN resolution that calls Srebrenica massacre ‘genocide’ (article by "Staff" on the GlobalNews.ca site July 4, 2015)

The new Indiana religious freedoms law really is both 'different' and troubling

The attached article provides an excellent explanation of what makes the new Indiana religious freedom law really quite different than the US federal religious freedom law and the other US state-level religious freedom laws.

In summary (read the article for important details), the new Indiana religious freedom law is different in two important ways:

1. the law allows "religious freedom" to be used as a claim or a defence in an action involving only non-governmental parties (i.e. one private party can sue another private party where the party suing claims that its "religious freedoms" have been infringed or a private party being sued by anyone else can argue that its "religious freedoms" are being infringed). All of the other religious freedom laws only apply if at least one of the parties in the lawsuit is a government entity.


2. the Indiana law protects religious practices “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 

The first difference is what allows a store to refuse service to a private individual or entity who "offends" the store owner's "religious freedoms" (the obvious current era example would be a bakery refusing to provide a wedding cake for a same sex marriage on the grounds that the store owner's religion prevents them from serving homosexuals). The second difference allows claims or defences based on even somewhat "fringe" religious beliefs to be used in court.

These two aspects of the law should come together to provide all sorts of "entertainment opportunities" for court watchers in the coming months (assuming that the law survives that long in the face of the growing "boycott Indiana" movement).

For example, consider a situation where a store owner is faced with a devout Muslim lady wearing a niqab. Should the store owner refuse to serve the Muslim lady, they could find themselves the target of a lawsuit based on the new Indiana religious freedom law. The Muslim lady would be able to use the law to argue that her religious freedoms have been infringed since her decision to wear a niqab is at least encouraged if not, from her perspective, mandated by her religion. In contrast, the store owner will find it difficult to use the same law to defend their right to refuse service to niqab-wearing Muslim ladies as I doubt that there are many if any religions which prohibit or even discourage on religious grounds the wearing of unusual clothing including clothing which happens to cover one's face. I should add that the store owner may be able to successfully argue that they have an overriding need to be able to identify malfeasants on security camera video should a niqab wearing Muslim lady decide to rob the store.

One last aspect of this situation is also likely to provide even more "entertainment". It is my understanding that the US Supreme Court has long considered the US Constitution's Establishment Clause to prohibit US courts from delving into the question of what a particular person's religious beliefs actually require. For example, there have been various successful attempts to exercise a pastafarian's right to wear a colander on their head during swearing in ceremonies and on their drivers licenses (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2747880/Pastafarian-allowed-wear-spaghetti-strainer-head-driving-licence-photo-classed-religious-headgear.html).

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/30/3640374/big-lie-media-tells-indianas-new-religious-freedom-law/

John McCain's 2014-12-09 response to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on CIA interrogation methods

John McCain's 2014-12-09 response to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on CIA interrogation methods.

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/12/floor-statement-by-sen-mccain-on-senate-intelligence-committee-report-on-cia-interrogation-methods

On the United States' failure to "do the right thing" regarding its commission and coverup of officially sanctioned acts of torture . . .

So the country of Jefferson and Franklin, of Washington and Lincoln, of Franklin Roosevelt and others now finds itself orchestrating and defending the coverup of what can only be described as crimes against humanity. Two successive administrations have essentially rationalized these crimes on the grounds that a U.S. President said that they were legal. By defending and covering up these clearly criminal and immoral acts, the U.S. has conceded the moral high ground on any number of issues for years and years to come.

The only good news is that both the infliction of torture and the coverup of torture are defined by international treaty to be crimes of universal jurisdiction. While the vast majority of the hundreds if not thousands of Americans involved in the infliction of torture or the coverup of torture may choose to avoid foreign travel for the rest of their lives, eventually someone will make a mistake and be arrested and put on trial by a country somewhere in the world which has the moral fortitude to call a spade a spade.

The sooner that day comes, the better . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/opinion/after-report-on-cia-torture-no-more-disclosure.html