HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
What U.S. newspapers are saying Thursday, 29 November 2001 13:00 (ET) What U.S. newspapers are saying New York Times While most New Yorkers were focused on emergencies elsewhere, the governor and the State Legislature in Albany took advantage of our distraction and passed a law designed to convert New York into a gamblers' paradise. The decision happened swiftly and covertly. There were no public hearings, and the final vote came after midnight, before an audience consisting mainly of high-priced lobbyists. The fruit of this unseemly process was an agreement that Gov. George Pataki should conduct negotiations for six new Indian-run casinos. As bargains go, it is not a good one, and Mr. Pataki and the Legislature should bail out of this package before it's too late. In the end, Mr. Pataki's casinos will cost New York far more in social problems than they can ever deliver in state or local benefits. Mr. Pataki has been pushing for casinos as part of his economic relief package for the Buffalo and Catskill regions as well as a way to boost state revenues. The new gambling complexes, including video slot machines at raceways, are supposed to keep New Yorkers' gambling dollars in the state, and supply the government with millions of dollars in a difficult economic period. Left unaddressed are the questions of who loses all that money and how much of it benefits those outside the casino doors. ... New York has had casinos on upstate Indian reservations for some time, but bringing gambling into an urban area like Buffalo and to land in the Catskills that is almost within commuting distance of New York City is another matter entirely. The governor and the Legislature have taken the state into a whole new territory, one that its citizens might not have chosen to visit if they had been consulted. Bringing more casino gambling and slot machines into the state is the sort of issue that ought to be debated in next year's gubernatorial campaign. And like any change to the State Constitution, this one deserves to be voted on by two Legislatures and then put on the state ballot for New Yorkers to have their say. Mr. Pataki and the Legislature should roll back this law before they are remembered for trying to turn New York into another Nevada. -0- Chicago Tribune Since Sept. 11, President Bush has been careful not to make threats on which he can't deliver. Example: He promised early on not to root out all terrorist groups, but rather terrorist groups with a global reach. Which is why Basque separatists in Spain and violent extremists in Northern Ireland aren't breaking much of a sweat over the war against Al Qaeda. But the president's careful calibration to date prompts a question that's growing urgent: Why have Bush and two top aides, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, been ratcheting up their warnings to Saddam Hussein? Does Bush really want to swivel U.S. military forces toward Iraq after they finish their work in Afghanistan? That would be a daunting prospect, as this page repeatedly has warned. An invasion to oust Saddam would anger many European and Arab nations now joined in the assault on terrorism. But it's also possible that Bush's saber-rattling isn't meant to set the stage for imminent war on Iraq. In truth, the only thing certain is that Washington's warnings have been too consistent to be unintended. Bush & Co. have something in mind for Saddam. The question is what. ... No one knows better than Bush that most nations in the anti-terrorism coalition have no stomach for an attack on Iraq. Many countries, especially Arab states, would view Bush as having lured them into a war on terrorism so the U.S. could settle an old grudge against Saddam. ... Squeezing Saddam deserves the high place it holds on Bush's agenda. The way Bush has chosen to squeeze in recent days has made some U.S. allies nervous, for good reason: As things stand, taking the war to Baghdad would be a mistake -- if, in fact, that's really Bush's strategy. But history is not static, and neither is Saddam. If Bush's bully pulpit throws Iraq off its game or raises world pressure on Saddam to accept weapons inspections, great. There are priorities other than pleasing allies, even war allies, at every turn. One of those priorities is keeping a dangerous Saddam Hussein in check. -0- Dallas Morning News What now? That question has become the query of the day now that the Taliban are on the run and discussions are under way about a new Afghan government. Too much thinking can breed false security, of course. The Afghan portion of the campaign against terrorism is hardly over. The treacherous part is to come: finding Osama bin Laden and dealing with the aftermath of his death or capture. Still, a debate over the next move is worthwhile. If nothing else, it focuses our minds on the task's complicated nature. All along, we have thought that the best way to envision this campaign is like the Cold War. That effort lasted 40 years. Aggressive diplomacy and military force were equal partners in the complicated game of containment. The same strategy should apply here. For instance, perhaps a bold diplomatic initiative can shake loose the wall that has arisen between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Sept. 11 has scrambled matters so much in South Asia that it is not unreasonable to think that both nations could see the benefits of a renewed peace process. The United Nations, the United States, and various coalition partners should focus on a settlement there, where the deadly combination of nuclear weaponry, intense nationalism, and religious fundamentalism have reigned long enough. Likewise, a renewed diplomatic push might finally break the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate. Patient diplomacy offers the best option in a dispute that neither side can win militarily. And who knows? A settlement based upon self-interest could have a ripple effect throughout the contentious Middle East. ... The next stage is not an either/or game. We must move forward with many strategies, being as creative with diplomacy as we are resolved with our soldiers. This war will be won neither instantly nor easily, and it will require wisdom as much as strength. -0- Los Angeles Times The many who were skeptical of U.N-sponsored talks between Afghan factions reasonably had low expectations, since feuding among brutal, corrupt warlords is what nearly destroyed Afghanistan in the 1990s. But what they didn't take into account was the sheer exhaustion of combatants and civilians alike. Combined with sufficient pressure from the United States and other countries, that war-weariness may lead to agreement on a peacekeeping force and a transitional government for Afghanistan during current talks at a German resort. As was the case in Germany after World War II, Afghanistan is recovering from a murderous regime and has a chance to rebuild the nation with other nations' money. Before the Afghans can do that, anti-Taliban groups have to agree on an effective peacekeeping force, whether an Afghan or multinational one or both. An interim government -- one that genuinely includes the Pushtuns in the south, old-line royalists and the other ethnic groups that form the Northern Alliance -- has a chance of lasting the few months until a loya jirga , a traditional assembly of tribal leaders, can meet to decide on a longer-term transition. Under the plan being discussed, the 87-year-old exiled king, Mohammad Zaher Shah, would serve as a unifying figurehead until a constitution could be written and elections could be held, in about two years. ... After 1989, when the Soviet Union's troops left Afghanistan, the United States abandoned the country and years of civil warfare erupted, eventually ushering in the draconian Taliban. This time, Western nations are rightly holding out the carrot of billions of dollars in reconstruction assistance in return for an inclusive government and civil rights for Afghan women. The U.S. has already won strategic victories in Afghanistan, but Washington must help ensure the country's future as well so that it will not become a base for terrorism again. That means sticking with the commitment well after Osama Bin Laden is gone. -0- Washington Times On the same day that Russian President Vladimir Putin bolstered his support of America's anti-Taliban campaign in Afghanistan, a Moscow court dealt a decisive blow to Russia's freedom of the press. Those two events, which occurred Monday, poignantly summarize the challenge facing the White House: getting Moscow's support for the war on terrorism while addressing Mr. Putin's demonstrated penchant for autocratic-style rule. President Bush has broad, geopolitical motivations for cultivating his increasingly close relationship with Mr. Putin -- one which transcends America's counter-terrorist initiative. Mr. Putin's decision to send in a humanitarian mission to Afghanistan, for example, will help the administration's efforts to bring stability to the country. But the White House must also carefully consider how it will broach not only Mr. Putin's assaults on press and judicial independence, but also the Kremlin's genocidal campaign against the Chechen people, which human-rights groups estimate has killed thousands of civilians. ... Given the fragility of Russia's fledgling democratic institutions, Mr. Putin's efforts to blight the independence of courts and media outlets will cause Russia fundamental, long-term problems. The White House must address these issues now, as Mr. Putin's appetite for back-door power won't dissipate on its own. ... It is therefore crucial that Mr. Bush continue to address significant U.S. concerns with Mr. Putin while continuing cooperation against terror. If U.S. resolve should start to slacken, then the issues overlooked today will become tomorrow's crises. -0- Washington Post Despite successes on the battlefields of Afghanistan, President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have been circumspect about claiming victory and prudent in warning of more difficult times to come. So it was jarring to hear Attorney General Ashcroft, who seemingly has fewer successes to point to, declaring that "America is winning the war on terrorism." As Mr. Bush seems to understand, Americans do not need, nor are they going to be reassured by, empty declarations of victory. Nor can such declarations substitute for answers about the more disquieting aspects of Mr. Ashcroft's investigation. The attorney general based his claim of success on a law enforcement effort that he said has been "disrupting the terrorist network in our own country" with, among other things, "arrests and detentions that have made America grow stronger, not weaker." ... Since Sept. 11, the administration has claimed for itself sweeping new powers, and been granted more by Congress. In addition to the operations described above, the government has been given new wiretap authority and has asserted the right to eavesdrop on attorney-client conversations and try suspected terrorists before military panels with little due process and no right of appeal. The administration justifies these measures on the ground that the United States is facing an unprecedented threat, as Sept.. 11 demonstrated. "Our job is to protect American lives," Mr. Ashcroft told The Post yesterday, and he said the government could do so while safeguarding the Constitution. But many Americans would like to see in an attorney general more appreciation of the risks on the other side -- the risks to American liberty, and to innocent people, when the government assumes such wide and unchecked powers. That, more than premature claims of victory, would be reassuring. -0- (Compiled by United Press International) -- Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved. -- Message: WWN-UPI-1-20011129-09493900-bc-sampler-Text Content: SRV_INTNEWS SRV_USNEWS SRV_UPIWASH Content: LEGAL POL WAR Content: 02002000 11002000 11006000 16002000 16009000 ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
