Hagel is wrong about Israel support

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel was nominated by President Obama for defense secretary.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• In 2006, Hagel said 'the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here'


• Ari Fleischer: The support for Israel isn't because of 'intimidation,' but merit


• Polls show most Americans view Israel favorably, but don't support Iran or Palestinians


• Fleischer: Israel is a steady friend of the U.S. and a tolerant democracy

Editor's note: Ari Fleischer, a CNN contributor, was White House press secretary in the George W. Bush administration from 2001 to 2003 and is the president of Ari Fleischer Sports Communications Inc. He is a paid consultant and board member for the Republican Jewish Coalition, which opposes the Hagel nomination. Follow him on Twitter: @AriFleischer

(CNN) -- "The political reality is ... that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." -- Senator Chuck Hagel, 2006

As a result of those words and his voting record, former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's nomination has turned a decades-long, bipartisan confirmation process for secretary of defense into an acrimonious one.

While some leading figures such as the Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman and the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Rabbi Abraham Cooper say Hagel's words are borderline anti-Semitism, I'm less worried about anti-Semitism and more worried about the judgment of a potential defense secretary who thinks Israel has won support because of "intimidation," not merit.

Ari Fleischer

Israel is widely supported by the American people because Israel deserves to be supported. Israel is a lonely democratic ally and a steady friend of the United States in a dangerous and tumultuous region. Their people are like the American people -- free, independent, capitalistic and tolerant.

A Gallup poll taken last year showed 71% of the American people view Israel favorably while only 19% view the Palestinian Authority favorably and just 10% view Iran favorably.

In a Pew Research Center study last month, 50% of adults said they sympathize more with Israel in its dispute than with the Palestinians. Just 10% sympathize more with the Palestinians, while about as many (13%) volunteered that they sympathize with neither side.

Contrary to Hagel's logic, Israel doesn't enjoy widespread American support because anyone -- from any faith -- intimidated someone else; Israel earned the support of the American people because of its people's values.

Opinion: Hagel is a friend to Israel

The danger in what Hagel said is if he thinks Israel is supported on Capitol Hill because of intimidation, then it's not hard to see why Hagel is so soft in his support for our ally. He sees himself as an independent voice willing to stand up to intimidation, and he wears his anti-Israel votes as badges of honor.

But Hagel isn't independent. He's alone.

His position on Middle Eastern matters is so outside the mainstream of both parties that almost no one agrees with him.

In 2000, Hagel was one of only four senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.

Peter Beinart: What's behind Hagel nomination fight

The following year Hagel was one of only 11 senators who refused to sign a letter urging President George W. Bush to continue his policy of not meeting with Yasser Arafat until the Palestinian leader took steps to end the violence against Israel.

John Cornyn: Why I can't support Hagel

Contrary to America's longstanding bipartisan position, Hagel has called for direct talks with terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. In 2007, Hagel voted against labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the group responsible for the death of many American servicemen in Iraq, a terrorist organization.

And in 2008, he was one of two senators on the banking committee to oppose a bill putting sanctions on Iran. One of the measure's biggest backers was an Illinois senator named Barack Obama.

I'm a New Yorker and neither of my senators -- Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand -- supports Israel because someone muscled them into that position through intimidation. They both support Israel because the lobby that wants them to support Israel is an American lobby, made up of people from both parties and all religions and from people with no religion or political party at all.

But if Chuck Hagel believes that it's intimidation and not sound judgment that has caused his colleagues to support Israel, then Chuck Hagel should not be confirmed as our next secretary of defense.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ari Fleischer.

Read More..

Falcons beat Seahawks with last-second field goal

ATLANTA

Matt Bryant kicked a 49-yard field goal with 8 seconds left and the Atlanta Falcons bounced back after blowing a 20-point lead in the fourth quarter, defeating Russell Wilson and the gutty Seattle Seahawks 30-28 in an NFC divisional playoff game Sunday.

31 Photos

2013 NFL Playoffs: Divisional Playoffs

The Falcons (14-3) appeared ready to allow the biggest fourth-quarter comeback in NFL playoff history when Marshawn Lynch scored on a 2-yard run with 31 seconds left.

But Matt Ryan completed two long passes after the kickoff, setting up Bryant's winning kick and sending the Falcons to the NFC championship game for only the third time in franchise history. They will host the San Francisco 49ers next Sunday.

Wilson passed for two touchdowns and ran for another, but it wasn't enough for the Seahawks (12-6).

The rookie finished with 385 yards passing and did all he could to lead the Seahawks back from a 27-7 deficit entering the fourth quarter. When Lynch powered over in the final minute, a play set up by Wilson's brilliant scramble, Seattle celebrated like it would be moving on.

Not so fast.

Ryan, who had struggled in his first three playoff appearances, had just enough time to rally the Falcons. He hooked up with Harry Douglas on a 29-yard pass in front of the Falcons bench, and coach Mike Smith quickly signaled a timeout. Then, Ryan went down the middle to his favorite target, tight end Tony Gonzalez, a Hall of Famer-to-be playing what could've been his final game.

Gonzalez hauled in the 19-yard throw, and Smith called his final timeout with 13 seconds remaining. Instead of risking another play and having the clock run out, he sent Bryant in for the field goal try.

The Seahawks called time just before the ball was snapped, and Bryant's kick sailed right of the upright. That turned out to be nothing more than practice. The next one was right down the middle, giving the Falcons a stunning victory.

Wilson's last throw, a desperation heave into the end zone, was intercepted by Falcons receiver Julio Jones.

Read More..

Thousands Protest in Moscow Against Adoption Ban

Jan 13, 2013 10:37am

KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP/Getty Images

MOSCOW — Thousands of Russians took to the streets on Sunday to protest Russia’s new ban on adoptions to the United States.

In what organizers called the “March Against Scoundrels” they paraded down a tree-lined boulevard in central Moscow chanting “Hands off our children” and “Russia will be free.” They also carried signs with the faces of Russian politicians who approved the ban and the word “Shame” written on them.

“I am not an apologist for the U.S. I am a patriot of this country. But this monstrous law must be canceled,” leftist protest leader Sergei Udaltsov told the crowd before the march began, according to the Interfax news agency.

As usual, organizers and police disagreed on the size of the crowd. Organizers estimated between 20,000 and 50,000 people turned out. Police put the figure much lower at about 7,000, but overhead photos of the protest appear to show a crowd larger than that.

Significantly smaller protests, some consisting of just a few dozen people, took place in other cities around the country, according to Interfax. A nationwide poll taken in December by the Public Opinion Foundation found 56 percent support for the ban.

But participants in Sunday’s protests accused the ban’s proponents of playing politics with the lives of children.

The adoption ban was a late amendment to a bill retaliating for a set of human rights sanctions that President Obama signed into law in December. It cut off adoptions to the United States, one of the most popular destinations for international adoptions from Russia, starting Jan. 1.

More than 60,000 Russian orphans have been adopted by Americans since the end of the Soviet Union, according to the State Department. Many of them are sick or suffer from disabilities.

READ: Unclear Russian Adoption Ban Frustrates US Families

But Russian officials have pointed to the cases of 19 children who died after being adopted by Americans. They also noted cases in which American parents accused of abusing their adopted children received, in their view, lenient sentences.

Since the law went into effect, Russian officials have struggled to explain whether the ban would cancel 52 adoption cases that had already received court approval and were within weeks of completion. Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov said Thursday that at least some of those adoptions which had cleared the courts would be allowed to proceed, but did to say how many.

The ban was controversial even before it became law. Even though it received nearly unanimous approval from Russia’s rubber stamp parliament, prominent cabinet officials, including Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, came out against the ban. Even President Vladimir Putin himself evaded questions about it when asked during an end of year press conference.

READ: Russians Rally to Help US Adoption Mom Fighting for Child

Since the ban was approved, top Russian officials have pledged to devote more resources to reforming the country’s dilapidated orphanages and to encourage more Russians to adopt.

Sunday’s protest was organized by some of the same opposition leaders who organized last year’s anti-Putin rallies. The last such protest, held without city approval and under heavy police presence, drew relatively few people in December, suggesting the protest movement had fizzled. Protest leader and anti-corruption blogger Alexy Navalny, however, told Interfax today that he hopes the adoption ban could rally more Russians to continue protesting.

SHOWS: World News

Read More..

Abandoning Afghanistan a bad idea

U.S. Marines from the 3rd Battalion 8th Marines Regiment start their patrol in Helmand Province on June 27.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• White House aide suggested all U.S. troops could be withdrawn from Afghanistan


• Peter Bergen said the idea would be dangerous and send the wrong message


• He says U.S. has abandoned Afghanistan before and saw the rise of the Taliban


• Bergen: U.S. is seeking agreement that military will have immunity from prosecution

Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst and the author of "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden, from 9/11 to Abbottabad."

(CNN) -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai will meet with President Barack Obama on Friday to discuss the post-2014 American presence in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military has already given Obama options under which as few as 6,000 or as many as 20,000 soldiers would remain in Afghanistan after 2014. Those forces would work as advisers to the Afghan army and mount special operations raids against the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Read more: U.S. may remove all troops from Afghanistan after 2014

Peter Bergen

But on Tuesday, Ben Rhodes, the White House's deputy national security adviser, told reporters that the Obama administration is mulling the idea of removing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission finishes at the end of 2014.

This may be a negotiating ploy by the Obama administration as it gets down to some hard bargaining with Karzai, who has long criticized many aspects of the U.S. military presence and who is likely to be reluctant to accede to a key American demand: That any U.S. soldiers who remain in Afghanistan after 2014 retain immunity from prosecution in the dysfunctional Afghan court system. It was this issue that led the U.S. to pull all its troops out of Iraq in December, 2011 after failing to negotiate an agreement with the Nuri al-Maliki government.

Read more: Defense officials to press Karzai on what he needs

Or this may represent the real views of those in the Obama administration who have long called for a much-reduced U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and it is also in keeping with the emerging Obama doctrine of attacking al Qaeda and its allies with drones but no American boots on the ground. And it certainly aligns with the view of most Americans, only around a quarter of whom now support the war in Afghanistan, according to a poll taken in September.

Security Clearance: Afghanistan options emerge

In any case, zeroing out U.S. troop levels in the post-2014 Afghanistan is a bad idea on its face -- and even raising this concept publicly is maladroit strategic messaging to Afghanistan and the region writ large.

Why so? Afghans well remember something that most Americans have forgotten.

After the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, something that was accomplished at the cost of more than a million Afghan lives and billions of dollars of U.S. aid, the United States closed its embassy in Afghanistan in 1989 during the George H. W. Bush administration and then zeroed out aid to one of the poorest countries in the world under the Clinton administration. It essentially turned its back on Afghans once they had served their purpose of dealing a deathblow to the Soviets.

As a result, the United States had virtually no understanding of the subsequent vacuum in Afghanistan into which eventually stepped the Taliban, who rose to power in the mid-1990s. The Taliban granted shelter to Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization from 1996 onward.

Read more: Court considers demand that U.S. release photos of bin Laden's body

After the overthrow of the Taliban, a form of this mistake was made again by the George W. Bush administration, which had an ideological disdain for nation building and was distracted by the Iraq War, so that in the first years after the fall of the Taliban, only a few thousand U.S. soldiers were stationed in Afghanistan.

The relatively small number of American boots on the ground in Afghanistan helped to create a vacuum of security in the country, which the Taliban would deftly exploit, so that by 2007, they once again posed a significant military threat in Afghanistan.

In 2009, Obama ordered a surge of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan to blunt the Taliban's gathering momentum, which it has certainly accomplished.

Read more: Inside the Taliban

But when Obama announced the new troops of the Afghan surge, most media accounts of the speech seized on the fact that the president also said that some of those troops would be coming home in July 2011.

This had the unintended effect of signaling to the Taliban that the U.S. was pulling out of Afghanistan reasonably soon and fit into the longstanding narrative that many Afghans have that the U.S. will abandon them again.

Similarly, the current public discussion of zero U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan after 2014 will encourage those hardliner elements of the Taliban who have no interest in a negotiated settlement and believe they can simply wait the Americans out.

It also discourages the many millions of Afghans who see a longtime U.S. presence as the best guarantor that the Taliban won't come back in any meaningful way and also an important element in dissuading powerful neighbors such as Pakistan from interference in Afghanistan's internal affairs.

Read related: Afghanistan vet finds a new way to serve

Instead of publicly discussing the zero option on troops in Afghanistan after 2014, a much smarter American messaging strategy for the country and the region would be to emphasize that the Strategic Partnership Agreement that the United States has already negotiated with Afghanistan last year guarantees that the U.S. will have some form of partnership with the Afghans until 2024.

In this messaging strategy, the point should be made that the exact size of the American troop presence after 2014 is less important than the fact that U.S. soldiers will stay in the country for many years, with Afghan consent, as a guarantor of Afghanistan's stability.

The United States continues to station thousands of troops in South Korea more than five decades after the end of the Korean War. Under this American security umbrella, South Korea has gone from being one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the richest.

It is this kind of model that most Afghans want and the U.S. needs to provide so Afghanistan doesn't revert to the kind of chaos that beset it in the mid-1990s and from which the Taliban first emerged.

Read more: What's at stake for Afghan women?

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

Read More..

French air power stops Mali Islamist advance

BAMAKO: Mali's army took back a key town from Islamist rebels Saturday aided by French air power, opening a dramatic new phase in the conflict that France's leader declared is a battle against terrorism.

International momentum to wrest northern Mali back from the control of Al-Qaeda-linked groups built after the French air raids helped reclaim the front-line town of Konna, with Burkina Faso, Niger and Senegal each pledging 500 troops to an African force tasked with regaining the north.

France's President Francois Hollande declared "Operation Serval" a success, saying French air power -- deployed on Friday to stop the rebel onslaught -- had "served to halt our adversaries," and that the intervention had "only one goal which is the fight against terrorism."

"Our foes have suffered heavy losses," he said.

The battle left dozens of dead rebels strewn across the area, according to witnesses and the Malian military.

France's forces suffered one casualty, a pilot killed carrying out air raids, said French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian.

Hollande, who has struggled on the domestic front and seen his popularity hit record lows, said French forces would remain involved as long as necessary.

He sent the UN Security Council a letter asking to speed up plans to send a 3,300-strong African force into Mali.

Hollande also said that following the intervention he had ordered tightened security at home, saying France "has to take all necessary precautions" in the face of a terrorist threat.

The collapse of a nation formerly seen as a democratic success story in the region has sparked fears that northern Mali could become a launchpad for global terrorist attacks.

The Malian army said it was in full control of Konna after spending much of Saturday flushing out the last pockets of resistance following the battle, one of the worst clashes since the start of the crisis and the most significant setback inflicted on the Islamists.

Insurgents seized the town -- which is some 700 kilometres (400 miles) northeast of Bamako -- on Thursday, threatening to advance on the capital.

US officials said Washington might support France's sudden military intervention.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said he welcomed the "military assistance France has provided to the Malian Government, at their request", and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso praised the "courageous action by French troops".

But Russia's Africa envoy, Mikhail Margelov, lashed out at the French move.

"African residents aside, no one else can or should solve the continent's problems," Margelov said.

Around 60 Islamists including women in veils protested outside the French embassy in London against the intervention, holding placards that read "French army, you will pay" and "Sharia is the only solution for Mali".

Malian residents however thanked France for its support.

"The French really saved us," said thirty-something Moussa Toure in Bamako -- a remark echoed by others, including Mali's interim president, Dioncounda Traore.

France also said it had deployed troops in the capital to protect the former colonial ruler's 6,000-strong expatriate community.

The capital has remained under government control throughout the crisis, which erupted in the wake of a March 22 coup that ousted democratically elected president Amadou Toumani Toure, creating a power vacuum that allowed the Islamists to seize the vast desert north.

Since seizing the territory, about the size of France, the Islamists have destroyed centuries-old Muslim mausoleums they see as heretical and imposed an extreme form of Islamic law in the main towns, flogging, amputating and sometimes executing accused transgressors.

First regional troops could arrive Sunday

Mali's armed forces had been in disarray since the coup and seemed powerless against a rebellion of seasoned fighters, but France's shock intervention tipped the power balance.

"The helicopters struck the insurgents' vehicles, which dispersed," a Malian military source said.

In the wake of the battle, West African nations sped up preparations to send troops to join the fight against the Islamists.

Ivory Coast's African Integration Minister Ally Coulibaly said the mission was being rapidly pushed forward and that the first troops could arrive as early as Sunday.

An unclear number of West African military personnel were already on the ground in Mali.

The UN Security Council has approved a 3,300-strong African force to help Mali defeat the rebels, but it had not been expected to deploy before September.

Mali's interim administration however warned it could not afford to wait months for a game-changer.

With the situation evolving rapidly, the 15-nation Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) announced late Friday it had authorised the immediate deployment of troops.

Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki meanwhile said his country was becoming a corridor to deliver arms once used to fight former Libyan strongman Moamer Kadhafi's regime to Islamists in Mali.

"The situation in Mali has always worried us because we have begun to understand that our 'jihadists', quote unquote, have ties with these terrorist forces," Marzouki said.

His comments came as the premiers of Algeria, Libya and Tunisia sealed a pact to secure their borders against arms trafficking.

-AFP/ac

Read More..

Making job stress worth enduring

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta swears in reenlisting troops in Turkey. A survey found that military jobs tend to be the most stressful.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Marci Alboher: Annual list of most stressful jobs drew attention


• She says the right issue is whether job rewards compensate for stress


• People who take on stressful jobs that help others report satisfaction, she says

Editor's note: Marci Alboher, is a Vice President of Encore.org, a nonprofit making it easier for people to pursue second acts for the greater good. Her latest book is, "The Encore Career Handbook: How to Make a Difference and a Living in the Second Half of Life" (Workman: January 2013).

(CNN) -- A recent study with a catchy headline about the most stressful jobs of 2013 found its way to the soft hour of news this week.

The annual study by careercast.com created some buzz in the online water cooler and I was asked to appear on the "Today" show to talk about it. Colleagues e-mailed me and posted on my Facebook page about where their chosen professions ranked. My media friends couldn't help noticing that public relations professionals, reporters and photojournalists all made it into the top 10 for stress.

The "study," referred to in quotes in some of the commentary, considered some logical criteria to come up with these rankings. Proximity to risk of death (yours or others'), travel, deadlines, working in the public eye and physical demands all racked up points on the stress scale. And there's no arguing that military personnel, firefighters and police officers -- all high-rankers on the most-stressed list -- are exposed to higher stakes than your typical seamstress (holder of the second-least stressful job slot).

Marci Alboher

The job that snagged the "least stressful" slot, according to the survey, was "university professor," a designation that caused outrage among people who actually hold that job. One commenter conceded that most academic jobs don't put you in personal danger (though you can argue that point), but anyone who's ever been around professors knows that faculty politics, difficult students and pressure to "publish or perish" can cause even the most calm character to crack.

We could debate whether these designations make any sense. And whether every police officer, firefighter and member of the military faces the same amount of stress.

But let's make sure we are having the right conversation. How many people choose a profession based on how high the stress level is? And how can you measure stress objectively? If you're prone to stress, perhaps you're just as likely to feel stressed out whether you work as a librarian, a massage therapist or a commercial airline pilot (No. 4 on the stress list).

People choose their line of work for a lot of reasons. For those who are committed to making our communities and the world safer and healthier for the rest of us, minimizing stress is probably not so high on their list of criteria. And it shouldn't be. Folks who choose helping jobs that may have a high level of stress are fueled by other motivators, like wanting their work to have meaning.

They aren't deterred by the fact that their job will likely come with stress. And some people are simply by their own nature and personalities drawn to work that may be to others, dauntingly stressful. How many FBI agents do you think would prefer a gig as an audiologist (sixth-least stressful job)?

When I talk to men and women in their 50s and 60s who've decided to take on encore careers as teachers, they tell me that the work is often exhausting and stressful. They are on their feet all day, often with inadequate resources, with kids who are themselves highly stressed; even those who come from leadership roles in other sectors say they've never worked harder. Yet they almost always tell me that doing something that matters to others -- and that puts them in touch with young people every day -- compensates for the added stress.

The same is true of those tackling some of the world's most intractable problems. When I talk to Stephen and Elizabeth Alderman, whose foundation trains health-care professionals around the world to work with victims of trauma, or Judith Broder, who founded The Soldiers Project, which works with returning veterans, they rarely talk about stress. Instead they talk about how they are compelled to do what they do, because moving the needle even a fraction is better than doing nothing.

Rather than discouraging people to take on jobs that might have a lot of stress, let's instead encourage those who are designed for those jobs to do them. And let's make sure to support our friends and family members who go down these paths.

It's hard to grab headlines in the crowded space of morning television, but a good survey with a catchy title will always do that. So let's use these kinds of surveys to have the right kinds of conversations. Like why so many jobs that keep us safe and healthy, and that care for our children and the environment rarely show up on lists of the most highly compensated jobs. Now there's a conversation I'd most like to be having.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Marci Alboher.

Read More..

Haiti quietly marks 3rd anniversary of quake

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti President Michel Martelly urged Haitians to recall the tens of thousands of people who lost their lives in a devastating earthquake three years ago, marking the disaster's anniversary Saturday with a simple ceremony.

Martelly also thanked other countries and international organizations for their help after the Jan. 12, 2010 disaster.

"Haitian people, hand in hand, we remember what has gone," Martelly said as a gigantic Haitian flag flew half-mast before him on the front lawn of the former National Palace, a pile of tangled steel reinforcement bars nearby. "Hand in hand, we're remembering, we're remembering Jan. 12."

Clad in black, several dozen senior government officials gathered where the elegant white palace had stood before it collapsed in the temblor and was later demolished. Foreign diplomats and Czech supermodel Petra Nemcova, earlier named by Martelly as one of Haiti's goodwill ambassadors, were also there.

Haiti's President Michel Martelly, left, U.N. special envoy to Haiti and former President Bill Clinton (center), and Haiti's first lady Sophia Martelly attend a memorial service for victims of the 2010 earthquake, at Titanyen, a mass burial site north of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Saturday, Jan. 12, 2013.

/

AP Photo/Dieu Nalio Chery

In the speech, Martelly announced a government contest seeking designs for a monument to honor those who died in the quake. He also said the government had just released a new construction code aimed at ensuring new buildings are seismically resistant but didn't provide details.

Later in the day, Martelly, Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe and former U.S. president Bill Clinton placed a wreath at a mass burial site north of the capital of Port-au-Prince. Crosses that once spiked the makeshift grave have since vanished.

Haiti's previous presidential administration said 316,000 people were killed but no one really knows how many died. The disaster also displaced more than a million others.

A man sweeps an exposed tiled area of the earthquake-damaged Santa Ana Catholic church, where he now lives, in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Saturday, Jan. 12, 2013.

/

AP Photo/Dieu Nalio Chery

Most of the rubble created by the quake has since been carted away but more than 350,000 people still live in grim displacement camps.

Many people had hoped the reconstruction effort would have made more headway by now, but progress has been stymied by political paralysis, the scale of devastation and a trickle of aid.

Jan. 12 was observed as a national holiday the last two years to remember the quake. This year, the government said the day would no longer be a holiday but called for the Haitian flag to be flown at half-mast and for nightclubs and "similar establishments" to close.

The anniversary this year has been used by Haiti observers to criticize the reconstruction process and by foreign aid groups to promote their work and raise money.

But for some Haitians, it was just another day.

"We can't remain focused on Jan. 12th," said Asaie St. Louis, a 56-year-old teacher and devout church-goer, Bible in hand. "It's passed already."

Read More..

Poisoned Lottery Winner's Kin Were Suspicious

Urooj Khan had just brought home his $425,000 lottery check when he unexpectedly died the following day. Now, certain members of Khan's family are speaking publicly about the mystery -- and his nephew told ABC News they knew something was not right.

"He was a healthy guy, you know?" said the nephew, Minhaj Khan. "He worked so hard. He was always going about his business and, the thing is: After he won the lottery and the next day later he passes away -- it's awkward. It raises some eyebrows."

The medical examiner initially ruled Urooj Khan, 46, an immigrant from India who owned dry-cleaning businesses in Chicago, died July 20, 2012, of natural causes. But after a family member demanded more tests, authorities in November found a lethal amount of cyanide in his blood, turning the case into a homicide investigation.

"When we found out there was cyanide in his blood after the extensive toxicology reports, we had to believe that ... somebody had to kill him," Minhaj Khan said. "It had to happen, because where can you get cyanide?"

In Photos: Biggest Lotto Jackpot Winners

Authorities could be one step closer to learning what happened to Urooj Khan. A judge Friday approved an order to exhume his body at Rosehill Cemetery in Chicago as early as Thursday to perform further tests.

Lottery Winner Murdered: Widow Questioned By Police Watch Video

Moments after the court hearing, Urooj Khan's sister, Meraj Khan, remembered her brother as the kind of person who would've shared his jackpot with anyone. Speaking at the Cook County Courthouse, she hoped the exhumation would help the investigation.

"It's very hard because I wanted my brother to rest in peace, but then we have to have justice served," she said, according to ABC News station WLS in Chicago. "So if that's what it takes for him to bring justice and peace, then that's what needs to be done."

Khan reportedly did not have a will. With the investigation moving forward, his family is waging a legal fight against his widow, Shabana Ansari, 32, over more than $1 million, including Urooj Khan's lottery winnings, as well as his business and real estate holdings.

Khan's brother filed a petition Wednesday to a judge asking Citibank to release information about Khan's assets to "ultimately ensure" that [Khan's] minor daughter from a prior marriage "receives her proper share."

Ansari may have tried to cash the jackpot check after Khan's death, according to court documents, which also showed Urooj Khan's family is questioning if the couple was ever even legally married.

Ansari, Urooj Khan's second wife, who still works at the couple's dry cleaning business, has insisted they were married legally.

She has told reporters the night before her husband died, she cooked a traditional Indian meal for him and their family, including Khan's daughter and Ansari's father. Not feeling well, Khan retired early, Ansari told the Chicago Sun-Times, falling asleep in a chair, waking up in agony, then collapsing in the middle of the night. She said she called 911.

"It has been an incredibly hard time," she told ABC News earlier this week. "We went from being the happiest the day we got the check. It was the best sleep I've had. And then the next day, everything was gone.

"I am cooperating with the investigation," Ansari told ABC News. "I want the truth to come out."

Ansari has not been named a suspect, but her attorney, Steven Kozicki, said investigators did question her for more than four hours.

Read More..

Saudi execution: Brutal and illegal?

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Saudi authorities beheaded Rizana Nafeek, a Sri Lankan woman


• She was convicted of killing a baby of the family employing her as a housemaid


• This was despite Nafeek's claims that the baby died in a choking accident


• Becker says her fate "should spotlight the precarious existence of domestic workers"

Jo Becker is the Children's Rights Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch and author of 'Campaigning for Justice: Human Rights Advocacy in Practice.' Follow Jo Becker on Twitter.

(CNN) -- Rizana Nafeek was a child herself -- 17 years old, according to her birth certificate -- when a four-month-old baby died in her care in Saudi Arabia. She had migrated from Sri Lanka only weeks earlier to be a domestic worker for a Saudi family.

Although Rizana said the baby died in a choking accident, Saudi courts convicted her of murder and sentenced her to death. On Wednesday, the Saudi government carried out the sentence in a gruesome fashion, by beheading Rizana.

Jo Becker

Read more: Outrage over beheading of Sri Lankan woman by Saudi Arabia

Rizana's case was rife with problems from the beginning. A recruitment agency in Sri Lanka knew she was legally too young to migrate, but she had falsified papers to say she was 23. After the baby died, Rizana gave a confession that she said was made under duress -- she later retracted it. She had no lawyer to defend her until after she was sentenced to death and no competent interpreter during her trial. Her sentence violated international law, which prohibits the death penalty for crimes committed before age 18.

Rizana's fate should arouse international outrage. But it should also spotlight the precarious existence of other domestic workers. At least 1.5 million work in Saudi Arabia alone and more than 50 million -- mainly women and girls -- are employed worldwide according to the International Labour Organization (ILO).

Read more: Indonesian maid escapes execution in Saudi Arabia

Again according to the ILO, the number of domestic workers worldwide has grown by more than 50% since the mid-1990s. Many, like Rizana, seek employment in foreign countries where they may be unfamiliar with the language and legal system and have few rights.

When Rizana traveled to Saudi Arabia, for example, she may not have known that many Saudi employers confiscate domestic workers' passports and confine them inside their home, cutting them off from the outside world and sources of help.

It is unlikely that anyone ever told her about Saudi Arabia's flawed criminal justice system or that while many domestic workers find kind employers who treat them well, others are forced to work for months or even years without pay and subjected to physical or sexual abuse.

Passport photo of Rizana Nafeek

Read more: Saudi woman beheaded for 'witchcraft and sorcery'

Conditions for migrant domestic workers in Saudi Arabia are among some of the worst, but domestic workers in other countries rarely enjoy the same rights as other workers. In a new report this week, the International Labour Organization says that nearly 30% of the world's domestic workers are completely excluded from national labor laws. They typically earn only 40% of the average wage of other workers. Forty-five percent aren't even entitled by law to a weekly day off.

Last year, I interviewed young girls in Morocco who worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for a fraction of the minimum wage. One girl began working at age 12 and told me: "I don't mind working, but to be beaten and not to have enough food, this is the hardest part."

Many governments have finally begun to recognize the risks and exploitation domestic workers face. During 2012, dozens of countries took action to strengthen protections for domestic workers. Thailand, and Singapore approved measures to give domestic workers a weekly day off, while Venezuela and the Philippines adopted broad laws for domestic workers ensuring a minimum wage, paid holidays, and limits to their working hours. Brazil is amending its constitution to state that domestic workers have all the same rights as other workers. Bahrain codified access to mediation of labor disputes.

Read more: Convicted killer beheaded, put on display in Saudi Arabia

Perhaps most significantly, eight countries acted in 2012 to ratify -- and therefore be legally bound by -- the Domestic Workers Convention, with more poised to follow suit this year. The convention is a groundbreaking treaty adopted in 2011 to guarantee domestic workers the same protections available to other workers, including weekly days off, effective complaints procedures and protection from violence.

The Convention also has specific protections for domestic workers under the age of 18 and provisions for regulating and monitoring recruitment agencies. All governments should ratify the convention.

Many reforms are needed to prevent another tragic case like that of Rizana Nafeek. The obvious one is for Saudi Arabia to stop its use of the death penalty and end its outlier status as one of only three countries worldwide to execute people for crimes committed while a child.

Labor reforms are also critically important. They may have prevented the recruitment of a 17 year old for migration abroad in the first place. And they can protect millions of other domestic workers who labor with precariously few guarantees for their safety and rights.

Read more: Malala, others on front lines in fight for women

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jo Becker.

Read More..

Oil prices slip on profit taking

NEW YORK: World oil prices fell Friday as investors booked profits from the previous day's rally amid sluggish global economic growth.

New York's main West Texas Intermediate (WTI) contract, light sweet crude for February, settled 26 cents lower at $93.56 a barrel.

In London, Brent North Sea crude for delivery in February closed at $110.64 a barrel, down $1.25 from Thursday's close.

"Today we simply could be seeing profit taking as the oil markets have rallied over the last three weeks," Andy Lipow of Lipow Oil Associates.

Traders were facing an overbought market with no significant news to take prices higher, Robert Yawger of Mizuho Securities said.

He noted that WTI had hit the highest level in several months on Thursday, at $94.70 a barrel. The surge was largely driven by upbeat trade data from China, the world's second-biggest oil consumer.

Tim Evans of Citi Futures said rising US petroleum product inventories were to blame for Friday's price weakness.

"The rally of the past few weeks largely ignored the rising stocks," he said.

-AFP/ac

Read More..