The first of more than 100 countries have begun signing a treaty to ban current designs of cluster bombs, at a conference in Oslo, Norway.

Campaigners are hailing the treaty as a major breakthrough.

But some of the biggest stockpilers, including the US, Russia and China, are not among the signatories.

First developed during World War II, cluster bombs contain a number of smaller bomblets designed to cover a large area and deter an advancing army.

But campaigners, including some in the military, have long argued they are outmoded and immoral because of the dangers posed to civilians from bombs that do not explode and litter the ground like landmines.

As 104 States sign cluster bomb ban, funds for overall UN de-mining languish

Dmitry Titov

4 December 2008 –

While 104 countries in Oslo signed an historic United Nations-sponsored treaty formally renouncing the use of cluster bombs, the larger effort to rid the world of all ordnance that kill and maim thousands of people years after they are laid is facing a gigantic shortfall, with less than 5 per cent of funding secured so far for 2009.

“Without full donor support many of Mine Action initiatives will have to be cancelled and more civilians will be at risk of losing limbs, lives and livelihood,” Assistant Secretary-General for Rule of Law and Security Institutions Dmitry Titov told a news conference in New York, presenting the $459-million UN Mine Action Service portfolio for next year, with only $22 million raised so far.

Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:39pm

By Juan Lagorio

NEW YORK, Nov 26 (Reuters) - The bailout of Citigroup has made people in New York angrier than they were about any of the other government rescues of financial institutions this year. ................

"They were bailed out before, this is the second bailout, so what's going on? Are they going to ask for another bailout soon?" asked Cheril Nichols, a 50-year-old nurse from New Jersey.

"It is wasteful, very wasteful," said retiree William Dwyer, 70.

Earlier this week, the U.S. government announced an injection of $20 billion for Citigroup Inc (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and a plan to shoulder most of its potential losses on $306 billion of toxic assets, after the bank's shares sank more than 60 percent in the previous week due to concern about its ability to survive.

The $20 billion of government capital comes after a $25 billion injection last month.

In effect, the government has pledged about $1,000 per American to guarantee the bank's assets.

"This is not the right thing to do. They (the U.S. government) should help the people, not the big companies," said Renu Malconi, 38, from New Jersey.

.................................
In exchange for the bailout, Citigroup slashed its quarterly dividend and cannot raise it for three years without U.S. consent. But taxpayers want more sacrifices from the bank's board and top management.

"It's ridiculous. If I did as poorly as they did in my job, I would be out of the job, so why are they not accountable?" said Mike Delibero, an IT salesman.

The frustration on the streets of New York was echoed by two of New York's major daily newspapers, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post, which slammed the board of Citigroup on Tuesday with calls for all or many of its directors to quit or be removed.

The Post on Wednesday ran a series of letters from readers, all of them harshly criticizing the bailout and Citigroup's former and current executives and board members.

High salaries, seven-figure bonuses and an agreement for the bank to pay $400 million to name the New York Mets baseball team's new stadium Citi Field haven't helped sentiment.
.............................................................

After several calls, no Citigroup officials were available for comment. (Reporting by Juan Lagorio; Editing by Gary Hill)

Concerns about deployment of military on U.S. soil growing

Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if you notice a post which violates our general rules.

......................Yes, there are laws against military policing on US streets -- they are part of both the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1879's Posse Comitatus Act -- but the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gutted them.

Congress restored some limitations on the President's ability to deploy troops to engage in military policing in 2008 -- but President Bush issued a signing statement declaring he did not feel bound by those limitations. He also can direct these troops -- and the National Guard, and Blackwater -- to engage in military policing of civilian populations simply by verbally and unilaterally declaring a national emergency of whatever kind he wishes.

Unfortunately, the US Army spokespeople are parsing their words and misleading us. And, whatever the stated mission is today, the fact remains that military up the chain of command report to the Commander in Chief -- not to Congress or to you and me, and not to the Governors as most of the National Guard do.

Why do I insist on raising an alarm about this deployment in spite of a great deal of opposition and criticism? (Though I am grateful, too, for a great deal of support.) I insist on raising an alarm because I am aware of world events and not just blinded by American recent history........................
SOURCE