”The religion of the people revolves around the land and our harmony with the universe and our Creator. The land is a living being, in and of itself. The land and the people are inseparable: they are one and the same,” [C. Maurus] Chino said.

”This land and the people have always been part of a sacred cycle of struggle and harmony. This is the meaning of ‘amuu han’u, aamuu haatsi’: it includes all people. It means we are responsible for the values we hold precious.”

Chino, whose Acoma name is Ka-aimaisiwa, belongs to the Eagle Clan. [from Legacy of Acoma Pueblo]

Stop This Bill Washington Post Editorial

Habeas corpus is the age-old legal process by which federal courts review the legality of detentions. In the modern era, it has been the pivotal vehicle through which those on death row or serving long sentences in prison can challenge their state-court convictions. Congress in 1996 rolled back habeas review considerably; federal courts have similarly shown greater deference — often too much deference — to flawed state proceedings. But the so-called Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 takes the evisceration of habeas review, particularly in capital cases, to a whole new level. It should not become law.

For a great many capital cases, the bill would eliminate federal review entirely. Federal courts would be unable to review almost all capital convictions ….

It gets worse. The bill, pushed by Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Calif.) in the House and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in the Senate, would impose onerous new procedural hurdles on inmates seeking federal review — those, that is, whom it doesn’t bar from court altogether. It would bar the courts from considering key issues raised by those cases and insulate most capital sentencing from federal scrutiny. It also would dictate arbitrary timetables for federal appeals courts to resolve habeas cases. This would be a dramatic change in federal law — and entirely for the worse.

The legislation would be simply laughable, except that it has alarming momentum. … It is no exaggeration to say that if this bill becomes law, it will consign innocent people to long-term incarceration or death.

This terror will continue until we take Arab grievances seriously by David Clark, The Guardian

It must now be obvious, even to those who would like us to think otherwise, that the war on terror is failing. This is not to say that the terrorists are winning. Their prospects of constructing the medieval pan-Islamic caliphate of their fantasies are as negligible today as they were four years ago when they attacked America. It is simply to point out that their ability to bring violence and destruction to our streets is as strong as ever and shows no sign of diminishing. We may capture the perpetrators of Thursday’s bombings, but others will follow to take their place. Moreover, the actions of our leaders have made this more likely, not less. It’s time for a rethink.

The very idea of a war on terror was profoundly misconceived from the start. Rooted in traditional strategic thought, with its need for fixed targets and an identifiable enemy, the post-9/11 response focused myopically on the problem of how and where to apply military power. …

It should be clear by now that we cannot defeat this threat with conventional force alone, however necessary that may be in specific circumstances. Even good policing, as we have found to our cost, will have only limited effect in reducing its capacity to harm. The opposite response – negotiation – is equally futile. How can you negotiate with a phenomenon that is so elusive and diffuse? And even if you could, what prospect would there be of reaching a reasonable settlement? The term “Islamofascism” may be a crude political device, but those who coined it are right to see in Bin Ladenism a classic totalitarian doctrine that accepts no limits in method or aim. What they want, we cannot give.

An effective strategy can be developed, but it means turning our attention away from the terrorists and on to the conditions that allow them to recruit and operate. No sustained insurgency can exist in a vacuum. At a minimum, it requires communities where the environment is permissive enough for insurgents to blend in and organise without fear of betrayal. This does not mean that most members of those communities approve of what they are doing. It is enough that there should be a degree of alienation sufficient to create a presumption against cooperating with the authorities. We saw this in Northern Ireland.

From this point of view, it must be said that everything that has followed the fall of Kabul has been ruinous to the task of winning over moderate Muslim opinion and isolating the terrorists within their own communities. In Iraq we allowed America to rip up the rule book of counter-insurgency with a military adventure that was dishonestly conceived and incompetently executed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed by US troops uninterested in distinguishing between combatant and noncombatant, or even counting the dead. The hostility engendered has been so extreme that the CIA has been forced to conclude that Iraq may become a worse breeding ground for international terrorism that Afghanistan was. Bin Laden can hardly believe his luck.

The political dimensions of this problem mean that there can be no hope of defeating terrorism until we are ready to take legitimate Arab grievances seriously. …

TheStar.com – Bush’s war on terror is a colossal failure by Haroon Siddiqui

Blair added: “We will not allow violence to change our values and our way of life.” And Anne McLellan parrotted: “We will defend our way of life.”

This is a Bush-ian formulation: they hate us because we are free. It cleverly obviates any need for self-scrutiny.

It is also patently false.

Terrorists, if they are to be believed, are targeting us because of our policies in Muslim lands. Thursday’s communiqué made that clear enough.

Terrorists also have already changed our way of life.

Abu Ghraib. Guantanamo Bay. Secret prisons abroad. “Renditions.” Torture. Assassinations. CIA abductions, even on the friendly soil of Italy.

Fear still rules America. Even after waging a war on false pretences, Bush can find refuge from low approval ratings by continuing to link Iraq to 9/11, as he did the other day before — where else? — military cadets.

Our own governments are invading our privacy, suspending civil liberties, criminalizing entire communities and repeatedly exhorting us to be “vigilant,” thereby risking vigilantism, the anti-thesis of the rule of law.

All this may be excusable if it were making us any safer.

Not so easy to ‘carry on’ By Candida Crewe

We returned to see Tony Blair on the news being the statesman … talking of how these attacks would not change our “values” and “way of life.” They seemed like the rather meaningless and wishy-washy platitudes that politicians tend to employ in the face of such atrocities, but in this instance they stuck in the gullet more than usual.

I suspect Blair’s codependent love affair with George Bush and our repellent involvement in Iraq is largely responsible for today’s “inevitable.”? Of course, the prime minister is right: Few Londoners will want to appear to let the terrorists “win,”? to allow them to thwart our freedom of movement, to compromise our principles of liberty and democracy or to resort to religious hatred. But, we might not have had to think about this so much in the first place had he not willingly followed the Americans to war. And over the coming days in London and all England, who can guarantee there will not be some racist backlash against our Muslim communities?

For myself, for other parents of young children and for indeed the majority, we can only hope not. It feels a bit rich when Blair insists the attacks must not change our way of life. Easy to say, but several hundred people’s lives were changed on Thursday, beyond measure.

For the rest of us, while our lives may not change quite so manifestly (we shall just continue to avoid the tube and even West End musicals with our children), our famous British resilience or, as the cliche has it, our “stiff upper lip,”? is quivering a little. With full-blown anger as well as low-burn fear for the future. As well it might.

I was moved by Blair’s assertion that we would not allow terrorism to change our way of life. Perhaps it is a platitude. If only Bush had said such a thing, instead of changing everything in America. mjh

http://www.crosswindsweekly.com/cover1.htm
The Red Paint Canyon Battle
Defending a natural and cultural gem
by Sherry Robinson, Crosswindsweekly

Chief Victorio protested, ?This country belongs to my people as it did to my forefathers.?

It was 1875, and the government planned to move Victorio and his Warm Springs Apache people from Ojo Caliente, their homeland in southwestern New Mexico, to the despised San Carlos Reservation in Arizona. It wasn?t the first or last time they would be taken away, and they would return, as they had many times before.

?The Warm Springs Apaches loved that spot,? the late James Kaywaykla said of his people.

Ojo Caliente, like the better known village in northern New Mexico, got its name because of a spring. This Ojo Caliente, 38 miles northwest of Truth or Consequences, feeds Alamosa Creek, which over time has sliced its way through rock to form a picturesque box canyon. The Apaches cherished Ojo Caliente for its water, grassland and defensible location. Attacked from either side, they could flee to the box canyon and take refuge, rolling rocks down on their attackers.

According to Chiricahua Apache oral history, the entire tribe once lived in Ojo. There they received supernatural powers and learned the customs of their people. Afterward the tribe divided into four bands. The Warm Springs band remained and the other three moved south and west.

In 1859 the army established an outpost at Ojo Caliente along the river. At the village of Ca?ada Alamosa, 17 miles down the canyon, Hispanic farmers tilled their fields and maintained friendly relations with the Apaches.

Ojo Caliente had another feature important to the Apaches. Nearby was Red Paint Canyon, a source of pigment the Warm Springs people used to paint their faces. In their own language they?re called Chihenne, or Red Paint People.

Along came a miner

Rancher Kenneth ?Tey? Sullivan, who owns Red Paint Canyon, wants to explore its mining potential and has asked the state for permission to drill. His family has owned land adjoining Ojo Caliente for generations.

It?s Sullivan?s third try. In 2002, he and David Tognoni, a geological engineer, began mining without a permit. Local residents alerted the state Mining and Minerals Division, which promptly shut them down. They returned this year and applied for a minimal?impact exploration permit to drill 30 holes. The state denied the permit in April because of potential impact to streams and habitat.

Next, the two enlisted Great Western Exploration LLC, which on May 11 reapplied for a minimal?impact permit. Their scaled? down plans now call for five holes up to 2,000 feet deep. They?ve moved the proposed drill sites away from the spring and creek and say in the application that disturbance wouldn?t exceed five acres.

Their interest is a deposit of bertrandite, a source of beryllium, which is somewhat scarce. Once used in nuclear weapons, beryllium has found new applications in electronics and golf clubs, but it?s a small, specialized market. In the past, beryllium exposure has been a health issue.

A geologist with the New Mexico Bureau of Mines & Mineral Resources is skeptical about the potential of this deposit. ?Great caution needs to be used in these situations,? he said. ?It could be a new discovery, but it?s somewhat unlikely.?

Little is known of Great Western except that the company incorporated in 2004 in Windsor, Colo. Tognoni is listed as a subcontractor and has apparently been involved in other small projects in the state. They?ve hired AMEC, an environmental consulting firm. The same players are also drilling on two other sites in Sierra County. Sullivan and Great Western have declined to comment; AMEC didn?t return calls.

The prospect of drilling or mining has alarmed residents of Monticello, the former Ca?ada Alamosa. The cottonwood?shaded village of about 50 people is a mix of long? time residents and newcomers.

?Any holes drilled have great potential for harm not only to our waters but also to the surrounding ecosystem,? says organic farmer Joshua Cravens. ?The surface water we irrigate with comes from the spring. Our well water is from the same aquifer.?

?The massive, deep drilling proposed is likely to penetrate several layers of ground water and thereby risk causing catastrophic damage to the quantity of water flowing down the creek,? writes Dennis O?Toole, who lives in the canyon. And drilling could lead to waste water discharge, which would drain toward the springs and the river.

Residents and neighboring ranchers also worry about the impact of moving heavy equipment around and carving drill pads, which could degrade ground cover and exacerbate erosion and silting.

Ojo Caliente is a warm spring that feeds Alamosa Creek. Considered sacred by the Warm Springs Apache people, it’s at the heart of their homeland.

This unusual water source and riparian area is habitat to creatures on state or federal lists of threatened or endangered species ? the Alamosa springsnail, the ovate vertigo snail and the Chiricahua leopard frog. The environmental issues have drawn the interest of the Sierra Club.

?We?ve received many, many calls and letters from citizens in the area,? says Karen Garcia, bureau chief of the state?s Mine Regulation Bureau.

The regulatory process requires the state Mining and Minerals Division to solicit comments from other agencies before making a decision. In the previous application, the state Surface Water Bureau held out concerns about impacts to surface water; the Game and Fish Department raised the issue of the toxicity of beryllium and noted that the geology in the canyon and groundwater connections aren?t well understood. This led mining regulators to deny minimal?impact status. Federal agencies are not involved because the proposed mine is on private land.

The decision is again before the Mining and Minerals Division. A minimal?impact application doesn?t require a public hearing, but the state was meeting with residents at press time and had not yet made a decision.

Cultural considerations

Regardless of the state?s decision, opponents know the fight isn?t over. ?Ultimately, we want to find somebody to buy the land and conserve it,? says Cravens. …

[read more about the history of the Warm Springs Apache – Cover Story Archives

mjh’s Blog: Help Save A Special Place in New Mexico – the Monticello Box in New Mexico