United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Office of Media Relations, November 2, 2006

Bishop William S. Skylstad, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), has joined religious leaders from diverse faith traditions in rejecting the use of torture because it is a violation of basic human dignity.

Bishop Skylstad signed the statement entitled “Torture is a Moral Issue.” The text follows:

“Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear. It degrades everyone involved – policymakers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation’s most cherished values. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable. Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of our nation. What does it signify if torture is condemned in word but allowed in deed? Let America abolish torture now – without exceptions.”

The statement can be found on the web site of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture at www.nrcat.org

In 1971, as a Defense Department Official and Vietnam Vet, he "released" 7,000 pages of Nixon's secret war plans, "The Pentagon Papers", to The New York Times. Placing him at the top of Nixon's "Enemies List" and having Henry Kissinger call him "The most dangerous man in the world."

UNITED NATIONS, Apr 4 (IPS) -- The top 10 countries hosting the largest number of international migrants have neither signed nor ratified a 1990 U.N. convention aimed at protecting the rights of migrant workers worldwide.

"It is obvious," says a senior U.N. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, "that these countries don't want to be held accountable for the welfare of their migrants."

The 10 countries -- the United States, Russia, Germany, Ukraine, France, Saudi Arabia, Canada, India, United Kingdom and Spain -- accounted for over 102 million migrants in 2005, according to a new U.N. report released Tuesday.

Read Full Article

Here is the Vatican's response to the crisis stirred by the political cartoons that offended the Muslim community:

Vatican Information Service, February 4, 2006:

In response to several requests for the Holy See's position vis-a-vis recent representations offensive to the religious sentiments of individuals and entire communities, the Vatican press office states:

"1. The right to freedom of thought and expression, sanctioned by the Declaration of the Rights of Man, cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiments of believers. This principle obviously applies for any religion.

2. In addition, coexistence calls for a climate of mutual respect favoring peace among men and nations. Moreover, these kinds of exasperated criticisms or derision of others manifest a lack of human sensitivity and may constitute in some cases an inadmissible provocation. A reading of history shows that wounds existing in the life of a people are not healed in this way.

It was bound to happen that our American media would focus on the women who have been elected into power in Chile and Liberia. After all, they can't seem to give up on their single-minded focus on whether the next U.S. President would be a woman. Speculation has my own Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the lead for the Democratic nomination; and a number of women's names among the Republicans have been thrown around, not excluding both Condoleezza Rice and Laura Bush.

There are some significant differences between the women just elected into power and those who our media speculate on in the U.S. First, in contrast to Hillary Clinton, is what these women emphasized as the "feminine qualities" they were bringing to their respective offices. Both Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Michelle Bachelet emphasized the nurturing quality women bring naturally to the table, and the need for that nurturing quality to restore peace to their respective countries. Sirleaf, according to the Times article, ���compared Liberia to a sick child in need of a loving mother���s tender care.���

This week's Coalition for Darfur post made me shudder at the thought of reading it 10 years later... Here's an excerpt:

Wolfowitz openly argued that the world should have intervened in Rwanda, but them makes the strikingly disingenuous argument that Rwanda was somehow "simpler"
than the current situation in Darfur.

Rwanda is only "simpler" because it is now over and hindsight allows us to see just how, where and why the world failed. But in 1994, with bodies filling the streets, Rwanda did not appear to be simple at all...

Were there feasible solutions to Rwanda? In hindsight, the answer is obviously "yes." Are there feasible solutions to Darfur? It is hard to say because right now it seems so complex, but there certainly are if the world powers can muster the will to address them.

But unfortunately, it is far more likely that ten years from now, when per

Weekly Coalition for Darfur post:

The Coalition for Darfur has two goals: to get bloggers writing about Darfur and to raise money for worthy organizations providing life-saving assistance to the people of Darfur. [CFD editorial comment: Sadly, international donations for tsunami relief are in excess but donations for Darfur and other needs are lacking. Can anyone say, power of the media?]

So far, we are not doing particularly well on either count.

Outside of Instapundit, very few of the "big blogs" seem to be paying much attention to Darfur, which is why it was nice to see Kevin Drum finally address the issue a few days ago.