Instapundit posts today about the Vatican's increasing support for the Palestinians and his concern that it is rooted in anti-semitism. The photo he includes with his post is one of those that speaks a thousand words--without some other explanation--which we haven't heard. Instapundit says he has written on this before, here, and so has the Guardian, here.

Slavery did not end in 1865. A century and a half later, slavery is still with us. Here's a sad tale about a boy named Francis that illustrates the point. We can't retell his story and do it justice, so go over and read it. Then consider this:

The truth is there are more slaves now than at any time in history — 27 million — many of them living in bondage in Sudan, which has been ravaged for 20 years by a civil war between the largely Muslim population of the north and the Christian population of the south. But there are also slaves in Pakistan, China, Burma, India and the rain forests of Brazil, to say nothing of the 40,000 to 50,000 mostly sex slaves imported into the United States each year.

...Slavery is now a tool of modern war, as opposed to an instrument of racial or economic horror. In Sudan, the jihad — or holy war — that the Islamic fundamentalists have been waging against the people to the south is what is driving the slave trade. Francis' master did not pay a dime for him on the day he was taken from the market. The boy was simply part of the spoils of war. In the age of terrorism, slavery — far from being obsolete — is just another weapon.

Finally, Francis embodies a significant moral dilemma now facing the world at large. Namely: Is it immoral to buy slaves in order to win their freedom?

What is the going rate for a human life these days in Sudan? The answer is as unreal as the whole situation — between $30 and $35 a slave, less than dinner and a movie on any given night in America.

Is it right for modern-day abolitionists to participate economically in the world's largest slave trade? You bet it is.

In addition, the U.S. government should do everything we can to make it clear to the Sudanese government in the north — that is even now bombing villages and stealing more small boys from their mothers — that this too is part of our war on terrorism.

This is anything but a feel-good article, but it's one that needs to be read.

All these stories in the breaking news section of the Sunday London Times, and more:

UN confirms Iraq missile destruction

UN inspectors says Iraq has begun destroying its Al Samoud 2 missiles and agreed to a timetable to scrap the rest of them within a matter of weeks. UN spokesman Hiro Ueki said the procedure went more slowly than expected because the rockets were so sturdy, but four missiles were destroyed. Ueki said two interviews -- with a biological weapons expert and with a missile engineer -- were conducted on Friday night, the first since February 7. Deputy chief inspector Demetrius Perricos said other interviews were under way, although he gave no further details.

Turkish vote on US troops overruled

A vote by the Turkish parliament to allow in 62,000 US troops in readiness for a war against Iraq has been overruled by the speaker. Bulent Arinc ruled that a majority of legislators present had not voted in favour, and closed parliament until Tuesday. The decision is a serious blow to the US. The vote was 264-250 with 19 abstentions, four short of a simple majority. The bill's rejection is likely to seriously increase tensions with the United States which had been expecting a positive vote.

Americans want UN backing for war

Almost half of US citizens believe war should be launched on Iraq only with the backing of the UN, according to a new poll. Some 44% of Americans polled for BBC1's Panorama said there should be a unanimous UN mandate before military action, against 31% who were ready to see war waged without UN backing. US President George Bush has made clear that he reserves the right to lead a "coalition of the willing" against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, with or without the support of the UN.

There will be anti-war protests of a unique kind in 900 cities around the world Monday--the dissenters will be reciting an Anti-War comedy as an artistic protest of war against Iraq. For example, in Bellingham Washington,

A reading of Aristophanes' "Lysistrata: A Woman's Translation," written by former Bellingham resident Drue Robinson Hagan begins 7 p.m. Monday at the Mount Baker Theatre's Encore Room, 112 W. Champion St. in Bellingham."

Here's more on the Lysistrata Project. [link via Jim at Rittenhouse Review.]

Union Federation, the country's largest labor federation, has passed a resolution opposing war with Iraq:

The nation's largest labor federation declared its opposition Thursday to war against Iraq at this time, saying President Bush has not made a case for an attack without broad support from U.S. allies.

The executive council of the AFL-CIO, made up of 65 unions, ended its four-day meeting by unanimously passing the carefully worded resolution, which also says Saddam Hussein must be disarmed - with "multilateral resolve, not unilateral action."

The president has not fulfilled his responsibility to make a compelling and coherent explanation to the American people and the world," the resolution said.

Organized labor has typically backed military action in the past, including strong support for the Vietnam War. "By historical standards, this is unusual and this is significant," Robert Bruno, labor professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said of Thursday's resolution.

U.S. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao spoke to the group on Wednesday and was not well received, according to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney.

Perhaps the defining moment was Wednesday's address by Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, which shocked and enraged labor leaders, Sweeney said. They were particularly angry about her response to a question about the department's proposed new financial reporting requirements. She read from a paper a list of criminal charges involving one union.

Gary Hart has signed onto a statement by a bipartisan group of former Senators opposing war in Iraq.

The group of former senators includes Former United States Senators George McGovern of South Dakota, John Culver of Iowa, Paul Simon of Illinois, Adlai Stevenson III of Illinois, Fred Harris of Oklahoma, Dale Bumpers of Arkansas, Charles Mac Mathias of Maryland, Bill Hathaway of Maine, John Tunney of California, Gary Hart of Colorado, Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio, and James Abourezk of South Dakota.

It's a great statement, go read the whole thing.

Gary Hart was on CNN's Crossfire last night, showing once again he is clearly capable of leading the country. Here's the transcript. His last speech before deciding is Tuesday in Los Angeles. Details here. Send him an email and tell him to run-- info@garyhartnews.com.

Excellent article today about the immigration lawyers fighting to protect the rights of non-citizens in our post-9/11 world.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project has become a central player in the war on terrorism. Relying on appellate skills honed representing immigrant workers and refugees, director Lucas Guttentag and a small team of attorneys are taking a lead role in opposing some of the government's controversial anti-terrorism tactics against non-citizens....

The group's legal challenges to secret detentions, closed deportation hearings and the material witness statute have put it on the front line of a battle that it says stretches well beyond the boundaries of immigration law. And the effort has led the small group to beef up, nearly doubling to seven full-time attorneys and a handful of paralegals in the past year.

"Oftentimes immigrants are the first victims, or first targets, and that's been especially true since Sept. 11," says Guttentag."

Guttentag, like many others, forsees problems down the road for citizens as well. He cites the treatment of Hamdi and Padilla, both of whom are U.S. citizens, yet are being detained by the military without access to lawyers even though no charges have been filed against them.

The principle of detaining U.S. citizens without any judicial process takes us a huge step closer to Japanese-American internment than we were before," says Guttentag. "Before 9-11 I think everybody would have said there's no way that that could happen again today. And now in this climate, it's much easier to understand how a government could take steps that would be the equivalent of Japanese-American internment. And how the public without sufficient vigilance can let it happen by default."

We can't say we haven't been warned.

A new online poll by Angelfire, the leading community site for teens on the web, shows that a majority of teens oppose War in Iraq.

In a recent survey of nearly 3,000 teenagers and young adults (76% U.S. and 24% non-U.S.) a majority (55%) said that they do not support America's pending war with Iraq, while 11% didn't care.

Only 24% of youth polled think that the U.S. should attack immediately while about a third (31%) feel that the U.S. should do nothing and leave Iraq alone. Another quarter (23.7%) feel that the U.S. should wait for U.N. approval and the remaining twenty percent (21%) preferred that the U.S. give weapons inspectors more time.

If the U.S. were to wage war with Iraq, only one in five (21%) think that President Bush should bring back the draft while the majority (70%) disagrees. If the government were to reinstate the draft, not many young people would rush to join in. More than half (53%) would rather avoid the draft by fleeing for Canada or Mexico while about a third (31%) would "do their duty but wouldn't be happy about it."

The poll queried those between the ages of 12 and 21.

Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson tells us why Blacks oppose War in Iraq. He makes some very good points.

....The reasons are obvious. African-Americans are 12 percent of the general population but make up 21 percent of military personnel and 30 percent of Army enlistees. They made up 23 percent of the troops sent to the 1991 Gulf War. The Department of Defense recently attempted to downplay those disproportionate percentages, reporting that African-Americans were more likely to be in administrative and support jobs and therefore were less likely than white soldiers to be killed on the front lines. White soldiers made up 71 percent of the troops in the 1991 Gulf War but suffered 76 percent of the deaths.

That ignores why African-Americans go into the service in the first place. Many of them are refugees from a job and collegiate environment that is disproportionately hostile to them. President Bush recently stoked the hostility by filing a brief to the Supreme Court opposing the University of Michigan's affirmative action program.

That alone is enough to make African-Americans wonder whether they are about to relive bad history. Time after time, war after war, African-Americans fought and died for the nation's agenda only to see the nation ignore or reject their issues. Black folks fought in the Revolution and slavery lasted nearly another century. Black soldiers were promised land after the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812 and never got it.

In the Civil War, African-Americans, then 14 percent of the population, were 20 percent of the Union casualties. Yet segregation and second-class opportunities were the rule for almost another century. Black folks fought in World War I in the hopes of winning full citizenship. They were rewarded with white race riots. Participation in World War II and Korea further emboldened African-Americans to protest for desegregation in the military, public accommodations, school desegregation, and voting rights.

But Americans took so long to become disgusted with the lynchings and disenfranchisement of the '40s, '50s, and early '60s that the hypocrisy could not be contained. There was Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1968 lament ''for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam.'' There was Muhammad Ali's ''I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong'' because, as he said, ''no Viet Cong ever called me nigger.'' There were the riots.

Skippy says, "if you couldn't get through to your senators or the white house today for the virtual march, don't give up! try again on thursday! the message will mean just as much!"

He's right, of course.

Here's more about the phone jamming.

Denver has joined the list of cities that have passed anti-war resolutions. The vote was 7-3.

113 U.S. cities and counties have now passed resolutions opposing the war--you can view the list here.

The Los Angeles City Council voted 9 to 4 today to approve a resolution opposing unilateral war in Iraq

"Elected leaders of the nation's second-largest city on Friday approved a resolution opposing a unilateral war against Iraq and urging the Bush administration to exhaust all diplomatic options before committing military forces."

The City Council voted 9-4 for the resolution after backers gave impassioned speeches that were cheered by hundreds of peace activists who packed the council chamber. Mayor James Hahn signed the resolution, making it the city's official position on Iraq.

"I hope people understand we're not a bunch of crazy politicians trying to dictate federal policy," said Councilman Ed Reyes, who voted for the resolution. "We are echoing the sentiments of people who are hurting. Where do we begin to matter in the priority of our federal dollars?"