Women in Paris can now Wear Trousers

The 214-year-old law, which formally prohibited women from wearing trousers in Paris, has been revoked. The archaic ban, though not executed, has been a pain for French women's rights activists.

"This ordinance is incompatible with the principles of equality between women and men, which are listed in the Constitution, and in France's European commitments. From that incompatibility follows the implicit abrogation of the ordinance," French Minister for Women’s Rights Najat Vallaud-Belkacem said in a statement quoted by the Huffington Post.

The archaic law, which dates back to November 1799, demanded women ask police for special permission to “dress as men” in Paris. The other option was to risk being arrested.

The restriction focused on Paris because French Revolutionary rebels in the capital said they wore trousers, as opposed to the knee-breeches, or the "culottes" of the bourgeoisie, in what was coined the "sans-culottes" movement. Women rebels in the movement demanded the right to wear trousers as well, but were forbidden to do so,  Le Parisien daily explained.

The law picked up an amendment back in 1892 and 1909, which allowed women to wear trousers "if the woman is holding a bicycle handlebar or the reins of a horse."

There have been previous talks to repeal the law over the years, even if it was not enforced. The most recent attempt was in July 2012, when a public request was directed to minister for women’s rights and a member of the conservative UMP party Alain Houpert, which said the "symbolic importance" of the law "could injure our modern sensibilities."

Russia and the United States: No Common Ground

                                                    'The fear of Putin.......'

It seems that US-Russian relations are in a state of pure noises and mere words full of repetitions and sounds and the only option left for the leaders of both countries is to behave like provincial actors repeating a meaningless jumble of words.

The security conference in Munich over the weekend provided a convincing demonstration of this. Both US Vice President Joseph Biden and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov tried to put a positive face on things by emphasizing the New START, cooperation on Afghanistan and Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization, but their words left no doubt that the two countries are at loggerheads and that attempts to break the impasse will be the main focus of US-Russian relations for a long time to come.

No matter how many vague and evasive statements officials might make, it is obvious that US-Russian relations have hit what is probably their lowest point in the past 20 years. Congress passed the Magnitsky Act, which the Kremlin considers an infringement on Russian sovereignty. For its part, in the span of just a few months Moscow evicted USAID, announced its withdrawal from the Nunn-Lugar program, prohibited individuals with US citizenship from holding leadership positions in Russian nongovernmental organizations and banned US citizens from adopting Russian orphans.

On the surface, it would seem that Washington is so frightened by the erratic behavior of President Vladimir Putin that it is ready to accept the rules of his new game and play the whipping boy, thereby lending credence to Putin's claim that he is a tough guy who has forced the US to put up with his abuse. After all, Washington is willing to maintain the appearance of decent relations with Moscow because it desperately needs a northern transit route out of Afghanistan.

Many believe that the Obama administration will end up making concessions to Moscow in the next four years. After all, newly appointed Secretary of State John Kerry and likely new Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel have consistently opposed the very type of global interventionism that infuriates the Kremlin. In this situation, it would be logical to assume that Kerry, Hagel and National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon will push Obama to "appease" the Kremlin.

Concessions could take the form of an agreement not to deploy ships equipped with missile-defense interceptors in the Baltic and North seas, thereby relinquishing even the theoretical US ability to intercept Russian nuclear missiles. What's more, the U.S. could announce that it will postpone for an indefinite period the implementation of the fourth stage of deployment of its missile defense system, a stage that will give the US the ability to destroy long-range strategic nuclear missiles.

But even these bold efforts would be in vain because in reality, US missile defense deployments in Europe are just a pretext. The real reason for Putin's discontent with Washington is based in his sincere belief that the Moscow protests against his regime were US-­sponsored. He is convinced that the US State Department is out to stage a color revolution in Russia and deprive him of power.

This creates an obvious impasse. Washington cannot give the one guarantee that is most important for the Kremlin — that there will not be any more mass protests — for the simple reason that the State Department and CIA have no control over Russia's street demonstrations.

The Obama administration has recognized the futility of trying to appease Putin. For example, the US announced that it was withdrawing from the Civil Society Working Group of the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Melia did not mince words, saying the US was withdrawing because "recent steps taken by the Russian government to impose restrictions on civil society … called into serious question whether maintaining that mechanism was either useful or appropriate." In the end, Washington refused to take part in what had become a hypocritical farce.

If the decision to walk away from the civil society working group was linked to the new team in the State Department, then it is a clear sign of a major change in Washington's policy toward Russia. Biden's comments in Munich seem to confirm this. Yes, Russia remains a key player in solving global security issues that are important for Obama, but Biden made it clear that the US has no intention of pretending for the Kremlin's sake that Russia is a democracy. "It's no secret that we have serious differences on issues like Syria, missile defense, NATO enlargement, democracy, human rights. These differences are real," Biden said in Munich.

Washington does not want to pursue its old policy of engagement, which was based on the assumption that by working with Moscow on issues important to both sides, the US would gradually instill democratic values in Russia. This approach has never worked with the Putin regime. In Obama's second term, it seems that the US will treat Russia as it does any other authoritarian government and will express its disapproval when the regime violates the rights of its citizens.

If the first result of that new approach is the withdrawal from the Civil Society Working Group, then eventually the question of Russia's membership in the Group of Eight will be called into question. Last year, Putin ignored the G8 summit in the US, and the day may not be far off when the presidents of the seven leading democratic countries decide they have nothing to discuss with their Russian counterpart.

Ahmadinejad to be the first Iranian Astronaut

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he is ready to take the risk of becoming the first human being sent into space by Iran, national media reports.

"I'm ready to be the first Iranian to sacrifice myself for our country's scientists," the official IRNA news agency quoted him as saying on the sidelines of an exhibition of space achievements in Tehran on Monday.

Iran said it sent a monkey into space, describing the launch as a successful step towards Tehran's plan to send an astronaut into space within the next five to six years. The monkey named "Pishgam", which means pioneer in Farsi, reportedly travelled 120km and safely returned to Earth.

The launch added to Western concerns about Iran's space programme because the same rocket technology could potentially be used to deliver a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile.

In 2010, Iran said it launched an Explorer rocket into space carrying a mouse, a turtle and worms.

Iran's space officials say Iran will launch a bigger rocket carrying a larger animal to obtain greater safety assurances before sending a man into space.

Space tourist Anousheh Ansari was the first Iranian to make a journey into space aboard a Soyuz TMA-9 capsule from Baikonur, Kazakhstan, in 2006. The 40-year-old telecommunications entrepreneur paid a reported $20m for a space station visit.

Russia to host the most Expensive Olympics

The Sochi Winter Olympics will cost Russia over $50 billion, five times more than original estimates, according to an Olympics preparation commission. By 2013, Russia completed 70 percent of the needed facilitates, spending $36.7 billion in total.

The 2014 Sochi Winter Games are turning out to be the most expensive Olympics ever. The Sochi Games are estimated to cost even more than the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, which cost $40 billion, believed to be the most expensive in history.

That total was more than double the cost of the London 2012 Games, which were estimated at $19 billion.
Some explain the expensive price tag over the fact that the city of Sochi did not have most of the needed infrastructure. Jean-Claude Killy, chair of the International Olympic Committee's coordination commission for the Sochi Games, said that 85 percent of the infrastructure had to be built from scratch.

Igor Nikolaev, director of the Strategic Analysis Department at FBK, told Nezavisimaya Gazeta that the lack of infrastructure was one of the reasons for the huge expense: "There was really a lot that needed to be built in order to prepare for the Olympics, including infrastructure.” He added that the huge estimates cannot be taken literally, since they were artificially inflated by the Olympics' private sponsors.

So far, sponsors have spent $24.6 billion, and costs are expected to increase to $33 billion. Many of Russia’s largest companies are Olympic sponsors, and are seeking to have as much of their expenses as possible qualify as Olympic expenditures. However, not all of their work will qualify as such, Nikolaev explained.

"For example, a company building or renovating its corporate hotel, tries to qualify the expenditure as part of the Olympics’ cost. That helps them to strengthen their bargaining position. You can be sure that then they will ask something in return [such as preferential tariffs, tax breaks, etc.],” Nikolai said.

The $50 billion sum is not a final estimate, and total costs could approach $66.7 billion, he said. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak, the head of the Olympic preparatory commission, has proposed that Krasnodar region Governor Aleksandr Tkachev offers tax breaks for companies involved in Olympic construction.

The Olympics preparatory commission, established in mid-January by Russian President Vladimir Putin, is tasked with supervising all work on the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics.

United States can Kill US citizens with al-Qaeda Link

The legal basis for using drone strikes to kill US citizens has been disclosed in a leaked Justice Department memo.

US officials can authorise the killing of Americans abroad if they are leaders of al-Qaeda or its allies, according to the document obtained by NBC News.

Lethal force is lawful if they are judged to pose an "imminent threat" and their capture is not feasible, it adds.

US drone strikes against militant suspects in countries such as Yemen and Pakistan are deeply controversial.

Under President Barack Obama the US has expanded its use of drones to kill hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects, arguing that it is acting in self-defence in accordance with international law.

Critics argue the drone strikes amount to execution without trial and cause many civilian casualties.

Legal framework
The undated 16-page Department of Justice white paper published by NBC gives more details of the justification for the use of drones outside recognised war zones.

A US study last year suggested Pakistani civilians were being "terrorised" 24 hours a day by drones
It says sovereignty is not deemed to have been violated if the host nation gives its consent, or is unwilling or unable to suppress the threat posed by the individual targeted.

It also sets out a "legal framework" for the use of lethal force against US citizens in foreign countries.

It concludes that such killings do not violate the US Constitution as long as:

An informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US

Capture is infeasible and the US continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible. The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

The paper adopts a broad definition of "imminent threat", saying it is not necessary to produce evidence that a specific attack is being planned if the target is generally engaged in plotting against the US.

'Remarkable document'
It also asserts that courts should not play a role in reviewing or controlling such decisions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said the white paper was a "pretty remarkable document".

Anwar al-Awlaki was among three Americans killed in drone strikes in Yemen in 2011. Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, said in a blog post the paper revealed "both the recklessness of the government's central claim and the deficiencies in the government's defense" of its drone strike policy.

"This sweeping authority is said to exist even if the threat presented isn't imminent in any ordinary sense of that word, even if the target has never been charged with a crime or informed of the allegations against him, and even if the target is not located anywhere near an actual battlefield," Mr Jaffer added.

The ACLU has helped the relatives of three Americans who died in drone strikes sue the Pentagon and CIA. Their lawsuit claims the deaths were unconstitutional.

Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaeda suspect born in the US state of New Mexico, was killed by an unmanned plane in September 2011.

Samir Khan, a naturalised US citizen who produced an online magazine promoting al-Qaeda's ideology, died in the same missile strike.

Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who was born in Colorado, was killed a month later.

The Obama administration has been under growing pressure from politicians in Congress to share more details of its drone strike programme, including secret legal documents.

Last month the UN launched an inquiry into the impact of drone strikes on civilians.

Islamists Threaten to Attack Germany

A German Islamist threatened in an internet video to attack Berlin this summer and kill Chancellor Angela Merkel, Die Welt newspaper reported.

The video threat is being evaluated by the country’s security services, an intelligence spokesman said.

The Islamist Abu Azzam, believed to be a radical Salafist who moved to Egypt last year, added that Germany's Reichstag parliament building would be subject to attacks like those on New York's World Trade Center in 2001.

This event could not be unconnected from the activities of France in Mali and the worldwide support she receives especially from Europe. The Islamists in Mali have threatened to give France a long war through their axis in Europe and elsewhere.

United States to Ease Sanctions on Sudan

The top US diplomat in Sudan revealed today that Washington will soon change sanctions regulations that will allow educational institutional in both countries to deal directly with one another.

Washington imposed economic and trade sanctions on Sudan in 1997 because of the civil wars in the country, accusing it of supporting terrorism. In 2007, it strengthened the embargo citing abuses in Darfur which it labeled as genocide.

In 2010 the US announced it was easing sanctions on agriculture equipment and services which allowed half a dozen companies to get export licenses.

Khartoum has lobbied Washington intensively to lift sanctions but little progress has been made on this front.

In an interview with the independent al-Sahafa newspaper the American charge d'affaires Joseph D. Stafford said that the Obama administration is prepared to hold a comprehensive, frank and transparent dialogue with Khartoum on all issues that prevent normalization of bilateral ties.

Stafford noted that security cooperation between the two sides which strengthened more than a decade ago is continuing describing it as "good".

He denied that the US is biased in favour of any party in Sudan and strongly dismissed accusations by officials in Khartoum that Washington is behind the "New Dawn" charter signed by opposition and rebel groups in Kampala last month.

Stafford said that Washington informed Sudanese rebels that they oppose any attempt to overthrow the regime by force and urged them to seek dialogue with Khartoum.

"We are only biased towards peace in Sudan," the US official said.

He said that his country stopped granting visas to Sudanese and reduced its staff since last September following demonstrations that broke out in Khartoum at the US embassy against a film that insulted the Prophet Mohammad.

Stafford called this a temporary measure that he hopes will soon be reversed.