News bits: Trump's gag order; The mystery of the exploding hospital; Exploding hospital redux

Some bits from the 3 page court order in DJT's insurrection trial in D.C. with judge Tanya Chutkan:

The defense’s position that no limits may be placed on Defendant’s speech because he is engaged in a political campaign is untenable, and the cases it cites do not so hold. The Circuit Courts in both United States v. Brown and United States v. Ford recognized that First Amendment rights must yield to the imperative of a fair trial. 218 F.3d 415, 424 (2000); 830 F.2d 596, 599 (1987). Unlike the district courts in those cases, however, this court has found that even amidst his political campaign, Defendant’s statements pose sufficiently grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings that cannot be addressed by alternative means, and it has tailored its order to meet the force of those threats. Brown, 218 F.3d at 428–30; Ford, 830 F.2d at 600. Thus, limited restrictions on extrajudicial statements are justified here. The bottom line is that equal justice under law requires the equal treatment of criminal defendants; Defendant’s presidential candidacy cannot excuse statements that would otherwise intolerably jeopardize these proceedings.

Accordingly, and pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c), it is hereby ORDERED that:

All interested parties in this matter, including the parties and their counsel, are prohibited from making any public statements, or directing others to make any public statements, that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court’s staff or other supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.

DJT can still spew his toxic slanders about things like allegedly bad government generally, the allegedly bad Biden administration or the allegedly bad Department of Justice, or that the bad prosecution is politically motivated.

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Who blew up the hospital apparently killing at least 500 innocents? Hamas or Israel? As is the case in what feels to be about 99% of the time when bad or horrible things happen in that cursed part of the world, Hamas blames Israel for the attack on the hospital and Israel blames Hamas. That's standard for the God-forsaken hell called Palestine or whatever it is supposed to be called. Newsweek reports something suspicious about the Israeli version of the horrible event:

Two official Israeli accounts on X, formerly Twitter, posted and later deleted a video that claimed to show a Tuesday explosion at Gaza City's Al-Ahli Arab Baptist Hospital, adding to the confusion surrounding the incident that reportedly killed hundreds of people.

Official X accounts for the State of Israel and Michael Herzog, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., posted a video that claimed to show a rocket fired from Gaza caused the explosion at the hospital.

However, the video was later deleted from the accounts after Aric Toler, a journalist on the visual investigations team at The New York Times, disputed the accuracy of the footage due to time stamps on the video.

According to messages posted on X by Toler, the time stamps on the video shared by the Israeli accounts showed it was recorded at least 40 minutes after the explosion took place.

Though the posts about the hospital explosion on Herzog and the State of Israel's X posts still contained the original written messages, the video has since been deleted from both accounts.

Toler's post was not cited as a reason for the editing, and Newsweek reached out to the embassy of Israel to the United States via email for comment on Tuesday night.

Toler's public announcement of the time discrepancy

So, who do we believe? The liar Israel or the liar Hamas? Biden said the US would investigate, then should we believe the liar staunchly pro-Israel US government when it finds that Hamas did it?

Qs: Does it make sense to argue that in politics in democracies (maybe not tyrannies) being faithful to actual facts, true truths and sound reasoning constitutes one of the highest moral values and duties that, in most situations (~99%) those in power are obligated to adhere to no matter what? Or is that just a quaint extinct dinosaur of a belief, and the people should be told only what is for their own good or for the sake of the sacred ideology (e.g., God's dogmas), the nation, or whatever other excuse that liars dream up?

For context to that:

“The social incentives to deceit are at present very powerful; the controls often weak. Many individuals feel caught up in practices they cannot change. It would be wishful thinking, therefore, to expect individuals to bring about major changes in the collective practices of deceit by themselves. Public and private institutions, with their enormous power to affect personal choice, must help alter the existing pressures and incentives. ..... Trust and integrity are precious resources, easily squandered, hard to regain. They can thrive only on a foundation of respect for veracity.

[Johnson repeatedly told the American people] ‘the first responsibility, the only real issue in this campaign, the only thing you ought to be concerned about at all, is: Who can best keep the peace?’ The stratagem succeeded; the election was won; the war escalated. .... President Johnson thus denied the electorate of any chance to give or refuse consent to the escalation of the war in Vietnam. Believing they had voted for the candidate of peace, American citizens were, within months, deeply embroiled in one of the cruelest wars in their history. Deception of this kind strikes at the very essence of democratic government.” -- Moral philosopher Sisella Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, 1999

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Well, the US has spoken about who blew up the hospital. Hamas or someone else other than Israel done it! The NYT writes:

President Biden said that information from the U.S. military led him to conclude that Israel was not responsible for the deadly blast at a Gaza hospital. Palestinians blame Israel for the blast, which has fueled protests across the Middle East.  

After an all-night flight from Washington, Mr. Biden arrived in a country girding for a protracted war against the armed Islamist group Hamas after it carried out the deadliest attack on Israel in generations. He quickly waded into the fray, backing the Israeli government’s denial of responsibility for the explosion Tuesday night at Ahli Arab Hospital, where many civilians were sheltering amid Israel’s daily bombardment of Gaza.

So there we have it. Mystery solved. Right? Damn, that investigation was quick.

Q: Who do you think most likely blew up the hospital?

"They know they're most likely going to die": American Palestinians and their Gaza-trapped loved ones

 Fr. Boston Globe 10/17

They know they are most likely going to die’: Palestinian Americans in Mass. worry for loved ones in Gaza

Hazem Shafai, right, of Plymouth, his nephew, Sharaf Shafai, middle, and his brother, Hani Shafai, left.Hani Shafai

Every morning for the past week, Heiam Alsawalhi has opened her eyes, grabbed her phone, and texted her younger sister to make sure she is still alive.

Alsawalhi, a Palestinian American who lives in Brookline, said her sister and her family, along with dozens of other relatives, are trapped in the Gaza Strip without electricity, clean water, and barely any food and internet connection as Israeli bombings increase ahead of an expected ground invasion.

“She is my baby sister, and she is the world to me,” Alsawalhi told the Globe Monday. “I’m living in fear.”

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza face an increasingly dire humanitarian crisis, with Israel barring entry of essential supplies in retaliation for last week’s deadly rampage by Hamas militants. Meanwhile in Massachusetts, those with family members stuck in the tiny territory move through day-to-day life filled with anguish.

Hazem Shafai, of Plymouth, and his family, are in limbo in southern Gaza, near the border with Egypt, according to Shafai’s brother, Hani, of Rapid City, S.D.

Hazem, his wife, Sanaa Shafai, and their three children, Seera, 13, Yomnah, 10, and Jaser, 2, were visiting Hazem’s father and stepmother on their farm 2 miles south of Gaza’s northern border when airstrikes began Oct. 7.

 

“It’s been really crazy for the kids; a lot of stress, a lot of anxiety,” Hani Shafai said. “And the parents are just as anxious and saddened by everything that is going on and that their children are being exposed to it.”

Shafai said that his extended family and his brother’s family left behind all of their belongings, including livestock, to travel to Gaza’s southern border to try to cross into Egypt, though they have been turned away twice.

“When I talk to my brother, it reminds me of the type of conversation that I’ve had with some of my older friends who are in hospice care,” Hani said. “They know they are most likely going to die, and they are giving me their last instructions: ‘This is what you should do with my kids if I die and forgive me if I’ve wronged you.’ ”

---

Hani said that he and his family are praying for peace and hope that “people can start living together and thinking of each other as humans.”

“I’m glad we’re condemning the action of terrorists, but we should do the same thing for the loss of innocent Palestinian lives on the other side,” he said.

Alsawalhi said her sister Mervat Alsawalhi, or “Miro,” is also in Rafah near the southern border with Egypt, after fleeing her home in northern Gaza after the Israeli military ordered more than 1 million people to evacuate.

Mervat Alsawalhi and her family, including her husband, three daughters, and grandson Jamal, were initially at home in Gaza City in the days following the Hamas attack.

Mervat Alsawalhi held her grandson, Jamal.Heiam Alsawalhi

Nearby, Heiam Alsawalhi said, her own former in-laws had their three-story home flattened in an airstrike, as well as other relatives’ homes. The bombardment was even worse at nighttime, Alsawalhi said.

“They don’t want people sleeping,” she said of Israeli’s military. “It’s a mental war, as well.”

Alsawalhi said her sister’s family attempted to heed Israel’s warning and evacuate to the south, but found no cars, fuel, or taxis available. They began to walk south along with other families carrying their children, but became exhausted and turned around.

On their way home, Alsawalhi said her sister saw “with her own eyes” an explosion Friday, for which Gaza authorities said Israel was responsible, that killed 70 people in convoys fleeing south. The next day, the family was able to get a ride to Rafah, where they are staying with friends, Alsawalhi said.

Though the bombardment is less constant in Rafah, even there a strike hit a building housing displaced families from Gaza City, killing at least 12.

“Wherever you are in Gaza is not a safe place,” Alsawalhi said.

The 139 square mile strip, often referred to by human rights advocates as “the world’s largest open-air prison,” is home to 2.3 million people and surrounded by blockades for 16 years by Israel and Egypt, restricting people’s movements.

Suhad Zendah, a Medford resident whose extended family lives in Gaza City, said all her younger family members with children are making their way south on foot, afraid of being targeted by airstrikes if they join vehicle convoys. Elderly relatives stayed behind, she said, and she has lost all contact with them.

“It’s hard to get sleep or rest or function normally,” Zendah said. “It feels like a nightmare. But then I open my eyes, and I realize that it’s still going on and it’s reality.”

Mahmoud Abdalrahman, 34, of Arlington, is the only member of his family who resides outside of Tal al-Hawa, a neighborhood in the southwest region of Gaza City.

Original article here

Thankfully it doesn't happen here very often...................................BUT..................................

 

Why Having the Last Word Is So Important for Some People 

Having the last word for some people means winning the argument. Whilst this clearly isn’t always true, it is a frustrating trait that applies to more than just Wikipedia!

It is worth remembering that the person who wins the debate is not necessarily the person who shouts the loudest, or gets in the last word.

Often a person with this personality is likely to be an egomaniac or bordering on being one. An egomaniac can be defined as a person who is obsessively self-centred or egotistical.

(Have you ever been in an argument where the other won't drop it?)

Insecurity:

Somebody who lacks confidence or self-esteem may try to assert themselves in other ways, by expressing himself or herself in a forceful way.

Arrogance:

A person with extreme arrogance may genuinely not be able to accept that they might be incorrect, or that another person’s opinion is equally as valid as their own. 

Egocentricity:

Some people simply need to be the centre of attention, and will argue black is white in order to keep the spotlight. 

Power:

Having the last word can be perceived as powerful, often by people who lack assertiveness in other areas of their lives.

Anger:

Refusal to debate calmly can be a reaction to feelings of anger, and shouting down an opponent is a way to express their feelings.

Dominance:

As with power, a person who feels the innate need to dominate others or to establish their seniority may do so by insisting they have the final word in any conversation.

https://www.learning-mind.com/having-the-last-word-important-deal/

Ever been in one of those endless conversations where someone needs to have the last word?

The rules of war

These rules apply to both Gaza and Ukraine. PD kindly provided the links to these info sources.

The ICRC has a FAQ page directed to Qs&As about the rules of war:

Even wars have rules. What does that mean?

It means: You do not attack civilians. You limit as much as you can the impact of your warfare on women and children, as well as on other civilians. You treat detainees humanely. You do not torture people.

Here's one Q&A:

Do civilians picking up arms lose their protection against direct attack under IHL (international humanitarian law)?

It depends. IHL defines civilians as anyone who is neither a member of State armed forces, nor a member of an organized armed group with a continuous combat function, nor a participant in a levée en masse.

Civilians are protected against direct attack unless, and for such time, as they directly participate in hostilities. Parties to an armed conflict must take all feasible precautions in determining whether a person is a civilian and, if that is the case, whether he or she is directly participating in hostilities.

In case of doubt, the person in question must be presumed to be a civilian and protected against direct attack. To protect civilians, combatants – and anyone directly participating in hostilities – must distinguish themselves from civilians in all military operations by wearing identifiable insignia and carrying arms openly. The ICRC has issued Interpretive Guidance which provides recommendations concerning the interpretation of IHL as it relates to the concept of direct participation in hostilities.

IHL related to modern warfare sieges (pages 1-2 of 16):