Death of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine

Mya Thwe Thwe Khine (; February 11, 2001 – February 19, 2021; variously romanised as Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing or Mya Thwate Thwate Khaing) was a young Burmese woman who became the first known casualty of the 2021 Myanmar protests, which formed in the aftermath of the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état. Pro-democracy protesters and international groups alike have rallied around her shooting.
She has become a focal point for demonstrators, with her image often displayed by people resisting the coup. Her funeral on the 21st of February 2021 was attended by several thousand protesters.
Shooting.
On 9 February, 19-year-old Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing had joined a protest rally on Taungnyo Road, near the Thabyegon roundabout in the Burmese capital Naypyidaw. Riot police quelled the rally, injuring several protesters in the process. She was standing under a bus shelter, taking cover from water cannons, while she was shot. Mya had been wearing a motorcycle helmet at the time of the shooting. Recorded video from bystanders captured the exact moment she was shot in the head. Subsequent analysis of images from the protest conducted by Amnesty International showed police carrying Myanmar-made BA-94 or BA-93 clones of the Uzi sub-machine gun, contradicting the Myanmar military's statement that security forces only had only deployed non-lethal weapons. Forensic analysis also indicated the shooting had occurred in the early afternoon, between noon and 1:30 pm.
Mya was admitted to Naypyidaw's 1,000-bed general hospital in critical condition. On the morning of 12 February, doctors unsuccessfully attempted to surgically dislodge the bullet from her head. Doctors declared her medically brain dead, due to the complete loss of brain function, and advised her family to remove ventilation. As of 14 February, her family had decided to take her off life support, but had not finalised the timing. Prayer services for Mya were held at the Mandalay University of Foreign Languages and Yangon City Hall on 14 February.
Significance.
Video of the shooting and a photo of an unconscious and blood-stained Mya were widely circulated on Burmese language social media, with supporters dubbing her a protest martyr. Citizens criticized and attacked two officers purportedly involved in the shooting on social media, although the identities of the shooters remain unconfirmed.
The violent use of force in Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing's shooting sparked national outrage, with celebrities and public figures such as Thandar Hlaing criticizing her treatment. Nyi Nyi Tun, the chair of the Myanmar Motion Picture Organisation, stated "We cannot witness any more Mya Thwe Thwe Khaings" and urged the public to join the civil disobedience movement. On 11 February, Mya's sister, Mya Thado Nwe, publicly addressed media outlets, and urged the public to "uproot the military dictatorship" for the sake of future generations.
Thomas Andrews, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, mentioned her on Twitter. On 11 February, UN Women expressed its condolences to Mya's family and called "on the military and police to refrain from using disproportionate force against demonstrators." On 12 February, Progressive Voice, a coalition of 177 local civil society organisations, published an open letter to the United Nations Security Council, and cited the shooting of Mya as an example of escalating violence by authorities against protesters.
On 17 February, a long billboard depicting Mya's shooting was unfurled off of a pedestrian bridge in Downtown Yangon. Protesters have also used her photos compared with ones of Win Maw Oo on protest signs, and given worldwide coverage such as huge crowds mourn woman killed in protests.
On 19 February, the hospital in the city confirmed her death at 11:00 local time (04:30 GMT). Her funeral was a major occasion attended by about 100,000 people.


Saeed al-Ghamdi

Saeed Abdallah Ali Sulayman al-Ghamdi (, ) (November 21, 1979 – September 11, 2001) was one of four hijackers of United Airlines Flight 93 as part of the September 11 attacks.
Born in Saudi Arabia, al-Ghamdi left his home to fight in Chechnya after dropping out of college, but was reported to have diverted to Afghanistan to train in an al-Qaeda camp. It was reported he was chosen by Osama bin Laden to participate in terrorist attacks in the United States and arrived in the U.S. in June 2001. During his stay in the U.S., he quietly settled in Florida, planning out how the attacks would commence and training on flight simulators.
On September 11, 2001, he boarded United 93 and assisted in the hijacking of the plane, which was diverted toward Washington D.C. in an attempt to crash it into either the White House or the U.S. Capitol but crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania under the control of hijacker-pilot Ziad Jarrah, after the passengers attempted to retake control of the plane in an uprising.
Early life and education.
Saeed al-Ghamdi was from the al Bahah province of Saudi Arabia, and shared the same tribal affiliation with fellow hijackers Ahmed al-Ghamdi, Hamza al-Ghamdi, and Ahmed al-Haznawi, although he was not related to either al-Ghamdi. He may have been in contact with the two al-Ghamdi's and al-Haznawi as early as 1999. This group is noted as being some of the more religiously observant of the hijackers. al-Ghamdi spent time in al Qasim province, Saudi Arabia where he transferred to college but soon dropped out and ceased contact with his family. While there he probably associated with the radical Saudi cleric named Sulayman al-Alwan as several other future hijackers had.
Al-Ghamdi later headed to Chechnya to participate in the conflict against the Russians. At this time, Chechen fighters were turning away additional foreigners, many of whom ended up in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan to train and await entry to Chechnya. Saeed ended up at the Al Farouq training camp, where he met Ahmed al-Nami, and the brothers Wail and Waleed al-Shehri. The four reportedly pledge themselves to Jihad in the Spring of 2000, in a ceremony presided over by Wail Al-Shehri—who had dubbed himself "Abu Mossaeb al-Janubi" after one of Muhammad's companions.
Saeed Al-Ghamdi was known to Tawfiq bin Attash who is thought to have convinced him to become a martyr. Al-Ghamdi was at that time working as a security guard at Kandahar airport along with Waleed al-Shehri.
Some time late in 2000, al-Ghamdi traveled to the United Arab Emirates, where he purchased traveler's cheques presumed to have been paid for by Mustafa al-Hawsawi. Five other hijackers also passed through the UAE and purchased travellers cheques, including Majed Moqed, Wail al-Shehri, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Haznawi and Ahmed al-Nami.
On November 13, 2000, another Saeed al-Ghamdi tried to obtain a visa to enter the United States, but was declined. Although the 9/11 Commission makes mention of him, there is no evidence he was associated with the hijackers.
In March 2001, al-Ghamdi was filmed in a farewell video that was later aired on al-Jazeera. In the video, many future 9/11 hijackers swear to become martyrs, although no details of the plot are revealed. al-Ghamdi referred to America as "the enemy", and is seen studying maps and flight manuals.
In the United States.
On June 12, 2001, Saeed al-Ghamdi applied for and received a second two-year US B-1/B-2 (tourist/business) visa in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. His application was submitted by a local travel agency and processed through Visa Express, a controversial US visa program in Saudi Arabia which was discontinued the following year.
Arriving in the U.S. on June 27, 2001, with Fayez Banihammad, Saeed shared an apartment with Ahmed al-Nami in Delray Beach, Florida. Oddly, he listed the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, as his permanent address on his driver's license. He was one of 9 hijackers to open a SunTrust bank account with a cash deposit around June 2001.
According to al-Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda's documentary "Top Secret: The Road to September 11", three weeks prior to the attacks Saeed is believed to have used the name 'Abdul Rahman' to send a message to Ramzi bin al-Shibh (who was posing as a girlfriend) online, in which he wrote
On September 7, all four of Flight 93 hijackers flew from Fort Lauderdale to Newark International Airport aboard Spirit Airlines.
Attacks.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, al-Ghamdi boarded United Airlines Flight 93 without incident. Due to the flight's delay, the pilot and crew were notified of the previous hijackings that day, and were told to be on the alert. Within minutes, Flight 93 was hijacked as well.
At least two of the cell phone calls made by passengers indicate that all the hijackers they saw were wearing red bandanas. The calls also indicated that one of the men had tied a box around his torso, and claimed there was a bomb inside; it is not known which hijacker this was.
The flight transcript suggests that at least two hijackers were in the cockpit. Ziad Jarrah was identified as the pilot and is heard calling another hijacker "Saeed", indicating that al-Ghamdi, who also trained in flight simulators, was helping Jarrah with the controls.
Passengers on the plane heard through phone calls the fates of the other hijacked planes. A passenger uprising resulted in the plane crashing into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing everyone aboard.
Mistaken identity.
On September 23, 2001, before the FBI had released the pictures of the hijackers, the BBC and "The Daily Telegraph" reported that a Saudi Airlines pilot named Saeed al-Ghamdi was furious that a name on the hijacker's list released by the FBI matched his own. CNN also showed a picture of the "living" al-Ghamdi as the hijacker. The man claimed CNN likely got his picture from a Flight Safety flying school in Florida he attended. "Der Spiegel" later investigated the claims of "living" hijackers by the BBC and discovered them to be cases of mistaken identity.
In June 2005 the Saudi government released a list (see al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) of 36 wanted (and alive) terrorists, one of whom was Salih Sa'id Al Batih al-Ghamdi. 9/11 conspiracy theorists quickly confused him with the hijacker Saeed al-Ghamdi.
He has been portrayed by Iraqi actor Lewis Alsamari in "United 93" and Shawn Ahmed in "Flight 93".


Assassination of Daya Pathirana

The assassination of Daya Pathirana took place on 15 December 1986. Daya Pathirana was the leader of the Independent Students Union of University of Colombo during 1985-1986. Pro-Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna activists (some of them were members of Inter University Students' Federation) are accused of his murder. This assassination is considered as a watershed incident in the 1987–1989 Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna insurrection.
Background.
Daya Pathirana pioneered the Independent Students Union of University of Colombo during his study at the Faculty of Arts, University of Colombo. In the book "Sri Lanka: The Travails of Unfinished War, Protracted Crisis" (1995), Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka describes Pathirana as a very poor student, a radical leftist, not a member of the old Left or the traditional Left. Although he was leftist, he vehemently opposed Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, the Marxist-Leninist political party which had almost total control over the students' unions in Sri Lanka. Therefore he and the Independent Students Union led by him became the most serious threat to the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna control. In a report named "Insurrectionary Violence in Sri Lanka: The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna Insurgencies of 1971 and 1987-1989", Tisaranee Gunasekara describes Pathirana as a "radical student activist, with impeccable anti-United National Party/anti-systemic credentials". Taking over the entire university system was a vital objective, because the Inter University Students' Federation was earmarked by the leadership of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna to be the public political face of the party.
Abduction and assassination.
On 15 December 1986, he along with a colleague named Somasiri was abducted to a lonely spot off the Bolgoda Lake, Piliyandala. The abductors then began to torture him and Somasiri, demanding information about other student and left activists. This was interrupted by a group of pilgrims (as it was the full moon poya day) It saved the life of Somasiri. But Pathirana's throat was slit at the point of intervention, and he eventually succumbed to his wounds.
Aftermath.
The assassination of Daya Pathirana is considered as the first targeted killing of the 1987–89 Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna insurrection. The subsequent uprising proved extremely costly to the country, leaving approximately 60,000 dead or missing. During its earlier stages, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna unleashed violence killing radical leftist figures like Daya Pathirana and Vijaya Kumaratunga in a bid to neutralize the threats from the left-wing politics itself. However in 1996, six years after the failed insurrection, General Secretary Tilvin Silva denied that Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna was involved in the Daya Pathirana murder.


Bay View massacre

The Bay View massacre (sometimes also referred to as the Bay View Tragedy) was the result of a strike held on May 4, 1886, by 7,000 building-trades workers and 5,000 Polish laborers who had organized at St. Stanislaus Catholic Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to strike against their employers, demanding the enforcement of an eight-hour work day. A few days earlier, on May 1, a peaceful demonstration had been held in nearby Chicago, with similar demands.
By Monday, May 3, the number of participants had increased to over 14,000 workers who gathered at the Milwaukee Iron Company rolling mill in Bay View. They were met by 250 National Guardsmen under order from Republican Governor Jeremiah M. Rusk. The strikers had shut down every business in the city except the North Chicago Rolling Mills in Bay View. The guardsmen's orders were that, if the strikers were to enter the Mills, they should shoot to kill. But when the captain received the order it had a different meaning: he ordered his men to pick out a man and shoot to kill when the order was given. Workers camped in the nearby fields and the Kosciuszko Militia arrived by May 4. Early the next day the crowd, which by this time contained children, approached the mill and were fired upon. Seven people died as a result, including a thirteen-year-old boy. Several more were injured during the protest. Several contradictory newspaper accounts described other possible casualties, but the count of seven deaths is substantiated by specific names (Frank Kunkel, Frank Nowarczyk, John Marsh, Robert Erdman, Johann Zazka, Martin Jankowiak, and Michael Ruchalski).
Since 1986, members of the Bay View Historical Society, the Wisconsin Labor History Society, and other community groups have held a commemorative event to honor the memories of those killed during the incident. The event is held every year on the first Sunday in May at 3pm, at the State Historical Marker site at the intersection of Superior Street and Russell Avenue, within view of the former rolling mill location.


Death of Kevin Gately

Kevin Gately (18 September 1953 – 15 June 1974) was a second-year student of mathematics at the University of Warwick who died as the result of a head injury received in the Red Lion Square disorders in London; it is not known if the injury was caused deliberately or was accidental. He was not a member of any political organisation, and the march at Red Lion Square was his first. He was the first person to die in a public demonstration in Great Britain for at least 55 years.
On 15 June 1974 the National Front, a far-right, fascist political party, held a march through central London in support of the repatriation of immigrants. The march was to end at Conway Hall in Red Lion Square. A counter-demonstration was planned by Liberation, an anti-colonial pressure group. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the London council of Liberation had been increasingly infiltrated by hard-left political activists, and they invited several hard-left organisations to join them in the march. When the Liberation march reached Red Lion Square, the International Marxist Group (IMG) twice charged the police cordon blocking access to Conway Hall. Police reinforcements, including mounted police and units of the Special Patrol Group forced the rioting demonstrators out of the square. As the ranks of people moved away from the square, Gately was found unconscious on the floor. He was taken to hospital and died later that day. Two further disturbances took place in the vicinity, both involving clashes between the police and the IMG contingent.
A public inquiry into the events was conducted by Lord Scarman. He found no evidence that Gately had been killed by the police, as had been alleged by some elements of the hard-left press, and concluded that "those who started the riot carry a measure of moral responsibility for his death; and the responsibility is a heavy one". He found fault with some actions of the police on the day. The events in the square made the National Front a household name in the UK, although it is debatable if this had any impact on their share of the vote in subsequent general elections. Although the IMG was heavily criticised by the press and public, there was a rise in localised support, and the willingness to demonstrate against the National Front and its policies. There was further violence associated with National Front marches and the counter-demonstrations they faced, including in Birmingham, Manchester, the East End of London (all 1977) and in 1979 in Southall, which led to the death of Blair Peach. After Peach's death, the Labour Party Member of Parliament Syd Bidwell, who had been about to give a speech in Red Lion Square when the violence started, described Peach and Gately as martyrs against fascism and racism.
Background.
Liberation and the National Front.
Liberation, was formed in 1954 as the Movement for Colonial Freedom, an advocacy group focused on influencing British policy in support of anti-colonial movements in the British Empire. The president of the organisation was Lord Brockwell, and two Labour Party MPs acted as officers. From the early-to-mid-1960s the organisation spent much of its energy in ensuring it was not taken over by members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), a party also dedicated to promoting anti-colonialism. According to the historian Josiah Brownell, despite the organisation's efforts, the London Area Council was dominated by CPGB members by 1967, including Kay Beauchamp, Tony Gilbert, Dorothy Kuya and Sam Kahn.
The National Front was founded in 1967 as a far-right, fascist political party. From its inception the organisation had four main issues on which they campaigned: opposition to Britain's membership of the European Economic Community; Ulster; the trade unions and what the journalist Martin Walker calls "the post-immigration attack on black people born in Britain". The National Front had grown rapidly in the early 1970s and by 1974 the membership was about 10–12,000.
Planning.
In mid-April 1974 the National Front booked the large theatre room at Conway Hall, a meeting house owned by the Conway Hall Ethical Society on Red Lion Square in central London. The meeting was on the subject "Stop immigration—start repatriation", and was in response to plans by the Labour government to repeal parts of the Immigration Act 1971. The repeal would have given illegal immigrants leave to remain in the UK. The National Front had booked the room for meetings in the previous four years; the meeting in October 1973 had been picketed by demonstrators, leading to scuffles, injuries and arrests. In early May the National Front sent their plans for their march and meeting to the Metropolitan Police. They allowed for 1,500 members on 15 June from Westminster Hall to 10 Downing Street to deliver a petition to Harold Wilson, the Prime Minister, and then continue to Conway Hall for the meeting.
The London Area Council of Liberation was contacted by a journalist on 4 June and informed about the National Front's plans. Two days later Liberation called a meeting to arrange a counter-demonstration; among those invited were several hard-left organisations, including the CPGB, International Socialists (IS; later known as the Socialist Workers Party), the Workers Revolutionary Party, Militant Tendency and the International Marxist Group (IMG). As with the National Front, these groups were prepared to use violence against their political opponents to gain an advantage; Sir Robert Mark, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in 1974, described the coalition of groups as "not a whit less odious than the National Front". Liberation also booked the smaller assembly room at Conway Hall for 15 June, to coincide with the National Front meeting. The booking caused consternation among some members of Liberation, and with the National Union of Students (NUS), who asked Liberation to cancel the meeting.
Liberation also planned a demonstration for 15 June, leaving the Embankment and marching to Red Lion Square to enter Conway Hall. After discussions with the police, it was decided that entry to the hall for the Liberation meeting was to be by the back door on Theobalds Road. The police also agreed the organisation could hold a small open-air meeting in Red Lion Square, which they needed to access from Old North Road, which linked the square and Theobalds Road. Syd Bidwell, a Labour Party Member of Parliament was scheduled to address the meeting. Liberation had not been involved in political violence, and police did not fear any violence. What Liberation did not know, was that the IMG were determined to picket the front entrance of Conway Hall to deny the National Front access.
Kevin Gately.
Kevin Gately was born on 18 September 1953 and was 20 at the time of the disorders at Red Lion Square. Originally from Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, he was a mathematics student at the University of Warwick and had never been part of a political demonstration before joining a group of students from Warwick who travelled to London for the day. Gately was or tall with red hair; he is identifiable in several photographs from the day, his head and shoulders clearly above those of his fellow demonstrators.
15 June 1974.
On 15 June 1974 the police on duty at Red Lion Square were under the control of Deputy assistant commissioner John Gerrard. He had allocated four foot police serials—100 officers—to the National Front march and four to Liberation march. There were seven foot police serials in Red Lion Square, plus ten in reserve – two in Dane Street and eight in Bloomsbury Square. Also in reserve were four Special Patrol Group (SPG) units, comprising 112 officers, held near Holborn police station. Two mounted units were also on duty, both in Red Lion Square. In total during the day were 711 foot police and 25 mounted police; with additional support, traffic and CID officers, there were 923 police deployed to marshal the two marches.
Marches to Red Lion Square; first disturbance.
The National Front marchers—about 900 strong—moved off from their assembly point in Tothill Street at 14:59, making their way through Parliament Square and on through the West End of London, arriving at the junction of Vernon Place and Southampton Row at 15:53. They were held there until about 16:00, when they turned right, moved down Southampton Row, turned left into Fisher Street, and then along the south and east sides of Red Lion Square, arriving at the front entrance to Conway Hall at about 16:20. Through the course of their march, they used two groups as "defence parties" ready to defend the column from attack from demonstrators coming from side streets; the march was unmolested throughout the route. The Liberation march comprised between 1,000 and 1,500 people; most were in their late teens and early twenties, many of whom were students. They left their assembly point on the Embankment at 14:48, making their way via the Strand and High Holborn to arrive at the rear entrance of Conway Hall at 15:33. Thirty people left the march at this point and entered the building to take part in the Liberation meeting. The remainder of the marchers continued to the junction with Old North Street, where they turned left and made their way to Red Lion Square, arriving there at 15:36.
When the Liberation march arrived in the square, they found a police cordon blocking the way to the left—stopping them accessing the front entrance to Conway Hall. A section of mounted police was lined up behind the cordon. The leading 500 marchers turned to the right, heading towards where the open-air meeting was supposed to take place; as they did so, the IMG, who headed the remainder of the march, slowed their pace, allowing a gap to open with the lead marchers. The marchers at front of the IMG section linked arms and charged round the corner into the police cordon in what the subsequent inquiry called "a deliberate, determined and sustained attack". Several missiles and two smoke bombs were thrown at the police, and some of the demonstrators used the staves of their placards or poles of the banners as weapons against the police. The cordon was bent out of shape, but remained intact. Gerrard called in the two squads of SPG who were on stand-by. Before they arrived, a second surge from the IMG briefly broke through the cordon, bringing marchers into contact with the mounted police. When the SPG arrived, they formed a V-shaped wedge and drove the crowd backwards so the cordon could be re-imposed. The wedge split the demonstrators in two, pushing some back up Old North Street, and some along the north side of the square. The square was cleared of rioters by 15:50—approximately 15 minutes after the first IMG charge on the police cordon—and the SPG continued to press demonstrators from Old North Street back to Theobalds Road.
During the surge by the SPG, they came into contact with the peaceful demonstrators in the march, driving them apart, as had happened with the IMG contingent. During this action several demonstrators were left on the ground; one of those was Kevin Gately. Because of his height, his was caught on press photographs with fellow students from Warwick; they had been marching behind the IMG group. The last photograph of him alive shows him unscathed, facing up Old North Street and retreating with other students; the photograph was taken before the IMG's second surge towards the police cordon. He was next seen separately by Gerrard and the journalist Peter Chippindale, lying unconscious on the floor as the retreating ranks of people stepped over him. There were no witnesses or other evidence to suggest what happened to Gately between the final photograph and him being on the floor. Gately was picked up by the police and taken to a nearby St John Ambulance post, where he was treated before being taken to University College Hospital; he died four hours later. Gately was the first death during a demonstration in Britain for 55 years.
Second disturbance; Southampton Row.
Having been moved out of Old North Street, the IMG contingent made their way along Theobalds Road to the junction with Southampton Road. They were held at the crossroads as the National Front march had also arrived at the junction. A cordon of 120–140 police officers stood between the two groups. Twelve mounted police arrived at the spot just before 16:00 and, fearing a clash between the two sides, they were ordered to drive the Liberation march back down Theobalds Road; the demonstrators were given no prior warning or opportunity to remove themselves before the police moved against them. The retreating demonstrators could not freely make their way back down the road as the police who had driven demonstrators out from Old North Street were blocking the path; blocked in, more violence ensued, with missiles thrown at the police, who used their truncheons freely. According to Richard Clutterbuck, in his examination of political violence in Britain, "newspaper reporters were more critical of the way the police behaved here than in the earlier incident in Red Lion Square itself".
Third disturbance; Boswell Street.
A small group of IMG members, around 70 in total, formed in Boswell Street, just off Theobalds Road. They were seen by Chief Superintendent Adams who considered them militant and hostile because their arms were linked and appeared to be carrying stakes or batons. He instructed an SPG unit to clear them from the street. His opinion was challenged by several other observers, including two nearby journalists and one of the police sergeants in the SPG unit. The unit advanced into Boswell Street and there was a clash with the IMG members about halfway down the road. Eyewitnesses differ in their accounts as to who was the first of the two groups to offer violence. There were some arrests, which, according to Lord Scarman in his review of the events, "involve[ed] a considerable degree of force".
At around this time of the Boswell Street clash—16:20—the National Front had been led around the south and east sides of Red Lion Square and into Conway Hall. There was no trouble or contact between the main Liberation march—still having their open-air meeting in the square—and the National Front march.
Police arrested 51 people during the disturbances, all from the hard-left contingents. Fifty four people reported injuries, 46 of whom were police officers. While the number of reported injuries was low, Scarman noted "many more must have suffered unpleasant injuries of greater or lesser severity which were never reported".
Aftermath.
That evening and in the following weeks, the media reported and commented on the events in the square. Nearly all the mainstream media agreed that the initial clash between marchers and the police was a deliberate attack by the IMG, while many blamed the police for the clash at the junction of Theobalds Road and Southampton Road. One of those newspapers that followed that line was "The Guardian", whose headline reported "Left wing deliberately started violence". The report, by the journalists Peter Chippindale and Martin Walker, said of the first surge by IMG marchers into the police cordon, "We are in no doubt at all that at this point the marchers around the banner deliberately charged the police cordon". The only journalistic sources that blamed the police for the violence were those from the hard-left newspapers; the "Socialist Worker" carried the headline "Murdered... By Police".
The post-mortem took place on 16 June 1974 and was conducted by Iain West. He noted some bruising on Gately's face, and one behind the ear: "There was a small roughly oval bruise on the left side of the scalp about inches behind and slightly below the middle of the back of the left ear, inch in diameter. The bruising extended through all the layers of the scalp." He concluded "Death has resulted from compression of the brain by a large subdural haemorrhage resulting from a head injury ... The bruise ... could have been caused by a blow by or against a hard object, resulting in the formation of a subdural haemorrhage." When later asked what could have caused the bruise, he said "It didn’t look particularly like a truncheon injury – it looked more like an object with a rougher surface. That appeared to be the only the only significant injury on his body ... it seemed most likely to me that he'd been knocked over and struck his head on the curb or been hit by a piece of sawn timber".
On 17 June, Bidwell—who was also chairman of the London Council of Liberation—and John Randall, the president of the NUS, separately called for a public inquiry into the conduct of the police. The police welcomed any inquest into the events that took place. Gately was buried on 21 June 2021 at St Raphael's Church, Surbiton, the church in which he had been baptised. The same day, 500 students, all wearing black armbands, marched through Coventry, the home town of the University of Warwick. To support the call for an inquest, the NUS held a silent march in London on 22 June 1974. The family asked that the marchers did not carry banners, so only one was shown, at the front of the march, that read "Kevin Gately was killed opposing racism and fascism". About 8,000 people took part in the march, which was described by the journalist Jeremy Bugler as "a dramatic contrast to last week's battle. Almost completely silent, it was perfectly disciplined".
The inquest into Gately's death was opened on 19 June 1974 and adjourned until July. The full hearing took place on 11 and 12 July; because of the public interest in the matter, a jury was appointed. None of the witnesses saw Gately receive any blow to the head. One student told the inquest he saw Gately sink to the floor without being hit. "His eyes were closed. I assumed that he had fainted. He was totally unconscious before he hit the ground. He fell sideways as his knees buckled". He tried to reach Gately to help, but was pushed away with the movement of the crowd. The jury reached a verdict of death by misadventure.
Eighty-two charges were brought against the fifty-one people arrested on the day. Twenty-nine of the charges were dismissed, with fifty-three convictions. No-one was imprisoned, and the penalties were either conditional discharges, being bound over, a fine or a suspended sentence.
On 28 June 1974 Roy Jenkins, the Home Secretary, appointed Scarman to conduct a public inquiry into the events in Red Lion Square "to consider whether any lessons may be learned for the better maintenance of public order when demonstrations take place". Jenkins determined that the inquiry would take place after the inquest had concluded.
Scarman's Inquiry.
Scarman's inquiry into the events sat for 23 days between 2 September and 2 October; 57 witnesses gave evidence, comprising 19 police officers, 17 demonstrators, 12 journalists, 5 residents or by-standers and 4 others. The report was published in February 1975. Scarman interpreted the breaching of the police cordon in Red Lion Square as a riot, from the legal definition of the term, which allowed the police a wider scope of possible responses to take, including the use of reasonable force. In regards to Gately's death, he wrote:
There is no evidence that he was struck any blow by any policeman or injured in any way by a police horse: it is not even possible to say whether it was a blow, a fall, a kick or being trampled on which caused the superficially tiny injury that led to his brain haemorrhage.
As the blame could not be applied to a specific action by the police or a demonstrator, he concluded "That is why, in my judgement, those who started the riot carry a measure of moral responsibility for his death; and the responsibility is a heavy one".
Scarman criticised the police on some of the tactics used in the day's operation. The clearing of peaceful demonstrators at the junction of Theobalds Road and Southampton Road by mounted police was done without warning. He wrote "Public order is an exercise in public relations. ... It may have caused less ... alarm if a warning had been given to the effect that the police required to disperse." The situation was worsened by the presence of police behind those at the junction, which obstructed the avenue of retreat for those trying to avoid the police horses.
Scarman also criticised the police for allowing the two marches get too close to each other. Clutterbuck observes that the police were probably reliant on an out-dated view of Liberation, which had not taken into account their takeover by hard-left elements.
In October 1975, after Scarman had finished taking evidence but before his findings were published, the NUS published the booklet "The Myth of Red Lion Square". In it, they wrote Gately "died as a direct result of a police attack using batons and horses". Scarman thought the publication prior to his findings was "an affront to the inquiry"; he was troubled by the fact that William Wilson, the MP for Coventry South East had provided an introduction for the book.
Legacy.
For the remainder of the 1970s, Liberation found its ability to lead demonstrations against the National Front was diminished, partly because of Red Lion Square, and partly because their agenda was focused on abolishing imperialism and neo-colonialism. The IMG was heavily criticised in the public domain for the violence in Red Lion Square. The organisation also received condemnation from the CPGB, as, they said, the violence made it difficult for the anti-fascist movement to broaden its appeal. The IMG no longer relied on mass demonstrations to get their message across, and subsequent opposition to National Front marches was led by the Socialist Workers Party.
The events helped make the National Front a household name in the UK. News reports showed the National Front standing waiting for police directions, while violence was taking place between the hard-left elements and the police. Walker, in his study of the organisation, states that "but it was the NF which emerged as the innocent victims of political violence, the Left who emerged as the instigators, and it was a 21-year-old student who died." According to Clutterbuck, "the result was precisely what the NF would have wished—publicity for the purpose of "their" demonstration, discrediting of their detractors, increasing applications for their membership and a substantially increased vote both at the next General Election and at subsequent by-elections". The academic Stan Taylor disputes Clutterbuck's conclusion that the events helped the National Front at the October 1974 general election. As although they raised their vote in some seats, their share of the national vote remain consistent.
Despite the blame for Gately's death and the violence of the day being levelled at the hard-left protestors—both in Scarman's report and the media—the number of demonstrators against the National Front and racist policies rose at local levels in the UK through the 1970s. Local demonstrations disrupted election addresses by National Front candidates in the October 1974 election, there was an increase in the amount of literature against them and their policies, and National Front demonstrations through the rest of the 1970s attracted large counter-demonstrations. The increasingly provocative actions by the National Front continued through the 1970s led to what Waddington describes as "a predictably violent response" from the militant left. Violence from both sides in Birmingham, Manchester, the East End of London (all 1977) and in 1979 in Southall, which led to the death of Blair Peach. Following the death of Peach, Bidwell said in Parliament "Blair Peach, together with young Kevin Gately, who died in 1974 in the Red Lion Square events, will be regarded by history as a martyr and a young courageous campaigner against fascism and racism".
The University of Warwick has a collection of documents relating to the aftermath of Gately's death. In 2019 the University's student union named one of its meeting rooms after Gately. The union have a mural commemorating him in their main building.


Unlock Democracy

Unlock Democracy is a British pressure group, based in London. The organisation campaigns for a more participatory democracy in Britain, founded upon a written constitution. Unlock Democracy works to promote democratic reform across the political spectrum and is not aligned with any political party. The organisation's activities include producing a range of publications, lobbying politicians and political parties and working on projects to promote greater public involvement in politics, at both local and national levels.
Unlock Democracy is led by a governing council, elected by all members biannually. The Council in turn elects its own chair and a management board which oversees the day to day running of the organisation. It is funded from three main sources: grant income for specific projects from various foundations and trusts, subscriptions and donations from its members and supporters, and income from its subsidiary company Rodell Properties Ltd.
The founding Director was Peter Facey, who was Director of Unlock Democracy’s predecessor organisation the New Politics Network in 2001 and later becoming Director of Charter 88. He was responsible for the merger of the two organisations in 2007. Being succeeded as Director in 2013 by long-time deputy Director Alexandra Runswick, who led the organisation until early 2020.
In October 2020, Former Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake was appointed as the new Director of Unlock Democracy.
History.
In 2003, 15 years after the formation of Charter 88, the organisation was experiencing a very turbulent period and this led to great organisational changes. A loss of intellectual contribution, the organisation's increasing financial woes and a period of resignations and redundancies created a near crisis situation in late 2003. In February 2005, Charter 88 and the New Politics Network (NPN) set up a joint working relationship to make the most of their resources in the establishment of the Elect the Lords campaign. The two organisations decided to formalise their working relationship in 2006, and Unlock Democracy was founded in 2007.
Members of Charter 88 (a pressure group advocating a charter of connected constitutional changes, including a written constitution, electoral reform, freedom of information, etc.) and NPN (the organisation established after the winding up of the think tank Democratic Left, which was itself the legal successor of the Communist Party of Great Britain) voted to merge the two organisations. The movement and subsequent campaigning of the organisation could be seen as remaining truer to its Charter 88 roots than those of the NPN. The NPN strapline, however, "connecting people and politics", was retained.
The merger was completed in November 2007.
Campaign goals.
Unlock Democracy arguing for a "vibrant, inclusive democracy that puts power in the hands of the people". Its primary goal is the setting in place of a democratic participative process resulting in a written constitution. It is suggested that this constitution should explicitly enshrine;
In addition to this, Unlock Democracy also campaigns;
The Unlock Democracy constitution contains the Charter (a set of aims set out by predecessor organisation Charter 88) as an appendix. Thus implying that Unlock Democracy supports these goals to some extent.
Campaign achievements.
Unlock Democracy has engaged with the Ministry of Justice Governance of Britain programme. It attends party conferences and runs external events such as People and Politics Day. It continues to work with and support other organisations such as Local Works on the Sustainable Communities Act. Lastly, it continues its work on democratic reform, including the "Elect the Lords" campaign, and the campaign for a review of the UK general election electoral system.
The May 2020 elections were postponed because of Covid until May 2021. In February 2021, with Covid still causing concerns, the UK Government were arguing that leafleting by volunteers for the May 2021 elections was not allowed, but the commercial delivery of leaflets was.  This was hugely disadvantageous to the UK's smaller political parties who rely more heavily on volunteers.  Following a campaign with Big Brother Watch, Unlock Democracy and other campaign organisations, the UK Government relented and allowed campaigning to take place from 8 March 2021.
In April 2021, ahead of the May 2021 Local elections. Unlock Democracy launched its Community Democracy campaign “Turning the Tide”. As a part of this campaign, Unlock Democracy commissioned a report by De Mortfort University into the state of Local Government in England over the last 40 years. The report, named “Local Government in England – Fourty Years of Decline” outlined that local government autonomy, financial independence and democratic legitimacy had all been weakened. Concluding that local government had been “hollowed out”, and that “...Local Democracy is at breaking point, and urgent action is needed to restore it.”
Funding.
Unlock Democracy has been given an A grade for funding transparency by Who Funds You?


Liu Wenjing

Liu Wenjing (568–619), courtesy name Zhaoren, formally the Duke of Lu, was a statesman and one-time Chancellor of the Tang dynasty. He initially served as an official of the Sui dynasty and was one of the driving forces in persuading the general Li Yuan to rebel against Emperor Yang of Sui. He assisted Li Yuan in establishing the Tang dynasty and becoming its first ruler. After Li Yuan became the emperor, he did not award the same honours to Liu Wenjing as he did to Pei Ji, thus Liu became very resentful. He engaged sorcerers to help him seek divine favours, but was executed after Li Yuan found out about it.
Background.
According to Liu Wenjing himself, his ancestors were from Pengcheng (彭城, in modern Xuzhou, Jiangsu), but later moved to the Chang'an region. His grandfather Liu Yi (劉懿) was a provincial governor during Northern Zhou. His father Liu Shao (劉韶) served in the army of the succeeding Sui Dynasty and died in battle. As a result of this and the posthumous honors that Liu Shao received, Liu Wenjing received a governmental rank, and late in the reign of Emperor Yang, he was the county magistrate at the important city of Jinyang (晉陽, in modern Taiyuan, Shanxi), where he became friendly with another official, Pei Ji, who was the head of the household at Emperor Yang's secondary palace at Jinyang.
Participation in Li Yuan's rebellion.
When the general Li Yuan the Duke of Tang was put in charge of Taiyuan (i.e., Jinyang) in 616, Liu saw that Li Yuan had great ambitions and therefore befriended him, but was even more impressed with Li Yuan's son Li Shimin, privately comparing Li Shimin to Emperor Gao of Han and Cao Cao when talking with Pei. In 617, when Li Mi rose in open rebellion near the eastern capital Luoyang, claiming the title of Duke of Wei, Liu, who was related to Li Mi by marriage, was briefly arrested and jailed on Emperor Yang's orders. When Li Shimin visited him in jail, he pointed out to Li Shimin the disturbed state that Sui was in and encouraged him to consider rebellion. Li Shimin agreed and began to plan for rebellion, but was initially hesitant to inform Li Yuan. As Li Yuan trusted Pei greatly, Liu devised the plot of having his associate Gao Binlian (高斌廉) gamble with Pei and intentionally lose to him, gradually endearing himself to Pei, and then inform him of the plot. Liu also personally persuaded Pei, pointing out to him that Pei, who had earlier permitted Li Yuan to have sexual relations with ladies in waiting at the Jinyang Palace, was violating serious regulations, and that in any case, Emperor Yang was already suspicious of Li Yuan because there had been prophecies that the next emperor would be named Li. Pei agreed, and he persuaded Li Yuan of the wisdom of rebelling. Li Yuan then had Liu forge an edict from Emperor Yang stating that all men in the surrounding commanderies from age 20 to 50 were all to be conscripted for a campaign against Goguryeo—against which Emperor Yang had earlier launched three largely disastrous campaigns—to arouse the despair of the people in the commanderies.
As Li Yuan prepared rebellion in spring 617, his deputies Wang Wei (王威) and Gao Junya (高君雅) began to be suspicious of him. Liu devised a plot where he entered the hall where Li Yuan, Wang, and Gao were sitting with his associate Liu Zhenghui (劉政會) and had Liu Zhenghui falsely accuse Wang and Gao of collaborating with Eastern Tujue. Li Yuan, feigning surprise, had Wang and Gao arrested. When Eastern Tujue soon attacked, the people believed the accusation that Wang and Gao were collaborating with Eastern Tujue, and Li Yuan used this excuse to execute them.
Li Yuan declared rebellion in fall 617, and Liu Wenjing suggested that he, who was still ostensibly claiming to be loyal to Sui but wanting to support Emperor Yang's grandson Yang You the Prince of Dai, then at Chang'an, as emperor, should change his banners from the regular Sui banners to distance himself from Emperor Yang, while seeking an alliance with Eastern Tujue for support. Li Yuan agreed, and sent Liu to Eastern Tujue to meet with the Shibi Khan Ashina Duojishi. When Ashina Duojishi asked him what Li Yuan's intention was, Liu responded:
Ashina Duojishi was pleased, and while he was not wholeheartedly willing to support Li Yuan, he nevertheless sent his general Kangqiaoli (康鞘利) with 2,000 men to accompany Liu back south, as Li Yuan had already marched south toward Chang'an, and he also gave Li Yuan 1,000 horses. Li Yuan, who wanted Tujue horses more than Tujue soldiers, was pleased and praised Liu for his skills at diplomacy. Subsequently, after Li Yuan decided to bypass Hedong (河東, in modern Yuncheng, Shanxi) and directly cross the Yellow River and attack Chang'an, he sent Liu with his son Li Jiancheng to Tong Pass to defend against an attack from Qutu Tong (屈突通), the Sui general defending Hedong. Qutu did indeed attack to try to prevent Li Yuan's advance, and while Liu initially suffered losses against Qutu's subordinate Sang Xianhe (桑顯和), he was ultimately able to defeat Sang and further capture Qutu. Once Li Yuan captured Chang'an in winter 617 and declared Yang You emperor (as Emperor Gong) but retained power as regent, Liu was created the Duke of Lu.
During Emperor Gaozu's reign.
In spring 618, Emperor Yang was killed in a coup at Jiangdu (江都, in modern Yangzhou, Jiangsu) led by the general Yuwen Huaji. When the news arrived at Chang'an, Li Yuan had Yang You yield the throne to him, establishing Tang Dynasty as its Emperor Gaozu. He made Liu Wenjing "Nayan" (納言), the head of the examination bureau of the government, considered one of the posts for a chancellor. He also had Liu and Pei Ji revised the Sui laws, although he rejected Liu's suggestion to distance himself a bit more from his officials in order to show authority, opting often to dine with his officials at the same table.
Meanwhile, the newly established Tang was under threat from another rebel ruler, Xue Ju the Emperor of Qin. Emperor Gaozu sent Li Shimin against Xue, with Liu and Yin Kaishan (殷開山) as his deputies. On the way, however, Li Shimin became ill, and he transferred the command to Liu, while instructing Liu not to directly engage Xue but to wear him out. Instead, Liu, confident that he had a larger army than Xue, listened to Yin, who believed that Xue should be engaged. Xue, however, defeated him at Qianshui Plain (淺水原, in modern Xianyang, Shaanxi), killing some 50% to 60% of Tang soldiers. Li Shimin was forced to withdraw back to Chang'an, and Liu and Yin were removed from their posts. Later that year, however, after Xue Ju's death, Liu participated in Li Shimin's campaign that defeated Xue Ju's son and successor Xue Rengao, and his title was restored, but he was not again made a chancellor, but only as Li Shimin's assistant.
Death.
Meanwhile, while Liu Wenjing and Pei Ji were initially friends, by this point they had developed an enmity, as Liu believed that he had greater contributions to Tang's establishment, and yet was not as trusted or honored as Pei. They had many disagreements, and each time they disagreed, Liu would insult Pei, and their friendship was broken. At one point, Liu Wenjing was so angry at Pei that, after he drank with his younger brother Liu Wenqi (劉文起), he drew his sword and hit a pillar with it, proclaiming, "One day, I will cut off Pei Ji's head!"
Meanwhile, there were unusual bad omens happening in the Liu household, and Liu Wenqi (劉文起) engaged witches to try to dispel the evil spirits. One of Liu Wenjing's concubines, who had lost favor, had her brother report this to Emperor Gaozu. Emperor Gaozu arrested Liu Wenjing and had Pei and Xiao Yu interrogate him. Liu Wenjing stated:
Emperor Gaozu was displeased and believed that Liu Wenjing was planning treason. Li Gang (李綱) and Xiao both spoke on Liu's behalf, as did Li Shimin, but Pei warned Emperor Gaozu that Liu was talented but reckless and might cause trouble in the future. Emperor Gaozu, who trusted Pei, hesitated but eventually agreed, and he executed both Liu Wenjing and Liu Wenqi and confiscated their wealth. After Li Shimin became emperor in 626 (as Emperor Taizong), he restored Liu Wenjing's titles posthumously in 628 and allowed his son Liu Shuyi (劉樹義) to inherit the title of Duke of Lu, promising to eventually give him a princess as his wife. However, Liu Shuyi was still resentful over his father's execution, and he plotted a rebellion with his brother Liu Shuyi (劉樹藝, note different character). The plot was discovered, and they were executed.


Vittorio Foa

Vittorio Foa (18 September 1910 – 20 October 2008) was an Italian politician, trade unionist, journalist and writer.
Biography.
Foa was born in Turin in 1910 into a middle-class Jewish family.
He attended Liceo Classico Massimo d'Azeglio in Turin for his sixth form/senior high school studies. In 1931, Foa graduated in Law at the University of Turin and worked in a bank. In 1933, he joined Giustizia e Libertà, an anti-fascist political movement. He was arrested by the OVRA in May 1935 and was condemned to 15 years in prison. He shared his cell with Ernesto Rossi, Massimo Mila and Riccardo Bauer.
Foa was released in August 1943. He joined the resistance movement and entered the Partito d’Azione (Action Party, PdA). As a PdA member, he joined the Comitato di Liberazione Nazionale (National Liberation Committee, CLN)
On 2 June 1946, Foa was elected member of the Constituent Assembly and he became a member of the Commission of the Seventy. Foa’s name is linked to articles 39 and 40 of the Constitution dealing with the freedom of trade union organisation.
When the Partito d’Azione dissolved in 1947, Foa joined the Partito Socialista Italiano (Italian Socialist Party, PSI) and was elected an MP in 1953 (and again in 1958 and 1963). In 1957, he joined the left-wing trade union of Giuseppe Di Vittorio, the CGIL, and became an influential and highly charismatic trade union leader.
A leading intellectual of the Italian non-Communist left, Foa supported the theory of the political autonomy of the working class, which would later inspire the foundation of extra-parliamentary leftist groups (PSIUP, PdUP, DP).
At the end of the 1970s, Foa left the trade union and active political life to devote himself to historical research and publishing. He taught Modern History at the Universities of Modena and Turin and researched the history of the working class and of the trade unions. Publications of this period include "La Gerusalemme rimandata: Domande di oggi agli inglesi del primo Novecento" (1985), a study of English working class movements at the beginning of the twentieth century.
In the late 1980s, Foa played an active part in the re-thinking of the Italian left and took a keen interest in the debates within the Italian Communist Party. In 1987 he was elected Senator from the PCI’s list of candidates.
In 1992, Foa retired, dividing his time between Rome and Formia. One of his last public appearances took place in 2002, when Foa joined the “Manifestazione dei Girotondi”, a spontaneous civil movement that developed in 2002–2003 in several Italian towns.
Defined as "the critical voice of the Italian left", Foa devoted his life to Italian and European politics in their widest sense, and constantly expressed his confidence in the young. From the role of the trade unions, to the place of science in our contemporary society, Foa’s interests embraced crucial aspects of modern life and society.
He died on 20 October 2008 in Formia.
On 21 October 2008, Italian newspapers were filled with tributes to Foa. In La Repubblica, the journalist Miriam Mafai recalled his impatience when asked what the beleaguered Italian left should do. "It’s a waste of time and sense to try to define a leftist identity" – Mafai recalled Foa saying – "You have to do what is right and necessary for the country. It is up to posterity to decide whether it came from the right or the left."


Jane Stewart (politician)

Jane Stewart, (born April 25, 1955) is a former Canadian politician who was the Minister of Human Resources Development from 1999 to 2003. She joined International Labour Organization in May 2004 and was the Special Representative and Director of the International Labour Organization's office to the United Nations until January 2016.
Life and career.
Born in Brantford, Ontario, Stewart was first elected to Parliament in the 1993 election. She was a close friend of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, and was soon appointed to the important position of minister of National Revenue and subsequently Minister of Indian Affairs. In 1999, she was moved to the Department of Human Resources Development (HRDC), the government department that has the largest budget. Stewart was widely viewed to have leadership ambitions, and was closely supported by Chrétien.
These ambitions were put to an end by the so-called "billion-dollar boondoggle" where ineffective accounting practices at HRDC allegedly left millions of dollars unaccounted for. While the problems at HRDC mostly date from the time of her predecessor, Pierre Pettigrew, Stewart took the brunt of the attack but was also the Minister widely viewed to have cleaned up the mess left behind by her predecessor. She did not resign and according to some, Chrétien stood by her throughout the ordeal.
She remained minister in charge of HRDC until Paul Martin became Prime Minister on December 12, 2003. She was moved to the backbenches because of her position as a loyalist to the ousted Chrétien. She retired from politics on February 13, 2004, to become an Executive Director of the International Labour Organization. In July 2005, she left her job with the ILO to return to Canada and marry businessman Henry Stolp. She later returned to ILO as its Executive Director, residing in New York City.
With the announcement that Martin was stepping down as leader of the Liberal Party, a group called "Liberals for Jane" had hoped to see Stewart seek the party leadership. This was ruled out when Stewart accepted the position of Chief of Staff to acting Leader of the Opposition, Bill Graham. Only weeks later, Stewart stepped down from the post due to family obligations. She was replaced by former cabinet minister Andy Mitchell.
From 2006 to May 2007 Stewart was chief negotiator for the province of Ontario in the Caledonia land dispute. In 2008, Jane became the Volunteer Chair for Brant United Way.
Stewart comes from a family of politicians. Her father Robert Nixon was leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, while her grandfather was Ontario premier Harry Nixon.


Duchy of Bukovina

The Duchy of Bukovina was a constituent land of the Austrian Empire from 1849 and a Cisleithanian crown land of Austria-Hungary from 1867 until 1918.
Name.
The name "Bukovina" came into official use in 1775 with the region's annexation from the Principality of Moldavia to the possessions of the Habsburg Monarchy (which became the Austrian Empire in 1804, and Austria-Hungary in 1867).
The official German name, "die Bukowina", of the province under Austrian rule (1775–1918), was derived from the Polish form "Bukowina", which in turn was derived from the Ukrainian word, Буковина (Bukovyna), and the common Slavic form of "buk", meaning beech tree ("бук" [buk] as, for example, in Ukrainian or, even, "Buche" in German). Another German name for the region, "das Buchenland", is mostly used in poetry, and means "beech land", or "the land of beech trees". In Romanian, in literary or poetic contexts, the name "Țara Fagilor" ("the land of beech trees") is sometimes used.
In English, an alternative form is "The Bukovina", increasingly an archaism, which, however, is found in older literature.
History.
After the Mongol invasion of Europe, the Bukovina lands since the 14th century had been part of the Principality of Moldavia, with Suceava being the princely capital from 1388 to 1565. In the 16th century, Moldavia came under Ottoman influence, but still retaining its autonomy. During the early 18th century, Moldavia became the target of the Russian Empire's southwards expansion, inaugurated by Tsar Peter the Great during the Pruth River Campaign of 1710–11. In 1769, during the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–74, Moldavia was occupied by Russian troops.
Austrian rule.
Following the First Partition of Poland in 1772, the Habsburg Monarchy had aimed at a land connection from the Principality of Transylvania to the newly acquired Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. After the Russo-Turkish Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca was concluded in July 1774, the Austrians entered into negotiations with the Sublime Porte from October and could finally obtain a territory of Moldavia with an area of about 10,000 square kilometres (ca. 4,000 square miles) they called "Bukowina", which they formally annexed in January 1775. On 2 July 1776, at Palamutka, Austrians and Ottomans signed a border convention, the Habsburg Monarchy giving back 59 of the previously occupied villages, and remaining with 278 villages. For opposing and protesting the annexation of the northwestern part of Moldavia, the Moldavian ruler Prince Grigore III Ghica was assassinated by the Ottomans.
Bukovina at first was a closed military district from 1775 until 1786, and then was incorporated as the largest district, "Kreis Czernowitz" (later also "Kreis Bukowina") of the Austrian constituent Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. So far, the Moldavian nobility had traditionally formed the ruling class in that territory. The Habsburg emperor Joseph II wished to affiliate the region with the provinces of the Austrian monarchy (though not with the Holy Roman Empire); he had the devastated lands colonised by Danube Swabians, later known as Bukovina Germans. In the mid 19th century the town of Sadhora became the centre of the Hasidic Sadigura dynasty. The immigration process promoted the further economic development of the multi-ethnic country, though it remained a remote eastern outpost of the Danube Monarchy.
In 1804, the region became part of the newly established Austrian Empire. After the political turmoil of the 1848 revolutions, the estates urged the Vienna government to elevate the Bukovina to a separate Austrian "Kronland" (crown land). With effect of 4 March 1849, the former "Kreis" was declared the "Herzogtum Bukowina", a nominal duchy as part of the official full style of the Austrian emperor. It was governed by a "k.k. Statthalter" (stadtholder) appointed by the emperor, with his official residence at Czernowitz from 1850.
In 1860 the Bukovina was again amalgamated with Galicia, but reinstated as a separate province once again according to the 1861 February Patent issued by Emperor Franz Joseph I. The reinstated crown land received its own "Landtag" diet including a "Landesausschuss" executive authority, a status that would last until 1918. In 1867, with the re-organisation of the Austrian Empire as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it became part of the Cisleithanian ("Austrian") territories. Upon the promulgation of the December Constitution, the Imperial Council, on the initiative of the Cisleithanian Citizens' Ministry led by Karl von Auersperg, decided to confer the title "Landespräsident" on the former stadtholder, heading a "Landesregierung" (state government). Nine (from 1907 elections: 14) delegates represented the Bukovina in the Austrian House of Deputies.
World War I.
The main military force in the region during peacetime was the 22nd Infantry Regiment at Czernowitz, at that time the only "k.k. Landwehr" regiment with a Romanian majority (54%). As soon as hostilities began, however, new units were formed from the locally recruited population. The 22nd, 23rd and 41st Landwehr Regiments, along with the 4th Dragoons regiment all had Romanian majority. To encourage recruitment, the Romanians were allowed to wear their national colors as well as receiving spiritual guidance by ethnic-Romanian military priests.
In 1914–15 large parts of the Bukovina were occupied by the Russian 8th Army under General Aleksei Brusilov after the Austro-Hungarian defeat in the Battle of Galicia and could only be regained by the united forces of the Central Powers after the German-led Gorlice–Tarnów Offensive and the Russian Great Retreat. The Romanian troops fought bravely, 62 being awarded the Medal for Bravery. In one instance, the 41st Regiment fought for 54 hours continuously. By 4 June 1916, The Bukovinian Romanian casualties were 184 killed, 1175 wounded and 82 captured.
In the autumn of 1918, the multi-ethnic state of Austria-Hungary collapsed and the Ministry of War officially ordered demobilization, though no central authority was able to ensure the decommissioning of arms. On 18 October 1918, the Ukrainian National Council established in Lemberg, Galicia, planned to declare a Ukrainian Republic that would also incorporate the Bukovina and Carpathian Ruthenia. On 25 October 1918, a Ukrainian regional committee, led by Emilian Popowicz, was established in Czernowitz to represent the Ukrainian National Council in Bukovina. On 14/27 October 1918, at the initiative of Sextil Pușcariu, Iancu Flondor, and Isidor Bodea, the Constituent Assembly of Bukovina established, in Czernowitz, the Romanian National Council (consisting of representatives from the Austrian parliament and from the Bukovina diet, and local political activists), which adopted a declaration to support the union of Bukovina with Romania, and demanded the last Austrian "Landespräsident" governor Josef Graf Etzdorf to cede his power.
In the meantime, the local paramilitary forces of the Ukrainian National Council took control over Czernowitz and other parts of Bukovina, effectively supplanting Austrian control by the 6th of November. Although local Ukrainians attempted to incorporate Bukovina into the so-called West Ukrainian People's Republic, they were not able to set up an administration. In the light of Ukrainians' actions, the Romanian National Council leader Iancu Flondor, request the Romanian government to intervene in Bukovina. Five days later, the Romanian 8th Division, led by General Iacob Zadik, entered Czernowitz, against Ukrainian protests, while the Ukrainian paramilitary forces withdrew without resistance to Galicia. Further attempts by local Ukrainians to incorporate parts of northern Bukovina into the West Ukrainian People's Republic were swiftly suppressed by the troops, with the leadership of the Ukrainian National Council fleeing across the Dniester River, to Galicia, which was partially under Ukrainian military control.
After the Romanian troops secured the region, a General Congress of Bukovina was established on 15/28 November 1918, which counted among its members 74 Romanians, 13 Ruthenians, 7 Germans, and 6 Poles were elected (this is the linguistic composition, and Jews were not recorded as a separate group). A popular enthusiasm sprang throughout the region, and a large number of people gathered in the city to wait for the resolution of the Congress. The Congress elected the Romanian Bukovinian politician Iancu Flondor as chairman, and voted for the union with the Kingdom of Romania, with the support of the Romanian, German, Jewish, and Polish representatives, and in the absence of the Ukrainian ones. The reasons stated were that, until its takeover by the Habsburg in 1775, Bukovina was the heart of the Principality of Moldavia (where the voivods' burial sites are located), and right of self-determination.
Romanian control of the province was recognized internationally in the Treaty of St. Germain, in 1919, and the Treaty of Trianon, in 1920, when both the Republic of German-Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary renounced all claims to the Bukovina.
Administration.
When "Kreis Bukowina" was elevated to a duchy in its own right in 1849, it was initially still administrated from the Galician capital Lemberg. By order of the Austrian Ministry of the Interior, Czernowitz became the seat of an Imperial-Royal ("k.k.") stadtholder in 1850. By the 1861 February Patent the Duchy of Bukovina got a representative assembly, the "Landtag" diet with a "Landesausschuss" executive branch led by a "Landeshauptmann". Upon the 1907 Cisleithanian legislative election the duchy was represented by 14 delegates in the Austrian Imperial Council legislature.
The subdivision of the crown land was amended in 1868; by 1914 the Duchy of Bukovina consisted of eleven political districts ("Bezirke"):
Historical population.
According to the 1775 Austrian census, the province had a total population of 86,000 (this included 56 villages which were later returned to Moldova). The census only recorded social status and some ethno-religious groups. In 1919, the historian Ion Nistor claimed that Romanians constituted an overwhelming majority in 1774, roughly 64,000 (85%) of the 75,000 total population. Meanwhile, about 8,000 (10%) were Ruthenians, and 3,000 (4%) other ethnic groups. On the other hand, just four years before the same Nistor claimed the 1774 population consisted of 52,750 Romanians (73%), 15.000 Ruthenians (21%) and 4,000 others "using Romanian in conversation" (6%). In 2011, an anthroponimical analysis of the Russian census of the population of Moldova in 1774 asserted a population of 68,700 people in 1774, out of which 40,920 (59.6%) Romanians, 22,810 Ruthenians and Hutsuls (33.2%), and 7.2% Jews, Roma, and Armenians. The Ruthenians lived more densely in the north-west of Bukovina, especially in the zone between Prut and Dniester and the Hutsuls were concentrated in the mountain zone in the west of the province, especially in the zone of the rivers Ceremuș and Putyla. In 1787, the imperial officials documented in Czernowitz 414 houses, of which 153 Moldavian (Romanian), 84 German, 76 Jewish, with the rest being Armenian, Arnaut (Albanian), Czech, Greek, Hungarian, Pole and Ruthene (Ukrainian).
During the 19th century, the Austrian Empire policies encouraged the influx of many immigrants (Austrian authorities encouraged immigration in order to develop the economy), mainly Ukrainians (at that time referred to as Ruthenians from Galicia) and Romanians from Transylvania and Hungary, as well as smaller numbers of Germans, Poles, Jews, and Hungarians. Official censuses in the Austrian Empire (later Austria-Hungary) did not record ethno-linguistic data until 1850–1851. H.F. Müller gives the 1840 population used for purposes of military conscription as 339,669. According to Alecu Hurmuzaki, by 1848 55% of the population was Romanian. The Austrian census of 1850–1851 which for the first time recorded data regarding languages spoken, shows 48.50% Romanians and 38.07% Ruthenians
In 1843 the Ruthenian language was recognized, along with the Romanian language, as 'the language of the people and of the Church in Bukovina'.
According to estimates and the census data of Austria-Hungary, the population of Bukovina was:


Ed Balls document leak

The Ed Balls document leak was a political controversy in the United Kingdom that arose on 9 June 2011. It was based on a database of 55 private documents leaked by "The Daily Telegraph" that purported to show that Ed Balls played a central role in a plot, launched two months after the 2005 general election dubbed "Project Volvo", to oust Tony Blair as prime minister and replace him with Gordon Brown. The files included private letters between Blair and Brown, and also purported to show that the government went ahead with plans to increase public spending, despite receiving advice to the contrary.
The day following the revelations Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell sanctioned an investigation into the leaking of the papers, after receiving a complaint from Balls, who maintained that the documents referred only to attempts made by him and agreed with by Blair and Brown, "to ensure a 'stable and orderly transition'" between the two Labour politicians.
Background.
In May 2009 "The Daily Telegraph" and "The Sunday Telegraph" published details of MPs' expenses. This led to a number of high-profile resignations from both the ruling Labour administration and the Conservative opposition. The release of the 66 documents in June 2011 was the second time in recent history that the Telegraph Group had made available to the public documents that could be potentially damaging to political figures.
Balls had been a key figure in New Labour's economic reform agenda. However, he and Brown had differed from the Blairites in being more keen to stress their roots in Labour party intellectual traditions such as Fabianism and the co-operative movement, in addition to taking a modernising approach when it came to policy.
The files.
On the evening of 9 July 2011 "The Daily Telegraph" published the first set of files, consisting of more than 30 documents, which allegedly showed that Balls, and to some extent Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander, had played a "key role" in undermining Tony Blair in the wake of the 2005 New Labour general election win, "in a plot codenamed Project Volvo". The cache of documents also appeared to reveal in handwritten notes made by Brown his negative feelings towards Blair; material which had previously only been the subject of considerable media speculation.
The following day, 10 July, the newspaper released a further 19 documents "obtained from the personal files of Mr Balls" which purportedly provided evidence that Brown took decisions to press ahead with increased public spending, despite receiving advice that "any increase in taxpayer expenditure should only be in line with inflation". Another memorandum appeared to show that Brown and Balls were warned "that plans to scrap the 10p tax rate would hit millions of poorer Britons and pensioners."
Denial of allegations.
Balls maintained both before and after the documents were leaked that he had not been part of a campaign to replace Blair with Brown. In July 2010, Balls dismissed as "total, absolute nonsense" that he had taken part in a coup to oust Blair, and in a BBC interview on 15 June 2010 with Andrew Neil Balls responded to the question "Andrew Rawnsley says the coup was not run by Gordon. It was run by Ed. Is that made up too?" by answering "Complete and utter total balderdash and rubbish".
Subsequent to the documents being published by "The Daily Telegraph", Balls again denied any involvement in any role to unseat Blair, calling the allegations ""false and mendacious" and saying "The idea that there was a plot or a coup is untrue and not justified by these papers". Balls claimed that his role at that time was to "hold things together" and that the differences between Blair and Brown amounted to "creative tensions".
Media reaction.
In the immediate aftermath of the release, "The Guardian" stated that the controversy raised questions as to whether O'Donnell's investigation "will raise questions about whether the new government was involved in the leaking of the papers", an insinuation that was lent support by Michael White in the same paper. Toby Young, in "The Daily Telegraph", wrote that the leak of the documents had shown that there had been a cover up and suggested that Balls' position as shadow chancellor was untenable. Steve Richards, writing in "The Independent", wrote that "the documents are not incriminating. Indeed, the context in which they were written shows why it would be more of a shock if such memos had not been composed as Labour's long internal battle reached a dénouement". The "New Statesman" wrote "there is no doubt that they are damaging to the shadow chancellor. They contradict his public insistence that he never sought to undermine Blair", and also questioned the timing of the information coming to light.


Riyadh compound bombings

Two major bombings took place in residential compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 2003. On 12 May 2003, 39 people were killed, and over 160 wounded when bombs went off at three compounds in Riyadh—Dorrat Al Jadawel, Al Hamra Oasis Village, and the Vinnell Corporation Compound. On 8 November, a bomb was detonated outside the Al-Mohaya housing compound west of Riyadh, killing at least 17 people and wounding 122.
The bombings have been attributed to Islamic extremists as part of a campaign against Westerners and Westernization in Saudi Arabia. They are thought to have been sparked by the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War with Iraq.
Prelude.
A smaller campaign of insurgency in Saudi Arabia had begun in November 2000 when car bombings were carried out targeting and killing individual expatriates in Riyadh and other cities. As early as February 2003, the US State Department issued travel warnings that Westerners could be targeted by terrorists. The warnings followed an explosion at a private residence where weapons, explosives, cash, and false documents were subsequently discovered. In early May 2003, the US State Department warned that terrorists were in the final stages of planning terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government also warned of this, and issued an alert for 19 men believed to be members of Al-Qaeda planning attacks.
May attack.
Late on 12 May, several vehicles manned by heavily armed assault teams arrived at three Riyadh compounds: The Dorrat Al Jadawel, a compound owned by the London-based MBI International and Partners subsidiary Jadawel International, the Al Hamra Oasis Village, and the Vinnell Corporation Compound, occupied by a Virginia-based defense contractor that was training the Saudi National Guard. All contained large numbers of Americans, Westerners, and non-Saudi Arabs.
Around 11:15 pm, multiple gunmen infiltrated the Al Hamra Oasis Village, a site inhabited mainly by Westerners. They killed the guards at the gate and proceeded to open fire at residents, killing Westerners, non-Saudi Arabs, and Saudis and the assailants then detonated a car bomb. The next attack was at the Jadawel compound, though the assailants failed to gain access to the compound due to the prominent level of security. There was a shootout between security personnel and terrorists on approach to the front gates. The terrorists then detonated a two-ton truck bomb outside the area killing themselves, two security guards and injuring many others.
The final target was the Vinnell compound. The Terrorist Team approached the gate in a sedan, with a pickup truck carrying the explosives following. Those in the sedan shot the Saudi soldiers guarding the gate and then opened the gate for the pickup truck. The truck was driven to the front of one of the residential high rises on the compound, and detonated. At the time, many of the Vinnell employees were away from the compound, supporting an exercise for the National Guard. Seven Americans were killed or died of injuries the night of the attack, along with two Filipino employees. An eighth American died in hospital several days later. Some of the terrorist assault team died when the truck bomb was detonated, and others escaped by climbing over the compound wall.
Questions about inside actors.
According to American intelligence sources, the bombers operation "depended on a significant level of 'insider' knowledge of the compounds." According to one American military official quoted by the "Daily Telegraph", it took the bombers
(...) 30 seconds to a minute to get from the gate to the housing block. They had to know where the switches were to operate the gates after attacking the guards. They then drove at breakneck speed with a bomb weighing nearly 200 kilograms to the most intensely populated location in the complex and blew it up. "Several bombers" were wearing uniforms of the National Guard to help them get into the three bombed complexes. The intelligence officials believe that al-Qaeda has infiltrated even the elite National Guard, which is involved in compound security.
Reaction.
In the immediate aftermath of the May bombing a large number of Western expatriates left Saudi Arabia. Airlines reported a "flood of bookings for flights from Saudi Arabia to Britain and America". There were also bomb scares and an evacuation of one compound near those attacked and at the landmark Faisaliya Tower.
The attacks were denounced by then-US President George W. Bush as "ruthless murder" and by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah as the work of "monsters." Abdullah vowed to destroy the terrorist group that ordered them, and the Saudi government began a harsh crackdown on the insurgency, arresting more than 600 terrorist suspects and seizing bomb-making materials, bomb belts, and thousands of weapons.
On 7 June 2003, an official Saudi statement identified twelve men as the perpetrators of this attack. According to that statement, the identification was based on DNA found at the scene. The names were Al-Qaeda member Khaled Muhammad bin Muslim Al-Arawi Al-Juhani, Muhammed Othman Abdullah Al-Walidi Al-Shehri, Hani Saeed Ahmad Al Abdul-Karim Al-Ghamdi, Jubran Ali Ahmad Hakami Khabrani, Khaled bin Ibrahim Mahmoud, Mehmas bin Muhammed Mehmas Al-Hawashleh Al-Dosari, Muhammed bin Shadhaf Ali Al-Mahzoum Al-Shehri, Hazem Muhammed Saeed Kashmiri, Majed Abdullah Sa'ad bin Okail, Bandar bin Abdul-Rahman Menawer Al-Rahimi Al-Mutairi, Abdul-Karim Muhammed Jubran Yazji, and Abdullah Farres bin Jufain Al-Rahimi Al-Mutairi.
Abdul Rahman Jabarah was killed in a gunfight with Saudi security forces, as was Zubayr Al-Rimi. Both men were believed to have had involvement in the attack.
Saif al-Adel and Saad bin Laden were implicated in the attacks. According to Seth G. Jones, the bombings were planned by al Qaeda in Iran, with apparent Iranian complicity. In May 2003, then-State Department official Ryan Crocker provided information on the upcoming attack to Iranian officials, who apparently took no action. However, according to an interrogation of former al-Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, al-Adel and Saad were being held prisoner in Iran when the attacks took place. Saad was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan in 2009.
Casualties.
In the compound bombings, reportedly at least 27 people died from several different countries:
In addition, twelve suicide bombers died, bringing the entire toll from the attacks to 39. More than 160 other people were injured, including more than two dozen Americans.
In October 2003, as-Sahab released the videotaped wills of the bombers Abu Umar al-Ta'ifi (also known as Hamza al-Ansari), Muhammad bin Shazzaf al-Shahri (also known as Abu Tareq al-Aswad) and Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab al-Maqit, recorded two weeks before the attacks.
November attack.
On 8 November, a suicide truck bomb detonated outside the Al-Mohaya housing compound in Laban Valley, West of Riyadh, killing at least 17 people and wounding 122, among them 36 children. Those killed in the attack were mainly Arabs, many of them workers from countries such as Egypt and Lebanon. Among the injured were people from India, Bangladesh, Philippines, and Eritrea. (The US State Department had warned of further attacks in the Kingdom on the day of the attack.)
Questions about inside actors.
According to the Saudi Press Agency, suicide bombers posing as guards drove into the compound in a vehicle which "looked like a police car", and after an exchange of gunfire with security forces blew themselves up—the compound allegedly chosen by them because those occupied by Western expatriates were too well guarded. However, journalist John R. Bradley noted that none of the suicide bombers were identified by the government, and that despite official reports of gunfire before the bombing—and thus presumably casualties among security forces—there were no televised visits by Interior Minister Prince Naif to homes of members of those forces, as is customary when members are killed in an attack.
Bradley reports that in an alternative version of the bombing—provided to him by Saudi opposition figures with sources among disgruntled members of the security forces and government—the police car was "in fact ... a car belonging to the Saudi special security forces," and that the bomb was not detonated in suicide but by remote control, its detonators escaping unharmed. Thus, attackers dressed as policemen, driving a special security forces car, taking care not to kill any of those defending the compound, and apparently not themselves being fired upon with any degree of accuracy [meant that] There could not be greater evidence, if even only half of that proved true, that Al-Qaeda had infiltrated Saudi Arabia's military and security forces, including those entrusted with the protection of residential compounds.
According to Bradley, surviving residents of the compound stated that three months before the bombing Saudi religious police accompanied by regular Saudi police, had visited them—a rare intrusion into the "refuge from Saudi morality that the compounds are supposed to provide". The police had warned the residents that their "Westernized lifestyle" was "under scrutiny". It was an "open secret", according to Bradley, that many of the religious police supported Osama bin Laden.


Mohand al-Shehri

Mohand Muhammed Fayiz al-Shehri (, ; also transliterated as Alshehri) (May 7, 1979 – September 11, 2001) was one of five hijackers aboard United Airlines Flight 175 as part of the September 11 attacks. Despite his name, he was not related to Wail al-Shehri nor Waleed al-Shehri, brothers who boarded American Airlines Flight 11 to hijack it as part of the attacks.
A Saudi, al-Shehri was a former college student who dropped out after failing his courses. He later left his home to fight in Chechnya in 2000, but was probably diverted to Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. It was during that time that he would be chosen to take part in the attacks in America. He received a U.S. student visa in October 2000.
al-Shehri arrived in the United States in May 2001. On September 11, 2001, al-Shehri boarded United Airlines Flight 175 and assisted in its hijacking so that it could be flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center.
Aliases.
Al-Shehri was also known under the aliases "Mohammed al-Shehhi" and "Mohald al-Shehri".
History.
Born 1979, al-Shehri was one of five hijackers to come from the 'Asir province of Saudi Arabia, the others being Ahmed al-Nami, Abdulaziz al-Omari and Waleed and Wail al-Shehri, two brothers unrelated to him.
According to Arab News, Mohand al-Shehri went to fight in Chechnya in early 2000, where he may have met Hamza al-Ghamdi. On October 23, al-Shehri applied for a US B-1/B-2 visa in Jeddah. Other than an error on his school's address the application was not suspicious and he was not interviewed before being granted the visa.
Al-Ghamdi and al-Shehri flew together from Iran into Kuwait that October. Three months later the pair rented a post office box in Delray Beach, Florida, where someone with the same name signed up to use the public library's computers. According to FBI director Robert Mueller and the 9/11 Commission, however, al-Shehri did not first enter the United States until a London or Dubai flight on May 28 with al-Ghamdi and Abdulaziz al-Omari.
He was one of nine hijackers to open a SunTrust bank account with a cash deposit around June 2001, and on July 2 gained a Florida State ID Card.
Al-Shehri occasionally trained on simulators at the FlightSafety Aviation School in Vero Beach, Florida together with Abdulaziz al-Omari and Saeed al-Ghamdi.
Attacks.
Fayez Banihammad purchased both his and al-Shehri's one-way first class tickets for United Airlines Flight 175 online on August 27 or 29, charging the $4,464.50 to a Visa card from Mustafa al Hawsawi, listing their addresses both as a Mail Boxes Etc. in Delray Beach. This was not the same postal box used by Hamza and Ahmed al-Ghamdi, who purchased their tickets for the same flight a day later, with another Mailboxes Etc. postal box in Delray Beach, although both groups listed the same phone number.
On September 7, he flew from Fort Lauderdale to Newark, New Jersey with Hamza al-Ghamdi on $139.75 tickets purchased from the Mile High Travel agency in Lauderdale-by-the-Sea.
On September 10, 2001, he shared a room with four hijackers; Fayez Banihammad, Marwan al-Shehhi and Satam al-Suqami at the Milner Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts.
On September 11, al-Shehri boarded Flight 175, and he sat next to Banihammad. About a half an hour into the flight, the plane was hijacked and was flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center.