Clashes between Hashid clan and president’s forces intensify as the two sides battle for government buildings The blown-out windows in the gothic-style mansion overlook a sandbagged courtyard strewed with 4x4s, fallen trees, stray dogs and empty bullet casings. The crack of machine gunfire competes with the steady boom of mortars as men hurry in and out the building ferrying food and ammunition to their comrades inside. A few days ago this extravagant fortress perched atop a hill in the east of the Yemeni capital was the tranquil abode of Sadeq al-Ahmar, leader of the Hashid, the country’s wealthiest and most powerful tribe. Now it is a bullet-pocked, crumbling garrison shrouded in black smoke from mortar fire, and home to hundreds of Kalashnikov-wielding tribesmen who are battling it out in the streets with President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s security forces in an effort to end his three decade-long rule. The sound of gunfire and exploding mortar shells has echoed through Sana’a for four days now since Saleh refused on Sunday to accept a Gulf Co-operation Council-negotiated resolution to Yemen’s four-month crisis that would have eased him out of power with immunity. More than 100 people have been killed. The clashes between Saleh’s republican guard and members of the Hashid tribe, are the bloodiest Yemen has seen since protests began in January and briskly fanning the fears of civil war. After a brief lull on Wednesday night, fighting seemed to intensify on Thursday as the two sides, now separated only by a few residential blocks, fired anti-aircraft missiles at each other as they scrambled for control of government buildings and the airport, their battle slowly encroaching further towards the centre of the city. A huge explosion rang out just after midday, rattling the windows of houses across the capital after a stray shell hit a munitions depot. A defence ministry official said at least 28 people, most of them civilians, had died. A few hours later Suhail TV, the country’s only opposition television station was taken off air after its headquarters was shelled by government forces. With the violence flaring, panic has begun to grip Sana’a. Long lines of cars and buses with bags strapped to the roofs were seen filtering out of the city. Those staying put have started hoarding, withdrawing cash, and filling buckets with petrol and barricading themselves indoors. The foreign secretary, William Hague, urged Saleh to hand over power, reduced embassy staff and warned all British expatriates to leave Yemen immediately. “British Nationals should not remain [in Yemen] … I cannot stress this too strongly,” he said. The United States also ordered non-essential personnel and family members of staff to leave the country. “The security threat level in Yemen is extremely high due to terrorist activities and civil unrest,” the state department said. Shopkeeper Fares al-Mana, who was leaving the Yemeni capital, said the confrontations were spreading. “It’s no longer possible to stay in Sana’a,” he said. In an act that suggests the president’s patience is running thin, Saleh ordered the arrest of Ahmar, whose men now control of several ministry buildings near his compound including the trade and tourism ministries, as well as the offices of the state news agency Saba. The tribal chief remained defiant. In an interview with al-Jazeera on Thursday he called Saleh a liar and said he had captured 70 government troops. “I’m protected by Hashid and other tribesmen and even by army soldiers, I have 70 soldiers captive. Ali Abdullah Saleh is a liar, liar, liar. We are firm. He will leave this country barefoot,” he said. Back at Ahmar’s fortress, his guards were bracing themselves for another night of fighting. “This started as self-defence but now we’re fighting for his downfall,” said Sheikh Mohammed al-Farasi, a scrawny man with bloodshot eyes loading his AK-47 with cartridges. “There’s no bigger shame for a tribal leader than having his house attacked. The only way this can end is if Saleh goes, the tribes have said enough is enough.” Attempts at mediation have thus far failed. On Tuesday a sheikh sent by Saleh to try to defuse the situation was killed when Ahmar’s house came under heavy fire from government forces. “What we’re witnessing now is a battle between the two most powerful families in Yemen, a conflict that has been brewing for several years which because of Saleh’s stubbornness has come to its head,” said Abdullah al-Faqah, professor of politics at Sana’a University. “This was a foolish fight for him [Saleh] to pick.” The Ahmar clan head Hashid, the largest tribal confederation in Yemen. Saleh had managed to keep the family patriarch, Abdullah, onside during his rule, but since he died in December 2007, power has passed to the 10 Ahmar brothers. Four brothers from the most significant threat to Saleh’s rule. They include Sadiq, the head of the Hashid tribal; Hamir, the deputy speaker of parliament; Hussein, a powerful tribal leader; and, most significant of all, Hamid, a business tycoon and founder of the opposition party Islah. Hamid has positioned himself as a potential successor to Saleh and accuses the president of violating the constitution by turning Yemen into his family enterprise. Hamid is now thought to be bankrolling the opposition as well as supporting the upkeep of the hundreds of thousands of anti-government protesters camping out in Sana’a’s Change Square. General Ali al-Mohsen, one of Yemen’s most powerful military leaders who defected in March and so far steered clear of the violence but called on the armed forces to defy the president. “Beware of following this madman who is thirsty for more bloodshed,” he said. Yemen Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Tom Finn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Clashes between Hashid clan and president’s forces intensify as the two sides battle for government buildings The blown-out windows in the gothic-style mansion overlook a sandbagged courtyard strewed with 4x4s, fallen trees, stray dogs and empty bullet casings. The crack of machine gunfire competes with the steady boom of mortars as men hurry in and out the building ferrying food and ammunition to their comrades inside. A few days ago this extravagant fortress perched atop a hill in the east of the Yemeni capital was the tranquil abode of Sadeq al-Ahmar, leader of the Hashid, the country’s wealthiest and most powerful tribe. Now it is a bullet-pocked, crumbling garrison shrouded in black smoke from mortar fire, and home to hundreds of Kalashnikov-wielding tribesmen who are battling it out in the streets with President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s security forces in an effort to end his three decade-long rule. The sound of gunfire and exploding mortar shells has echoed through Sana’a for four days now since Saleh refused on Sunday to accept a Gulf Co-operation Council-negotiated resolution to Yemen’s four-month crisis that would have eased him out of power with immunity. More than 100 people have been killed. The clashes between Saleh’s republican guard and members of the Hashid tribe, are the bloodiest Yemen has seen since protests began in January and briskly fanning the fears of civil war. After a brief lull on Wednesday night, fighting seemed to intensify on Thursday as the two sides, now separated only by a few residential blocks, fired anti-aircraft missiles at each other as they scrambled for control of government buildings and the airport, their battle slowly encroaching further towards the centre of the city. A huge explosion rang out just after midday, rattling the windows of houses across the capital after a stray shell hit a munitions depot. A defence ministry official said at least 28 people, most of them civilians, had died. A few hours later Suhail TV, the country’s only opposition television station was taken off air after its headquarters was shelled by government forces. With the violence flaring, panic has begun to grip Sana’a. Long lines of cars and buses with bags strapped to the roofs were seen filtering out of the city. Those staying put have started hoarding, withdrawing cash, and filling buckets with petrol and barricading themselves indoors. The foreign secretary, William Hague, urged Saleh to hand over power, reduced embassy staff and warned all British expatriates to leave Yemen immediately. “British Nationals should not remain [in Yemen] … I cannot stress this too strongly,” he said. The United States also ordered non-essential personnel and family members of staff to leave the country. “The security threat level in Yemen is extremely high due to terrorist activities and civil unrest,” the state department said. Shopkeeper Fares al-Mana, who was leaving the Yemeni capital, said the confrontations were spreading. “It’s no longer possible to stay in Sana’a,” he said. In an act that suggests the president’s patience is running thin, Saleh ordered the arrest of Ahmar, whose men now control of several ministry buildings near his compound including the trade and tourism ministries, as well as the offices of the state news agency Saba. The tribal chief remained defiant. In an interview with al-Jazeera on Thursday he called Saleh a liar and said he had captured 70 government troops. “I’m protected by Hashid and other tribesmen and even by army soldiers, I have 70 soldiers captive. Ali Abdullah Saleh is a liar, liar, liar. We are firm. He will leave this country barefoot,” he said. Back at Ahmar’s fortress, his guards were bracing themselves for another night of fighting. “This started as self-defence but now we’re fighting for his downfall,” said Sheikh Mohammed al-Farasi, a scrawny man with bloodshot eyes loading his AK-47 with cartridges. “There’s no bigger shame for a tribal leader than having his house attacked. The only way this can end is if Saleh goes, the tribes have said enough is enough.” Attempts at mediation have thus far failed. On Tuesday a sheikh sent by Saleh to try to defuse the situation was killed when Ahmar’s house came under heavy fire from government forces. “What we’re witnessing now is a battle between the two most powerful families in Yemen, a conflict that has been brewing for several years which because of Saleh’s stubbornness has come to its head,” said Abdullah al-Faqah, professor of politics at Sana’a University. “This was a foolish fight for him [Saleh] to pick.” The Ahmar clan head Hashid, the largest tribal confederation in Yemen. Saleh had managed to keep the family patriarch, Abdullah, onside during his rule, but since he died in December 2007, power has passed to the 10 Ahmar brothers. Four brothers from the most significant threat to Saleh’s rule. They include Sadiq, the head of the Hashid tribal; Hamir, the deputy speaker of parliament; Hussein, a powerful tribal leader; and, most significant of all, Hamid, a business tycoon and founder of the opposition party Islah. Hamid has positioned himself as a potential successor to Saleh and accuses the president of violating the constitution by turning Yemen into his family enterprise. Hamid is now thought to be bankrolling the opposition as well as supporting the upkeep of the hundreds of thousands of anti-government protesters camping out in Sana’a’s Change Square. General Ali al-Mohsen, one of Yemen’s most powerful military leaders who defected in March and so far steered clear of the violence but called on the armed forces to defy the president. “Beware of following this madman who is thirsty for more bloodshed,” he said. Yemen Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Tom Finn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Libyan leader said to be hiding in hospitals by night, and many senior commanders appear to have stopped using phones David Cameron has been told by UK intelligence that Muammar Gaddafi is increasingly paranoid, on the run, and hiding in hospitals by night with senior commanders in the regime unable to communicate with one another. The reports from MI6 relayed to the cabinet’s national security council this week prompted Cameron to authorise a high-risk escalation of attacks by agreeing in principle to deploy four Apache helicopters into Libya with orders to gun down Libyan regime leaders and assets hiding in built-up areas. The French had leaked that Britain was likely to deploy helicopters, but the Whitehall ministerial decision was only made today. The decision was confirmed by British officials attending the G8 summit of world leaders. Diplomatic sources, sounding more confident than at any point since the air assaults, claimed: “He is on the run.” Gaddafi’s regime made its most plaintive plea yet for a ceasefire offering to talk to anti-government rebels, move towards a constitutional government, and compensate victims of the three-month conflict. The Apaches’ deployment from HMS Ocean touring off the Albanian coast will not be confirmed until they have flown over Libya. They will be joined by French helicopters under Nato command. The Apaches, capable of flying as low as 1,000 feet and using heat-seeking missiles to destroy a vast array of targets, will require close on-the-ground co-ordination probably using UK special forces and rebel leaders. Their use has in part been necessitated by Gaddafi trying to hide his military assets in built-up areas that can only be attacked by Tornados at the risk of massive civilian casualties. British diplomatic sources explained: “There’s clearly a link between the upping of the military pressure and what we assess is his state of mind. The more he thinks things are moving against him the better. There is a picture building up of this man who is very paranoid and a regime that’s increasingly feeling under pressure and is beginning to fracture. “The judgment we are making is that that means it is the right time to turn up the heat and try to make it tell. “What he is doing is moving from a place we won’t bomb to another place we won’t bomb. The fact that he is moving the whole time shows he is worried about people knowing where he is staying. “One striking thing is the fact that Gaddafi appears to be moving from hospital to hospital and spending each night in a different hospital. We are getting the sense that a lot of senior commanders have stopped using their phones. They are clearly worried they are being listened to and that is having an impact on their ability to communicate.” Some of the growing UK pressure may be designed to see if it can extract a more serious offer of a ceasefire from the regime. So far Sarkozy, Cameron and President Obama have not viewed the repeated offers of an immediate ceasefire as serious. The implicit threat in the use of the helicopters is that it will be easy to assassinate Gaddafi. But the French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, insisted that was not the plan. “We don’t want to kill him,” he said. “Because we are not killers.” Sarkozy admitted at the G8 summit that conflicts over the Nato attack on Libya were having a diplomatic spill-over. Russia’s ambassador to France, Alexander Orlov, said the Nato campaign has gone “too far.” As a result, he said, Russia did not intend to support a UN resolution warning Syria about its crackdown on anti-government protesters. The offer from the Libyan regime represents an advance on previous ceasefire bids, which had focused largely on implementing a proposal by the African Union that calls for international monitors to observe a negotiated ceasefire. Libya’s prime minister Al-Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi acknowledged that the revolt that has paralysed Libya was “part of a series of events that are taking place throughout the Arab world”. Libyan officials had previously linked the rebel groups who now control the east of the country to al-Qaida and foreign backers, and had refused to acknowledge a pro-democracy current among the rebels. Asked about the new willingness to talk to rebels, Mahmoudi said: “We are ready for dialogue with all structures that represent the whole of Libya. Any Libyans can sit on the round table.” The plan was greeted with scepticism by the US and some European states. David Cameron Libya Muammar Gaddafi MI6 Arab and Middle East unrest Nato G8 Patrick Wintour Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• £520,000 in donations for foundation held back • Charity’s projects run ‘with due diligence’ The glowing image of Innocent, Britain’s biggest smoothie maker, has survived most knocks, including exploding bottles in 2007 and a Coca-Cola buyout last year. The company’s blend of natural ingredients and chatty branding, helped by a pledge printed on its bottles to donate 10% of the profits to charity, have seen off all comers. But perhaps proving that charity begins at home, Innocent has held on to £520,000 pledged to its charitable foundation in 2007, and has not donated a penny since 2008. Most of the company’s charitable giving, which is also promoted on its website, is channelled through the Innocent Foundation, which funds development projects in the countries where Innocent sources its fruit. The foundation funds other charities working on sanitation, health care and microfinance. The charity has received no funding from Innocent in recent years as the company’s expansion drive across Europe, coupled with wider economic downturn, meant it delivered no profits between 2008 and 2010. Analysis of documents filed at Companies House and the Charity Commission reveal that Innocent also clung on to the lion’s share of the donation pledged to the foundation from 2007, a year in which the company made record profits and the parent company, Fresh Trading Limited, paid out £12m in dividends to Innocent’s directors and other shareholders. Innocent made a profit of £8m in 2007 and assigned £650,000 of this to its foundation. An additional £100,000 was given to Age UK, making a total contribution of £750,000 – a little short of the promised 10%. Innocent had, however, in other years, donated more than 10% of profits. However, £520,000 donated to the foundation was retained in Innocent’s bank account in the form of a loan from the charity, whose trustees are Innocent’s three directors: Adam Balon, Richard Reed and Jon Wright. Innocent says the money is owned by the foundation and was held by the company because it could garner twice the rate of interest offered by commercial banks. It accepts that if the company went bankrupt the charity would become one of its creditors, but says there has been no point where the company could not or would not pay that money if needed. The loan was interest-free for all of 2008, but the charity charged an interest rate of 2% in 2009, accruing £10,400 of interest. Innocent acknowledges that the arrangement financially benefits the company, but says this benefit is small, shared by the charity, and was not the motivating force. The Innocent Foundation has substantially reduced its spending in recent years. In 2008, the charity had pre-committed to spend £274,000 funding development projects. By 2010, this figure had fallen by more than half, to just £129,000 of planned spending. Innocent was hard hit when its European expansion in 2008 failed to quickly deliver profits amid a financial crisis and slumping smoothie market. Sales fell sharply and the firm made an £8.6m loss in 2008. It has failed to make a profit since then. The company was left with £1.3m in cash at year-end in 2007, and £425,000 – less than the sum held on behalf of the foundation – at the end of 2008. Innocent received a welcome cash boost in 2009 by selling an 18% stake of its business to Coca-Cola. At the end of year in 2009, Innocent had a very healthy £32m in the bank. Coca-Cola increased its stake in the firm to 58% last April, in a deal valuing the company at around £180m. A spokeswoman for Innocent said the company’s commitment to charity was “true and decent”. She said the foundation benefited by allowing Innocent to look after its money, explaining that Innocent’s bank account accrued more interest than that of the charity. She expressed regret that an “oversight” had led to no interest being paid to the foundation in 2008, and said the charity would be invoicing Innocent for the £5,000, which would have been accrued were interest charged at 2%. Innocent also announced it would be making a voluntary contribution to the foundation of £250,000 for 2011 – despite the firm not being expected to turn a profit – so the charity could continue its current “optimum” level of work. This would continue as a running pledge, the spokeswoman said, adding that if Innocent turned a profit, more would be donated. The remaining £520,000 would be transferred to the charity over the next three years, she said. Linda Parry, who manages the Innocent Foundation, said: “We want to run efficiently and with due diligence. One of our mottos in doing that is to keep things simple. “We try not to manage more than 15 projects at one time, as more than this would require a team to run the project, and, at present, it can be managed be me, part-time, with volunteer support. If spending has dropped, it’s as a result of our funding more pilot projects, with a maximum of £20,000 over three years rather than our absolute cap of £60,000 over three years per project. “We placed the money concerned in the Innocent bank account as we received a better rate of return this way. We looked at balancing the time and cost-benefit of looking into more options, but at the time this really felt like it was the best deal. It’s just the way we chose to manage things. If we had spent all of the money in one go, what would we do now to fund future projects? “Whether our trustees being the directors of Innocent is a conflict of interest is on the risk report we produce. But we do have two [Innocent] staff members who also take an active role on the board. I don’t see any conflict of interests.” A spokeswoman for the Charity Commission said: “We are looking at concerns raised regarding … the Innocent Foundation to see what, if any, role there is for the commission. This does not mean that we are investigating the charity.” Charities James Ball guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• £520,000 in donations for foundation held back • Charity’s projects run ‘with due diligence’ The glowing image of Innocent, Britain’s biggest smoothie maker, has survived most knocks, including exploding bottles in 2007 and a Coca-Cola buyout last year. The company’s blend of natural ingredients and chatty branding, helped by a pledge printed on its bottles to donate 10% of the profits to charity, have seen off all comers. But perhaps proving that charity begins at home, Innocent has held on to £520,000 pledged to its charitable foundation in 2007, and has not donated a penny since 2008. Most of the company’s charitable giving, which is also promoted on its website, is channelled through the Innocent Foundation, which funds development projects in the countries where Innocent sources its fruit. The foundation funds other charities working on sanitation, health care and microfinance. The charity has received no funding from Innocent in recent years as the company’s expansion drive across Europe, coupled with wider economic downturn, meant it delivered no profits between 2008 and 2010. Analysis of documents filed at Companies House and the Charity Commission reveal that Innocent also clung on to the lion’s share of the donation pledged to the foundation from 2007, a year in which the company made record profits and the parent company, Fresh Trading Limited, paid out £12m in dividends to Innocent’s directors and other shareholders. Innocent made a profit of £8m in 2007 and assigned £650,000 of this to its foundation. An additional £100,000 was given to Age UK, making a total contribution of £750,000 – a little short of the promised 10%. Innocent had, however, in other years, donated more than 10% of profits. However, £520,000 donated to the foundation was retained in Innocent’s bank account in the form of a loan from the charity, whose trustees are Innocent’s three directors: Adam Balon, Richard Reed and Jon Wright. Innocent says the money is owned by the foundation and was held by the company because it could garner twice the rate of interest offered by commercial banks. It accepts that if the company went bankrupt the charity would become one of its creditors, but says there has been no point where the company could not or would not pay that money if needed. The loan was interest-free for all of 2008, but the charity charged an interest rate of 2% in 2009, accruing £10,400 of interest. Innocent acknowledges that the arrangement financially benefits the company, but says this benefit is small, shared by the charity, and was not the motivating force. The Innocent Foundation has substantially reduced its spending in recent years. In 2008, the charity had pre-committed to spend £274,000 funding development projects. By 2010, this figure had fallen by more than half, to just £129,000 of planned spending. Innocent was hard hit when its European expansion in 2008 failed to quickly deliver profits amid a financial crisis and slumping smoothie market. Sales fell sharply and the firm made an £8.6m loss in 2008. It has failed to make a profit since then. The company was left with £1.3m in cash at year-end in 2007, and £425,000 – less than the sum held on behalf of the foundation – at the end of 2008. Innocent received a welcome cash boost in 2009 by selling an 18% stake of its business to Coca-Cola. At the end of year in 2009, Innocent had a very healthy £32m in the bank. Coca-Cola increased its stake in the firm to 58% last April, in a deal valuing the company at around £180m. A spokeswoman for Innocent said the company’s commitment to charity was “true and decent”. She said the foundation benefited by allowing Innocent to look after its money, explaining that Innocent’s bank account accrued more interest than that of the charity. She expressed regret that an “oversight” had led to no interest being paid to the foundation in 2008, and said the charity would be invoicing Innocent for the £5,000, which would have been accrued were interest charged at 2%. Innocent also announced it would be making a voluntary contribution to the foundation of £250,000 for 2011 – despite the firm not being expected to turn a profit – so the charity could continue its current “optimum” level of work. This would continue as a running pledge, the spokeswoman said, adding that if Innocent turned a profit, more would be donated. The remaining £520,000 would be transferred to the charity over the next three years, she said. Linda Parry, who manages the Innocent Foundation, said: “We want to run efficiently and with due diligence. One of our mottos in doing that is to keep things simple. “We try not to manage more than 15 projects at one time, as more than this would require a team to run the project, and, at present, it can be managed be me, part-time, with volunteer support. If spending has dropped, it’s as a result of our funding more pilot projects, with a maximum of £20,000 over three years rather than our absolute cap of £60,000 over three years per project. “We placed the money concerned in the Innocent bank account as we received a better rate of return this way. We looked at balancing the time and cost-benefit of looking into more options, but at the time this really felt like it was the best deal. It’s just the way we chose to manage things. If we had spent all of the money in one go, what would we do now to fund future projects? “Whether our trustees being the directors of Innocent is a conflict of interest is on the risk report we produce. But we do have two [Innocent] staff members who also take an active role on the board. I don’t see any conflict of interests.” A spokeswoman for the Charity Commission said: “We are looking at concerns raised regarding … the Innocent Foundation to see what, if any, role there is for the commission. This does not mean that we are investigating the charity.” Charities James Ball guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Revelation that CIA forensics team to search for al-Qaida materials comes as Clinton prepares to visit Islamabad Pakistan has agreed to allow a CIA forensics team into Osama bin Laden’s compound to search for al-Qaida materials that may be hidden in the walls or underground. The revelation, reported by the Washington Post , comes on the eve of a visit to Islamabad by the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, in the most senior interaction between the US and Pakistan since the special forces raid on 2 May. The fate of Bin Laden’s house in Abbottabad, 35 miles north of Islamabad, had been one of many sensitive points in tense relations between the two countries. Some Pakistani officials favoured demolishing the three-storey house, which they believed had become a symbol of humiliation. But the US has quietly pressed Pakistan to leave it standing, as they believe it may contain valuable intelligence missed by the navy Seals who stormed it, killing the al Qaida leader. Now CIA agents could enter the house in the coming days – a sign of a slow thaw in relations that Clinton will seek to build upon during meetings with military and civilian leaders in Islamabad. US navy Seals have already seized hundreds of computer disks that are being combed by CIA officials in Virginia. They say it is their largest cache of al-Qaida intelligence ever. Now US intelligence will use infrared cameras and other devices to check for documents or other materials possibly hidden inside walls, safes or underground. Previously the CIA has only viewed the house from satellite images or from a safe house that it operated in Abbotttabad for months without Pakistani knowledge. Two weeks ago Pakistani parliamentarians closed ranks against the US incursion, condemning it as a gross breach of sovereignty. But behind the scenes, senior officials on both sides have worked quietly to put the relationship back on track. The CIA deputy director Michael Morell negotiated access to the Abbottabad during meetings in Islambad with the ISI chief, General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the Washington Post reported. The ISI also agreed to show the CIA materials it recovered from Bin Laden’s house, while the CIA is seeking ISI assistance in analysing some records seized in the raid. A senior ISI official told the Guardian he had no information about the latest development. Osama bin Laden CIA United States Pakistan al-Qaida Global terrorism Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Commander of worst crimes in Europe since Nazis is expected to face genocide trial in The Hague after years of impunity Europe’s most wanted war crimes suspect, General Ratko Mladic, was arrested in a north Serbian village 16 years after commanding the worst atrocity on the continent since the Nazi era. The surprise arrest of the genocide suspect, wanted for the mass murder of almost 8,000 men in Srebenica, turned a page in the history of the Balkans, offering Serbia closure on decades as a virtual international pariah and giving the country a chance to take its place as a pivotal regional democracy eventually anchored in the European Union. Mladic faces 15 charges of war crimes. “We have lifted the stain from Serbia and from Serbs wherever they live,” said President Boris Tadic, announcing the arrest of the longtime fugitive who had been living in a cousin’s cottage in a village north-east of Belgrade under the alias Milorad Komadic. “We have ended a difficult period in our history,” Tadic added. The 69-year-old retired general, who commanded the Bosnian Serb military during the 1992-95 war and earned a fearsome reputation as the Butcher of Bosnia, was taken to a special court in Belgrade pending extradition to the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal in The Hague. Mladic appeared in court on Thursday night, looking frail and walking slowly. He wore a baseball cap and could be heard on state TV saying “good day” to those present. Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb wartime political leader arrested three years ago, is on trial in The Hague on similar charges to Mladic. To speed the proceedings, there will be attempts to merge the two trials into one, sources in The Hague said. In a message from his cell on the Dutch coast, Karadzic said he was “very sorry” for Mladic’s “loss of freedom”. According to officials in Belgrade and accounts to the Serbian media, Mladic wore no disguise and put up no resistance when detained by the Serbian security service in the village of Lazarevo in a cottage belonging to a cousin, also bearing the name Mladic. The general was said to have aged, to have suffered a stroke, and to be paralysed in one arm. “I am Ratko Mladic,” he reportedly said when arrested. Local people took to the streets to show their support for Mladic, singing Serbian nationalist songs. “To us, Mladic is a hero, a military hero,” said one, who would only give his name as Paul. “He protected us from Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, even Slovenia. He saved our families,” he said. The image of a frail and sickly rural retiree was a far cry from the strutting, imperious commander of the 1990s who was a monstrous figure to the Muslims of Bosnia and whose name is synonymous with the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995 when Mladic’s forces overran the Bosnian Muslim “safe haven” hill town, then methodically rounded up the males and murdered almost 8,000. Mladic will be allowed to appeal against extradition, Belgrade prosecutors said, meaning it could be at least a week before he is flown to the Netherlands. The Serbian government is under strong international pressure to get Mladic to The Hague. Tadic said preparations were under way to send Mladic to The Netherlands. “Mladic will face the charges against him in the international tribunal,” said Lady Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief. Serge Brammertz, the tribunal’s chief prosecutor, said: “We await arrangements for his transfer to The Hague where he will stand trial.” Barack Obama, in France for the G8 summit, said Mladic must answer to his victims and the world in a court of law. The arrest represents a huge boost to Serbia’s attempts to move on from a violent past and to try to catch up with other parts of the Balkans in the race towards integration in the EU and possibly Nato. European leaders united in praising Serbia’s sudden move, talking up the prospects of opening negotiations with Belgrade later this year on joining the EU. The arrest came as a coda to the experiment in international justice that has been the Hague tribunal for almost 20 years. Only one of 161 people charged with war crimes remains at large – Goran Hadzic, a wartime leader of the Croatian Serbs. The continued liberty of Mladic, the most notorious of the Balkan warlords of the 90s, has been the biggest block on Serbia’s international ambitions for years. Following the arrest and extradition in 2008 of Karadzic, as well as the transfer of the former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic to The Hague in 2001, Belgrade is confident it is now washing away the stigma of war crimes. The Srebrenica massacre was the worst atrocity in Europe for decades and the only event in Bosnia that the tribunal has judged to have been an act of genocide in a war that left 100,000 dead, two thirds of them Bosnian Muslims. Mladic also faces charges of orchestrating a campaign of terror against the civilian population of Sarajevo, the city his forces kept under siege for more than three years during which 10,000 were killed, of taking UN peacekeepers hostage, and of “the murders, persecution, forcible transfer, detention and mistreatment of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats during the campaign to permanently remove such persons from the territory under the control of [his] forces”. Munira Subasic, who heads the association of Bosnian women who lost sons, fathers and husbands at Srebrenica, said: “I’m sorry for all the victims who are dead and cannot see this day.” When Mladic was indicted by the tribunal in 1995, the judge described the alleged crimes as “truly scenes from hell, written on the darkest pages of human history”. The evidence collected by the prosecution, said Judge Fouad Riad, pointed to deeds of “unimaginable savagery – thousands of men executed and buried in mass graves, hundreds of men buried alive, men and women mutilated and slaughtered, children killed before their mothers’ eyes, a grandfather forced to eat the liver of his own grandson”. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato secretary general, said: “Mladic played a key role in some of the darkest episodes of Balkan and European history.” Additional reporting by Kevin Burden in Lazarevo. Ratko Mladic Radovan Karadzic Serbia Europe Bosnia and Herzegovina War crimes European Union Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Commander of worst crimes in Europe since Nazis is expected to face genocide trial in The Hague after years of impunity Europe’s most wanted war crimes suspect, General Ratko Mladic, was arrested in a north Serbian village 16 years after commanding the worst atrocity on the continent since the Nazi era. The surprise arrest of the genocide suspect, wanted for the mass murder of almost 8,000 men in Srebenica, turned a page in the history of the Balkans, offering Serbia closure on decades as a virtual international pariah and giving the country a chance to take its place as a pivotal regional democracy eventually anchored in the European Union. Mladic faces 15 charges of war crimes. “We have lifted the stain from Serbia and from Serbs wherever they live,” said President Boris Tadic, announcing the arrest of the longtime fugitive who had been living in a cousin’s cottage in a village north-east of Belgrade under the alias Milorad Komadic. “We have ended a difficult period in our history,” Tadic added. The 69-year-old retired general, who commanded the Bosnian Serb military during the 1992-95 war and earned a fearsome reputation as the Butcher of Bosnia, was taken to a special court in Belgrade pending extradition to the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal in The Hague. Mladic appeared in court on Thursday night, looking frail and walking slowly. He wore a baseball cap and could be heard on state TV saying “good day” to those present. Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb wartime political leader arrested three years ago, is on trial in The Hague on similar charges to Mladic. To speed the proceedings, there will be attempts to merge the two trials into one, sources in The Hague said. In a message from his cell on the Dutch coast, Karadzic said he was “very sorry” for Mladic’s “loss of freedom”. According to officials in Belgrade and accounts to the Serbian media, Mladic wore no disguise and put up no resistance when detained by the Serbian security service in the village of Lazarevo in a cottage belonging to a cousin, also bearing the name Mladic. The general was said to have aged, to have suffered a stroke, and to be paralysed in one arm. “I am Ratko Mladic,” he reportedly said when arrested. Local people took to the streets to show their support for Mladic, singing Serbian nationalist songs. “To us, Mladic is a hero, a military hero,” said one, who would only give his name as Paul. “He protected us from Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, even Slovenia. He saved our families,” he said. The image of a frail and sickly rural retiree was a far cry from the strutting, imperious commander of the 1990s who was a monstrous figure to the Muslims of Bosnia and whose name is synonymous with the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995 when Mladic’s forces overran the Bosnian Muslim “safe haven” hill town, then methodically rounded up the males and murdered almost 8,000. Mladic will be allowed to appeal against extradition, Belgrade prosecutors said, meaning it could be at least a week before he is flown to the Netherlands. The Serbian government is under strong international pressure to get Mladic to The Hague. Tadic said preparations were under way to send Mladic to The Netherlands. “Mladic will face the charges against him in the international tribunal,” said Lady Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief. Serge Brammertz, the tribunal’s chief prosecutor, said: “We await arrangements for his transfer to The Hague where he will stand trial.” Barack Obama, in France for the G8 summit, said Mladic must answer to his victims and the world in a court of law. The arrest represents a huge boost to Serbia’s attempts to move on from a violent past and to try to catch up with other parts of the Balkans in the race towards integration in the EU and possibly Nato. European leaders united in praising Serbia’s sudden move, talking up the prospects of opening negotiations with Belgrade later this year on joining the EU. The arrest came as a coda to the experiment in international justice that has been the Hague tribunal for almost 20 years. Only one of 161 people charged with war crimes remains at large – Goran Hadzic, a wartime leader of the Croatian Serbs. The continued liberty of Mladic, the most notorious of the Balkan warlords of the 90s, has been the biggest block on Serbia’s international ambitions for years. Following the arrest and extradition in 2008 of Karadzic, as well as the transfer of the former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic to The Hague in 2001, Belgrade is confident it is now washing away the stigma of war crimes. The Srebrenica massacre was the worst atrocity in Europe for decades and the only event in Bosnia that the tribunal has judged to have been an act of genocide in a war that left 100,000 dead, two thirds of them Bosnian Muslims. Mladic also faces charges of orchestrating a campaign of terror against the civilian population of Sarajevo, the city his forces kept under siege for more than three years during which 10,000 were killed, of taking UN peacekeepers hostage, and of “the murders, persecution, forcible transfer, detention and mistreatment of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats during the campaign to permanently remove such persons from the territory under the control of [his] forces”. Munira Subasic, who heads the association of Bosnian women who lost sons, fathers and husbands at Srebrenica, said: “I’m sorry for all the victims who are dead and cannot see this day.” When Mladic was indicted by the tribunal in 1995, the judge described the alleged crimes as “truly scenes from hell, written on the darkest pages of human history”. The evidence collected by the prosecution, said Judge Fouad Riad, pointed to deeds of “unimaginable savagery – thousands of men executed and buried in mass graves, hundreds of men buried alive, men and women mutilated and slaughtered, children killed before their mothers’ eyes, a grandfather forced to eat the liver of his own grandson”. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato secretary general, said: “Mladic played a key role in some of the darkest episodes of Balkan and European history.” Additional reporting by Kevin Burden in Lazarevo. Ratko Mladic Radovan Karadzic Serbia Europe Bosnia and Herzegovina War crimes European Union Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Why hasn’t Roger Ailes been called out by the media for recruiting Chris Christie to run for president?
May 26, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media I meant to write about this sooner after reading the NY Mag article, but time flies. We all know that Roger Ailes fashions himself a GOP kingmaker, but can you imagine the the outcry by the RWNM and all media critics if the head of a cable news network called a Democratic Governor or an active military man and begged him to run for President? NY Mag: A few months ago, Ailes called Chris Christie and encouraged him to jump into the race. Last summer, he’d invited Christie to dinner at his upstate compound along with Rush Limbaugh, and like much of the GOP Establishment, he fell hard for Christie, who nevertheless politely turned down Ailes’s calls to run. Ailes had also hoped that David Petraeus would run for president, but Petraeus too has decided to sit this election out, choosing to stay on the counterterrorism front lines as the head of Barack Obama’s CIA. If the head of any other news network tried to shape a single political party’s presidential primaries, they would rightly be decried for the unequivocal bias it revealed — not to mention the breathtaking absence of ethics, But when Ailes does it, it’s “nothing to see here, move right along.” Back in February of 2010, Roger Ailes told ABC that all he was interested was in ratings and not politics. WALTERS: But you hired her to be a commentator. Do you think — so you must think she has some qualifications? She seems to be very popular with certain groups. Do you think she has the qualifications to be president? AILES: Fox News is fair and balanced. We had Geraldine Ferraro on for 10 years as the only woman the Democrats ever nominated. Now we have the only woman that the Republicans nominated. I’m not in politics, I’m in ratings. We’re willing. HUFFINGTON: Roger, you clearly are in ratings, but if you are in ratings, can you explain to me why Fox went away from the meeting the president was having in — why did you go away, 20 minutes before the end? AILES: Because we’re the most trusted name in news. That’s another baldfaced lie, right Roger? IOKIYAR
Continue reading …
Borrowing the phraseology of left-wing bloggers, NBC Justice correspondent Pete Williams has (so far) thrice invoked Nazi terminology to describe SB-1070, the Arizona immigration law that continues to be the object of liberal scorn. The first reference occurred today during the 10 a.m. EDT hour of “Jansing & Co.,” when Williams called the state measure the “show us your papers law.” Moments later, Williams led the top of 11 a.m. EDT hour of “MSNBC Live” by repeating the “show us your papers” line. The NBC correspondent took a break for about an hour before rephrasing the legislation during the 12 p.m. EDT hour as the “round up the usual suspects law.” In using police-state nomenclature, Williams joins an exclusive club of liberal bloggers whose cognitive abilities are limited to comparing the Republican Party to the Third Reich: On the Huffington Post , one creative headline reads: “Arizona's SB1070 Gestapo Law Reveals Right Wing Version of 'Liberty.'” On the ACLU of Nevada's site, the liberal attorneys employ esoteric legalese that would send Justice Scalia scrambling for the nearest thesaurus: “Arizona's 'show me your papers' law dealt a stunning blow.” Over at Firedoglake , one blogger triumphantly trumpets: “Obama DOJ files suit against Arizona’s 'show me your papers' law today.” With the rest of the day ahead of him, Williams has plenty of time to think of fun, new ways to repackage his Nazi propaganda. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Continue reading …