Chief prosecutor requests arrest warrants for Libyan leader, his son Saif al-Islam and intelligence chief Abdullah Senussi Muammar Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and his brother-in-law and intelligence chief, Abdullah Senussi have been named as war crimes suspects by the chief prosecutor for the international criminal court in The Hague. Presenting his request for arrest warrants to the ICC, the chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, said the three operated as an “inner circle”, orchestrating the killing of peaceful protesters, with Saif al-Islam operating as a “de facto prime minister”. He said dissidents were targeted at home and in public places, with live ammunition as well as “heavy weaponry”. Moreno-Ocampo also said that Muammar Gaddafi led the campaign “with the goal of preserving his absolute authority”, and added that he had “direct evidence of orders issued by Muammar Gaddafi himself”. Moreno-Ocampo’s request for an arrest warrant against Saif Gaddafi will come as a shock to his prominent and wealthy circle of friends in Britain as well as the government officials – in Britain, Europe and the US – who saw him as a westernised moderniser with whom they could perhaps make peace. Moreno-Ocampo even came under pressure from western governments not to include Saif al-Islam in his initial list of suspects as it would shut off a possible avenue to a truce in a conflict which Nato states are increasingly anxious to bring to a rapid conclusion, according to sources familiar with the manoeuvring of the past few weeks. In his presentation to the ICC judges in The Hague on Monday, Moreno-Ocampo appears to have shrugged off those pressures. If the ICC issues the arrest warrants, it will deepen the embarrassment of the London School of Economics, where Saif studied and which accepted a £1.5m donation from a foundation Saif controlled to fund a north African research porgramme. Of that total, £300,000 was actually spent before the programme was suspended. Saif’s western image as a sophisticated reformer was badly dented when he appeared on television after the outbreak of pro-democracy protests in Libya, vowing that the regime would fight “to the last bullet”. However, in his application for an arrest warrant for crimes against humanity, Moreno-Ocampo argues not only that Saif al-Islam incited violence, but presents evidence that he also played a central role in orchestrating the killing of unarmed and peaceful demonstrators. In laying out his case, Moreno-Ocampo said he would target “those who bear the highest responsibility”. He added that: “It is indeed a characteristic of the situation in Libya that massive crimes are reportedly committed upon instruction of a few persons who control the organisations that execute the orders.” The prosecutors believe that although Saif al-Islam had no formal position in Libya’s fearsome secret police and elite presidential units responsible for much of the bloodshed – his reputation was more of a urbane playboy – he assumed a leading role at the height of the crisis to defend the regime against the threat of the Arab spring movement that had already toppled dictators to the west and east of Libya, in Tunisia and Egypt. Some of Moreno-Ocampo’s strongest evidence is believed to have come from inside the regime itself. The prosecutor even issued a statement on Sunday boasting of the co-operation from Tripoli, in an apparent effort to stir paranoia inside the regime over who is informing on whom. “During the last week, the office of the prosecutor received several calls from high-level officials in Gaddafi’s regime willing to provide information,” the statement read. A panel of ICC judges will now consider the prosecutor’s request for arrest warrants. If those warrants are issued, it will be up to national governments to enforce them. Moreno-Ocampo said on Monday he thought Libyans would do the job themselves. The ICC has no police force of its own. Muammar Gaddafi Libya Luis Moreno-Ocampo Middle East Africa International criminal court Julian Borger guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• 24-year-old believed to jumped from balcony, police say • Wanjiru won in Beijing in 2008 in Olympic record time The Kenyan Olympic marathon champion, Sammy Wanjiru, died early on Monday, police have said. John Mbijiwe, the police chief in Kenya’s Central Province, said initial information indicated the 24-year-old died after jumping from a balcony at his Rift Valley home, but the death is subject to further investigation. In the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Wanjiru became the first Kenyan to win a gold medal in the marathon, finishing in an Olympic record time of two hours, six minutes and 32 seconds. Wanjiru has had a history of domestic problems. Last December he was charged with wounding his security guard with a rifle and threatening to kill his wife and maid. He denied all charges and was released on bail. Wanjiru made an early start to his career, moving to Japan aged 15 where he attended school in Sendai – a city hard hit by this year’s tsunami – where he won some major cross country events while also competing in track competitions. Moving to Europe to advance his promising career, Wanjiru won the Rotterdam half marathon in 2005 in a world record time. He twice improved on that record before stepping up to the full marathon in 2007, back in Japan, winning the Fukuoka marathon. The following year he finished second in the London marathon, and then claimed the biggest prize of his career by taking Olympic gold in Beijing. Wanjiru became the youngest runner to win four major marathons. In addition to the Olympics, he won in London in 2009 and in Chicago in 2009 and 2010, in the process running the fastest ever time recorded in a marathon in the United States. Athletics Kenya Africa guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Ai Weiwei’s sister, Gao Ge, said that police took Ai’s wife Lu Qing to meet him at an undisclosed location on Sunday night Ai Weiwei’s wife has been able to meet the detained artist and activist for the first time since he went missing 43 days ago, a relative said today. No one had been able to contact the 53-year-old since officials stopped him at Beijing airport on 3 April. But his sister Gao Ge said police took Ai’s wife Lu Qing to meet him at an undisclosed location on Sunday night. She was able to see and speak to him briefly and reported that he seemed healthy and was being given access to the medication he needs for diabetes. “They weren’t allowed to talk about much. They sat across a table from each other,” Gao told Associated Press. “Lu didn’t check the exact time, but it was a very short visit. … It seems he’s being taken care of, taking medicine on time and is able to move around. But other topics were off limits.” She added: “Now that we’ve seen that his health is OK, of course we are a bit less anxious, but that’s not to say we want him to stay where he is…We really want this case to be dealt with as soon as possible and for the government to follow proper procedures in keeping with Chinese law.” Ai’s mother Gao Ying said: “Now [knowing she] saw him, I feel much better.” Liu Xiaoyuan, a lawyer who has worked with Ai and who has said he is willing to represent him if necessary, said the meeting had lasted around 15 minutes. The couple had spoken mainly about their families and health, with Ai expressing concern about the effects of his situation on his mother’s state of mind. He said that Ai was not in a jail or detention centre, but that neither Lu nor Ai were sure where he was being held. The artist still had his beard and was not handcuffed during the meeting. He told his wife that he was receiving adequate food and that his blood pressure had been checked. Liu added that police had still not informed Ai’s family of his detention and that he suspected the artist was being held under residential surveillance. “That seems the most likely explanation for why no notice has been given,” said Joshua Rosenzweig of the Dui Hua foundation, which supports political prisoners. “The law is unclear on whether police have any obligation to notify the family because under normal circumstances it is carried out at home.” Police must inform relatives of detention within 24 hours, unless it would impede the investigation, and report to prosecutors on the case within a month. Residential surveillance orders last around six months. “It is supposed to be less punitive but the way it is being carried out – if it is – is really turning things on its head. It is much more advantageous to police. There are very few limits on their ability to interrogate you,” added Rosenzweig. Ai’s friend Wen Tao, 38, driver and cousin Zhang Jinsong, also known as Xiao Pang, 43, accountant Hu Mingfen, 55, and colleague Liu Zhenggang, 49, remain missing. Officials have said Ai is under investigation for suspected economic crimes and that his case is not related to human rights. Last week, vice foreign minister Fu Ying said it was “very condescending for the Europeans to come in to tell China that some people are beyond the law”. Fu made the comments after talks with Catherine Ashton, the EU’s top diplomat, although Fu said Ai was not raised in discussions. “There are rules and laws in China that need to be applied just like here,” Fu said. “And individuals, maybe they are your friends, maybe they agree with you more than others, but that should not make [them] … above the law.” But relatives believe his detention is retaliation for his social and political activism. Gao Ying told CBS recently that officials told her they were investigating “whether or not he was involved with an ‘event’”. She said she had told them she could guarantee with her life that he was an individual artist who had nothing to do with protest movements. “I think in reality, he was taken because he was protecting the rights of ordinary citizens and speaking for them. …His goal was not to go against his country. He wants this country to develop on a healthy path. I think …he offended people in power and they hate him, so now they are looking for an opportunity to take him down,” she added. Ai Weiwei China Human rights Tania Branigan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …FNC’s Fox News Watch Highlights Cal Thomas Earning MRC’s ‘Excellence in Journalism Award’
May 15, 2011 No Comment
With “Cal’s High Honor” as the on-screen tag, the Fox News Channel on Saturday highlighted video of Fox News Watch panelist Cal Thomas receiving the Media Research Center’s “William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media Excellence” at the MRC’s May 7 annual Gala featuring the “DisHonors Awards.” After the jump: Video of what Fox News Watch showed of MRC President Brent Bozell introducing Thomas and some remarks from Thomas. Video of all of what Thomas said at the event held at the National Building Museum. Our DisHonors page with video of presentations of all of the awards at the Saturday night, May 7 event. You can also watch the whole evening in one click and play video .
Continue reading …
Jesse james men cheat ~ Views Park by umer | 1:28 PM in celeberity, famous actress, jesse james men cheat , News |. Jesse James Simply Says “Men Cheat”. Jesse James has something to say to the media and millions of others who scrutinized his life when his dirty laundry … Jesse James, Men Cheat – Explains Sandra Bullock Split | TrendingRoom In an interview with Men’s Journal, Jesse James says he admits he cheated on wife Sandra Bullock, but says he is not alone. “I never shied. PicturePost: Jesse James Men Cheat Jesse James Men Cheat . Posted by Danny on Sunday, May 15, 2011 //. Jesse james men cheat . For someone who appeared to be the brooding, silent type while he was married to Sandra Bullock, Jesse James certainly isn’t holding back now. … Humor Feast: Jesse james men cheat by umer | 1:28 PM in celeberity, entertainment, famous actress, jesse james men cheat , News |. Jesse James Simply Says “Men Cheat”. Jesse James has something to say to the media and millions of others who scrutinized his life when his … RomanceReality says: RR's Love Update Jesse James, “Men Cheat” http://bit.ly/mnBNuf #cheating #men #love
Continue reading …
• Prime minister to claim in speech that Conservatives are defenders of the health service • Baroness Williams demands sacking of No 10 adviser Mark Britnell over privatisation remarks David Cameron is to insist that there will be few compromises on the controversial NHS bill while claiming Conservatives are defenders of the health service. Wresting the issue from his health secretary, Andrew Lansley, the prime minister’s speech in west London on Monday will aim to get his party back to where it was in opposition when the Conservatives claimed they could be trusted not to dismantle the NHS if they formed a government. Alluding to his young son Ivan’s dependence on the NHS before his death, Cameron will return to a familiar formulation: “It’s the most important thing to my family. That’s why, over four years ago, I got up on a platform like this and said that you could sum up my priorities in just three letters, N-H-S.” On Saturday, Professor Steve Field, the senior doctor appointed by Cameron to review the government’s health plans, described them as unworkable and “destabilising” . Field is in charge of Cameron’s NHS future forum, set up last month to manage the “listening exercise” to stem public disquiet about their reforms and coalition opposition. Field told the Guardian he rejected Lansley’s plan to compel hospitals to compete for patients and income and felt NHS regulator Monitor should promote cooperation rather than being used to referee competition between providers. Faced with a constant drumbeat of criticism, the prime minister will attempt to reassure critics that his government can tread a fine line between safeguarding and reforming the NHS. His speech closely resembles one given by Ed Miliband last month when the Labour leader said he opposed the government’s reorganisation principles but accepted that the rising costs of healthcare required some kind of reform. Cameron is due to say: “Sticking with the status quo and hoping we can get by with a bit more money is simply not an option. If we stay as we are, the NHS will need £130bn a year by 2015, meaning a potential funding gap of £20bn. The question is, what are we going to do about that: Ignore it? No – because we’d see a crisis of funding in the NHS, overcrowded wards and fewer treatments. Borrow more so we can chuck more money at it? No – because we can’t afford to. Ask people to start paying at the point of delivery for it? No – because the NHS must always be free to those who need it. “There’s only one option we’ve got – and that is to change and modernise the NHS… to make it more efficient and more effective and, above all, more focused on prevention, on health, not just sickness. We save the NHS by changing it.” Cameron will defiantly stick to the reorganisation his government has initiated and appears to back GP consortiums. “Last year, the health select committee said ‘primary care trust commissioning is widely regarded as the weakest link in the English NHS’, citing their ‘lack of clinical knowledge’ in particular. This is what top-down control is doing to our NHS – and I believe it should change. Then there’s the inflexibility of the NHS – and this is what frustrates so many patients, and indeed nurses and doctors.” The Lib Dem peer Lady Williams is calling on Cameron to dismiss his senior adviser Mark Britnell after he told a conference that the NHS could be improved by charging patients and could be transformed into a “state insurance provider, not a state deliverer” of care. His unguarded comments were made in October but only reported this week . Britnell, appointed to a “kitchen cabinet” advising Cameron on reforming the NHS, told executives from the private sector that future reforms would show “no mercy” to the NHS and offer a “big opportunity” to the for-profit sector. No
Continue reading …
For many years I've been saying it takes a lot of rationalizations to be a liberal these days. As additional evidence, I offer the following statement by Lawrence O'Donnell published in the June issue of Playboy: LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, MSNBC: The trouble with approaching government from the standpoint of “I hate government” is that you are extremely unlikely to find a better way for government to do anything at all. You are also extremely unlikely to be the persuasive person on the matter of what the government should no longer do. And it’s even worse because of a horrible dynamic that doesn’t allow a Republican to veer from the right, no matter what he or she thinks. Occasionally a Republican would realize Rush Limbaugh had gone way too far and said something absolutely unconscionable and indefensible, and that Republican would say so, and then Rush would immediately discipline that Republican on the radio, and that Republican would apologize, all within a 12-hour news cycle. That policing system is flawless. And when you have a policing system like that on thought, thought stops. PLAYBOY: If the media are complicit, and Limbaugh and others are the biggest offenders on the right, you have to be included in the list of the biggest offenders on the left. O’DONNELL: I’m not policing thought. The opposite. I encourage thought. I want thoughtfulness. I want people to understand the complexity of the issues. Otherwise nothing meaningful will ever change. I want debate. I want people to be educated enough to have a conversation. Got that? One of the most divisive people in the so-called news industry today thinks he encourages thought and wants thoughtfulness. Here are some recent examples of O'Donnell encouraging thought: Lawrence O'Donnell Goes Ballistic On Birther Orly Taitz, Cuts Off Her Camera Condi Rice Tells Lawrence O'Donnell 'You Have a Bad Habit With Your Guests – You Never Let Them Answer a Question' Lawrence O'Donnell Attacks Ann Coulter for Saying Liberals Give Less to Charity Than Conservatives Lawrence O'Donnell Yells at Arizona Congressman for Not Agreeing With Him on Gun Control Lawrence O'Donnell: 'Michele Bachmann Voters Are Ignorant – Her District Is 92% White' Lawrence O'Donnell Calls GOP Congressman a 'Tax Criminal' for Sleeping in His Office MSNBC's O'Donnell Slams Limbaugh As Biblically Ignorant; Contorts Scripture to Paint Jesus As Socialist Lawrence O'Donnell: 'Stunningly Ignorant' Cantor Would Fail Citizenship Test Lawrence O'Donnell: Bill O'Reilly is 'Bullying Nuts' and 'Freaks' Like Palin 'Off GOP Stage' Lawrence O'Donnell Worries 'We Are So Free Ann Coulter Can Joke About Jailing Journalists' Some thought encourager, huh? (H/T TVNewser ) Readers are advised that a link to the Playboy article was not provided for what should be obvious reasons.
Continue reading …Brit Hume Admits We’ll Never Default on Our Debt, But Thinks it Would be Alright to Let the Rest of the Government go Unfunded
May 15, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media There’s so much double speak in this short segment from Brit Hume it’s hard to know where to begin. He admits that we’ll never default on our debt, but thinks the Republicans should continue with their hostage taking and use it for leverage anyway. He then says that there’s no way we’ll ever default on our debt, but it would be okay to allow the rest of the government to go unfunded. So in other words, it’s okay if we just pay our creditors, but we can shut down “a lot of the rest of the government” and if it crashes our economy or the world’s economy, oh well. That would be “regrettable, perhaps” in Hume’s words. I would also have loved to hear Hume explain just which parts of the government he thinks it would be alright to go unfunded, but he didn’t give any specifics here. Social Security, unemployment benefits, our military? Hume then has the nerve to accuse the Obama administration of fearmongering over the issue, as though this game of chicken the Republicans are playing is not actually a dangerous one. HUME: Mort’s got it absolutely right. It’s not that Wall Street is concerned the specific vote over raising the debt limit. They were concerned about the debt. And this effort by Republicans to try to use the leverage provided by the certain urgency that’s involved in the raising of the debt limit I think is probably going to be broadly supported by the public. And it may be the only way to get anything big done at a time of divided government because it creates a powerful incentive to do something and my sense is Republicans will have to say hold out for a lot and let it go down to the wire. First of all, this idea that we’re going to default on our obligations is nonsense, because there’s plenty of tax money coming in that we can cover the debt payments that we need to make. Now it would mean that a lot of the rest of the government could go unfunded and that would be regrettable, perhaps. But we are not going to… there’s no way we need to, we’ll ever need to default on our debt. No way we ever need to default on our debt. This is scare talk from the administration and I have to be suspicious that what they’re scared of is not a default on the debt. They’re scared of the kind of spending cuts that they feel they might have to make in order to get the debt limit raised.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media (h/t Heather at VideoCafe) God, I am enjoying the circular firing squad that is the Bush administration struggling to lift their individual heads above the slime that surrounds them. Implicit in this clamoring is the acknowledgment that they know they are part of this slime. Donald Rumsfeld is one of the first out of the gate to try to rehab his image and did so by going after the two members of the Bush administration who went out with the highest approval ratings, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice : In his first television interview since leaving public service in 2006, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gives candid criticism of his fellow Bush administration officials, former Secretary of States Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. [..] Powell, President George W. Bush’s first secretary of state, “did not, in my view, do a good job of managing the people under him,” Rumsfeld said [..].”There was a lot of leaking out of the State Department, and the president knew it,” he reportedly said. “And it was unhelpful. And most of it ended up making the State Department look good. We didn’t do that in the Pentagon. I insisted we not do it.” Rumsfeld was criticized during his tenure as defense secretary for his tight rein on information relating to the war on terrorism. This week, in conjunction with the release of his new memoir “Known and Unknown,” Rumsfeld is releasing online nearly 2,000 documents from his career in public service. They span his time in Congress, in the Ford and Nixon administrations, the 9/11 attacks and the build up to the Iraq war. Rumsfeld acknowledged that “the intelligence was certainly wrong” with respect to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, he said that the military and the Bush administration — including Powell — had faith in the intelligence at the time. “There’s a lot of stuff [in] the press that say Colin Powell was against [the war],” he said. “But I never saw even the slightest hint of that.” “The idea that he was lying or duped is nonsense,” Rumsfeld added. Rumsfeld said “it’s possible” that decisions on troop levels in Iraq may have been the biggest mistake of the war. He maintained that the war overall was not a mistake. “I think the world’s a better place with Saddam Hussein gone and with the Taliban gone and the al Qaeda out of Afghanistan,” he said. Rumsfeld was also critical of Powell’s successor, Condoleezza Rice, for her lack of experience in government. “She’d never served in a senior administration position,” he said. “She’d been an academic. And, you know, a lot of academics like to have meetings. And they like to bridge differences and get people all to be happy.” Rumsfeld feels no similar compunction to make people happy. He reportedly caused Rice to burst into tears at the prospect of meeting with him : Miss Rice tried repeatedly to organise a meeting with the most senior figures in the government to discuss the tribunals, but Mr Rumsfeld twice refused to attend, sending his deputy Paul Wolfowitz instead. Pulitzer prize winning author Barton Gellman writes: “He did not regard her as an equal and barely hid it. The opinions of her staff did not interest him.” On finding Mr Rumsfeld absent from a second meeting, CIA director George Tenet was so angry that he defied a direct order from Miss Rice to sit down and marched out of the meeting, declaring: “This is bullshit.” The book goes on: “Something happened to Rice’s face, control melting away. Her eyes welled up and her next words caught in her throat. The men in the room did not know where to look. ‘She started to cry,’ said one of them. ‘And she said – I can’t remember the exact words because I was so shaken – something like: “We will talk about this again,” and she turned and walked quickly out of the door.’” So when Fareed Zakaria asks Rice about Rumsfeld’s less-than-glowing reports of the job she did, Rice simply gets a tight smile and says that Donnie–who has carefully crafted an “aw shucks” persona in the media–is just a grumpy guy and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But the best part? She tells Fareed to wait for her book to find out what she really thinks about Rumsfeld. The circular firing squad is about to load up again.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media (h/t Heather at VideoCafe) God, I am enjoying the circular firing squad that is the Bush administration struggling to lift their individual heads above the slime that surrounds them. Implicit in this clamoring is the acknowledgment that they know they are part of this slime. Donald Rumsfeld is one of the first out of the gate to try to rehab his image and did so by going after the two members of the Bush administration who went out with the highest approval ratings, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice : In his first television interview since leaving public service in 2006, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gives candid criticism of his fellow Bush administration officials, former Secretary of States Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. [..] Powell, President George W. Bush’s first secretary of state, “did not, in my view, do a good job of managing the people under him,” Rumsfeld said [..].”There was a lot of leaking out of the State Department, and the president knew it,” he reportedly said. “And it was unhelpful. And most of it ended up making the State Department look good. We didn’t do that in the Pentagon. I insisted we not do it.” Rumsfeld was criticized during his tenure as defense secretary for his tight rein on information relating to the war on terrorism. This week, in conjunction with the release of his new memoir “Known and Unknown,” Rumsfeld is releasing online nearly 2,000 documents from his career in public service. They span his time in Congress, in the Ford and Nixon administrations, the 9/11 attacks and the build up to the Iraq war. Rumsfeld acknowledged that “the intelligence was certainly wrong” with respect to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, he said that the military and the Bush administration — including Powell — had faith in the intelligence at the time. “There’s a lot of stuff [in] the press that say Colin Powell was against [the war],” he said. “But I never saw even the slightest hint of that.” “The idea that he was lying or duped is nonsense,” Rumsfeld added. Rumsfeld said “it’s possible” that decisions on troop levels in Iraq may have been the biggest mistake of the war. He maintained that the war overall was not a mistake. “I think the world’s a better place with Saddam Hussein gone and with the Taliban gone and the al Qaeda out of Afghanistan,” he said. Rumsfeld was also critical of Powell’s successor, Condoleezza Rice, for her lack of experience in government. “She’d never served in a senior administration position,” he said. “She’d been an academic. And, you know, a lot of academics like to have meetings. And they like to bridge differences and get people all to be happy.” Rumsfeld feels no similar compunction to make people happy. He reportedly caused Rice to burst into tears at the prospect of meeting with him : Miss Rice tried repeatedly to organise a meeting with the most senior figures in the government to discuss the tribunals, but Mr Rumsfeld twice refused to attend, sending his deputy Paul Wolfowitz instead. Pulitzer prize winning author Barton Gellman writes: “He did not regard her as an equal and barely hid it. The opinions of her staff did not interest him.” On finding Mr Rumsfeld absent from a second meeting, CIA director George Tenet was so angry that he defied a direct order from Miss Rice to sit down and marched out of the meeting, declaring: “This is bullshit.” The book goes on: “Something happened to Rice’s face, control melting away. Her eyes welled up and her next words caught in her throat. The men in the room did not know where to look. ‘She started to cry,’ said one of them. ‘And she said – I can’t remember the exact words because I was so shaken – something like: “We will talk about this again,” and she turned and walked quickly out of the door.’” So when Fareed Zakaria asks Rice about Rumsfeld’s less-than-glowing reports of the job she did, Rice simply gets a tight smile and says that Donnie–who has carefully crafted an “aw shucks” persona in the media–is just a grumpy guy and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But the best part? She tells Fareed to wait for her book to find out what she really thinks about Rumsfeld. The circular firing squad is about to load up again.
Continue reading …