• ‘High concept’ new series to be fronted by Ant and Dec • The X Factor’s US judges to be confirmed by end of week Simon Cowell has taken time out from the launch of The X Factor in the US to unveil his latest ITV1 production – a gameshow in which contestants will be able to win £1m on the spin of a wheel. Red or Black will be fronted by Anthony McPartlin and Declan Donnelly and broadcast live over the course of seven consecutive nights later this year on ITV1. It has the £1m prize in common with another ITV1 show, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?. But unlike its 13-year-old predecessor, contestants won’t have to know anything to win it. “No talent is involved,” said Donnelly. “If your luck holds out 10 times in a row you will win a million.” Cowell said the idea for the show was first mooted 10 years ago and he was immediately attracted to it. “A lot of shows I see are quite boring to watch. “I like the fact we are doing something that is high concept. Thank goodness ITV gives us the budget to do something big and put their money where their mouth is,” he added. “Every single night someone is going to have to make that decision [between red or black]. We have only seen that a few times on TV.” Like Cowell’s other ITV1 shows, The X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent, Red or Black will be filmed in an arena – in this case, Wembley Arena – with viewers following contestants’ journies from the early rounds to the final spin of the wheel. Some 7,000 contestants will initially take part, whittled down by a series of 50/50 challenges in which they will have to predict an outcome. Not all the challenges will be as straightforward as spinning a wheel – others will include cars dropping out of aeroplanes, people strapped to rockets, and giant, arena-sized pinball machines, many of them featuring big name guests. However, acutely aware of the restrictions on gambling in television programmes, Cowell preferred to say “risk their luck” rather than gamble when describing how the show works. “It’s not gambling because people are not using their own cash,” he added. Cowell said he hoped to take Red or Black “around the world”. “I hope if it succeeds it will travel. I have had interest from America already.” The programme will be co-produced by Cowell’s Syco TV and ITV Studios. The ITV director of entertainment and comedy, Elaine Bedell, said it would be “one of the biggest TV events on ITV this year”. She added that Cowell had rung her with the idea. “This being Simon this was at 1.30am, but even then it was quite a compelling idea.” ITV will launch its appeal for Red or Black contestants on ITV1 tonight. Viewers have until 13 May to apply. Cowell also said the judges lineup on the US version of The X Factor – the source of endless speculation over whether Cheryl Cole will join him on the show – would be confirmed by the end of the week. He also revealed there would be changes to the format of the semi-final and final of The X Factor in the UK, prompting speculation that it may move to Wembley Arena. Cowell refused to confirm details except to say it would be “very, very exciting”. •
Continue reading …
• How can I leave my charity job without letting everyone down? • Lack of training leaves me struggling in my new technical role At the start of each week, we publish the problems that will feature in this Saturday’s Dear Jeremy advice column in the Guardian Work supplement, so readers can offer their own advice and suggestions. We then print the best of your comments alongside Jeremy’s own insights. Here are this week’s dilemmas – what are your thoughts? Problem one: How can I leave my charity job without letting everyone down? I work for a small charity/membership organisation that is in turmoil, particularly as several managers have left and not yet been replaced. I am doing extra work for which I am not being paid, and am thinking about leaving for something else (although what that might be is a whole other question). Working has made me increasingly unhappy, to the point where I have had to go to the doctor for advice on depression. My question is, in a small organisation, where you know that your leaving will cause more work for others, is there any way to minimise this, particularly with a lack of leadership? I am desperate for a way out but feel tied by not wanting to let the rest of the staff down by going. Problem two: Lack of training leaves me struggling in my new role I recently changed jobs, moving departments within the company into a computer programming role. I’ve always wanted to do this and was really excited when I started. I am well suited to the work and have an academic background, so I wasn’t expecting to find the transition too difficult. However, since joining a year ago I have received no training since my initial three-day induction. The computer language used in my job is outdated and there is only one book available about it, which was written for experienced programmers. I have struggled since day one to do the work by asking other members of the team to teach me. They are all under pressure as they are overworked and have not really got time to help. Also I am quite shy and it makes me feel uncomfortable to put pressure on the other members of the team, who not all keen to help either. I have since discovered that this also happened to the previous two people who joined the team. I am finding it extremely stressful and often go home in tears. I have continually brought it to my manager’s notice that I am finding it very difficult to contribute to the team, and have asked for more training only to be told it’s too expensive and “not considered necessary”. At my first review (after six months) I was told I was progressing as expected and that it just takes time and not to worry. I have just had my second review where I was told I hadn’t progressed at all since my last review and so my pay has been frozen. I am baffled by this and demoralised. When I manage to complete some of the work I really enjoy it, but it’s so important to me to be good at my job that I am feeling a failure. Should I just accept that this isn’t the job for me? I can’t afford to start again from the bottom somewhere else but I really don’t want to go back to my old job. What are your thoughts? • For Jeremy’s and readers’ advice on a work issue, send a brief email to dear.jeremy@guardian.co.uk . Please note that he is unable to answer questions of a legal nature or reply personally Work & careers Graham Snowdon guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …• How can I leave my charity job without letting everyone down? • Lack of training leaves me struggling in my new technical role At the start of each week, we publish the problems that will feature in this Saturday’s Dear Jeremy advice column in the Guardian Work supplement, so readers can offer their own advice and suggestions. We then print the best of your comments alongside Jeremy’s own insights. Here are this week’s dilemmas – what are your thoughts? Problem one: How can I leave my charity job without letting everyone down? I work for a small charity/membership organisation that is in turmoil, particularly as several managers have left and not yet been replaced. I am doing extra work for which I am not being paid, and am thinking about leaving for something else (although what that might be is a whole other question). Working has made me increasingly unhappy, to the point where I have had to go to the doctor for advice on depression. My question is, in a small organisation, where you know that your leaving will cause more work for others, is there any way to minimise this, particularly with a lack of leadership? I am desperate for a way out but feel tied by not wanting to let the rest of the staff down by going. Problem two: Lack of training leaves me struggling in my new role I recently changed jobs, moving departments within the company into a computer programming role. I’ve always wanted to do this and was really excited when I started. I am well suited to the work and have an academic background, so I wasn’t expecting to find the transition too difficult. However, since joining a year ago I have received no training since my initial three-day induction. The computer language used in my job is outdated and there is only one book available about it, which was written for experienced programmers. I have struggled since day one to do the work by asking other members of the team to teach me. They are all under pressure as they are overworked and have not really got time to help. Also I am quite shy and it makes me feel uncomfortable to put pressure on the other members of the team, who not all keen to help either. I have since discovered that this also happened to the previous two people who joined the team. I am finding it extremely stressful and often go home in tears. I have continually brought it to my manager’s notice that I am finding it very difficult to contribute to the team, and have asked for more training only to be told it’s too expensive and “not considered necessary”. At my first review (after six months) I was told I was progressing as expected and that it just takes time and not to worry. I have just had my second review where I was told I hadn’t progressed at all since my last review and so my pay has been frozen. I am baffled by this and demoralised. When I manage to complete some of the work I really enjoy it, but it’s so important to me to be good at my job that I am feeling a failure. Should I just accept that this isn’t the job for me? I can’t afford to start again from the bottom somewhere else but I really don’t want to go back to my old job. What are your thoughts? • For Jeremy’s and readers’ advice on a work issue, send a brief email to dear.jeremy@guardian.co.uk . Please note that he is unable to answer questions of a legal nature or reply personally Work & careers Graham Snowdon guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Stephen Harper’s Conservatives won a majority, but the historic losses of the Liberals and Bloc Québécois are more startling For all its faults (and I’m in favour of electoral reform, for what it’s worth), at least you think you know where you stand with the first past the post system. You get majority governments, with the executive dominating the legislature, and stable (or stagnant) two-party systems, concentrating power overwhelmingly in the hands of the few. But just as the UK prepares for a referendum on our electoral system this week, Canada’s elections Monday – in which Stephen Harper’s Conservatives gained a majority , and the official opposition party changed from the Liberals to the New Democratic party – shows perhaps more than ever the surprises this system can still throw up when traditional voting patterns shift. Stephen Harper’s Conservative rule up until this point was already something of an anomaly, with his previous terms in office under a minority government. In retrospect, it’s astonishing that Harper dominated the political landscape through much of the 2000s despite the fact that the Conservative party hadn’t won a majority since 1988. In March, when the government was found to be in contempt of parliament – another precedent in the Commonwealth parliamentary system – Harper’s government fell, forcing the 2 May elections . The results of the election now give him four years of full-blown Conservative rule, a fact that hasn’t been welcomed by those who see him as Canada’s George Bush: Naomi Klein tweeted that a “hair-raising shock doctrine is coming our way”, as Harper now has the mandate to pursue his cuts to welfare provision and what many see as his support of environmental destruction (bear in mind that one of Harper’s milder actions on the environment was to dismiss the Kyoto protocol a “socialist scheme” . But as Harper assumes office as the leader of a majority government, the composition of the parliament looks almost unrecognisable. Not only have the Liberals lost their position as the main party of opposition, but the party leader, the once seemingly indomitable Michael Ignatieff lost his own seat in what’s being described as an ‘historical collapse’ of the Liberals, previously one of Canada’s two main parties. In a strange parallel to this collapse of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe is resigning after losing his own riding , while the Bloc Québécois’ support has imploded to the point where it is hard to image the Québec sovereignty movement resurfacing as a national issue (can you be a “bloc” when you only have four seats in parliament?). This unprecedented shift in voting patterns is largely due to the ascendancy of the New Democratic party. The rise of “Jack Mania” – at least, in Québec – for the NDP’s leader Jack Layton could be seen in some ways as Canada’s 2011 “I agree with Nick” moment: the Conservatives focused most of their campaigning energies on attacking the Liberals and Ignatieff , with the NDP poised to position themselves as the new viable alternative to the Conservatives, as well as sweeping up protest votes to the Bloc Quebecois . One of the key points of the Conservative campaign to finally secure a majority was built on the premise that another Conservative minority government – which looked possible in the early stages of the campaign – would create a cumbersome coalition of opposition parties . This doesn’t sound much like the rhetoric used in first past the post system election campaigns: citing the spectre of unwieldy coalitions to implore the voters to – this time round, please – elect a majority government. Perhaps the most optimistic parallel between last year’s UK election and the sudden reshaping of Canada’s political landscape this week is the rise of Elizabeth May, who has just become the first Green MP to be elected to Canadian parliament – and who, like Caroline Lucas, was not invited to the televised campaign debate . May’s voice will be sorely needed in opposition to Harper’s conservative vision, and her victory, like Caroline Lucas’s, was a triumph over the first past the post system under which parties like the Green party lose out. Although the UK’s 2010 election and Canada’s 2011 election produced vastly different outcomes – one a period of coalition government, the other ending a of minority government rule – the two elections show that first past the post doesn’t ensure a stable two-party system; actual votes still bend the structure in dynamic ways. On his day of legitimate victory under Canada’s electoral system, perhaps Harper would prefer it if we didn’t notice that one of the interesting parallels is that, for most of his rule so far, Harper’s Conservative party, like David Cameron’s Conservative party now, didn’t have a majority. In any case, now Harper finally has his majority, the image of Canada as America’s liberal, progressive neighbour might – like Ignatieff and the Bloc Québécois – also suddenly drop off the political radar. Canada Stephen Harper Michael Ignatieff United States Liberal-Conservative coalition David Cameron Nick Clegg Electoral reform First past the post AV referendum Heather McRobie guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Stephen Harper’s Conservatives won a majority, but the historic losses of the Liberals and Bloc Québécois are more startling For all its faults (and I’m in favour of electoral reform, for what it’s worth), at least you think you know where you stand with the first past the post system. You get majority governments, with the executive dominating the legislature, and stable (or stagnant) two-party systems, concentrating power overwhelmingly in the hands of the few. But just as the UK prepares for a referendum on our electoral system this week, Canada’s elections Monday – in which Stephen Harper’s Conservatives gained a majority , and the official opposition party changed from the Liberals to the New Democratic party – shows perhaps more than ever the surprises this system can still throw up when traditional voting patterns shift. Stephen Harper’s Conservative rule up until this point was already something of an anomaly, with his previous terms in office under a minority government. In retrospect, it’s astonishing that Harper dominated the political landscape through much of the 2000s despite the fact that the Conservative party hadn’t won a majority since 1988. In March, when the government was found to be in contempt of parliament – another precedent in the Commonwealth parliamentary system – Harper’s government fell, forcing the 2 May elections . The results of the election now give him four years of full-blown Conservative rule, a fact that hasn’t been welcomed by those who see him as Canada’s George Bush: Naomi Klein tweeted that a “hair-raising shock doctrine is coming our way”, as Harper now has the mandate to pursue his cuts to welfare provision and what many see as his support of environmental destruction (bear in mind that one of Harper’s milder actions on the environment was to dismiss the Kyoto protocol a “socialist scheme” . But as Harper assumes office as the leader of a majority government, the composition of the parliament looks almost unrecognisable. Not only have the Liberals lost their position as the main party of opposition, but the party leader, the once seemingly indomitable Michael Ignatieff lost his own seat in what’s being described as an ‘historical collapse’ of the Liberals, previously one of Canada’s two main parties. In a strange parallel to this collapse of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe is resigning after losing his own riding , while the Bloc Québécois’ support has imploded to the point where it is hard to image the Québec sovereignty movement resurfacing as a national issue (can you be a “bloc” when you only have four seats in parliament?). This unprecedented shift in voting patterns is largely due to the ascendancy of the New Democratic party. The rise of “Jack Mania” – at least, in Québec – for the NDP’s leader Jack Layton could be seen in some ways as Canada’s 2011 “I agree with Nick” moment: the Conservatives focused most of their campaigning energies on attacking the Liberals and Ignatieff , with the NDP poised to position themselves as the new viable alternative to the Conservatives, as well as sweeping up protest votes to the Bloc Quebecois . One of the key points of the Conservative campaign to finally secure a majority was built on the premise that another Conservative minority government – which looked possible in the early stages of the campaign – would create a cumbersome coalition of opposition parties . This doesn’t sound much like the rhetoric used in first past the post system election campaigns: citing the spectre of unwieldy coalitions to implore the voters to – this time round, please – elect a majority government. Perhaps the most optimistic parallel between last year’s UK election and the sudden reshaping of Canada’s political landscape this week is the rise of Elizabeth May, who has just become the first Green MP to be elected to Canadian parliament – and who, like Caroline Lucas, was not invited to the televised campaign debate . May’s voice will be sorely needed in opposition to Harper’s conservative vision, and her victory, like Caroline Lucas’s, was a triumph over the first past the post system under which parties like the Green party lose out. Although the UK’s 2010 election and Canada’s 2011 election produced vastly different outcomes – one a period of coalition government, the other ending a of minority government rule – the two elections show that first past the post doesn’t ensure a stable two-party system; actual votes still bend the structure in dynamic ways. On his day of legitimate victory under Canada’s electoral system, perhaps Harper would prefer it if we didn’t notice that one of the interesting parallels is that, for most of his rule so far, Harper’s Conservative party, like David Cameron’s Conservative party now, didn’t have a majority. In any case, now Harper finally has his majority, the image of Canada as America’s liberal, progressive neighbour might – like Ignatieff and the Bloc Québécois – also suddenly drop off the political radar. Canada Stephen Harper Michael Ignatieff United States Liberal-Conservative coalition David Cameron Nick Clegg Electoral reform First past the post AV referendum Heather McRobie guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
William and Kate title in shops within 72 hours of marriage Publisher Michael O’Mara is hoping to make it into the record books after hustling Diana biographer Andrew Morton’s book on William and Kate into shops just 72 hours after the couple were married. The biography, William and Catherine: Their Lives, Their Wedding, runs to more than 200 pages. Morton picked the photograph for the jacket 100 minutes after the couple kissed, completing the text for the book’s final chapter on the day of the wedding. It was then sent for overnight printing in Italy, with the first copies in the 100,000 print run delivered to Waterstone’s Charing Cross at 3pm on Monday, 72 hours after the last photo in the book was taken. Michael O’Mara has now submitted its application for a record to Guinness World Records. “We did it in just under 72 hours – I think that was as fast as it could possibly have been done,” said Michael O’Mara. “The first three quarters takes us from birth to the day before the wedding and the last section covers the day – obviously that was the one we had to scramble to get together. It’s probably only 2,500 words, not including the captions, and about 40 pictures, to cover the day … everyone in the world’s already seen it, you’re just trying to add colour.” O’Mara anticipates that he will be trying to break his own record: “In 1986 we got into the Guinness Book of Records for a book on Andrew and Fergie’s wedding. We did it in about 76 hours and that was a record for the fastest big colour book ever published … As far as I know no one has ever bettered this until now.” Publishing Booksellers Royal wedding Monarchy Alison Flood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Anger follows alleged gang rape and murder of lesbian campaigner Human rights campaigners have warned of an “epidemic” of brutal homophobic attacks in South Africa after the murder and alleged gang rape of a lesbian activist. Noxolo Nogwaza was killed last month after what appeared to be a so-called “corrective rape” , an increasingly common crime in which men rape lesbians to “turn” them straight or “cure” them of their sexual orientation. The 24-year-old’s face and head were disfigured by stoning, she was stabbed several times with broken glass and evidence suggested she was raped. A beer bottle, a big rock and used condoms were found on and near her body. Human Rights Watch noted that no arrests have been made and claimed homophobic violence is continuing unchecked in South Africa’s townships. Dipika Nath, a researcher in the group’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights programme, said: “Nogwaza’s death is the latest in a long series of sadistic crimes against lesbians, gay men and transgender people in South Africa. The vicious nature of the assault is a potent reminder that these attacks are premeditated, planned and often committed with impunity.” Nogwaza was an active member of the Ekurhuleni Pride Organising Committee, which has organised pride marches for Kwa-Thema and nearby townships in Gauteng province since 2009. Members have faced harassment and attacks because of their visibility. More than 2,000 people attended Nogwaza’s funeral last weekend. A group sang that they would use razor blades to cut off the genitals of the suspects if the police did not arrest them, the New Age newspaper reported. Some carried posters that read: “Love me or hate me I will continue to be a lesbian,” and “Raping me won’t change me.” Nogwaza’s death came three years after that of another activist, international footballer Eudy Simelane , also in Kwa-Thema. Both were “out” as lesbians in the community, both were apparently tortured and sexually assaulted before being killed, and the bodies of both were dumped in public places. Campaigners say that 31 lesbians have been murdered because of their sexuality in the past decade and more than 10 lesbians a week are raped or gang raped in Cape Town alone. Nath added: “Like sexual assaults of women in general, rapes and other violence against lesbians and gender non-conforming people have reached epidemic proportions in South Africa. If the South African government is committed to protecting the rights of all people equally, leaders must address the specific motives targeting the LGBT community in these crimes.” In March the government agreed to set up a national working group to address “corrective rape” to meet the demands of an online petition with 170,000 signatures from 163 countries – a record number for a campaign on the social change website Change.org. The petition to the justice ministry stated: “The South African government and the justice system is failing these victims of corrective rape by letting the perpetrators out on ridiculously low bail, and taking literally years to bring the court cases to a conclusion. In the meantime the victims have to live with seeing their rapists every day, being taunted and threatened by them, as are those who help the victims.” South Africa Gay rights David Smith guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Three-year freeze for Swiss bank assets of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, Egypt’s Hosni Murbarak and Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali The Swiss government says it has identified potential assets to be frozen worth 830m Swiss francs (nearly $1bn or £600m) belonging to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and the ousted presidents of Egypt and Tunisia. Swiss president and foreign minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, speaking in the Tunisian capital, Tunis, said the assets include 360m Swiss francs that may belong to Gaddafi or his entourage. She said Switzerland had also linked 410m Swiss francs to the former Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and 60m Swiss francs to Tunisia’s deposed autocrat, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Switzerland has ordered banks and other financial institutions to freeze possible assets belonging to the three men and their key supporters to prevent the funds from being secretly withdrawn. The Swiss government has said Tunisia and Egypt have already started legal proceedings to claim the assets. The government added that neither country has yet provided the necessary evidence of possible criminal wrongdoing involving the money. Switzerland froze assets linked to Ben Ali and 40 people in his entourage on 19 January, less than a week after he was toppled by popular revolt. On 11 February, Switzerland froze assets of Mubarak and his associates. The Swiss government sent diplomatic cables to Tunisia and Egypt in late March explaining they must submit evidence so authorities can decide if the offences are punishable in Switzerland. In both cases, the money will remain locked away for three years while the two countries satisfy Swiss legal requirements. The Swiss also have asked a court to authorise the seizure of millions of dollars frozen in accounts belonging to former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier. The Swiss finance department said it has initiated proceedings before the federal administrative court, a quarter-century after the funds were first frozen in Switzerland. That was shortly after Duvalier’s removal from power in 1986. Earlier this year, Switzerland also froze funds tied to Laurent Gbabgo, the former president of Ivory Coast who refused to cede power and finally was captured. Switzerland is trying hard to shed its reputation as a favoured location for dictators’ money because of its banking secrecy rules, and has established an investigative unit to help track down hidden funds. The three-year freeze on assets is the norm, which Calmy-Rey and the other six members of Switzerland’s governing federal council have said is meant to give nations time to draft possible criminal cases against former leaders. Calmy-Rey says Switzerland is willing to help make those cases because it wants to avoid being used to hide funds illegally. A new law affecting the seizure of assets went into effect on 1 February that makes it easier for the Swiss government to freeze and seize the money. Switzerland Muammar Gaddafi Hosni Mubarak Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali Human rights Arab and Middle East unrest Europe Banking Egypt Middle East Tunisia Libya guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Three-year freeze for Swiss bank assets of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, Egypt’s Hosni Murbarak and Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali The Swiss government says it has identified potential assets to be frozen worth 830m Swiss francs (nearly $1bn or £600m) belonging to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and the ousted presidents of Egypt and Tunisia. Swiss president and foreign minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, speaking in the Tunisian capital, Tunis, said the assets include 360m Swiss francs that may belong to Gaddafi or his entourage. She said Switzerland had also linked 410m Swiss francs to the former Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and 60m Swiss francs to Tunisia’s deposed autocrat, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Switzerland has ordered banks and other financial institutions to freeze possible assets belonging to the three men and their key supporters to prevent the funds from being secretly withdrawn. The Swiss government has said Tunisia and Egypt have already started legal proceedings to claim the assets. The government added that neither country has yet provided the necessary evidence of possible criminal wrongdoing involving the money. Switzerland froze assets linked to Ben Ali and 40 people in his entourage on 19 January, less than a week after he was toppled by popular revolt. On 11 February, Switzerland froze assets of Mubarak and his associates. The Swiss government sent diplomatic cables to Tunisia and Egypt in late March explaining they must submit evidence so authorities can decide if the offences are punishable in Switzerland. In both cases, the money will remain locked away for three years while the two countries satisfy Swiss legal requirements. The Swiss also have asked a court to authorise the seizure of millions of dollars frozen in accounts belonging to former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier. The Swiss finance department said it has initiated proceedings before the federal administrative court, a quarter-century after the funds were first frozen in Switzerland. That was shortly after Duvalier’s removal from power in 1986. Earlier this year, Switzerland also froze funds tied to Laurent Gbabgo, the former president of Ivory Coast who refused to cede power and finally was captured. Switzerland is trying hard to shed its reputation as a favoured location for dictators’ money because of its banking secrecy rules, and has established an investigative unit to help track down hidden funds. The three-year freeze on assets is the norm, which Calmy-Rey and the other six members of Switzerland’s governing federal council have said is meant to give nations time to draft possible criminal cases against former leaders. Calmy-Rey says Switzerland is willing to help make those cases because it wants to avoid being used to hide funds illegally. A new law affecting the seizure of assets went into effect on 1 February that makes it easier for the Swiss government to freeze and seize the money. Switzerland Muammar Gaddafi Hosni Mubarak Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali Human rights Arab and Middle East unrest Europe Banking Egypt Middle East Tunisia Libya guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Color me not shocked. Not only is the right desperately trying to give Bush credit for locating and killing Osama bin Laden, now the torture apologists are coming out of the woodwork as well. Expect to see more of this over the coming weeks. Resident wingnut and GOP New York Rep. Peter King went on O’Reilly’s show and claimed that torturing prisoners by waterboarding them led to locating Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Marcy Wheeler has a post up debunking King’s claims and I’ll just ask that our readers go check out her entire post here — The Osama bin Laden Trail Shows Waterboarding Didn’t Work .
Continue reading …