Today’s developments as Dr Freddy Patel begins the third day of his evidence at the inquest into the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests 11.14am: Back to the hearing: Ryder: The diagnosis that you made was what we may call a default diagnosis? Patel: Yes. Ryder: In other words, you couldn’t work out what it was and so the only other possibility you had was coronary artery disease? Patel: That’s right. To some extent. 11.04am: A quick but important diversion. There has been a major development in an unrelated case concerning the Metropolitan police’s G20 policing operation. In a landmark judgment, the high court has ruled that the Met’s kettle of 4-5,000 climate change protesters during the demonstration was unlawful. The kettle occurred on Bishopsgate, around the same time but in a different part of the City of London to where Tomlinson was struck with a baton and pushed to the ground by Harwood. You can read my colleague Vikram Dodd’s take on the case here . The ruling – a major setback for the Met’s controversial public order unit, CO11 – also found that the use of punches, slaps and baton shields against innocent protesters were unlawful. This video captures the incident in full . It was obtained by the Guardian at the time, and later watched on Youtube more than 500,000 times. 10.54am: It has been revealed that a third pathologist disagreed with Dr Patel . We have heard already that two other pathologists, Dr Nat Cary and Dr Kenneth Shorrock, disagreed with Patel’s natural causes findings, and concluded instead that Tomlinson died of internal bleeding in the abdomen. Ryder has now revealed that a third pathologist, Dr Ben Swift, who examined the body along with Dr Shorrock, also diverged from his conclusions. Swift discovered evidence of bleeding in the “mesentery” (fatty tissue in the abdomen), while Patel conceded he did not find this. Swift’s report stated that he “cannot exclude the the possibility” of a ruptured blood vessel elsewhere in the abdomen. Patel said he would have found any such rupture during his post mortem. 10.33am: Ryder is again asking Patel about the three litres of fluid found in Tomlinson’s abdomen. We know that this is likely to be at the centre of the jury’s deliberations. After two other pathologists concluded that the newspaper seller had died of internal bleeding, Patel returned to his notes and altered them, stating that the three litres were not pure blood but mainly bodily fluid. However, Patel has stated that this fluid initially led him, too, to believe that Tomlinson may have died of internal bleeding, and he tried to find a possible cause of of that bleeding. He did not believe that some of the internal damage he found was sufficient to explain the bleeding. When he could not find the source, through a “process of elimination” he concluded that Tomlinson died of a heart attack. 10.22am: Dr Freddy Patel is back on the stand . He is being questioned by Matthew Ryder QC , the barrister representing Tomlinson’s family. The last exchange yesterday concerned how Tomlinson’s right arm was trapped between his body and the ground after he was pushed by PC Simon Harwood. Ryder has suggested this may have damaged Tomlinson’s liver. Patel has denied this , stating it would have left a mark on the outside of the body. The jury has been shown the video above which, if you look closely, shows Tomlinson’s arm trapped in the aftermath of the fall. 10.10am: The pathologist Dr Freddy Patel is about to begin the third day of his evidence at the Ian Tomlinson inquest. Patel is the pathologist who concluded that Tomlinson died of a heart attack due to natural causes on 1 April 2009, less than three minutes after being being struck with a baton and pushed to the ground by a police officer at the G20 protests in London. Two other pathologists concluded that the 47-year-old died of internal bleeding. Yesterday, Patel said there was a “compelling association” between Tomlinson being pushed to the ground and the subsequent heart attack, but no physical evidence of a causal link. He also told the inquest how, a year after the post mortem, he altered his description of fluid found in Tomlinson’s abdomen after discovering other experts had concluded he died of internal bleeding. You can read yesterday’s liveblog for the details. Ian Tomlinson Dr Freddy Patel Police Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen. 10.14am: The BBC has now posted a full story about Vince Cable’s comments on David Cameron’s speech. Cable told Laura Kuenssberg that Cameron’s choice of language was “very unwise”. I’ve already posted most of the quotes (see 10.03am) but here’s one more direct quote from Cable. The reference to the tens of thousands of immigrants rather than hundreds of thousands is not part of the coalition agreement, it is Tory party policy only. 10.03am: Here are some more quotes from Vince Cable’s interview with the BBC. Commenting on David Cameron’s speech, he said: I do understand there is an election coming but talk of mass immigration risks inflaming extremism to which he and I are both strongly opposed …. Much of the remaining immigration from outside the EU is crucial to British recovery and growth. That is why the cabinet collectively agreed to support British business and British universities by exempting overseas students and essential staff from the cap on non EU immigration. Cable also said that Cameron was making “very unwise comments”. 9.59am: Vince Cable also said that Cameron’s speech “risked inflaming extremism”, the BBC reports. 9.49am: Vince Cable has described Cameron’s speech as “very unwise”, the BBC reports. He has also said that getting net immigration down to tens of thousands a year, instead of letting it remain in the hundreds of thousands, is Tory policy and not coalition policy. This sounds like one of the most serious public Lib Dem/Conservative rifts we’ve seen from within the cabinet since the election. I’ll post the full quotes as soon as I get them. 9.32am: Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the home affairs committee, has also been commenting on David Cameron’s speech. He said the prime minister was wrong to say that immigration caused “discomfort and disjointedness” in some communities. According to PoliticsHome , this is what Vaz told Radio 5 Live. I think that those who have come to this country, those first generation immigrants do want to integrate and, if you look at the major towns and cities in this country, there is a desire for people to be involved. I think we’ve got a better record of toleration and integration than any country in Europe … The large number of eastern Europeans that came to Britain since the enlargement of the EU have actually integrated quite well, I think. 9.09am: Here’s some of the reaction we’ve already had to Cameron’s immigration speech. I’ve taken the quotes from the Press Association and PoliticsHome. From Tom Brake, co-chair of the Lib Dem backbench committee on home affairs, justice and equalities I am certainly not worried about the prime minister talking about [immigration]. I’m certainly not worried about the Liberal Democrats talking about it. It is an issue people are worried about but at the same time we have a responsibility to ensure that people understand the benefits … I don’t think [Cameron is proposing BNP policies]. I think the Government and the Liberal Democrats recognise the benefits of immigration to the UK economy but we are realistic that there is abuse of the system going on and that is why the Liberal Democrats supported, before the election, the setting up of a UK Border force to ensure that our borders are more secure. From Nigel Farage, Ukip’s leader Sadly there isn’t much [Cameron] can do about it because the elephant in the room is the European Union and we have a total open border with all of them. We cannot have our own immigration policy and be part of the European Union. From Simon Darby, a BNP spokesman It’s cynical opportunism, isn’t it? It’s almost like a ceremonial adoption of our policy about two weeks before any major vote. In other words, [Cameron] knows what ordinary British people are thinking. He completely ignores that until two weeks before a major poll and then all of a sudden starts pressing a few buttons to try and make people believe he’s actually doing something about immigration. It’s a farce, it’s a con, and if we had copyright on our manifesto we’d have our lawyers round his office within hours. From Sir Andrew Green, chair of MigrationWatch [The speech is] music in my ears and it’s music I think in the ears of most people in this country … I think the importance of this speech is that [Cameron has] again nailed his colours to the mast – he has said he understands what the public feel; he’s going to have a serious shot at dealing with it. 8.38am: David Cameron is delivering two speeches today. There will be one about local elections and the alternative vote referendum at some point mid-afternoon. But, before that, he will make a speech about immigration. The text has already been released – you can read it here on our website – and Nicholas Watt has written it up for the paper. Here’s an extract from his story. David Cameron will warn that immigrants unable to speak English or unwilling to integrate have created a “kind of discomfort and disjointedness” which has disrupted communities across Britain. In his most outspoken speech on immigration since becoming prime minister, Cameron will blame Labour for allowing immigration to become “too high” and for adopting an approach that allowed the British National party to flourish … Cameron will say this has placed serious pressure on schools, housing and the NHS, and has also created social pressures. “Real communities are bound by common experiences forged by friendship and conversation, knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. And these bonds can take time,” he will say. “So real integration takes time. That’s why, when there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods, perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there, on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate, that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods. This has been the experience for many people in our country – and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it.” Otherwise, it’s relatively quiet. William Hague is discussing Libya at a Nato meeting, and Paul Burstow, the health minister, is speaking to the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. But reaction to the Cameron speech should keep us busy. I’ll also take a look at the papers – I didn’t have time yesterday, but I don’t think we missed much – and I’ll bring you the best politics from the web. As usual, I’ll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm and an afternoon one at about 4pm. David Cameron Immigration and asylum Electoral reform Local elections 2011 Conservatives Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
James Weatherup in custody as further searches of paper’s offices are expected The police investigation into phone hacking at the News of the World has taken a dramatic turn with the surprise arrest of James Weatherup, a senior journalist at the paper. Weatherup, who has not previously been named in connection with the scandal, was arrested early on Thursday. He is currently in custody at a police station in outer London. The arrest is expected to trigger further searches of the News of the World offices in Wapping shortly. It is thought that police felt the paper had failed to be fully co-operative during searches last week and are determined to be more robust today. As news editor at the News of the World between 2004 and 2006, Weatherup was one of the inner circle of executives under the then editor, Andy Coulson, who later became David Cameron’s director of communications until earlier this year. As the third news editor at the paper under Coulson, Weatherup was one of a handful of senior employees who would take part in private discussions of major news stories with other senior members of the paper. Weatherup subsequently returned to being a senior reporter on the newspaper, but continued to hold his job title. He is a close colleague of Ian Edmondson, who was also arrested last week and in connection with the investigation. Edmondson, the paper’s former assistant editor (news), was dismissed in January. News International had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication. More details soon … •
Continue reading …
Exclusive: Three mission members say calls to recant UN report disregard the rights of Palestinian and Israeli victims Read the full statement by Jilani, Chinkin and Travers Three members of the UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza war of 2008-09 have turned on the fourth member and chair of the group, Richard Goldstone, accusing him in all but name of misrepresenting facts in order to cast doubt on the credibility of their joint report. In a statement to the Guardian , the three experts in international law are strongly critical of Goldstone’s dramatic change of heart expressed in a Washington Post commentary earlier this month. Goldstone wrote that he regretted aspects of the report that bears his name, especially the suggestion that Israel had potentially committed war crimes by targeting civilian Palestinians in the three-week conflict. The three members – the Pakistani human rights lawyer Hina Jilani; Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics; and former Irish peace-keeper Desmond Travers – have until this moment kept their silence over Goldstone’s bombshell remarks. But their response now is devastating. Though they do not mention Goldstone by name, they shoot down several of the main contentions in his article and imply that he has bowed to intense political pressure. They write that they cannot leave “aspersions cast on the findings of the [Goldstone] report unchallenged”, adding that those aspersions have “misrepresented facts in an attempt to delegitimise the findings and to cast doubts on its credibility”. In their most stinging criticism, the three joint authors say that “calls to reconsider or even retract the report, as well as attempts at misrepresenting its nature and purpose, disregard the rights of victims, Palestinians and Israeli, to truth and justice”. They point to the “personal attacks and the extraordinary pressure placed on members of the fact finding mission”, adding that “had we given in to pressures from any quarter to sanitize our conclusions, we would be doing a serious injustice to the hundreds of innocent civilians killed during the Gaza conflict, the thousands injured, and the hundreds of thousands whose lives continue to be deeply affected by the conflict and the blockade”. The four-person fact finding mission was set up to look into allegations of war crimes committed by both Israel and Hamas during the war in which 1,400 Palestinians – at least half of whom were civilians – and 13 Israelis died. The Goldstone report concluded that some Israelis could be held individually criminally responsible for potential war crimes. In his Washington Post article, Goldstone said evidence had since come to light as a result of subsequent Israeli military investigations into the conflict that showed that Israel had not targeted civilians as a matter of policy. Had he known that then, “the Goldstone report would have been a different document,” he wrote. Goldstone’s apparent retraction of key elements of the fact finding mission he led was seized upon with delight by the Israeli government which called for the report to be set aside in the light of his comments. An Israeli minister claimed that Goldstone had himself promised to work to have his own report “nullified”. But his three fellow members of the mission state that they “firmly stand by” the conclusions of the report . They say that neither Israel nor Hamas has come up with any convincing evidence contradicting the findings. The three authors cite the final UN report into the Gaza war, written by a follow-up committee led by Judge Mary McGowan Davies, that criticised Israel for the slow pace with which it has conducted its investigations and for its complete refusal to address some of the most serious allegations about its conduct. “The mechanisms that are being used by the Israeli authorities to investigate the incidents are proving inadequate to genuinely ascertain the facts and any ensuing legal responsibility.” The statement of Jilani, Chinkin and Travers will set back any attempt by Israel to have the Goldstone report revoked. The UN human rights council, which commissioned the fact-finding mission, has already made clear that the report could only be withdrawn if all four of its authors unanimously made a formal written complaint or if the UN general assembly or human rights council voted to drop it. Gaza United States Palestinian territories United Nations Israel Middle East New York Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Ed Schultz has a new big screen with all sorts of visuals, which he uses to his advantage, showing how CEOs pay has increased, middle class income has decreased right on the same curve as union membership decreases. It’s interesting, because I looked at the names of the Bush tax cut bills and lo, it seems that there was a promise contained in them that just hasn’t been realized. Cut #1: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 Cut #2: Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 Cut #3: Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (See, by 2005 they’d given up on the pretense altogether) We’ve had no economic growth or jobs, but plenty of tax relief, at least for some. I don’t really know how to do this when we’re swimming upstream against the likes of Faux News, policy peddlers from right wing think tanks and an electorate that wants to tune out until they actually have to figure out their taxes at which time they decide anything is too much, but we have to find a way to get the message out: Taxes are patriotic. They’re part of living in a society where we have the freedoms we do. The Progressive Caucus is unveiling their budget proposals today. It’s important, compassionate, and cuts taxes for the middle class while putting them on the people who should be paying them: CEOs, Wall Street fat cats and the banksters. With this Congress, it’s unlikely that they’ll get traction unless we get out there and start talking about this inequity in a way people understand. For all the nonsense the Republicans peddle, I give them credit for doing it in a way that sells. Us? Not so much. But we can do it. This video clip alone should be a great place to start.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media When Donald Trump decided to lose his mind in public this last time, I figured Fox was using his nutbaggery to make the other Republicans look better . And then Neil Cavuto opened his mouth, and proved that no, there are some Fox idjuts who just think anyone — ANYONE — is better than Barack Obama. Watch this clip as he turns jetsetter Trump from a rich dude who exploits bankruptcy laws to get richer into a populist, boxer kinda plain-spoken guy. That’s right, folks. We should make decisions about who will lead this country based on the fact that he has no manners and calls out women who criticize him. You see, the Donald is not politically correct, so Neil Cavuto thinks that qualifies him to be the next President or something. And I love this bit of revisionism at about 1:08 in: He cuts issues to the core by often turning those issues upside down. So rather than discuss cutting spending, like the businessman he is, he talks up creating revenue. Not from the usual political suspects like tax hikes, but unusual sources like OPEC nations. They get our protection, The Donald says, we get their oil. And we get their money. It is the school of business hard knocks and The Donald, a construction guy at heart, is more than happy to bang some heads. Yeah, maybe The Donald has banged a few too many heads, because his brain seems to be functioning like he’s on some kind of new psychotropic drug. Birtherism, big stories about private investigators, and more smells like Swiftboating to me, not leadership. As to that plain speak and creative thinking about revenue, has Cavuto forgotten Trump’s 1999 proclamation that we should tax the rich to retire the national debt ? But wait, Cavuto saves the best for last: Let voters decide. Yes, the world would bristle at a Donald Trump, especially those used to an America that kowtows to them. Not this guy, who’d sooner erect a finger than a building in their honor. Er, well, that’s because Trump likes to name buildings after himself, Neil. Haven’t you noticed? Yes, he would be a different cup of tea. But have you looked at these other cups? Not exactly making my cup runneth over. So we could do worse my friends. Take a look around. We already have. There’s so much wrong with that last statement I hardly know where to begin. Worse than what we have in office now? President Obama? Really? Imagine Trump telling Libya, hey you know, we’ll send some airplanes there but we want your oil fields. Screw you, screw principle, we just want your oil. Diplomacy squared there, yes indeed. Trump, the king of leverage. Owned lock, stock and barrel by the banksters . Art of the deal? Heck no. Art of the loan, maybe. At heart, Donald Trump is a gambler . And Neil Cavuto sees that as better than what we have now. Fox News is even more bankrupt than I thought.
Continue reading …
The prime minister warns in a speech that an unwillingness to integrate has created a disjointed Britain Full text of David Cameron’s speech David Cameron will warn that immigrants unable to speak English or unwilling to integrate have created a “kind of discomfort and disjointedness” which has disrupted communities across Britain. In his most outspoken speech on immigration since becoming prime minister, Cameron will blame Labour for allowing immigration to become “too high” and for adopting an approach that allowed the British National party to flourish. The prime minister will open his speech, in Hampshire, by saying that immigration is a hugely emotive subject that must be handled with sensitivity. But he will then say that Labour presided over the “largest influx” of immigration in British history, which saw 2.2 million more people settling in Britain between 1997 and 2009 than leaving to live abroad. Cameron will say this has placed serious pressure on schools, housing and the NHS, and has also created social pressures. “Real communities are bound by common experiences forged by friendship and conversation, knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. And these bonds can take time,” he will say. “So real integration takes time. That’s why, when there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods, perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there, on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate, that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods. This has been the experience for many people in our country – and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it.” The prime minister will stride into sensitive political territory when he accuses Labour of helping to stoke an uncertain climate over immigration. Cameron believes Labour inflamed the issue by accusing critics of racism while at the same time pandering to the hard right. He will say: “I believe the role of politicians is to cut through the extremes of this debate and approach the subject sensibly and reasonably. The last government, in contrast, actually helped to inflame the debate. On the one hand, there were Labour ministers who closed down discussion, giving the impression that concerns about immigration were somehow racist. On the other, there were ministers hell-bent on burnishing their hardline credentials by talking tough but doing nothing to bring the numbers down. “This had damaging consequences in terms of controlling immigration and in terms of public debate. It created the space for extremist parties to flourish, as they could tell people that mainstream politicians weren’t listening to their concerns or doing anything about them.” The speech may add to coalition tensions after the Liberal Democrats distanced themselves from the prime minister’s language. Nick Clegg saw the speech which he “noted rather than approved”. One Lib Dem source said: “We use different language. But we all work in government to strike a balance to ensure Britain has a system people have confidence in.” No 10 insisted that the speech does not mark a return to the era of William Hague as Tory leader when he used the issue as part of a “core votes” strategy. On the eve of the 2001 election, Hague warned that Britain was in danger of turning into a “foreign land” in remarks that technically referred to the EU. Cameron will say that Britain has benefited hugely from immigration. “Go into any hospital and you’ll find people from Uganda, India and Pakistan who are caring for our sick and vulnerable. Go into schools and universities and you’ll find teachers from all over the world, inspiring our young people.” But the prime minister will use his speech to challenge those who say: • Immigration cannot be controlled because Britain is a member of the EU. Cameron will say that future EU member states will be subject to tougher transitional controls and the UK can address immigration from outside the EU through the cap on non-EU immigration. • Immigration can be controlled – but to do so would inflict serious damage on the economy. Cameron will say the government is thinking “incredibly carefully” about which workers should come. But the prime minister will make clear that immigration cannot be controlled until Britain’s welfare system is reformed. “Put simply, we will never control immigration properly unless we tackle welfare dependency. That’s another powerful reason why this government is undertaking the biggest shake-up of the welfare system for generations making sure that work will always pay and ending the option of living a life on the dole when a life in work is possible.” The prime minister will also condemn forced marriages and those who say they should be tolerated. “There are forced marriages taking place in our country, and overseas as a means of gaining entry to the UK. This is the practice where some young British girls are bullied and threatened into marrying someone they don’t want to. “I’ve got no time for those who say this is a culturally relative issue – it is wrong, full stop, and we’ve got to stamp it out. Then there are just the straightforward sham marriages.”In February, the prime minister gave a speech in Munich condemning “state multiculturalism” which had “tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values”. David Cameron Immigration and asylum Labour Conservatives Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Arab world and western ministers issued unanimous call for Gaddafi to step down, saying regime had ‘lost all legitimacy’ Muammar Gaddafi’s regime has “lost all legitimacy” and he must leave power to allow the Libyan people to determine their own future, the international community warned as it boosted support for opposition forces. After three weeks of Nato-led air strikes, Arab and western ministers meeting in Qatar closed ranks to issue a first unanimous call for Gaddafi to step down, boasting that they were “united and firm in their resolve” about the outcome of the crisis – or, at least, more than they were at the London conference late last month. But new signs emerged of disagreements over whether UN resolutions allowed the delivery of weapons to the Libyan rebels, with Qatar pushing hard on this highly sensitive issue. William Hague, the foreign secretary, and Qatar’s prime minister, Hamad bin Jassim, chaired a first session of the Libya “contact group” – comprising an unwieldy 21 countries and six international organisations – to explore ways out of the impasse between regime and opposition. Britain’s latest decision – to supply non-lethal body armour to the rebels – was due to be announced by David Cameron before a meeting with Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris. Under the plan 1,000 flak jackets from Ministry of Defence stores will be sent to opposition forces. Hague, however, sounded ambiguous about whether weapons could legally be supplied. “We understand the resolutions to mean that the arms embargo applies to the whole of Libya,” the foreign secretary said. “But in certain circumstances it is possible, consistent with those resolutions, to provide people with the means to defend the civilian population.” Other countries, he added, “will interpret the resolution in their own way”. Franco Frattini, Italy’s foreign minister, went further. “Either we make it possible for these people to defend themselves or we withdraw our claims of support,” he said. Hamad admitted that there were differences of interpretation but added: “Qatar will make things available for the Libyan people to defend themselves.” But Belgium insisted it would not countenance any move to arm the rebels. Plans for a “temporary financial mechanism” to channel cash to the Benghazi-based opposition were also discussed. Aid to eastern Libya would need to be consistent with UN sanctions, diplomats warned. But the ability to supply basic services would bolster the position and credibility of the Interim National Council. Disagreements surfaced over an Italian call to use frozen Libyan state assets to help the rebels. Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, highlighted the scale of the crisis when he told delegates that up to 3.6 million Libyans could need humanitarian assistance. Hague said that Nato’s “decisive action” had saved thousands of lives. But there were fresh signs of divisions over the military campaign, with the UK and France, which have conducted the bulk of the attack missions, pressing Italy and Belgium to take part in targeting Libyan forces. “We have sent more ground strike aircraft in order to protect civilians,” Hague said. “We do look to other countries to do the same.” The Libyan opposition also urged Nato to do more. “When the Americans were involved the mission was very active and it leant more toward protecting civilians,” said spokesman Mahmoud Shammam. Opposition officials were leaving later for the US to lobby the Obama administration. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato’s secretary general, defended the alliance’s record after its aircraft flew more than 2,000 sorties. But since its mandate was to protect civilians it had to be cautious. “We do our utmost to strike the right balance,” Rasmussen said. Allied strategy remains a combination of military pressure and hope that Gaddafi will suffer further damaging defections. “The aim is very clear,” said France’s foreign minister, Alain Juppé. “We must keep up a strong and robust military pressure to convince Gaddafi there is no way out.” International efforts on Libya shift to Cairo on Thursday when the UN’s Ban joins the Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa, African Union commission chairman Jean Ping and the EU’s foreign policy chief, Lady Ashton. That meeting is expected to discuss a Turkish “roadmap” for peace under which Gaddafi’s forces would withdraw from besieged cities such as Misrata. But that would evidently require the agreement of the government in Tripoli. Libya Middle East Muammar Gaddafi Arab and Middle East unrest William Hague Ian Black guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Ex-president also formally held in Sharm el-Sheikh hospital under suspicion of corruption The barbed wire fences and forbidding high walls became a horrifyingly familiar sight to those who dared speak out over the past three decades; for many of the thousands who passed through Cairo’s Tora prison complex and were tortured within it, this notorious jail was the ultimate symbol of Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt. On Wednesday, as it has done so many times before, Tora received two more prisoners accused of crimes against the state. Their names were Gamal and Alaa Mubarak, sons of the ousted president, and they arrived in the early hours, handcuffed and clad in standard-issue white jumpsuits. Egypt’s remarkable revolution has boasted many poignant moments, but the sight of the all-powerful Mubarak family being led into the top-security cells which once housed their political opponents will count among the most memorable. The incarceration of the Mubarak brothers came as their father, the western-backed dictator whose grip over Egypt seemed only a few months ago to be impregnable, was formally placed in detention at his hospital bed in Sharm el-Sheikh, under suspicion of corruption, fraud and ordering the killing of peaceful protesters. Egyptians have become accustomed to old realities being turned upside down, but as celebrations erupted over the arrest of this former political giant of the Middle East, questions were being raised about what comes next, and how the arrest will affect the volatile landscape of Egyptian politics as the nation shudders towards democracy. Investigators have 15 days to question the 82-year-old and his sons, before prosecutors decide whether to bring charges and force the Mubarak family into the dock. A number of former Mubarak ministers and officials have been through the same process, and in every case a 15-day detention order has been the prelude to the suspect being remanded in custody prior to a formal trial. “I seriously doubt that after all this the Mubaraks will be released,” said Ragia Omran, a human rights lawyer and pro-change activist. “There’s been a lot of anger in the Egyptian street over the demands of the revolution not being met, and the ruling generals have arrested the Mubaraks in an effort to calm the people. To let them go now would be political suicide.” The three men are all due for questioning on Thursday at the prosecutor’s office in Cairo’s Fifth Settlement suburb, though a medical committee will assess Hosni Mubarak first to determine whether he is fit to travel following a reported heart attack. If deemed well enough, the former leader is expected to be transferred to a secure medical facility in the capital. Interrogations are likely to focus on the origin and whereabouts of the Mubarak family’s vast wealth, which has been estimated at anything between $1bn and a wildly improbable $700bn. Last week a document emerged from the office of Egypt’s prosecutor general entitled “request for judicial assistance”, which detailed a series of accusations against the Mubaraks regarding their alleged embezzlement of public money – claims denied by Hosni Mubarak during a TV statement aired on Sunday. The US and other countries have agreed to try to track and freeze Mubarak family assets but legal experts are sceptical of their chances, particularly because of the length of time that elapsed between the president being toppled and Egypt’s interim government formally requesting an asset freeze. Mubarak and his sons will also have to answer questions regarding the violence meted out by the state against unarmed protesters during Egypt’s 18-day uprising, which left up to 800 dead and thousands more injured. Mubarak’s former interior minister, Habib al-Adly, is already on trial for ordering the shooting of civilians during demonstrations, a charge he denies. The arrest of Mubarak has been a key demand of protesters since his fall two months ago. Simmering tensions between revolutionaries and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, a military body that has in effect been ruling Egypt by decree until elections are held later this year, bubbled over last week when military police stormed a rally in Tahrir Square, killing two civilians. Many analysts believe that the latest moves against the Mubarak family are a politicised bid to mollify angry demonstrators, who have recently shifted their attention to the titular head of the military, Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, a long-serving Mubarak-era minister. “In recent days, we’ve seen explicit calls for Tantawi to be removed, and it is clear that for the military that crosses a red line,” said Samer Shehata, assistant professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University. “Tantawi and other members of the supreme council have been clear beneficiaries of the regime and Tantawi himself was a poodle, completely subservient to Mubarak. So this move against the father and the two sons is a response to public anger and it will go some way to quelling the dissatisfaction of the protesters. People want these men interrogated and brought to justice – for reasons of accountability, but also for reasons of mischief-making and counter-revolution.” But despite their jubilation at the Mubaraks’ incarceration, pro-change activists told the Guardian the latest developments had merely emboldened them to keep up the pressure on interim authorities. “I’m sad that this is only happening due to our actions on the street, and not for reasons relating to justice,” said Amr Gharbeia, who was charged with libel under the Mubarak regime. “It demonstrates the needs for us to keep up the pressure on the military council, forcing it to take the kind of action it should be taking if it really considers itself the ‘guardian of the revolution’ and wants to lead us through to elections.” Ahmed Salah, a veteran anti-government campaigner, agreed. “I’ve been jumping around since early morning with this crazy news – but we’re still not allowing ourselves to get comfortable, because this development was only achieved through a lot of pressure and a lot of sacrifices. People were killed by the military before they could see this happen. If we stop now, we could lose everything. How many people must die before this whole regime is taken apart and put in court, and we can achieve our freedom? This is the question that the military council must now answer.” All eyes now will be on the response in Saudi Arabia, where the monarchy has lobbied hard in Cairo and Washington against Mubarak being put on trial. “There continues to be a major regional element to all this; from the very beginning Saudi Arabia – along with Israel – had been pushing for Mubarak to retain power, and then after he fell for him not be charged. They don’t want to see an Arab head of state held accountable in this way, and have issued thinly veiled threats as to what might happen if he is charged. They are a major source of reaction in the region.” Egypt Hosni Mubarak Middle East Jack Shenker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Susan Manning calls on British foreign secretary to check her son’s physical and mental health in maximum security custody The mother of Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of leaking data to WikiLeaks, has written to William Hague asking for British consular officials to visit him in military prison to check on his physical and mental health, which she said was deteriorating. Manning, 23, has been in custody since last May in conditions that have provoked widespread criticism of the US military and government. He is held alone in a maximum security cell for 23 hours a day and stripped naked each night apart from a smock. Manning does not have a British passport or consider himself British, his lawyer has said, but because his mother, Susan, is Welsh, the soldier is “British by descent”, the Foreign Office confirmed this month. In her letter, Susan Manning wrote that she visited her son in Quantico marine base in Virginia in February, travelling with her sister, Bradley’s aunt and his uncle, “but they were not allowed to see Bradley. “I was very distressed by seeing Bradley. Being in prison, and being held in the conditions which he is, is having a damaging effect on him physically and mentally. I am worried that his condition is getting worse. I would like someone to visit him who can check on his conditions. If Bradley’s being a British national means that someone from the British embassy can visit him, then I would like to ask if you can make that happen. I do not believe that Bradley is in a position to be able to request this himself, so I am asking as his mother on his behalf.” Susan Manning, who divorced Bradley’s American father, Brian, when her son was a teenager, also asked Hague for consular support on her own behalf. “If I try [to] visit Bradley again, can someone from the British embassy help me and other members of Bradley’s family to deal with the US marine authorities and help with any other arrangements we have to make?” The UN special rapporteur on torture, Juan Mendez, issued a rare reprimand to the US government this week for failing to allow him private access to the soldier. Manning can meet Mendez only in the presence of a guard, where the soldier’s comments could be used against him in future court martial proceedings. Mendez said he was acting on a complaint “that the regimen of this detainee amounts to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or torture. Until I have all the evidence in front of me, I cannot say whether he has been treated inhumanely”. The Pentagon denied this week he was kept in solitary confinement. Manning is accused of leaking confidential data, including more than 250,000 diplomatic cables, to WikiLeaks, on charges that include “aiding the enemy”, a capital crime. On 4 April the Foreign Office minister Henry Bellingham said the British embassy in Washington had expressed MPs’ concerns about the soldier’s treatment to the Obama administration and would do so again. “All people who are detained in custody deserve to be treated in detention according to the highest international standards, and we certainly expect nothing less from the United States.” With relation to Manning’s nationality, he said: “We must respect his wishes on the matter and recognise the limitations on UK involvement,” while noting that the government had not at that point had any requests for help from the British side of his family. The Foreign Office confirmed the foreign secretary’s office had received the letter, and said: “We will carefully consider Mrs Manning’s letter and will reply to her shortly.” Bradley Manning United Nations US politics United States William Hague US military WikiLeaks Foreign policy Esther Addley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …