At least 61 bodies have been recovered after an explosion today of a gasoline pipeline running through a slum in Kenya’s capital, says a local official, who adds that he believes the death toll will rise. A hospital official says at least 112 burn victims have arrived, and an ambulance…
Continue reading …PM secured £215m worth of business deals with Moscow, but made no progress on the Alexander Litvinenko case David Cameron insisted he had not “parked” concerns about Russia’s human rights record, as he ended a one-day burst of diplomatic bridge-building by securing £215m worth of business deals with Moscow, but without making progress on the case of the murdered former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko. Cameron trod a fine line during his 22-hour visit as he pushed British business interests while raising concerns over human rights. But Downing Street believes that differences over Russia’s refusal to extradite the man Britain suspects of murdering Litvinenko in London in 2006 are so embedded that they need to be negotiated around. The foreign secretary, William Hague, also on the trip, said Britain had “met our objective in coming here and expanding working relations at the top of government, reinforcing the opportunity for jobs, and for business”. Among the deals was a lifting of a ban on imports of British beef, which has existed ever since the 1990s BSE crisis, in exchange for the UK agreeing to look into ways to expedite visa approval rates for businessmen, though this would not extend to officials. There had been “no meeting of minds” over Syria, Hague said. Russia does not agree with the UN security council that President Bashar al-Assad should leave office, and instead calls for political reform. The visit was the culmination of a year’s defrosting in Anglo-Russian relations, with Cameron granted the first face-to-face meeting in five years with Vladimir Putin, now prime minister, after a suspension of diplomacy at the highest levels caused by the Litvinenko case. Cameron and Putin discussed the economy and how much each should continue to encourage mutual trade and investment. Hague said Cameron also raised the issue of Litvinenko, who was poisoned with radioactive polonium in London, but the British government does not expect Russia to change its mind. Hague said this meant there would be “no prospect” of a resumption in counter-intelligence sharing while Litvinenko’s suspected murderer Andrei Lugovoi remains in Russia, despite the Russian ambassador to London calling for a resumption in counter-intelligence sharing this on Friday ahead of the trip. Though Cameron and Medvedev said publicly that they had agreed to disagree over Lugovoi’s extradition, Medvedev went further than before, saying: “You have to learn to respect our legal framework. I would like to remind you of article 65 of the Russian constitution says a Russian citizen can’t be extradited for legal proceedings. We should understand it and respect it. We have questions about how court decisions are come to in the UK but we are not raising these issues.” With such an emphasis on trade, the prime minister was under pressure to prove he had not “parked” concerns about human rights abuses. Referring to the Litvinenko case, Cameron said: “This is not being parked. The two governments don’t agree. We are not downplaying it in any way. We have our own position. “But I don’t think that means we should freeze the entire relationship – we need to build a relationship in our mutual interest. Both of us want to see progress. We are not parking the issue, just realising there is an arrangement that hasn’t changed.” In his speech to Moscow state university students earlier in the day, Cameron set out the British government’s position on Litvinenko. He said: “Our approach is simple and principled. When a crime is committed that is a matter for the courts, it is their job to examine the evidence impartially and to determine innocence or guilt. The accused has a right to a fair trial. “The victim and their family have a right to justice. It is the job of governments to help courts to do their work.” Cameron told the students he had carefully acknowledged how hard British businessmen found it to operate in Russia. He said: “I’ve talked to many British businesses. I have no doubt about their ambition to work in Russia … but it’s also clear that the concerns that continue to make them hold back are real. “They need to know that they can go to a court confident that a contract will be enforced objectively … and that their assets and premises won’t be unlawfully taken away from them. In the long run the rule of law is what delivers stability and security.” However, at his press conference with Cameron, Medvedev said: “It is very difficult to deal with most states on our planet because corruption is a central element that exists everywhere. The open secret to you is that corruption exists in the UK as well. It doesn’t mean we are not prepared to deal with the UK too.” Cameron’s broad aim is to “rebuild” the relationship and end the “tit-for-tat” behaviour. In a sign of a potentially lighter mood, Medvedev said that he thought Cameron could have been a “very good” KGB spy, a reference to an anecdote Cameron had told students earlier. Describing his first visit, Cameron said: “I first came to Russia as a student on my gap year between school and university in 1985. I took the Trans-Siberian Railway from Nakhodka to Moscow and went on to the Black Sea coast. There, two Russians – speaking perfect English – turned up on a beach mostly used by foreigners. “They took me out to lunch and dinner and asked me about life in England and what I thought about politics. “When I got back I told my tutor at university and he asked me whether it was an interview. If it was, it seems I didn’t get the job! My fortunes have improved a bit since then. So have those of Russia.” He finished his speech by appearing to make a link between the two periods. “In the last 20 years Russia and Britain have both come a long way but each largely on their own. In the next 20 years I believe we can go very much further.” He ended his speech with a Russian phrase which translates as “we are stronger together”. Russia Alexander Litvinenko David Cameron Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …• Bash F5 or use our auto-refresher for the latest • Send your thoughts to john.ashdown@guardian.co.uk • Or get in touch via Twitter at @John_Ashdown 9.02pm: Right, he’s ready now. And out they come. Djokovic in Daz white, Nadal in what a paint company might call Pacific blue. 9.00pm: There’ll be a slight delay. Rafa is apparently “not ready”. 8.57pm: “Does your Def Leppard story give involve the drummer’s one good arm?” asks WiliamHardy on Twitter. Thankfully not. 8.53pm: Montage music has improved: we’ve just had a blast of Queens of the Stone Age. 8.47pm: A theory: The standout moment of Djokovic’s standout semi-final was on Federer’s first match point. It wasn’t the fizzing return that the Serb sent back to win the point (although that was astonishing) it was the way he turned to the crowd afterwards, arms outstretched, milking the applause, drinking in the adulation. For me, it was an example of the psychological advantage he has over Federer, Nadal and, if we’re going to generously throw him in the list, Andy Murray. Federer must be wondering how many majors he’s got left; Nadal, for different reasons, must also wonder how long his body will hold up to the rigours of the circuit; Murray has yet to win one and carries the weight of a nations’ hopes on his shoulders. All three are, in their own way, under pressure. Djokovic isn’t so encumbered – he’s already won a couple, has no injury worries, no records to break or legacies to ensure. He, more than the others, can simply go out and play. As I say, it’s just a theory, but I think there may be something to it. 8.40pm: Sporting events in New York are an absolute dream for the musical montage makers. They’re spoilt for choice . Sky just went for an upbeat dance track that repeated the words “New Yooooork, New Yoooork, New Yoooork, New Yoooork” to a kind of Eurobeat*. Didn’t recognise it. There were better options, though. *Any mention of terrible pop music sends me back to my most embarrassing moment in journalism. It involved interviewing Def Leppard backstage at Top of the Pops, getting trapped somewhere I didn’t want to be and being made to do something I didn’t want to do. If this goes to a fifth set I’ll tell you about it. Maybe. 8.22pm: Weather news: Bad news for fans of those who enjoy lengthy chats about the lack of lavatorial realism in modern cinema – it’s not raining. We should start, bang on schedule, at 9pm UK time (4pm in New York, New York) Preamble Evening all. Are you well. Good, good. Me? I’m dandy, or at least I was until I spilled most of my cuppa all over my desk. You’ll be pleased to hear that it’s all been mopped up (using, for it was closest to hand, a picture of Jussi Jaasekelainen) and that they keyboard area is clear for US Open final action. And what a final it should be. The No1 seed, No1 in the world, reigning Wimbledon champion and reigning Australian Open champion Novak Djokovic against the No2 seed, No2 in the world, reigning French Open champion and reigning US Open champion Rafael Nadal. It’s a repeat of the 2010 final at Flushing Meadows, won by Rafael Nadal in four sets. After that victory the Spaniard went on to beat the Serb at the World Tour Finals in London, but since then it has been all one-way traffic, traffic that has left tyre-tracks on a pair of pirate pants: BAM! Djokovic wins in three sets in the Masters final at Indian Wells DOOSH!! Djokovic wins in three sets in the Masters final in Miami WHUMP!!! Djokovic wins in straight sets in the Masters final in Madrid OOF!!!! Djokovic wins in straight sets in the Masters final in Rome And, most impressively of all … KERRRR-POW!!!!! Djokovic wins in four sets in the Wimbledon final They’ve met five times in 2011, in five finals, and Djokovic has won. Every. Single. Time. That, and the fact that he got close to tennis nirvana at times in the semi-final against Roger Federer, explains why he’s odds-on favourite tonight. US Open tennis US Open 2011 Novak Djokovic Rafael Nadal Tennis John Ashdown guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Burial takes place at crash site in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where United Airlines Flight 93 came down on September 11 The few remains of the 40 passengers and crew killed when their plane crashed in Pennsylvania as they struggled to seize control of the aircraft from hijackers on September 11 2001 were finally buried on Monday. The private funeral for nearly 500 family members was held a day after the public commemoration at the crash site in Shanksville, attended by Barack Obama, to mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The burial took place at the crash site where a 17-tonne boulder in a field of wildflowers marks the spot where the plane hit the ground on the edge of woods. It is now part of the Flight 93 National Memorial and park, which was officially opened on Saturday in the first of three days of remembrance. What little remained of the victims after the plane disintegrated from the impact and the explosion of the fuel was stored by the local coroner, Wallace Miller, for the past decade. DNA tests found some matches for all of the passengers and crew, as well as the four hijackers, but most of the remains could not be identified. Family members and mourners placed flowers on the three full-sized coffins holding the remains, before they were buried in concrete vaults. A plaque is to be placed on the boulder, serving as a collective headstone. Among those officiating at the funeral were a Catholic priest, a Lutheran minister, a Jewish rabbi and a Buddhist sensei. The dead included nationals of the US, Japan and Germany. Carole O’Hare, whose mother, Hilda Marcin, was killed, said the ceremony brought some peace. “There’s definitely peace of mind. I was always concerned about what would happen with the unidentified remains,” she told the Associated Press. “And now my feeling is they’re at peace, and where they are meant to be.” September 11 2001 Pennsylvania United States Chris McGreal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Dominique Strauss-Kahn may have escaped sexual assault charges in the United States, but his troubles aren’t yet past: French police interviewed him this morning over allegations that he attempted to rape novelist and journalist Tristane Banon in 2003. The prosecutor’s office will decide by next month whether to formally investigate…
Continue reading …Click here to view this media What was slightly surprising about this week’s Fox News Sunday is that Dana Priest, who’s done some pretty extensive reporting on the United States’, as Chris Wallace actually pretty aptly described it, “terrorism industrial complex” for the Washington Post was allowed on the show to say anything critical at all about the intrusion into our daily lives in the name of “national security” or the fact that the industry has pretty well grown out of control. What’s not surprising is war monger Bill Kristol was there to downplay the terrible costs we’ve paid for these excesses, and naturally to cheer on the military industrial complex. KRISTOL: Well, you compare it to the military, the industrial complex from the Cold War. The military industrial complex helped win the Cold War. And if we pay a little price, a little waste and a little bit of excessive stuff at the airports to help win this war, which I think is comparable to the Cold War in the sense that we don’t need to just defeat Al Qaida or a few leaders of Al Qaida, we need to change the character of the Middle East otherwise the 20 percent is going to be unmanageable. There will be other Al Qaedas, there will be other state sponsored terrorism. There will be nuclear weapons next time. And we’ll be back where we were on 9/11 and in a way even worse. So I think the effort — I don’t really believe we can cut back any more than we could have cut back 10 years into the Cold War in the mid-1950s before saying, oh well now we’ve — Korea was very difficult, it’s been divisive at home, General McCarthy. We surely need to get out of this war mentality. In fact, we stayed with it with bipartisan leadership. And the Soviet Union collapsed. And I think we’re in a similar moment today. Yeah, just what harm can there be from paying “a little price” or for “a little waste” or a little bit of “excessive stuff?” I guess those prices do appear small to someone like Kristol who’s never served in the military, who doesn’t live in one of those countries we decided to invade, and who is making a nice salary constantly cheerleading on the next military invasion and isn’t worried he might starve to death, say if he loses his Social Security benefits because, you know, we’re supposedly “broke” and need some “shared sacrifice.” Full transcript below the fold. WALLACE: Dana, in you new book “Top Secret America” you report how in the wake of 9/11 a kind of terrorism industrial complex has developed like the military industrial complex after the cold and during the Cold War. How big is it? And what is your concern about it? PRIEST: Nearly a hundred — nearly a million people work who have top secret clearances on programs that are secret. Thousands of corporations and about 1,200 organizations. It is a giant complex that grew up after congress gave the executive branch a blank check basically to stop what everyone thought was going to be a next attack. Ten years later, it’s grown so large it’s not manageable. We’re supposed to put the director of national intelligence in charge, but he is not in charge. And in fact, that organization itself has grown to the size of buildings that are five Wal-Marts stacked on top of each other. The Department of Homeland Security, a lot of people inside the community still don’t know exactly what value it brings to a lot of things other than border security and transportation security. But 88,000 people work there. The building their building is going to be larger than the Pentagon. And half the employees are contractors. So I think it’s time with the death of bin Laden, with the near- death of the al Qaida network and with the precision and the growth of real expertise of following terrorist networks it’s time to step back and reassess what have we built? Do we still need all of it as we’re constructed, as it’s been constructed, and should we keep growing it? Or should we reassess and cut back in some places, figure out what works and what doesn’t work? That has not been done yet. WALLACE: Bill? KRISTOL: Well, you compare it to the military, the industrial complex from the Cold War. The military industrial complex helped win the Cold War. And if we pay a little price, a little waste and a little bit of excessive stuff at the airports to help win this war, which I think is comparable to the Cold War in the sense that we don’t need to just defeat Al Qaida or a few leaders of Al Qaida, we need to change the character of the Middle East otherwise the 20 percent is going to be unmanageable. There will be other Al Qaedas, there will be other state sponsored terrorism. There will be nuclear weapons next time. And we’ll be back where we were on 9/11 and in a way even worse. So I think the effort — I don’t really believe we can cut back any more than we could have cut back 10 years into the Cold War in the mid-1950s before saying, oh well now we’ve — Korea was very difficult, it’s been divisive at home, General McCarthy. We surely need to get out of this war mentality. In fact, we stayed with it with bipartisan leadership. And the Soviet Union collapsed. And I think we’re in a similar moment today.
Continue reading …Paul Krugman drew conservative outrage on Sunday when he wrote that the anniversary of 9/11 had become a marker of “shame” for the U.S. (Scroll down for Krugman’s new post on the subject.) The New York Times columnist wrote a blog post called “The Years of Shame,” in which he said that “what happened after 9/11″ was “deeply shameful.” Krugman castigated people like Rudy Giuliani and President Bush as “fake heroes” who exploited the attacks for their own personal, political or military gain. He also said that many in the media had “[lent] their support to the hijacking of the atrocity.” Krugman concluded, “the memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And, in its heart, the nation knows it.” He said he had turned off the comments on the post “for obvious reasons.” Conservative commentators quickly seized on Krugman’s post. Blogger Michelle Malkin called him a “smug coward.” Writer Glenn Reynolds called the post “an admission of impotence from a sad and irrelevant little man.” A writer at the Big Journalism site called Krugman “vile.” And former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced that he was cancelling his subscription to the Times. However, some progressives defended Krugman. Blogger Glenn Greenwald vociferously backed the post on Twitter. “Michael Moore & The Dixie Chicks were just as right back then as Krugman is today – but today the taboos (& their enforcers) are much weaker,” he wrote. And, on Crooks & Liars, Nicole Belle said that Krugman was simply telling the truth. “That day was the impetus for us to attack and invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks and posed no threat to us,” she wrote. “To date, we’ve lost 4,752 allied service members in Iraq and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. How is this not a black mark of shame on the legacy of 9/11?” UPDATE: Paul Krugman responded to his critics on Monday, writing another blog post about the 9/11 anniversary. He did not apologize for anything he wrote. Rather, he said that “the two years or so after 9/11 were a terrible time in America” and that “I’m not saying anything now that I wasn’t saying in real time back then, when Bush had a sky-high approval rating and any criticism was denounced as treason. And there’s nothing I’ve done in my life of which I’m more proud.” Krugman did say that “the American people behaved remarkably well in the weeks and months after 9/11: There was very little panic, and much more tolerance than one might have feared.” But he insisted that “the memory of how the atrocity was abused is and remains a painful one. And it’s a story that I, at least, can neither forget nor forgive.” Read the full post here.
Continue reading …Wolf Blitzer will serve as the host of tonight’s “Tea Party debate” on CNN, co-sponsored by the Tea Party Express. But while Blitzer’s show plans to present questioners from the Tea Party, it’s likely Blitzer will “balance” that by
Continue reading …Yes, it’s debate time again. Here’s what to watch for when the 2012 GOP presidential candidates face off tonight in Florida, at an event sponsored by CNN and the Tea Party Express: Social Security will likely continue to be a flash point. At the last debate, Rick Perry attacked Mitt…
Continue reading …