Why hasn’t Roger Ailes been called out by the media for recruiting Chris Christie to run for president?
May 26, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media I meant to write about this sooner after reading the NY Mag article, but time flies. We all know that Roger Ailes fashions himself a GOP kingmaker, but can you imagine the the outcry by the RWNM and all media critics if the head of a cable news network called a Democratic Governor or an active military man and begged him to run for President? NY Mag: A few months ago, Ailes called Chris Christie and encouraged him to jump into the race. Last summer, he’d invited Christie to dinner at his upstate compound along with Rush Limbaugh, and like much of the GOP Establishment, he fell hard for Christie, who nevertheless politely turned down Ailes’s calls to run. Ailes had also hoped that David Petraeus would run for president, but Petraeus too has decided to sit this election out, choosing to stay on the counterterrorism front lines as the head of Barack Obama’s CIA. If the head of any other news network tried to shape a single political party’s presidential primaries, they would rightly be decried for the unequivocal bias it revealed — not to mention the breathtaking absence of ethics, But when Ailes does it, it’s “nothing to see here, move right along.” Back in February of 2010, Roger Ailes told ABC that all he was interested was in ratings and not politics. WALTERS: But you hired her to be a commentator. Do you think — so you must think she has some qualifications? She seems to be very popular with certain groups. Do you think she has the qualifications to be president? AILES: Fox News is fair and balanced. We had Geraldine Ferraro on for 10 years as the only woman the Democrats ever nominated. Now we have the only woman that the Republicans nominated. I’m not in politics, I’m in ratings. We’re willing. HUFFINGTON: Roger, you clearly are in ratings, but if you are in ratings, can you explain to me why Fox went away from the meeting the president was having in — why did you go away, 20 minutes before the end? AILES: Because we’re the most trusted name in news. That’s another baldfaced lie, right Roger? IOKIYAR
Continue reading …
Judges back law that penalises firms hiring illegal immigrants despite civil rights challenge and condemnation by Obama The US supreme court has upheld an Arizona law allowing the state to shut down businesses that hire illegal immigrants, a ruling arising from the fierce national debate on immigration policy. The court’s majority opinion, written by its chief justice, John Roberts, rejected arguments by business and civil rights groups and the Obama administration that the Arizona law conflicted with federal immigration law and must be struck down. The supreme court’s decision could spur other states and cities to adopt their own tough anti-immigration measures. The 2007 law backed by the court is different from the strict Arizona law adopted last year and criticised by Barack Obama. It required the police to check the immigration status of anyone in the state suspected of being in the US illegally . A federal judge and a US appeals court put the newer law’s most controversial provisions on hold . Arizona has said it will appeal that ruling to the supreme court. About 11 million illegal immigrants are believed to be in the US. Immigration has become a huge issue in states such as Arizona on the border with Mexico. The Arizona law suspends or revokes licences to do business in the state as a penalty against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. It requires employers to use an electronic verification system to check the work authorisation status of employees through federal records. The Legal Arizona Workers Act was adopted after a federal immigration overhaul law ran aground in Congress in 2007. The Obama administration and Congress have been unable to agree on comprehensive immigration measures. A US appeals court upheld the Arizona business law, and by a 5-3 vote the supreme court affirmed that ruling. “Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law,” Roberts concluded in the 27-page opinion. Liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented and said they would hold that the Arizona law was pre-empted by federal law. US immigration United States Arizona Obama administration US politics guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Borrowing the phraseology of left-wing bloggers, NBC Justice correspondent Pete Williams has (so far) thrice invoked Nazi terminology to describe SB-1070, the Arizona immigration law that continues to be the object of liberal scorn. The first reference occurred today during the 10 a.m. EDT hour of “Jansing & Co.,” when Williams called the state measure the “show us your papers law.” Moments later, Williams led the top of 11 a.m. EDT hour of “MSNBC Live” by repeating the “show us your papers” line. The NBC correspondent took a break for about an hour before rephrasing the legislation during the 12 p.m. EDT hour as the “round up the usual suspects law.” In using police-state nomenclature, Williams joins an exclusive club of liberal bloggers whose cognitive abilities are limited to comparing the Republican Party to the Third Reich: On the Huffington Post , one creative headline reads: “Arizona's SB1070 Gestapo Law Reveals Right Wing Version of 'Liberty.'” On the ACLU of Nevada's site, the liberal attorneys employ esoteric legalese that would send Justice Scalia scrambling for the nearest thesaurus: “Arizona's 'show me your papers' law dealt a stunning blow.” Over at Firedoglake , one blogger triumphantly trumpets: “Obama DOJ files suit against Arizona’s 'show me your papers' law today.” With the rest of the day ahead of him, Williams has plenty of time to think of fun, new ways to repackage his Nazi propaganda. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Continue reading …
Agreement will be ‘crucial to improving security’, says justice secretary, and personal information will be stored for 15 years The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, has defended a joint American-European agreement to store the personal data, including credit card details, of millions of transatlantic air passengers for 15 years. Clarke said that despite strong concerns about civil liberties, the agreement to share passenger name records with the US department of homeland security was crucial to improving US and EU security. His data protection speech in Brussels on Thursday followed the Guardian’s disclosure of the text of the draft US-EU agreement on sharing passenger name records in the wake of negotiations concluded last Friday. But the disclosure also revealed increasing opposition in the European parliament to the deal, with a warning from Claude Moraes, the socialists and democrats group civil liberties spokesman, that the data would not be used just to combat terrorism and serious crime. Clarke called for a “flexible approach” to data protection in Europe. He also backed the campaign by the home secretary, Theresa May, to ensure that passenger data on flights within Europe were also collected and stored for up to five years. “The UK agrees with the large majority of other member states who think that it makes no sense to collect passenger name records information on flights to and from third countries without also collecting the same information on flights between EU members states,” Clarke told the British Chamber of Commerce in Brussels. “We cannot provide the protection we all wish to see without working with our non-EU partners, given the threats we face are global in nature. We should continue to engage closely with the United States on passenger name records and data protection – it is crucial to improving US and EU security.” But Moraes, Labour MEP for London, said socialist MEPs were “absolutely appalled” by the text of the US-EU passenger name record agreement. “There is no justification for a 15-year retention period of people’s personal details,” Moraes said, adding that it compared with 5½ years for a similar agreement with Australia, and five years for the EU’s own airline data collection plans. The agreement left the “door wide open” for the use of the personal data – which includes bank card details, home addresses and mobile phone numbers – for “mission creep” purposes way beyond combating terrorism and serious crimes.”It is also wrong that we should adopt the position that because it is for anti-terrorist purposes, we can’t question whether it is a proportionate response,” Moraes said. The German and French governments have already expressed concerns about the length of the retention period with Australia. That agreement and the US deal need to pass the scrutiny of the European parliament before they can come into effect.ends Data protection Data and computer security Civil liberties – international UK civil liberties Immigration and asylum Kenneth Clarke Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Ruler not mentioned in ceasefire plan but rebels and Nato powers want his unequivocal departure from office Libya’s battered regime has made its most plaintive plea yet for a ceasefire, offering to talk to anti-government rebels, move towards a constitutional government and compensate victims of the three-month conflict. The plan represents an advance on previous ceasefire bids, which had focused largely on implementing a proposal by the African Union that calls for international monitors to observe a negotiated truce. It was pre-empted by a letter sent to European leaders by Libya’s prime minister, Al-Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi, in which he acknowledged that the revolt that has paralysed Libya was “part of a series of events that are taking place throughout the Arab world”. “We understand this,” he wrote. “We are ready and we know what is required of us.” Libyan officials had previously linked the rebel groups who control the east of the country to al-Qaida and foreign backers, and had steadfastly refused to acknowledge that a pro-democracy current existed among the rebels. Asked about the new willingness to talk to rebels, Mahmoudi said: “We are ready for dialogue with all structures that represent the whole of Libya. Any Libyans can sit on the round table. But as for these so-called dissenters, it is they who said they wouldn’t talk to the Libyan state. And remember many of them were former members of the Libyan government.” The plan was greeted with skepticism by the US and some European states. The deputy US national security adviser Ben Rhodes said the Libyan government was not complying with a UN resolution that authorised a military operation to protect the Libyan people from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi’s name was again conspicuously absent from the new discussion about a ceasefire. Libyan officials have been trying to recast the despot as a figure who will not play a prominent role in the country’s affairs after the fighting stops. He has been presented as a potential Castro-like figure with no executive input into a new Libyan society. Gaddafi has maintained a low profile since the death of one of his sons and three grandchildren a month ago. Envoys representing him have contacted European leaders. The lead powers in the Nato bombing campaign, France and Britain, whose jets target sites in the centre and west of the country most nights, have said they will not agree to a ceasefire until Gaddafi leaves office. The umbrella group that represents the rebels, the Interim Transnational Council, has won preliminary backing from the White House and Downing Street. It is refusing to talk with the Libyan government until Gaddafi relinquishes power. Libya Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest Nato Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
International package will support Arab spring as Cameron warns alternative to democracy is ‘poisonous extremism’ Britain is to set aside £110m over the next four years to foster democracy and economic growth in Tunisia and Egypt as part of a wider international package to show support for the Arab spring. David Cameron, speaking on the opening day of the G8 summit of leading economies in Deauville, Normandy, argued that if Britain did not help the fledgling democracies of north Africa the result would be poisonous extremism and waves of illegal immigration into the UK. The G8 is hammering out a wider package of aid to north Africa as the centrepiece of its two-day deliberations. Cameron said: “I want a very simple and clear message to come out of this summit and that is that the most powerful nations on Earth have come together and are saying to all those in the Middle East and north Africa who want greater democracy and greater freedom and greater civil rights – we are on your side.” He added: “We’ll help you build your democracies; we’ll help you build your economies; we’ll help you with trade – we’ll help you in all the ways that we can, because the alternative to successful democracies is more of the poisonous extremism that has done so much damage in our world. “And to people back at home wondering what is the relevance of summits like this, it will mean less extremism, it will mean more peace and prosperity, and it will mean there won’t be the pressures of immigration that we might otherwise face in our own country.” The Tunisian and Egyptian economies have been floundering since the spring revolutions because of a collapse in tourism and trade. Egypt claims political instability is costing it $40m (about £25m) a day in lost tourism revenues, while growth has more than halved and inflation has risen. The leaders of both countries – the Egyptian prime minister, Essam Sharaf, and the Tunisian prime minister, Beji Caid el Sebsi, are both due to address the G8 leaders on Friday. The Tunisians are asking for $5bn a year for the next five years, pointing out they have suffered an influx of immigrants from Libya. The extra cash, including soft loans, multi-creditor debt swaps, and greater trade access for agricultural products, would come as tensions mount inside both countries over the slow pace of reform and continuing mass unemployment. The US is the largest contributor, offering $4bn in aid and loans, but help will also come from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. The US has also urged the G8 to “lead efforts to reorient” the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to back Arab democratic transitions in much the same way as it supported similar transitions in central and eastern Europe. Some Egyptian protesters are due to return to Tahrir Square in Cairo this Friday to demand faster progress towards reform and removal of the military junta, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. But the protesters, who call their protest Save the Revolution Friday, are split, with the Muslim Brotherhood, the likely beneficiary of early elections, refusing to join them. Britain recognises that premature elections may make it difficult for some of the newer parties in Egypt to establish themselves, but recognises there is an impatience for democracy. The UK funding will include £40m from the Foreign Office over four years to bolster political reform and a further £70m from the Department for International Development. The Foreign Office money will be used to build political participation, support human rights groups and challenge corruption. It appeared none of the cash would go to the Muslim Brotherhood on the grounds that it is an already well-established party. Speaking before the meeting, the European commission president, José Manuel Barroso, confirmed that the 27-member EU would provide €1.24bn (£1bn) in “fresh new money” to its neighbours in the east and across the Mediterranean. G8 Egypt Tunisia David Cameron Foreign policy Middle East Africa Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …DOJ Cleared Ensign Of Wrongdoing…Without Examining Thousands Of Incriminating Emails. Will They Now Re-Open The Case?
May 26, 2011 No Comment
enlarge At present, only one of these senators will face prosecution for improper use of funds involving an extramarital affair You know, on one level, I’m happy that the DOJ is no longer the overtly partisan and retaliatory entity it was during the Bush years. However, I’m flummoxed by this seemingly overarching extension in the other direction. Reuters breaks the story : Ensign’s once promising political career was over because of the disclosures, but he was no longer in any legal jeopardy. The Justice Department had informed him in December 2010 that he would not face criminal charges. An aggressive Senate Ethics Committee investigation was still pursuing Ensign, but that probe would be shelved once he resigned. As Ensign was preparing to leave the Senate, investigators for the Senate Ethics Committee were attempting at the 11th hour to obtain a trove of email correspondence concerning the payments to the Hamptons. The trouble for the committee was that Ensign’s attorneys insisted the emails were privileged. The committee had unsuccessfully battled for 18 months to obtain them. A Reuters examination of the Ensign probe shows the case then took a sudden turn: Ensign reversed course and handed over more than 1,000 sensitive emails between himself and his attorneys and other top advisers. The decision “puzzled” congressional investigators who thought they would never see the emails and baffled even most of his own closest advisers, say people close to the case. Those emails are apparently very incriminating, including ones by Ensign himself acknowledging that his coverup of the affair effectively ended his Senate career and by his attorneys that the payments to the Hamptons would inevitably trigger notice of the Senate Ethics Committee. Why Ensign released the emails is somewhat of a mystery. Did he assume he was out of the woods since the DOJ had already told them they were closing the books on this? Then he wasn’t paying attention to his attorneys, who have warned him that this could instigate a re-opening of the investigation. If that’s so, no investigation on Ensign’s coverup could be complete without a full investigation of Tom Coburn and the part he played to broker the deal between Ensign, his parents and the Hamptons . Ironically, this news comes the same week as the DOJ announced that they would seek an indictment against John Edwards for improper use of campaign funds to keep his own extramarital affair quiet. Of course, when you’re a Democrat, you can expect a much more stringent investigations by the Department of Justice. The unexpected last minute developments in the Ensign case raise serious questions as to why the Justice Department closed its file on the Senator without first obtaining the crucial emails later seen by the Senate. A senior Justice Department official told Reuters that the decision to publicly say that they were no longer pursuing Ensign displayed bad judgment, harmed the investigation, and will likely leave lingering effects on the Department’s reputation in prosecuting public officials. The Department is already smarting after the dismissal of charges against the late Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, after disclosures of prosecutorial misconduct. My initial reaction was to roll my eyes at the lackluster and careless performance once again by Attorney General Eric Holder, but I’ve been corrected by journalists that this likely never did get to Holder’s desk. I’m not sure if it is helpful, but here is the contact information for the DOJ , and certainly, having citizens demand that the DOJ re-open the case in light of these new revelations can’t hurt.
Continue reading …
Former IMF chief’s defence team says it has information that could ‘gravely undermine’ hotel maid’s account Lawyers for the former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn say they have information that could “gravely undermine the credibility” of the hotel maid who has accused him of trying to rape her. In a letter to Manhattan prosecutors, Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers William Taylor and Ben Brafman complained about New York police leaking information on the case to the media and asserted his right to a fair trial. “Indeed, were we intent on improperly feeding the media frenzy we could now release substantial information that in our view would seriously undermine the quality of this prosecution and also gravely undermine the credibility of the complainant in this case,” Taylor and Brafman wrote. “We are requesting that you use whatever resources are appropriate to stop further leaking immediately,” they said in the letter, dated 25 May and addressed to Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan district attorney. The prosecutor, John McConnell, has said evidence against the French national is “substantial and is continuing to grow every day”. He said the 32-year-old immigrant from Guinea who accused Strauss-Kahn of trying to rape her on 14 May had told a “compelling and unwavering story”. Strauss-Kahn is under house arrest in a luxury New York townhouse. He has denied charges of a criminal sexual act, attempted rape, sexual abuse, unlawful imprisonment and forcible touching. If convicted he faces up to 25 years in prison. Strauss-Kahn resigned as managing director of the International Monetary Fund after his arrest. He is due to appear in court again on 6 June. Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers said in the letter that they were concerned “our client’s right to a fair trial is being compromised by the public disclosure of prejudicial material even before these materials have been disclosed to his counsel”. As an example the lawyers referred to media reports that tests had confirmed Strauss-Kahn’s DNA was found on the hotel maid’s clothing. Dominique Strauss-Kahn IMF United States France guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Manal al-Sharif, the Saudi mother arrested for uploading a video of her driving on YouTube, faces another 10 days in jail A Saudi Arabian woman who posted a video online of her driving her car is facing another 10 days in prison, according to reports from the kingdom. Manal al-Sharif, a 32-year old mother who drove around the eastern city of Khobar last Saturday, had been expecting to be released on Friday after five days in jail on charges her lawyer described as driving without a licence, provoking other women to do the same and provoking public opinion in Saudi Arabia. It is disputed by lawyers whether it is illegal for women to drive under national law but it is socially and religiously unacceptable in many quarters. “The investigator needs another 10 days to complete his investigation,” said Al-Sharif’s lawyer, Adnan Al Salah. “He will decide whether Manal is innocent and has to be released or he will refer her to the prosecution unit, a government organisation and they might refer her to a special prosecutor to deal with the case. I feel the fair and right thing would have been to release her on bail.” The extension of the investigation was interpreted as a show of defiance by the Saudi authorities in the face of growing domestic and international pressure to release Al-Sharif. “They have added 10 days to the investigation,” said Waleed Abu Alkhair, a human rights activist, who knows Al-Sharif. “This is very, very disappointing. The authorities want to show they are strong and don’t care about any pressure.” The move is likely to fuel anger in Saudi Arabia and abroad at what is seen by some as an overzealous reaction to a woman driving her car. Al-Sharif’s case had already become a cause celebre among reformers and human rights activists in the highly conservative kingdom who are hoping to emulate aspects of the Arab spring freedom movements. King Abdullah is facing direct pressure from around 1,500 Saudis who have signed a petition calling for Al-Sharif’s immediate release and to clarify the law on whether women are allowed to drive. The authorities were already braced for a planned mass-drive protest on 17 June, which was being organised by Al-Sharif, an executive at the Saudi state oil giant Aramco. Since her arrest, several more videos showing women driving have been posted online in defiance of the state and conservative clerics. The Guardian has learned that Saudi Arabian women are planning another mass drive within days to protest against a de facto driving ban in force across much of the kingdom. The event is being organised covertly with details circulated by email and text message in an attempt to catch the Saudi authorities off guard, human rights campaigners told the Guardian. “There are many underground calls to take advantage of momentum and to do something right now,” said one female organiser, under anonymity. “People are talking about women going out and driving and it is not just women who are supporting us, men are too.” On Thursday, deputy interior minister Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz appeared to try to end debate about the issue by affirming that women cannot drive under a law decided in 1411, or in the Christian calender 1991, apparently contradicting previous remarks by senior members of the rulers saying it is a matter of social custom, not law. “Women driving cars in Saudi Arabia has already been decided on in 1411 [and we decided] to not allow women driving,” he said. “And this for us, the Ministry of the Interior, continues to stand.” He added: “Our mission is to implement the system, but whether this action is right or wrong is not for us to say.” Al Salah insists it is not illegal for women to drive, even though only a handful in remote desert areas or in private compounds feel comfortable doing it and anyone with enough money hires a driver. As a result there are estimated to be 750,000 drivers in the kingdom, mostly migrant workers. “You can’t find any article in Saudi law relating to traffic that prevents women from driving,” said Al Salah. “The government is taking this line because if they don’t they may provoke the conservative part of society and they do not want to upset those people.” Al-Sharif was first released after just five hours only to be re-arrested in the early hours of Sunday when the authorities learned she had posted a video and encouraged other women to do the same on the internet. It showed her driving through the streets wearing a headscarf and black sunglasses telling the camera in Arabic: “If a husband has a heart attack what is a wife to do if there no one else around and she can’t drive … Not everyone is able to afford a driver. It’s just too expensive for poorer families.” In an earlier interview, she said she was inspired to organise the Women2Drive movement by the experience of Bahia Al Mansour, a 20-year-old student at King Faisal University who started to struggle in her studies after difficulties in arranging transport. “Every lady has something to do in the city, she’ll just drive, do her business and come back,” Al-Sharif told the Dubai-based Gulf News. “So, it’s as simple as that. People can’t call it a demonstration, we’re not going against the law, we’re not going against anyone, we’re not even demonstrating.” Her imprisonment sparked a furious reaction among some Saudis and social networking websites, Twitter and Facebook, buzzed with anger. Eman Al Nafjan, a teacher and PhD student in Riyadh who writes a blog under the name Saudiwoman, told the Guardian that Saudi conservatives and the wealthy were determined to keep women from driving because it blocks anyone who cannot afford a driver from competing for jobs: “Only the upper middle classes have drivers and that gives so much power to them,” she said. “If you lift these obstacles then a lot of women will go out to work and society will change, they believe for the worse. Women will compete with men and they even believe it will cause more bastards to be left on the steps of mosques.” Al-Sharif’s arrest quickly became highly politicised. Her background as part of Saudi Arabia’s minority Shia population was used by some to allege she was an agent of foreign powers, including Iran, aimed at destabilising the kingdom. She is not alone in speaking up in favour of women driving. Najla Hariri, a 45-year old mother of five in Jeddah, started driving her own car earlier this month when her driver left and she had to take her son to school. Now she believes a challenge to the social stigma around women driving could be the first of many changes in the kingdom. “Most of us have drivers, but sometimes we find ourselves in need,” she said. “It is a very small thing, but we have the right to move from place to place. It is about independence. My driver left the job and I needed to take my son to school, so I took the car and went. That’s all. I did it twice. The next day I went to the grocery shop to get some things. It shocked us all when Manal was arrested because she didn’t break any law or breach any fatwa.” Samar Badawi, a human rights campaigner also from Jeddah, said she believes only a minority of men would object to women driving. “It would change everything if women drove,” she said. “Women would be able to go to hospital, take their children to school and do all this without a man. It would allow women to respect themselves if they drove their own cars. Maybe 15% of men would be offended, the rest would like women to drive. I know lots of women that drive, but Manal was the first to film it and put it on YouTube. This is why the government was angry.” Waleed Abu Alkhair, a human rights activist, who knows Al-Sharif, said his contacts in the Saudi court say they have to keep good relationships with the religious leaders. “They feel sorry about what has happened to Manal but they don’t want a bad situation with the clerics,” he said. Rumours circulated that she had broken down in custody and apologised, which was firmly denied by her lawyer. “She didn’t apologise for anything,” Al Salah said. “She would have apologised if she had caused harm to anyone and she says she hasn’t.” Hired male driver Babal lives in a small hut at the front of Eman Al Nafjan’s house in Riyadh. Whenever Eman wants to go somewhere the Bangladeshi man is always ready to drive her. Eman, the 32-year-old daughter of a military officer who works as a teacher and is also studying for a PhD in linguistics would rather Babal didn’t have to. Babal is one of an estimated 750,000 drivers employed in Saudi Arabia, many from abroad, who ferry the richer women in the kingdom around because social custom, religious edict and possibly common law forbids them from driving themselves. He earns £196 per month and the family sometimes feed him, “but not three meals a day”. “Babal is there all the time,” said Al Nafjan, the relatively affluent. “He has been with me for four years. He has a son, his wife is pregnant and he goes back to Bangladesh to see them once a year. I am very mobile but it is still inconvenient. Riyadh is a city of a million people and it’s a one-and-half-hour trip to get to classes and I am there for three hours. There is no time to turn round and go back again so Babal waits. It is hot and I feel bad for the driver. He shouldn’t have to. I should be able to drive myself.” Saudi Arabia Gender Road transport Women Human rights Robert Booth Mona Mahmood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Former Bosnian Serb commander wanted for war crimes, including Srebrenica massacre, to be extradited to UN tribunal • Follow live updates here Police in Serbia have arrested Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb military leader wanted by the United Nations for war crimes committed during the Bosnian war, including the Srebrenica massacre. The detention of Mladic – who had let it be known that he would rather kill himself than be arrested – was confirmed by the Serbian president, Boris Tadic. “On behalf of the Republic of Serbia I can announce the arrest of Ratko Mladic,” Tadic told reporters. Mladic, who was arrested in Serbia, would be extradited to the United Nations war crimes tribunal, Tadic said. He did not specify when, but said “an extradition process is under way”. “We ended a difficult period of our history and removed the stain from the face of the members of our nation wherever they live,” Tadic said. Mladic has already been indicted by the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) over allegations of genocide and other war crimes during the Bosnian war. Mladic, now 68, is wanted as the commander of the 44-month-long siege of the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, which killed more than 10,000 people, and for the massacre in July 1995 of up to 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica. “Today we closed one chapter of our recent history that will help us one step closer to reconciliation in the region,” Tadic said. The president said he believed the arrest would facilitate his country’s entry into the European Union. Mladic’s extradition to Yugoslavia tribunal in The Hague has been a condition of Serbia’s bid to join the EU. “I believe that the doors for Serbia to join the EU are open,” Tadic said. Serbia had been under intense pressure over Mladic. The chief UN war crimes prosecutor, Serge Brammertz, complained this month that authorities were not doing enough to capture him. Brammertz was scheduled to report in June to the UN security council about Serbian efforts to detain Mladic and other war crimes fugitives. The European Union foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, welcomed the arrest and said Mladic should be sent to the tribunal without delay. “This is an important step forward for Serbia and for international justice,” Ashton said in a statement. “We expect Ratko Mladic to be transferred to the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia without delay. Full co-operation with the ICTY remains essential on Serbia’s path towards EU membership.” An official from the Serbian interior ministry said Mladic was arrested after authorities received an anonymous tip. His identity was confirmed by DNA tests, the official said. US and Serbian authorities had offered rewards of up to $19m (£11m) for information leading to Mladic’s arrest. According to Croatia’s Zagreb newspaper Jutarnji List, Mladic was living under the pseudonym of Milorad Komadic. The paper reported that the secret operation to arrest him came after a tipoff that Komadic “possessed some identification marks of Ratko Mladic and was physically very similar to him”. Mladic had lived openly in Belgrade for a number of years but dropped out of sight after 2000. Before then there had been credible reports of Mladic dining in fashionable restaurants and attending football matches. Radovan Karadzic, the wartime political leader of the Bosnian Serbs, was arrested in 2008 . Recent years have seen the surrender of a number of Mladic’s former allies to the war crimes court as Belgrade has come under increasing pressure to co-operate with it. Those detained have included Radivoje Miletic and Milan Gvero, both accused of involvement in so-called ethnic cleansing. The British foreign secretary, William Hague, congratulated the Serbian government for the arrest, which he called a “historic moment”. “Ratko Mladic stands accused of terrible crimes committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina and it is right that he will now be brought to face international justice. Today our thoughts are with the relatives of those killed during the siege of Sarajevo and genocide in Srebrenica,” Hague said. “Today should mark the beginning of a new chapter for the countries of the western Balkans.” Ratko Mladic Serbia War crimes International criminal justice Europe Peter Beaumont guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …