Documents seized from Pakistan compound discuss ‘aspirational’ plot designed to provoke economic crisis in west Documents seized from Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan reveal that al-Qaida considered hijacking and blowing up oil tankers to provoke an “extreme economic crisis” in the west, the US government has said. According to the documents, al-Qaida sought information on the size and construction of oil tankers in non-Muslim seas. The terrorist group had established it would be easier to destroy the vessels by taking bombs on board, due to the strength of the hulls, and test runs had been recommended, the FBI said. However, US officials said there was no “specific or imminent threat”. The department of homeland security said: “In 2010 there was continuing interest by members of al-Qaida in targeting oil tankers and commercial oil infrastructure at sea.” The plot was described as “aspirational” and in its early stages. The US government said it was not raising the nation’s terrorism alert level but a warning had been sent to companies in the oil and gas industries. There has been no immediately significant effect on oil markets. West Texas Intermediate crude oil, the benchmark for oil prices in the US, fell by 2% early in the day. The government encouraged companies to continue random screening, warn employees about possible threats and establish procedures for reporting suspicious activity. The threat to oil tankers suggests that al-Qaida was adopting the strategy of Somali pirates, who have had remarkable success in recent years using small boats to race alongside and board large commercial ships off the East African coast. They hold the cargo and crew for economic ransom. Al-Qaida attacked the USS Cole in October 2000, using a small boat loaded with explosives while the warship was docked in the port of Aden in Yemen, just across the Gulf of Aden from Somalia. Seventeen sailors were killed. The US government said al-Qaida hoped the destruction of a tanker, together with the cleanup and salvage costs and market effects would result in “extreme economic crisis” in the West. But experts said al-Qaida probably overestimated what the loss of a single oil tanker might be on the industry. Concerns about the safety of individual oil tankers from pirate activity or terrorism had not really affected oil prices, said Jim Ritterbusch, president of Ritterbusch and Associates, who has been trading oil contracts since 1983. A tanker holds about two million barrels of oil, enough to supply world demand for only about a half hour. al-Qaida Global terrorism Osama bin Laden US national security United States Oil Damien Pearse guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Social networks accused of making ‘an ass of the law’ as injunction spirals into online battle over freedom of speech Attempts to identify a famous footballer hiding behind a privacy injunction have spiralled into an online battle over freedom of speech, as internet users responded to high court action by repeatedly naming him on Twitter. The high court granted a search order against the US-based microblogging site on Friday as the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, warned that “modern technology was totally out of control” and called for those who “peddle lies” on the internet to be fined. The attempt to compel Twitter to identify those responsible for the breaches comes after a number of its users earlier this month purported to reveal the name of the player who allegedly had an affair with the model Imogen Thomas. The footballer’s legal team began its action in London on Wednesday. There is a suspicion that a media company may be linked to the postings on Twitter, which were put up nearly two weeks ago. But the name of the footballer was spreading even more rapidly across Twitter in defiance of the court injunction, setting the stage for a confrontation between the judiciary and cyberspace. Earlier Lord Judge – welcoming a juridical report on superinjunctions – said readers placed greater trust in the content of traditional media than those “who peddle lies” on websites. He urged that ways be found to curtail the “misuse of modern technology”, in the same way that those involved with online child pornography were pursued by the police. “Are you really going to say that someone who has a true claim for protection perfectly well made has to be at the mercy of modern technology?” he asked. The lawsuit lists the defendants as “Twitter Inc and persons unknown”. The “persons unknown” are described as those “responsible for the publication of information on the Twitter accounts”. Lawyers have applied for a court order that could force Twitter to hand over the name, email address and IP address of the person behind the account, the Guardian understands. The orders – known as a Norwich Pharmacal orders – are commonly used in illegal filesharing cases. The Guardian understands that the claim form, filed to the high court by the footballer’s legal team, will not be made public until next week. Earlier this month, an unknown person or individuals published on a Twitter account the names of various people who had allegedly taken out gagging orders to conceal sexual indiscretions. The account rapidly attracted more than 100,000 followers. Twitter said: “We are unable to comment.” The London-based law firm representing the footballer had also not responded to a request for comment at time of publication. Twitter and other social networks were accused of making “an ass of the law” by the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and politicians after a number of celebrities with injunctions were allegedly exposed online. The socialite Jemima Khan was among those alleged on Twitter to have obtained an injunction. Khan described as a “bloody nightmare” rumours suggesting falsely that she had obtained a gagging order to prevent publication of “intimate photos” of herself and the TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson. Twitter has in the past said that it “strive[s] not to remove tweets on the basis of their content”, but that it would remove “illegal tweets and spam”. Previous defamation claims against the search engine Google failed on the grounds that it is not a publisher and not responsible for the contents of the blogs and articles listed in its search results. Richard Hillgrove, the owner of Hillgrove PR, which provides advice to celebrities, said that Twitter needed to be made as accountable as any other medium. “It has gone from ‘the back bedroom’ to mainstream medium. “Celebrities are being held to account if they Tweet commercial interests. It works both ways,” he said. Challenge to media, page 4 Twitter Freedom of speech Privacy & the media Superinjunctions Internet Privacy Owen Bowcott Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Newt Gingrich tells Rush Limbaugh he wasn’t talking about Ryan when he coined the phrase ‘Right-Wing Social Engineering’
May 20, 2011 No CommentAfter Paul Ryan whined about Newt calling his Medicare plan ‘social engineering’ on Meet The Press, I told you it would be just a matter of time before Gingrich would have to bow down before the altar of the Grand Wizard of Conservatives and beg for forgiveness. I’ve heard many different types of apologies from politicians over the years — and Newt had already apologized to Ryan for his words — but Gingrich doesn’t apologize at all to Rush; he just lies about what he said to David Gregory. Appearing Monday night on Fox News, Gingrich said explicitly that his comments Meet the Press were “ inaccurate ” and “ unfortunate ,” adding “ that was a mistake .” He even called Paul Ryan personally to apologize. But this afternoon on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, Gingrich dramatically changed course and claimed that, in fact, the phrase “right-wing social engineering” was not a reference to the Ryan plan at all: GINGRICH: By the way, it was not a reference to Paul Ryan. There was no reference to Paul Ryan in that answer. LIMBAUGH: Well then what did you apologize to him about? GINGRICH: Because it was interpreted in a way which was causing trouble, which he doesn’t need or deserve. And it was causing the House Republicans trouble. One of my closest friends, someone I truly and deeply respect, emailed me and said your answer hits every Republican who voted for the Budget. Well, my answer wasn’t about the budget. OMFG. I actually didn’t see that one coming. I really didn’t expect to hear an outright lie. How do I know he’s lying, you ask? (Besides the fact that his lips are moving, I mean.) If he wasn’t talking about Paul Ryan, then why did he backtrack on Monday? Gingrich on Monday acknowledged that he “may have been too dramatic” in describing Ryan’s plan as social engineering, but renewed his warnings to Republicans to tread lightly on Medicare, which polls suggest voters do not want to change. He’s dramatically taking the “blame the media” conservative spin to a new level never before reached. Newt should tread lightly with his excuses. They are piling up.
Continue reading …‘Dolla Dolla Bill, Y’all’: State Senator Shares Financial Advice from the Wu-Tang Clan
May 20, 2011 No Comment
They say that Wu-Tang is for the children. But apparently, they’re also for offering financial advice to Republican senators from Illinois. Or at least State Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno seems to think so. In a meeting on Wednesday that was focused on the state’s budget crisis, Radogno stood to make a “point of personal
Continue reading …
US and Israeli leaders at odds over 1967 reference, leaving Obama to discuss issue with Cameron in London Barack Obama and the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, have publicly admitted to rifts over a Middle East peace process after lengthy talks at the White House. Although both sides adopted a conciliatory tone, both also acknowledged that differences remain over approaches to a peace deal. Netanyahu, speaking afterwards, stressed that Obama’s public backing for a deal based on the border that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war was a major point of difference. The Israeli leader said he was prepared to make concessions but the 1967 border was “indefensible”. The talks, originally scheduled to last 50 minutes, ran over by 90 minutes. The two tend to be polite and diplomatic in public while keeping their disagreements private. Obama described the discussion as useful. “We agreed there is a moment of opportunity that could be seized as a result of the Arab Spring,” he said. Netanyahu said Palestinian leaders would have to choose between a pact with Hamas or peace with Israel. The meeting in the Oval Office came the day after Obama became the first president to endorse explicitly and in public the Palestinian demand for a state based on the border before Israel’s occupation in 1967 of East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. This would be the starting point for negotiating a possible series of land swaps. Netanyahu, who replied to that by saying the 1967 border would make Israel indefensible, told reporters travelling with him to the US on Thursday night that he felt strongly about this. “There are things that can’t be swept under the carpet,” he said. His aides elaborated, saying that Obama did not fully understand Israel’s security predicament. “There is a feeling that Washington does not understand the reality, Washington does not understand what we face,” an official said. Washington has become increasingly frustrated at the failure of the Israelis and Palestinians to enter into serious negotiations. The lack of progress prompted the resignation last week of the US special envoy George Mitchell , who had become so disenchanted that he had not visited the region since December. The New York Times reported White House aides saying that Obama had concluded a peace deal is not possible with Netanyahu in power. Obama could have a difficult time when he speaks on Sunday morning to about 6,000 people expected to attend the annual conference in Washington of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the powerful Jewish lobbying organisation. Officials, without naming the president, have urged participants to treat all speakers with respect. A White House national security spokesman, Ben Rhodes, said Obama would discuss the Israeli-Palestinian issue with David Cameron in London next week. He expected the two to discuss the point that the “foundation for successful negotiations should begin with territorial security to include the 1967 borders plus swaps as a basis on territory, and to include affirmation and assurances related to Israel’s security”. The White House had been debating whether to include the reference to 1967 in the speech, with some saying it was an inopportune moment given the upheaval in the Middle East, and suggesting waiting until later in the year. But those arguing to do it now prevailed. Netanyahu was only told shortly before Obama spoke. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton informed him. He attempted to have the reference removed, according to US officials, but the White House ignored him. The Quartet Group, made up of the UN, the European Union, Russia and the US, issued a statement backing Obama’s speech and calling on the Israelis and Palestinians “to overcome the current obstacles and resume direct negotiations and mutual agreement on all core issues”. In an interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, to be broadcast on Sunday, Obama elaborates on the 1967 statement. “The basis for negotiations will involve looking at that 1967 border, recognising that conditions on the ground have changed and there are going to need to be swaps to accommodate the interests of both sides,” he said. “So, our argument is, let’s get started on a conversation about territory and about security. That doesn’t resolve all the issues. You still end up having the problem of Jerusalem and you still end up having the problem of refugees. “But if we make progress on what two states would look like, and a reality sets in among the parties that this is how it’s going to end up, then it becomes easy for both sides to make difficult concessions to resolve those two other issues.” Binyamin Netanyahu Obama administration United States US politics Israel Middle East Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Annapolis Capital Editor Tries to Apologize for ‘Mama and Mommy’ Article, Coworkers Scuttle Column
May 20, 2011 No CommentPoynter Institute's Jim Romenesko wrote yesterday about how the editor of the Annapolis Capital sought to apologize to readers for a gauzy article about a lesbian couple that ran on Mother's Day. Only his colleagues in the newsroom pressured him not to publish it, at least not in his original draft form:
Continue reading …I remember talking to a lawyer at a dinner a few years ago. We had established a mutually common liberal outlook on life already, but then he said something that stopped me in my tracks: “You know, unions had there place years ago, but I think they’ve outlived their usefulness.” Now regular readers of this blog know that I’m not one to let a comment like that sit unchallenged. My father–as a federal employee, mother–as a state employee, and brother–as a public school teacher are/were all members of unions and have all benefited from that association. The pensions my parents now individually receive are the result of union negotiations. The fact that there are not 45 children in my brother’s classroom is the result of union negotiations. I need only look at them to see that unions still have a very critical role to play right here and right now to protect the labor movement. After the all-out assault on unions going on in Wisconsin, Illinois, Florida, and Indiana after the 2010 elections, I think if I met up with that lawyer again, he’d change his tunes on unions. Because right now, the only thing standing between us and the oligarchy completely taking over is…you guessed it, labor unions. Richard Trumka has graciously agreed to come on to C&L today to discuss the labor movement and how the unions will continue to fight for the dignity and rights of workers in the face of such draconian measures as Paul Ryan’s Atlas Shrugged budget plans and other budget cuts that hurt American workers. He is making a speech today to warn the Democratic Party that they must take a stronger stance against these draconian measures and stand with American workers if they want the electoral support of unions. From the press release: AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka plans to issue yet another warning to Democrats on Friday, proclaiming that if lawmakers don’t push hard enough to stem attacks on labor’s interests, workers will abandon the party in the 2012 election. The union leader, whose perch atop the 11-million-member federation makes him arguably the most powerful labor official in the country, is slated to speak at a National Press Club luncheon. In excerpts from his prepared remarks, obtained in advance by The Huffington Post, Trumka focuses his ire on the widening gulf between U.S. workers and the wealthy — attaching particular blame to politicians who value ideology over morality. “Budget proposals unveiled in Washington and state capitals across our country revealed a despicable canvas of cruelty,” Trumka will say, according to his prepared remarks. “And not just meanness. Destructiveness. A willful desire to block the road to the future.” “America’s real deficit is a moral deficit — where political choices come down to forcing foster children to wear hand-me-downs while cutting taxes for profitable corporations,” the remarks continue. “Powerful political forces are seeking to silence working people — to drive us out of the national conversation.” Trumka also says in the prepared remarks that party affiliation alone won’t determine how the federation allocates its resources in 2012. If Republican lawmakers embrace parts of the AFL-CIO’s agenda, the union federation will respond in kind. If Democrats abandon the union community’s principles — or if they fail to protest as those principles are attacked — they can expect similar treatment. “We will spend the summer holding elected leaders in Congress as well as the states accountable on one measure: Are they improving or degrading life for working families? We are looking hard at how we work in the nation’s political arena. We have listened hard, and what workers want is an independent labor movement that builds the power of working people — in the workplace and in political life … Our role is not to build the power of a political party or a candidate. It is to improve the lives of working families and strengthen our country. It doesn’t matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside — the outcome is the same either way. If leaders aren’t blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families’ interests, working people will not support them. This is where our focus will be — now, in 2012 and beyond.” With that, I welcome Richard to Crooks & Liars. Please join us to chat about the labor movement in America and how we can fight these union-busting moves throughout the country.
Continue reading …Liberal Media Skip Study That Found Stimulus ‘Forestalled or Destroyed’ A Million Private-Sector Jobs
May 20, 2011 No Comment
On the front page of Wednesday’s Investor’s Business Daily, reporter David Hogberg reported that a new study found President Obama’s “stimulus” plan “may have destroyed or forestalled employment, including more than 1 million private-sector jobs.” Destroyed or forestalled? Our media only cites studies which shows jobs Team Obama “saved or created.” Economists Timothy Conley of the University of Western Ontario and Bill Dupor of Ohio State University showed the “stimulus” saved 443,000 government jobs, but caused a net loss of more than a million jobs. This is one of those studies only Fox News noticed. But on CNN’s American Morning on Thursday, a Time magazine editor was still calling for more “investment” in infrastructure: KIRAN CHETRY: I remember when we were talking about the stimulus, obviously, that's become a dirty word because of our debt and our deficit and all of that. We were talking about that which would help in the short-term but eventually lead to long-term success. What happened to all of the infrastructure projects? Things we were talking about to get people working again but also improve the country. RANA FOROOHAR, TIME MAGAZINE: I think what happened is politics. We have an incredibly co contentious environment in Washington. There is a continuous growth as Fareed [Zakaria]
Continue reading …
Thousands of anti-government protesters in Madrid and other cities refuse to leave as interior minister warns of intervention Thousands of protesters who are camped out in Madrid’s central Puerta del Sol square and in dozens more Spanish cities have pledged to defy an order to pack up their tent cities and leave. As the country’s electoral authorities ordered them to move by midnight on Friday, claiming they would disturb Sunday’s municipal and regional elections, organisers called a special silent protest for first thing on Saturday morning. A tense standoff between police and protesters looked inevitable as interior minister Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba warned that authorities would uphold the law. “Police know exactly what they have to do,” he said, without specifying. “Their actions will depend on what happens.” “We are expecting some kind of attempt to get rid of us,” warned organisers in southern Seville, where several hundred people were also camped out in a city square. But protesters claimed their “silent” demonstration in Madrid on Saturday would not break rules preventing campaigning on the day before an election. More than 10,000 people had gathered in the small hours of Friday morning in support of the campers who first appeared in the Puerta del Sol square on Sunday. Up to a thousand more spent the night in tents or sleeping out on mattresses, sofas, armchairs and other furniture wheeled out into a very well-run camp. Volunteers had organised themselves into clean-up crews, catering groups, a legal department, a press office and a first aid centre under a tarpaulin-covered part of the square. Many brought tents and sleeping bags. Four portable toilets had apparently been donated by a sympathetic building company. Organisers asked people not to donate more food as everything from sandwiches to fruit was passed around by volunteers. “This is a demonstration, not a party,” read some signs as cans of beer were passed around. The strong organisation contrasted with confusion about the protesters’ aims. Protesters’ committees held open assemblies to debate proposals covering issues from electoral reform to animal rights. A general assembly saw almost a thousand people sitting out in the sun for hours on Thursday afternoon, many decked with homemade paper hats, to listen to the reports on the previous day’s debates. The biggest cheers came for proposals to tackle corruption, reduce political perks and reform an electoral system that favours a two-party system in the national parliament. “This isn’t about left or right. It isn’t even a political movement,” said protester Juan Martin, a 22-year-old carpenter. “It is about a better society.” “And if we can do this here, then we need it even more urgently in Italy,” said Italian journalism student Sara D’Eustacchio, who joined the Madrid camp. She said Facebook and Twitter were being used to export the so-called “Spanish Revolution” movement to the rest of Europe, with a dozen similar protests being planned in Italy. Protesters had gathered outside the Spanish embassy in London on Thursday. It was not clear when the peaceful protests would end, with Madrid organisers insisting that the camp-out – advertised with “Yes, we camp!” signs, echoing Barack Obama’s campaign slogan – would continue on Saturday. “We will continue with the exercise of collective reflection between all those attending the spontaneous meetings to have emerged in recent days,” they said. Authorities in Barcelona said they would not act against demonstrators there, as long as they remained peaceful. The movement places the socialist government of Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, which is already predicted to suffer serious defeat at Sunday’s elections, in a difficult situation. “We have to listen and be sensitive, because there are reasons why they are expressing their unhappiness and their criticism,” Zapatero said on Thursday. At the square, political parties and trades unions were clearly not welcome. “Politicians can come here if they want, but we might not listen to them,” said a protest spokesman named Jero. “There is no date for this to end.” Spain Protest Europe Giles Tremlett guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Cause of explosion may be due to dust explosion on production line, say reports At least two people are dead and more than 10 injured following an explosion at a factory run by electronics giant Foxconn, which makes phones and tablets for Apple and other electronics companies. Police said the deaths occurred following an explosion at the company’s plant in Chengdu, south-west China. A spokesman for the company said people had been injured in a fire at the plant but that it had no details. The company is best-known for producing iPhones and iPads for Apple, but other clients include Nokia, Motorola, Hewlett-Packard and Dell. Employing up to 900,000 people in all, Foxconn has repeatedly been the subject of controversy over working conditions at its vast plants. The affected one is believed to employ up to 100,000 people. A report on Chinese news portal Sina said the area had been sealed off after a blast ripped through the plant at around the time workers changed shifts. Police in Gaoxin district said they were called to the scene at 7.18pm and that the explosion seemed to have been caused by materials within the factory. A report on the China National Radio website said two were killed and 16 injured, three seriously. Edmund Ding, a spokesman for Foxconn’s parent company Hon Hai, told the Guardian: “I know there has been a fire and that the accident is now under control. What caused this is still under investigation. I have learned that some people were injured on site.” He said that emergency services had quickly got the situation under control following the incident at around 7.30pm, but that further details were not available at present. One report suggested that there could have been a dust explosion as fine powder used in manufacturing ignited somehow. Suggestions the affected building is involved in the manufacture of Apple’s iPad 2 tablets could not be confirmed. Apple US had not returned calls for comment at publication time. Footage said to be from the scene and posted on Friday evening on the Chinese video-sharing site Youku showed black smoke billowing from the side of a large building. Foxconn’s factories are huge complexes compared by some to towns, with their own facilities and tens or hundreds of thousands of staff. Chinese media reports said the plant, which opened last year in the city’s high-technology zone, cost between $2bn (£1.2bn) and $5bn to build. At the time, Foxconn promised to hire 100,000 workers, but it is not clear how many people have been taken on. Although the company does not discuss clients, the Sichuan News Network and Chengdu Economic Daily said recently that the facility was producing 1.2m iPads monthly. Foxconn came under intense scrutiny last year after a string of suicides by workers at their plant in Shenzhen , southern China. • Additional research by Han Cheng and Charles Arthur Apple iPad China Nokia Tania Branigan Charles Arthur guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …