Click here to view this media Well, while more sensible thinkers like Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump have been dropping like flies from the Republican presidential-candidate field, this has of course left room for the complete nutcases like Michele Bachmann to step to the fore : Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Tea Party favorite and something of a surrogate for Sarah Palin, is getting ready to jump into the presidential contest. Her advisers put out the word on Monday that a run was “very likely” and a D.C.-based consultant tells Power Play that Bachmann associates have been shopping for services. “This is now beyond speculation. They are doing this,” the consultant said. While Bachmann is a polarizing figure in the party, her candidacy is quite logical. With Mike Huckabee bowing out of the race, Palin showing no outward signs of launching a campaign and Newt Gingrich seeming to burn up on entry into the race, that leaves former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum with an almost unobstructed view of the social conservative voters who dominate Iowa’s caucuses. Bachmann’s candidacy is also helped by the fact that Donald Trump has renewed his contract with NBC and ended the most successful publicity stunt of his career. His appeal had been based on blunt, pungent attacks on President Obama, stock in trade for Bachmann. Plus, she gets similar attention from establishment media outlets that like to bring her on for bearbaiting sessions and then mock her afterwards. As Bachmann has expanded her national profile and become more outspoken, her chances for reelection to her congressional seat have somewhat dimmed. Redistricting, a prospective romp by President Obama at the top of the ticket and the aversion to confrontation inherent in Minnesotans leaves Bachmann vulnerable to what would surely be a serious effort by Democrats to unseat her. As you can see, Bachmann continues to play coy on Fox News, but it is starting to look like we’ll get our comic relief in the Republican primaries after all. I’m popping up a big batch of popcorn.
Continue reading …Eric Schmidt claims search giant would fight attempts to restrict access to sites such as the Pirate Bay Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, warned on Wednesday that government plans to block access to illicit filesharing websites could set a “disastrous precedent” for freedom of speech. Speaking to journalists after his keynote speech at Google’s Big Tent conference in London, Schmidt said the online search giant would challenge attempts to restrict access to the Pirate Bay and other so-called “cyberlocker” sites that encourage illegal downloading – part of government plans to fight online piracy through controversial measures included the Digital Economy Act. “If there is a law that requires DNSs [domain name systems, the protocol that allows users to connect to websites], to do X and it’s passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it,” he added. “If it’s a request the answer is we wouldn’t do it, if it’s a discussion we wouldn’t do it.” Schmidt, who became Google’s executive chairman last month after a decade as its chief executive, described website blocking as akin to China’s restrictive internet regime. “I would be very, very careful if I were a government about arbitrarily [implementing] simple solutions to complex problems,” he said. “So, ‘let’s whack off the DNS’. Okay, that seems like an appealing solution but it sets a very bad precedent because now another country will say ‘I don’t like free speech so I’ll whack off all those DNSs’ – that country would be China. “It doesn’t seem right. I would be very, very careful about that stuff. If [the UK government] do it the wrong way it could have disastrous precedent setting in other areas.” Speaking at the same conference, the culture minister, Jeremy Hunt, said plans to block access to illicit filesharing websites were on schedule. He admitted that a “challenge” of the controversial measure is deciding which sites get blocked. Ofcom is due to present its report on the practicability of the site-blocking measures included in the DEA to Hunt in the coming weeks. Responding to questions about Facebook secretly hiring the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller to plant scare stories over Google’s privacy policies in the US media, Schmidt said he would not comment. However, he added: “A lot of people – not Google employees – have looked at these claims and generally found them to be false.” Google Filesharing Internet Computing Piracy Pirate Bay Digital media Media business Intellectual property Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Justice secretary says ‘all rape a serious crime’ after sparking furore when he gave impression there were ‘serious rapes and other categories of rape’ The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, is to “look again” at the proposal to introduce a maximum 50% sentence discount in return for an early guilty plea after a furore over his remarks on the sentencing of rapists. Under pressure from Downing Street, Clarke returned to the TV studios on Wednesday afternoon to make it clear that he regards “all rape as a serious crime” after sparking a major row when he gave the impression there were “serious rapes and other categories of rape”. Clarke did not apologise for his comments, but stressed that he now agreed with Downing Street that proposals to increase the maximum sentence discounts for early guilty pleas from 33% to 50% should be looked at again. He said he had not intended to cause any offence, telling Sky News: “Obviously, I don’t intend to give the impression, and didn’t intend to choose words which gave the impression, that all rape is not serious. “Every rape is serious. That’s always been my view, and that’s why I haven’t the faintest intention of changing the sentence for rape.” Clarke said he would look back at the transcripts of his interviews, adding: “Obviously it’s a mistake if I gave the impression I have any other views.” Both Clarke and his minister, Crispin Blunt, gave the clear impression in the Commons on Tuesday that the sentence discount plan – which applies to all crimes, including rape – had been given the go-ahead. The cabinet’s home affairs committee met to discuss the government’s sentencing reforms on Tuesday morning. That now appears to be back on the table. Whitehall sources suggest the final proposal may now exclude the most serious crimes, including murder and rape. Clarke had earlier taken to the airwaves in the face of a fierce reaction to the disclosure that he intended to increase the maximum discount for an early guilty plea for rapists from 33% to 50%. But instead of calming the row, the justice secretary’s media appearances and explanations only served to fuel the controversy. A rape victim broke down in tears after confronting Clarke when he appeared on BBC Radio 5 Live, telling him his sentence discount plan was “a disaster”. During other television interviews, Clarke appeared to claim that campaigners had only singled out rape because it injected a degree of “sexual excitement” into the argument over discounts for early guilty pleas for all offences. But it was his statement that no one convicted of a “serious rape” would be released as quickly as those guilty of some “date rapes” that sparked a political storm as the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, challenged David Cameron on the matter at prime minister’s questions. Miliband said: “The prime minister, when he leaves this chamber, should go and look at the comments of the justice secretary and then he should say to him very clearly the justice secretary should not be in his post at the end of today.” But immediately after question time, Cameron’s spokesman said Clarke was not going to be sacked but would have to clarify his remarks. The prime minister sought to distance himself from Clarke’s comments, and underlined the government’s commitment to increasing the rate of rape cases ending up in court. Downing Street said Clarke was under pressure from Cameron to clarify his comments. The prime minister faced down calls to sack the justice secretary, telling MPs he had not heard the interview and insisting the proposal to extend a reduction in sentence as a result of plea bargaining from one-third to half was merely out for consultation. “We have not yet decided which offences it should apply to or how it should be brought in. This is a consultation,” he said. Downing Street aides also insisted the domestic affairs cabinet committee had not yet finally cleared the sentencing green paper, and said there would be no relaxation of the penalty for rape. Kenneth Clarke David Cameron Conservatives Liberal-Conservative coalition Ed Miliband Labour UK criminal justice Rape Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Man oh man. I was wondering not long ago how long it would take for Newt Gingrich’s campaign to go down in flames, but I didn’t expect for it to be this soon. How bad is it when you’re getting grilled in what should be friendly territory at Fox from the likes of Greta Van Susteren and you’re getting hit from all sides from your own party for saying something negative about Paul Ryan’s budget as he did on last weekend’s Meet the Press ? Here he is on Greta’s show, deciding that he’s not going to comment if anyone decides to ask him — as Greta did here — about their Tiffany’s bill : GINGRICH: Now later on, I want you to watch this particular segment Greta. VAN SUSTEREN: Okay. GINGRICH: And notice I talked about jobs. I talked about the price of gasoline. I talked about all sorts of real problems for real Americans… VAN SUSTEREN: And I brought this one up. GINGRICH: …that in a presidential campaign we could talk, we could bring up and I think it sort of fit in perfectly and my answer to you is I’m not commenting on stuff like that. I am perfectly happy to talk about what we need to do for America and what we need to do to help Americans, but I frankly don’t want to play the gotcha’ games in Washington and I’m just not going to participate. Part of running for president is that everything you ever did, every person you ever knew… name it… sooner or later somebody somewhere is going to run across it, you know and… it will show up. And I’ve just decided if it doesn’t relate to a better future for America; if it doesn’t relate to helping the American people; if it doesn’t relate to solving our problems, from here on out, my answer’s going to be I’m not commenting on it and then people can decide. If you want to play Trivial Pursuit, that’s fine. But I’m not going to play Trivial Pursuit. I’m going to try to help this country get back on track. I assume he’ll use the same tactic when asked about those pesky little items like his adultery and divorces as well. Heaven forbid we can’t have the media playing “Trivial Pursuit” with asking him if he’s a huge flaming hypocrite when espousing “family values” and whether his supposed religious beliefs square with how he’s lived his life. I’m sure he thinks that would be terribly unfair and has put those kind of “gotcha” questions off limits as well.
Continue reading …Mike Weightman denies being under political pressure after he said there was no need to curtail UK atomic operations An enormous row broke out on Wednesday after the chief nuclear safety inspector gave Britain’s reactor fleet the all-clear and made modest “recommendations” to be incorporated in the planned new plant design. Critics immediately accused Mike Weightman of rushing to judgment and “complacency” in his interim report on the lessons to be learned from the Fukushima atomic crisis. The safety boss said there was no need to curtail the operations of atomic plants in Britain, given that conditions in Japan were so different, but wanted a review of backup power supplies, ventilation procedures and plant layout. “We are not complacent. No matter what the differences are, and how high the standard of design and subsequent operation of the nuclear facilities here in the UK, the quest for improvement must never stop,” Weightman argued. The chief nuclear inspector denied he was under political pressure to keep the atomic bandwagon rolling in Britain, and said energy companies would need to take on board his list of 26 recommendations. “We are independent and do not operate under government auspices… We need to be open to the UK public,” he argued. “We are not just asking them [plant operators] to do things. We put the onus on the industry… Make no mistake: while I will seek reassurances from the industry, if I am not satisfied, they will not operate,” he added. The interim report – to be followed by a fuller report in September, following Weightman’s own visit to Japan, was demanded by the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, in the aftermath of the 9-magnitude earthquake and tsunami that battered the Japanese coast and caused an explosion at a nuclear plant, leading to radioactive releases . Weightman’s report was welcomed by Huhne, EDF, the French company at the forefront of plans to build new reactors, and the nuclear workers’ union, Unite, but came under attack from Greenpeace and other nuclear sceptics. Doug Parr, policy director at Greenpeace, said the regulator’s review of safety essentially concluded that the industry should go away and think about it. “Many people will regard that as complacent, given the huge cost and misery inflicted by the Japanese accident, and this cannot inspire confidence in Britain’s nuclear regulators. Even as the struggle to control Fukushima reactors continues, it appears Huhne has rushed to judgement on the safety of reactors to keep the timetable for new nuclear power on track,” he added. Paul Dorfman, an academic and member of the Nuclear Consultation Group , said it was an “outrage” that conclusions on Fukushima had been made while facts from Japan remained so sketchy and the crisis was far from over. He added: “There is really not enough information around yet to base any rational decisions on.” But Weightman, insisting he could still amend the recommendations in his final report, concluded that it was “not credible” to expect a Japanese-style earthquake in the UK, and he pointed out that existing and planned nuclear power stations in this country were of a different design from those at Fukushima. Flooding risks were unlikely to prevent the construction of new nuclear power stations at potential development sites in the UK, all of which were on the coast, he added. The government is reviewing plans by EDF and others to develop a new suite of nuclear reactors on existing British sites to maintain electricity supplies and cut greenhouse gas emissions as power stations of an older generation are shut down. Huhne made it clear that the report paved the way for new reactors. “I am pleased that today’s report confirms that the UK’s current safety arrangements are working. We want to see new nuclear as part of a low-carbon energy mix going forward, provided there is no public subsidy. The chief nuclear inspector’s interim report reassures me that it can,” he added. Unite, which represents 40,000 workers in energy and utilities, said the positive interim report from the UK’s chief nuclear inspector was the green light for fast-tracking newbuild. “The government must now publish its national energy policy statements without delay and get on with the job of creating the right environment for creating a low-carbon energy infrastructure fit for the 21st century,” said Kevin Coyne, Unite’s national officer for energy. “This includes commissioning the first newbuild nuclear power station for a generation at Hinkley Point.” On Tuesday, Germany’s environment minister, Norbert Röttgen, said the results of post-Fukushima safety checks on its nuclear reactors showed there was no need to switch plants off now . Röttgen said there was “no argument to say that we must get out of [nuclear power] in a hurry, overnight for safety reasons.” But he added that Germany was committed to phasing out nuclear, as announced by chancellor Angela Merkel in March: “It remains the case that we should find a way to give up nuclear energy as soon as is sensible,” he said. The end was approaching for Germany’s seven oldest nuclear plants, because they would not be able to withstand a large plane crash he said. Japan’s prime minister, Naoto Kan, said last week that the country was starting from scratch on its energy policy and was likely to abandon plans to increase the amount of Japan’s electricity provided by nuclear from the existing 30% to 50%. Nuclear power Energy Japan disaster Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Leaked UN report says China was used as trans-shipment point to help Pyongyang breach weapons sanctions China has denied allegations it was used as a trans-shipment point in the trade of banned missile technology between North Korea and Iran, following the leak of a United Nations report. Beijing blocked publication of the review, which accuses Pyongyang of breaching sanctions designed to tackle its nuclear and missile programmes, Associated Press reported. China’s ambassador to the UN, Li Baodong, said it was still studying the document. Other diplomats said China was the only security council member that objected to its release. Britain’s deputy UN ambassador, Philip Parham, told AP there was “pretty broad support” for the report but China had problems with it. There has been increasing international concern over North Korea’s nuclear and missile programmes , particularly given high tensions on the Korean peninsula and concerns over the transition of power in coming years. The North unveiled a uranium enrichment plant in November and experts believe it has built a second launch site for long-range rockets . The report by a UN panel of experts – since obtained by media organisations including the Guardian – said North Korea appeared to have been sharing technology and expertise with Iran, violating sanctions. “Prohibited ballistic missile-related items are suspected to have been transferred … on regular scheduled flights of Air Koryo and Iran Air, with trans-shipment through a neighbouring third country,” the panel wrote. UN diplomats told Reuters that the unnamed country was China. However, assistant Chinese foreign minister Hu Zhengyue told reporters at a briefing today: “I completely deny such a view.” He added: “On the issue of denuclearisation on the Korean peninsula, the Chinese position is crystal clear … We have nothing to hide.” Earlier, foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu had said in a statement that the document did not have the authority of the security council or the relevant security council sanctions committee. She added: “China is conscientious and responsible in enforcing security council resolutions.” The allegations from UN diplomats echo a US diplomatic cable from 2007, saying China had to act “urgently” to halt a trans-shipment of ballistic missile components from North Korea to Iran via Beijing . The memo, signed by Condoleezza Rice – then secretary of state – urged the US ambassador to raise the issue at the earliest opportunity and at the highest level possible. It was one of the cables obtained by WikiLeaks and published by the Guardian . China’s foreign ministry said when the US cables were leaked that it would not respond to their content. The UN panel report said the implementation of sanctions needed to be improved, with North Korea becoming increasingly sophisticated in exploiting loopholes in transport systems and using methods such as shell and front companies. But it added: “Evidence suggests that the sanctions have succeeded in economic terms by raising the cost of illicit transfers while simultaneously lowering the returns to the DPRK.” North Korea has yet to respond to the report. China is the north’s main ally, but does not control it and has often been left frustrated with Pyongyang. Tehran is another important partner for geo-strategic reasons as well as growing bilateral trade and China’s increasing thirst for oil. But Beijing pledged to end civil nuclear co-operation with Iran in 1997 and has backed sanctions against both countries in recent years – albeit watering them down substantially. China North Korea Iran Middle East Nuclear weapons United Nations WikiLeaks US foreign policy Tania Branigan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Leaked UN report says China was used as trans-shipment point to help Pyongyang breach weapons sanctions China has denied allegations it was used as a trans-shipment point in the trade of banned missile technology between North Korea and Iran, following the leak of a United Nations report. Beijing blocked publication of the review, which accuses Pyongyang of breaching sanctions designed to tackle its nuclear and missile programmes, Associated Press reported. China’s ambassador to the UN, Li Baodong, said it was still studying the document. Other diplomats said China was the only security council member that objected to its release. Britain’s deputy UN ambassador, Philip Parham, told AP there was “pretty broad support” for the report but China had problems with it. There has been increasing international concern over North Korea’s nuclear and missile programmes , particularly given high tensions on the Korean peninsula and concerns over the transition of power in coming years. The North unveiled a uranium enrichment plant in November and experts believe it has built a second launch site for long-range rockets . The report by a UN panel of experts – since obtained by media organisations including the Guardian – said North Korea appeared to have been sharing technology and expertise with Iran, violating sanctions. “Prohibited ballistic missile-related items are suspected to have been transferred … on regular scheduled flights of Air Koryo and Iran Air, with trans-shipment through a neighbouring third country,” the panel wrote. UN diplomats told Reuters that the unnamed country was China. However, assistant Chinese foreign minister Hu Zhengyue told reporters at a briefing today: “I completely deny such a view.” He added: “On the issue of denuclearisation on the Korean peninsula, the Chinese position is crystal clear … We have nothing to hide.” Earlier, foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu had said in a statement that the document did not have the authority of the security council or the relevant security council sanctions committee. She added: “China is conscientious and responsible in enforcing security council resolutions.” The allegations from UN diplomats echo a US diplomatic cable from 2007, saying China had to act “urgently” to halt a trans-shipment of ballistic missile components from North Korea to Iran via Beijing . The memo, signed by Condoleezza Rice – then secretary of state – urged the US ambassador to raise the issue at the earliest opportunity and at the highest level possible. It was one of the cables obtained by WikiLeaks and published by the Guardian . China’s foreign ministry said when the US cables were leaked that it would not respond to their content. The UN panel report said the implementation of sanctions needed to be improved, with North Korea becoming increasingly sophisticated in exploiting loopholes in transport systems and using methods such as shell and front companies. But it added: “Evidence suggests that the sanctions have succeeded in economic terms by raising the cost of illicit transfers while simultaneously lowering the returns to the DPRK.” North Korea has yet to respond to the report. China is the north’s main ally, but does not control it and has often been left frustrated with Pyongyang. Tehran is another important partner for geo-strategic reasons as well as growing bilateral trade and China’s increasing thirst for oil. But Beijing pledged to end civil nuclear co-operation with Iran in 1997 and has backed sanctions against both countries in recent years – albeit watering them down substantially. China North Korea Iran Middle East Nuclear weapons United Nations WikiLeaks US foreign policy Tania Branigan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Defence secretary says departure of 170 navy training personnel will mark conclusion of Operation Telic Britain’s eight years of military commitment in Iraq will finally and formally come to an end on Sunday, when the remaining forces in the south of the country will withdraw. The announcement to bring to an end one of the most controversial military campaigns in recent history was made on Wednesday in a statement to the Commons by the defence secretary, Liam Fox. In total, the UK still has about 170 mostly naval personnel in Iraq, helping to train the fledgling Iraqi navy from the port of Umm Qasr. The contingent includes a few Royal Marines. That compares with the 46,000 British troops and other military personnel that were committed to the first phase of Operation Telic, the name given to the campaign to remove Saddam Hussein. In all, 178 UK service personnel, and one Ministry of Defence civilian, died in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. UK combat forces, primarily based in the southern city of Basra, withdrew in July 2009 but since then the Royal Navy has continued working alongside US forces to train 1,800 Iraqis. In his statement, Fox said that the UK-Iraq training and maritime support agreement “will conclude on 22 May”. He added: “British forces have been involved in this important task since 2003 and, under the agreement signed in 2009, Royal Navy trainers have developed the capacity of the Iraqi maritime security forces to protect their territorial waters and offshore oil platforms, which are vital to Iraq’s economic revival. “Having successfully completed their mission UK personnel deployed to Iraq under this agreement will now leave the country. This will mark the formal conclusion of Operation Telic.” Fox said that the UK would continue to train members of the Iraqi security forces in the UK, and contribute to the Nato training mission which remains in Iraq. “I pay tribute to all UK service personnel who have served in Iraq over the last eight years and to the sacrifices made by so many for the benefit of the people of Iraq and our national security,” the statement said. Fox said that this was “also an opportunity to reflect on the wider contribution of Britain’s armed forces to Iraq since 2003. Thanks to the sacrifice, commitment, and professionalism of thousands of British service men and women Southern Iraq is an area transformed”. The MoD issued two further statements on the withdrawal. Brigadier Max Marriner, commander British forces Iraq, said: “The UK armed forces can look back with pride at what they have achieved in Iraq since 2003 – security has fundamentally improved and as a consequence the social and economic development of the south has dramatically changed for the better, as too have people’s lives. “The Iraqi navy are ready, so now is the time for the UK to dress back and let them complete the mission they were created for.” Brigadier Tim Chicken, director, Iraq training assistance mission (naval), added: “Although conducted out of the limelight, the work of British forces in Iraq since the end of the combat mission two years ago, spearheaded by the Royal Navy, has achieved significant results. “I am confident that our work with the Iraqi navy has set the agenda for a fruitful, long-term defence relationship between our two countries and everyone here is very proud of the role they have played.” Iraq Middle East Military Liam Fox Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Defence secretary says departure of 170 navy training personnel will mark conclusion of Operation Telic Britain’s eight years of military commitment in Iraq will finally and formally come to an end on Sunday, when the remaining forces in the south of the country will withdraw. The announcement to bring to an end one of the most controversial military campaigns in recent history was made on Wednesday in a statement to the Commons by the defence secretary, Liam Fox. In total, the UK still has about 170 mostly naval personnel in Iraq, helping to train the fledgling Iraqi navy from the port of Umm Qasr. The contingent includes a few Royal Marines. That compares with the 46,000 British troops and other military personnel that were committed to the first phase of Operation Telic, the name given to the campaign to remove Saddam Hussein. In all, 178 UK service personnel, and one Ministry of Defence civilian, died in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. UK combat forces, primarily based in the southern city of Basra, withdrew in July 2009 but since then the Royal Navy has continued working alongside US forces to train 1,800 Iraqis. In his statement, Fox said that the UK-Iraq training and maritime support agreement “will conclude on 22 May”. He added: “British forces have been involved in this important task since 2003 and, under the agreement signed in 2009, Royal Navy trainers have developed the capacity of the Iraqi maritime security forces to protect their territorial waters and offshore oil platforms, which are vital to Iraq’s economic revival. “Having successfully completed their mission UK personnel deployed to Iraq under this agreement will now leave the country. This will mark the formal conclusion of Operation Telic.” Fox said that the UK would continue to train members of the Iraqi security forces in the UK, and contribute to the Nato training mission which remains in Iraq. “I pay tribute to all UK service personnel who have served in Iraq over the last eight years and to the sacrifices made by so many for the benefit of the people of Iraq and our national security,” the statement said. Fox said that this was “also an opportunity to reflect on the wider contribution of Britain’s armed forces to Iraq since 2003. Thanks to the sacrifice, commitment, and professionalism of thousands of British service men and women Southern Iraq is an area transformed”. The MoD issued two further statements on the withdrawal. Brigadier Max Marriner, commander British forces Iraq, said: “The UK armed forces can look back with pride at what they have achieved in Iraq since 2003 – security has fundamentally improved and as a consequence the social and economic development of the south has dramatically changed for the better, as too have people’s lives. “The Iraqi navy are ready, so now is the time for the UK to dress back and let them complete the mission they were created for.” Brigadier Tim Chicken, director, Iraq training assistance mission (naval), added: “Although conducted out of the limelight, the work of British forces in Iraq since the end of the combat mission two years ago, spearheaded by the Royal Navy, has achieved significant results. “I am confident that our work with the Iraqi navy has set the agenda for a fruitful, long-term defence relationship between our two countries and everyone here is very proud of the role they have played.” Iraq Middle East Military Liam Fox Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …