Click here to view this media Fox News’ Chris Wallace doesn’t understand the difference between killing the leader of the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization in a military operation and torturing detainees held in U.S. prisons. “We’ll all stipulate that bin Laden was a monster,” Wallace told National Security Advisor Tom Donilon Sunday. “But why is shooting an unarmed man in the face legal and proper while enhanced interrogation including waterboarding of a detainee under very strict controls and limits, why is that over the line?” “Our forces entered that compound and were fired upon,” Donilon explained. “It’s an organization that uses IEDs and suicide vests and boobytraps and all manner of other destructive capabilities.” “Let me just make my point,” Wallace said. “I’m not asking you why it was okay to shoot Osama bin Laden. I fully understand the threat. I’m not second guessing the SEALs. What I am second guessing is if that is okay, why can’t you do waterboarding or enhanced interrogation of Khalid sheikh Mohammed, who was just as bad an operator as Osama bin Laden?” “Because, our judgment is that it’s not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary in terms of getting the kind of intelligence we need,” Donilon insisted. “But shooting bin Laden in the head is consistent with our values?” Wallace pressed. “We are at war with Osama bin Laden,” Donilon said. “It was a military operation, right? It was absolutely appropriate for the SEALs to take the action, and for the forces it to take the action they took in this military operation.”
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Fox News’ Chris Wallace doesn’t understand the difference between killing the leader of the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization in a military operation and torturing detainees held in U.S. prisons. “We’ll all stipulate that bin Laden was a monster,” Wallace told National Security Advisor Tom Donilon Sunday. “But why is shooting an unarmed man in the face legal and proper while enhanced interrogation including waterboarding of a detainee under very strict controls and limits, why is that over the line?” “Our forces entered that compound and were fired upon,” Donilon explained. “It’s an organization that uses IEDs and suicide vests and boobytraps and all manner of other destructive capabilities.” “Let me just make my point,” Wallace said. “I’m not asking you why it was okay to shoot Osama bin Laden. I fully understand the threat. I’m not second guessing the SEALs. What I am second guessing is if that is okay, why can’t you do waterboarding or enhanced interrogation of Khalid sheikh Mohammed, who was just as bad an operator as Osama bin Laden?” “Because, our judgment is that it’s not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary in terms of getting the kind of intelligence we need,” Donilon insisted. “But shooting bin Laden in the head is consistent with our values?” Wallace pressed. “We are at war with Osama bin Laden,” Donilon said. “It was a military operation, right? It was absolutely appropriate for the SEALs to take the action, and for the forces it to take the action they took in this military operation.”
Continue reading …Pressure intensifies to identify people who have taken out gagging orders to protect their reputations or privacy Pressure to reveal the identities of celebrities protected by injunctions has intensified after Twitter accounts began circulating the names of footballers and performers alleged to have taken out gagging orders. The alleged identities of those who resorted to the courts to protect reputations or privacy were spilled out in a public challenge to the restrictions imposed on reporting and broadcasting. Several Twitter tags led to a sequence of exchanges that delighted in claiming to show that the high court could not silence the more rebellious reaches of social media sites. But later it appeared that the names of the celebrities allegedly involved were removed from one Twitter account. The onslaught follows attempts last week to rewrite the Wikipedia entries of several individuals said to have obtained superinjunctions. In the Commons, two MPs, the Liberal Democrat John Hemmings and the Conservative Matthew Offord, have tried to use parliamentary privilege to question the use of injunctions. Last week Offord claimed that an MP had resorted to the high court for such a purpose. A “superinjunction” technically refers only to those court orders that specifically ban any mention of the fact that an order has been obtained. More recently the courts have tended to grant anonymised orders that prevent virtually every other aspect of any restricted subject from being reported. Among those tweeting on the subject was Jemima Khan, who denied that any of the Twitter reports relating to her were true. There are an increasing number of calls, some reluctant, for parliament to draft a privacy law to set clear guidelines for the courts about where the line should be drawn. Opponents warn that each case has particular circumstances such that only a judge in court can make the fine distinction on what can be allowed into the public domain or deserves protection. Later this month a committee chaired by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, will report on the issue of superinjunctions. It is expected to make recommendations for procedural changes but not to call for new legislation. A spokesman for Twitter told the Guardian: “There are tweets that we do remove, such as illegal tweets and spam. However, we make efforts to keep these exceptions narrow so they may serve to prove a broader and more important rule – we strive not to remove tweets on the basis of their content.” Later this week, the European court of human rights will publish its findings on what may become a landmark judgment in privacy, the case of the formula one boss Max Mosley. He is seeking a ruling that would require advance notice from the media of any report that deals with any aspect of an individual’s privacy. If the court finds in his favour it will change the legal landscape. Privacy & the media Superinjunctions Press freedom Newspapers & magazines Newspapers Max Mosley Twitter Internet Privacy Owen Bowcott Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Man, ABC News seriously loves them some torture. Because for them, the Bin Laden capture and killing is a triumph of intelligence derived from waterboarding, therefore the question of whether we should continue to torture should very much still be on the table. And who better to confirm that than the poster girl for waterboarding, Liz “Demon Spawn” Cheney. But as I’ve written before , there’s a logic drop off to their allegations. By all accounts, the use of waterboarding stopped in 2003 . The Bush Administration closed down the Bin Laden unit in 2005 and did nothing for the intervening five years. If there was actionable intelligence obtained by waterboarding, why then did they close down the unit hunting for Bin Laden? What Leon Panetta told the media was that they did receive actionable intelligence from individuals who had been waterboarded in the past but the name of the courier that enabled them to directly track Bin Laden was not known until 2007 , after waterboarding allegedly ended. But the media en masse, with their giant hard on for Jack Bauer theatrics, turns that around into Panetta admitting that they got intelligence from waterboarding. Now it is possible that having already experienced waterboarding, the detainees they interrogated were more forthcoming with information, but that begs the question why they weren’t more forthcoming earlier. If Christiane Amanpour wanted to have an intellectually honest discussion of whether torture–and please, give up the “enhanced interrogation techniques” euphemism, it’s TORTURE , pure and simple–works, perhaps she should have employed some logic as I have rather than serve up that nice little softball to Liz Cheney, whose only purpose on these shows is to defend her dad’s evil and criminal tactics. AMANPOUR: Liz, does this reignite this debate as to whether these enhanced interrogation techniques work and should be brought back? CHENEY: I think it does. I think the fact that you clearly have the current CIA director saying that part of the intelligence came from enhanced interrogation, it’s important to remember, you know, Chip Burlingame, who was the pilot on American Airlines Flight 77 that flew into the Pentagon, he himself was subjected to these techniques when he went through SERE training. These are not torture. These are techniques that we know work. That debate is over. It worked. It got the intelligence. It wasn’t torture. It was legal. It seems to me the key question now is, we’ve got this trove of intelligence, what looks to have been perhaps the biggest trove we’ve ever been able to get a hold of. If that leads us to other Al Qaida operatives, it’s not clear to me that we have any way to effectively interrogate them. We don’t have enhanced interrogation anymore. We read people their Miranda rights. We are not detaining people at Guantanamo anymore. We’re not detaining people in the secret prison sites. It’s not clear to me what the administration will be able to do to get this information. Shame on ABC News and Christiane Amanpour for not only framing the debate to assume that torture worked, but to then give Liz Cheney a platform to undermine the Obama administration’s success where the Bush administration with all their war criminal tactics failed.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani says President Barack Obama’s success at taking out Osama bin Laden hasn’t deterred him from running for president. “Does it impact at all, Mayor Giuliani, your thinking about running for president next year?” NBC’s David Gregory asked Sunday. “Not in the slightest,” Giuliani replied. “I separate the two things.” “You’re still considering a run for the presidency?” Gregory pressed. “Not right this minute, but yes, I am,” Giuliani said.
Continue reading …Apple catapults to the summit of top 100 global brands with an 84% increase in its estimated value to $153bn (£93bn) The launch of the iPad helped Apple topple rival technology company Google in 2010 to become the world’s most powerful brand, according to a survey. WPP-owned research company Millward Brown puts Apple at number one in its annual top 100 global brand power list, Brandz, up from third place in 2009, with an 84% increase in its estimated value to $153bn (£93bn). Apple ended Google’s four year run at the top of the global brand power list, in a year when social media darling Facebook also made its debut in the top 100. However, the fallout of the Deepwater Horizon disaster dogged BP, which was one of the biggest fallers, down 30 places to 64th with a 27% drop in its brand value to $12bn. “It is really the iPad that has driven [Apple's growing brand value], although the iPhone has continued to do magnificently too, and the development of apps,” said Peter Walshe, global director of the Brandz report. Millward Brown’s report, which balances brand power with financial performance, shrugged off the potential impact of Apple chief executive Steve Jobs’ medical leave, instead focusing on the seemingly endless production line of must-have products Apple churns out. Walshe added that on measures examined within the report such as “desirability”, Apple scores in the top 10 in the world and on a “buzz” scale – taking in mentions on blogs, message boards and tweets – it comes fourth behind Google, Facebook and Microsoft. Facebook made it onto the Millward Brown list for the first time – this is the sixth year the report has been published – having been held back in previous years by poor evidence of financial clout. The social networking service, which has attracted a valuation of $70bn and is expected to float next year, was ranked 35th with a 246% increase year-on-year in its estimated brand value from $5.5bn to $19bn. “Facebook had a staggering year,” said Walshe. “Time will tell if the financial part of the estimate is stable or not.” The most valuable brand in the UK was once again telecoms company Vodafone, which ranks 12th on the global list, with a value almost flat year-on-year at $43bn. Toyota, which was hammered in the 2009 Brandz report, with its brand value plummeting 28% after the mass recall of faulty cars, bounced back to be the most valuable car marque, up 11% to $24bn in 27th place. Amazon also moved up a place to 14th to pass Walmart, down two spots to 15th, and become the highest ranked retailer on the list. Amazon increased by 37% in brand value last year to $37bn. Chinese search engine Baidu rocketed 46 places to 29th with a 141% increase in brand value to $22bn. Top fallers included Nokia, which has embarked on a restructuring programme after failing to keep step with rivals Apple and Google, down 38 places to 81st with a brand value of $10.7bn, down 28% year-on-year. Nintendo dropped 47 places to 79th with a 37% fall in brand value to $11bn. TOP 10 Most Valuable Global Brands 1. Apple $153bn 2. Google $111bn 3. IBM $100bn 4. McDonald’s $81bn 5. Microsoft $78bn 6. Coca Cola $73bn 7. AT&T $70bn 8. Marlboro $67bn 9. China Mobile $57bn 10. GE $50bn Apple Nokia Facebook BP Google Toyota Automotive industry Mobile phones Mark Sweney guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Deputy PM tells Andrew Marr show that GPs should not be forced to sign up to new commissioning consortiums David Cameron and Nick Clegg have agreed changes to the government’s NHS reforms, allowing the deputy prime minister to launch a ferocious attack on Sunday on the original plans as a “disruptive revolution”. As the Royal College of GPs calls for a radical overhaul of plans to hand 60% of the NHS budget to new GP-led consortiums, Tory sources indicated that the Cameron-Clegg negotiations have left Andrew Lansley an isolated figure in the government’s “listening exercise”. Lansley, the embattled health secretary, who is still resisting some of their demands, has been left briefing colleagues that Clegg has embarked on a U-turn after declaring in January that “funnily enough” the NHS reforms were in the Liberal Democrats’ general election manifesto. Clegg gave a taste of the areas of agreement with Cameron on Sunday when he told The Andrew Marr Show that GPs should not be forced to sign up to the new commissioning consortiums and that a 2013 deadline for the changes should be relaxed. The deputy prime minister said: “A lot of people have said to me – and I basically think they’re right – they’re saying you’re going too fast, you’re trying to meet artificial deadlines, you’re forcing GPs to take on commissioning roles when they might not want to or aren’t able to. I basically think they’re right. “I think what we should now do is – which is a change – is an evolutionary approach that only happens […] where people are willing and able to take on these new changes. If not, we shouldn’t be forcing the pace according to artificial deadlines in a calendar.” In a sign of his confidence that real changes will be introduced, Clegg said the health and social care bill, which he praised on the same programme in January as an example of the fusion of Tory-Lib Dem thinking, was deeply flawed. “As far as government legislation is concerned, no bill is better than a bad one, and I want to get this right,” he said. “Getting these changes right, protecting the NHS rather than undermining it, is now my number one priority. “I’m not going to ask Liberal Democrat MPs and Liberal Democrat peers to proceed with legislation on something as precious and cherished, particularly for Liberal Democrats, as the NHS unless I personally am satisfied that what these changes do is an evolutionary change in the NHS, not a disruptive revolution.” The Liberal Democrats hailed the deputy prime minister’s tough language as a sign of a new assertive relationship with the Tories after the drubbing in the elections last week. Clegg himself heralded this new approach when he said the Lib Dems would act as a “moderating influence” on the Tories. He added: “Where we are dealing with new things – the NHS is a prominent example – we need to bring our particular influence to bear in a very clear manner.” Lord Oakeshott , a close ally of the business secretary, Vince Cable, went even further. He said: “Andrew Lansley is like a mad professor sitting in a secret laboratory mixing up his own magic potion. It has not been through Nice [the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence]. “We will have to give it a test to see if it is fit to be let loose on the patient.” But senior Tories, who were irritated with the tone of Clegg’s language, said that most of the policy changes highlighted by the Lib Dem leader had been agreed with Cameron. In a sign that Cameron and Clegg, rather than Lansley, are driving the negotiations, one source said the health secretary has given ground in opening up the GP-led consortiums, though he is still holding out on the role for consultants. “Andrew Lansley is there on all areas apart from two points,” the source said. “So we have to work out what substantive areas he will be agreeing.” Lansley is indicating to colleagues that he may still be prepared for a fight. He is pointing out that Clegg fully endorsed the health and social care bill in an appearance on the Andrew Marr Show on 23 January shortly before every Lib Dem MP present at Westminster, except John Pugh, endorsed the bill at its second reading in the Commons. Asked by Marr whether the reforms were in the manifesto, Clegg said: “Actually funnily enough it was. Indeed it was…We certainly said we were going to get rid of Primary Care Trusts. We said we were going to get rid of strategic health authorities.”The prospect of a showdown between Lansley and Downing Street came as GP leaders warned that the reforms would wreck the NHS. In a strongly-worded submission, the Royal College of GPs highlights key “risks” inherent in the bill, which seeks to force healthcare providers to compete. It warns that: • Intensifying competition in the NHS will lead to the service breaking up, drive up costs, damage patient are and less integration of services. • Family doctors and hospitals could start charging patients for certain services as the bill hands the health secretary’s longstanding power to impose fees to the planned new groupings or consortiums of GPs. • The NHS’s mission since its creation in 1948 to provide healthcare to everyone, irrespective of need or ability to pay, could disappear as the Bill removes the health secretary’s historic duty of ensuring the provision of a comprehensive national health service. • The NHS should be “the preferred provider” of NHS services and deeply controversial plans to let “any willing provider” treat patients – including private firms – should be dropped. NHS Health Nick Clegg David Cameron Andrew Lansley Health policy Public services policy GPs Doctors Liberal Democrats Conservatives Liberal-Conservative coalition Nicholas Watt Denis Campbell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Let’s connect some dots, shall we? If you were masochistic enough to tune into the Sunday shows this week, you might actually suspect that George W. Bush was still in office by the sheer magnitude of Bushies booked on every single Sunday news show. Each and every one of them eager to do damage control and insist that we’re all so much safer thanks to their program of torturing people…even those whose only crime is flying commercial while being Muslim (a niggling little dark mark on the rendition and torture campaign that the media never ever brings up). But if you listen between the lines of the conversation between Howie Kurtz and Brian Ross, it’s clear that the media knows that what they did post-9/11 was enable the Bush administration to hype terror threats and report them dutifully to keep Americans frightened and complacent while they invaded and occupied two countries and ignored Bin Laden. It’s interesting to me how now the media is reluctantly walking back that Bush administration talking point that Bin Laden was not involved operationally in al Qaeda that they used to justify not hunting him down. Yet they were only too happy to keep the entire country on high alert against terror attacks like the Sears Tower gang, to whom nobody should have given any credibility . Brian Ross–who has a history of inaccurate “scoops” –blames ” threat fatigue” and cynicism for the fact that the media doesn’t breathlessly announce terror threats anymore, pointedly stopping short of accusing the Bush administration of politicizing terror. Both Kurtz and Ross conveniently ignore former DHS Director Tom Ridge admitting that they did politicize terror threats . The media were active, complicit agents of the Bush administration’s attempts to keep Americans frightened. And Howie Kurtz and Brian Ross know it and just like everyone else during those Bush years, refuse to accept responsibility for it.
Continue reading …Millions of pounds in compensation for people wrongfully convicted hinges on decision by nine judges Britain’s most senior judges will decide this week whether hundreds of people whose wrongful convictions have been quashed by the court of appeal are truly innocent. In a landmark ruling, the supreme court will define the meaning of a miscarriage of justice and decide when individuals are entitled to official compensation. Millions of pounds in compensation are at stake in a case triggered by government refusal over the last five years to pay financial redress to victims of miscarriages of justice, many of whom have spent years in prison for crimes they did not commit. Andrew Adams, 41, who spent 14 years in jail after being wrongly convicted of murder, is the lead appellant in the case, which lawyers say is the most important constitutional decision to be made by the supreme court to date. His murder conviction was quashed in January 2007 on the grounds that his defence team did not use crucial evidence available to it. A year later he was refused compensation by the Home Office, a decision he has been fighting ever since. Other appellants are Barry George, who was refused official compensation after being acquitted at a retrial of the murder of the BBC presenter Jill Dando, and two men whose convictions for membership of the IRA and murder at the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland have been quashed. The ruling, on Wednesday, will have reverberations throughout the legal world and will determine whether compensation should be paid in several high-profile miscarriage of justice cases, including that of Sîon Jenkins, whose conviction for killing his foster daughter, Billie-Jo Jenkins, was overturned after juries failed to reach verdicts in two retrials. Lawyers for Adams told all nine supreme court judges that it was unlawful of the justice secretary to refuse in January 2008 to award Adams statutory compensation as a victim of a miscarriage of justice. Daniel Machover, who represents Adams, said: “We hope that the ruling will outline definitively what a miscarriage of justice is. It is a fact that a person is entitled to a presumption of innocence if they have their conviction overturned on the basis of a new or newly discovered fact. “The question is whether that presumption of innocence is enough to say, this is therefore a miscarriage of justice and everyone who has suffered a miscarriage of justice is entitled to compensation. That is what we are arguing: that the presumption of innocence equals the right to compensation.” The case focuses on the Gogovernment’s refusal to pay compensation to individuals who have applied since 2006, when changes were made to the system. Lawyers have told the supreme court that the government is wrongly adopting a narrow definition of miscarriage of justice which requires claimants to prove clear innocence in order to receive compensation. Schedules suggest up to 200 individuals could be affected. On average, around 40 individuals who have had convictions quashed or been acquitted at retrials have applied for official compensation each year since 2006. In the past year, only one out of 37 who applied was awarded the money. Nick Baird, for Barry George, said: “This will be the most important constitutional decision handed down by the supreme court. What the Ministry of Justice says is that for there to be a miscarriage of justice the person convicted and acquitted needs subsequent to that to prove their innocence in order to be entitled to compensation. “We say, how do you do that? How do you prove a negative? It is contrary to everything that I have learnt is embodied in the criminal justice system.” George spent eight years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of Dando’s murder in April 1999. He won his second appeal and the court ordered a retrial, at which he was acquitted. The Ministry of Justice has continued to argue that a miscarriage of justice occurs only where someone is eventually found to be “clearly innocent”. “This is an ongoing legal matter,” an MoJ spokeswoman said. “We will not be making any comment until the judgment is given.” UK supreme court UK criminal justice Jill Dando murder Crime Sandra Laville guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …But that shouldn’t stop us discussing Kate’s wardrobe (in 140 characters or less) I have recently been lured in by the siren call of Twitter. How do I choose my photo for it? And is it acceptable to change my photo occasionally? Brian, London “The siren call”, you say, Brian? To those of us who have, amazingly, managed to resist the temptation to share our every passing thought about what’s happening on the telly with thousands of “followers”, and be bombarded by the thoughts of thousands of others doing the same, it is indeed a siren call, albeit not a Greek temptress siren but a screeching ambulance one that makes me want to put my hands over my ears and run in the opposite direction. Well, de gustibus non est disputandum , as I never say (because my taste is always right and everyone who disagrees is wrong): if you’re determined to be a twit, then I cannot stop you. But you raise an interesting point with the photo and you’re quite right that it is a tricky decision, mainly because no one seems certain what Twitter is for: is it a means of spreading news? Encouraging political revolution? Telling the world what you think about the death of Osama bin Laden? Ascertaining what Paris Hilton thinks about the death of Osama bin Laden? Self-promotion? One-liners about Kate Middleton’s wedding dress? Starting feuds with other people in your industry purely for procrastination purposes? Yes, yes, and five more times, yes. But the myriad of purposes requires not just a careful calibration of tones, but a very special photo. After all, a photo that suits, say, a disquisition on the naffness of Eurovision does not, perhaps, work so well when one is proclaiming the generation-changing nature of Bin Laden’s death (in 140 characters or less.) And no, you cannot hide behind what I guess is called the Twitter egg: that merely looks like you can’t be bothered and don’t care about the needs, expectations and entertainment of your followers. So somehow, you must find the perfect photo that suits all moods and proclamations. As if that wasn’t pressure enough, you’d better make sure that when you do choose a picture that it is the perfect one because you cannot change it. A change of photo suggests vanity and a deliberate attempt to change one’s image that is somehow forgivable on Facebook but not on Twitter. Twitter, you see, is supposed to be above such things, as you’d expect of a medium used to start revolutions (and express opinions on Kate Middleton’s dress). So you need to find the perfect photo, one that expresses wit, solemnity, intelligence, thunderous anger and awe-inspiring insider knowledge; a mash-up, if you will, of Christopher Hitchens, Paul Krugman, Stephen Colbert, David Remnick and Dorothy Parker, but also one that makes you look, you know, young and hot. And if you’re finding this stressful, wait until you realise that your devastatingly witty observation about David Cameron’s face hasn’t been retweeted once. Really, isn’t life hard enough? So we’ve all seen the wedding dress. Do we still have to care about how Kate Middleton dresses? Sarah, by email Oh my stars, yes. Now more than ever! But as with the Twitter, no one quite seems to know why because no one knows what the royal family is for (and, one might add, were one feeling particularly sarcastic, perhaps this in turn suggests that the confusion comes from the fact that the royal family and Twitter alike are not for anything at all. But let’s not start the week on the grumpy note we know it will end on). Even before Cinderella married Prince Charming, one writer hilariously came over all Dowager Countess of Grantham, despite writing for the most downmarket tabloid ever produced and she huffed and puffed like the big bad wolf over Kate’s shocking gumption in buying clothes from the – gasp – high street! “Staggeringly normal, mind-bogglingly cheap and disappointingly pedestrian,” sniffed the scribe, which is funny because that middle term is just what some of us think of the jibes thrown by this tabloid at la Middleton. And yet, insanely, Kate, somehow failed to follow this writer’s advice and continued to wear high-street clothes even after the wedding, prompting one American fashion blog to headline the photo, “Kate Middleton Steps Out in an $89 Polyester Zara Dress the Day After the Wedding.” The story itself was (sort of) positive, the superfluous reference to polyester was not. And so, in order to help the duchess, I have the perfect outfit that she should wear to satisfy one and all of her subjects: a Disney princess costume, which is just how princesses are supposed to dress. They appear to be only £20, true, but only Kate gets to have all of her dreams come true. Fashion Kate Middleton Twitter Internet Blogging Hadley Freeman guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …