Mohammed Belkacemi made secret tape of meeting in November 2010 where race quotas were discussed The crisis over French football chiefs’ alleged plan to keep non-white players out of the national squad has escalated after a senior official admitted blowing the whistle and secretly recording a meeting about race. French sport has been shaken by claims that football bosses wanted to limit the number of young black players and those of north African origin emerging as candidates for the national team. The secret plan for ethnic quotas allegedly involved limiting non-white youngsters entering the selection process through training centres as early as age 12 or 13. The investigative website Mediapart ran extracts from a transcript of a meeting last year where football bosses wanted to set a cap of 30% on players of certain origins. The site concluded that officials felt there were “too many blacks and Arabs” in French football and not enough whites. The scandal has revealed a deep malaise over race in football and the notion that “Les Bleus”, despite the multiracial 1998 World Cup winning team, are not patriotic enough unless they have white skin. Two investigations are under way by the French Football Federation and the government, which expects to announce its findings on Monday. Meanwhile, the national technical director of the federation, Francois Blaquart, has been suspended. Mohammed Belkacemi, a respected official responsible for liaising with young players in suburbs and highrise estates, on Wednesday admitted he was the whistleblower who had recorded the controversial meeting in November 2010 where race quotas were discussed. It is believed he gave the tape to other officials rather than directly to the media. The French national coach Laurent Blanc first flatly denied any discussion about quotas, then apologised for any offence about “certain terms” he used. The recordings show officials were debating French players with dual-nationality who could train in France but leave to play for other teams. Several officials suggested limiting these players. Blanc reportedly talks about black players’ morphology. He says of the training centres, which produced French champions such as Thierry Henry and Nicolas Anelka: “You have the impression that they really train the same prototype of players, big, strong, powerful … What is there that is currently big, strong, powerful? The blacks.” He said other criteria should be used to bring in players “with our culture, our history”. The scandal comes after the French team’s mutiny at the World Cup last summer was privately blamed by some on black or Muslim players, suggesting the team had fragmented because there was not enough “national identity”. The French sports minister, Chantal Jouanno, on Wednesday told French radio ethnic quotas would be illegal. She said training centres should teach national players how to “respect their team shirt”. Black French sportsmen expressed their disgust at alleged ethnic quotas. Yannick Noah, the French tennis player-turned pop star, said: “I’ve always thought these things existed, in clubs, leagues and in the federation. Now we need to tell the truth and have a real debate.” Lilian Thuram, the former World Cup defender, scorned the notion black players might not be patriotic enough. “I’m black, well dark brown to be precise, and I feel perfectly French. But I didn’t know that skin pigmentation was what makes one feel French. Does that mean every white person, even Swedish, feels French?” France France Race issues Europe Angelique Chrisafis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Guardian/ICM poll finds 68% plan to vote no, suggesting support for electoral change has slumped in last month The century-long dream of electoral reform in Britain looks likely to be dashed for more than a generation, with a Guardian/ICM poll predicting that voters will back keeping first past the post by a crushing majority. The survey, before the referendum on whether to introduce the alternative vote (AV) for elections to the Commons, predicts a 68% no vote with just 32% for yes. The hopes of yes campaigners that there was going to be a late tightening of the polls have been dashed. The findings suggest support for electoral change has slumped since a Guardian/ICM poll last month revealed the growing size of the no lead – then 16 points, now 36. In a Guardian/ICM poll in February, the yes campaign was two points ahead. A YouGov poll for The Sun also predicts defeat for AV, showing 40% would vote yes, and 60% no. Only 25% of voters in that poll knew which way Eddie Izzard, the Yes campaign’s most high-profile celebrity backer, intended to vote. The referendum result, due to be formally announced on Friday, will prompt deep soul-searching inside the Liberal Democrats, and bitter recriminations over the way that David Cameron sanctioned a full-scale assault on Nick Clegg by the no campaign as a central part of its appeal. Some in the all-party yes camp blame Clegg for abandoning a pledge to stay out of the campaign, saying his presence destroyed their appeal for a new kind of politics and meant their campaign was seen through the prism of the coalition. Clegg vowed that the coalition would continue, but accepted the temperature has been rising inside his own party over the all-party no campaign’s tactics. Refusing to concede defeat, he made a final desperate appeal for the yes vote saying: “If you basically think the current system is absolutely fine, totally perfect, nothing wrong with it then obviously vote no and stick with what we’ve got. If you want something a bit fairer, a bit better, which makes all politicians work a bit harder for your vote then vote yes, vote for change.” The Lib Dems fear they are likely to be hammered in elections for the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly. They are also expected to lose more than 300 councillors in England – and fear as many as 600 losses – ceding control of almost every council they are defending. There is no sign that any serious figure will mount a challenge to Clegg’s leadership, but there will be calls for the party to adopt a cooler relationship with its coalition partners. Senior party figures privately admit that it may take as long as two years for the party to start to recover its former popularity. Labour tried to play down expectations that it could win as many as 1,300 seats in the English council elections, saying that on the basis of council byelection results since the 2010 election the party is likely to win between 400 and 600 seats. Labour officials warn that in the south any collapse in the Lib Dem vote may see the Conservatives gain seats. Independent experts have predicted Labour should make as many as 1,000 gains, and it is hoping to win Clegg’s home city council of Sheffield, as well as Leeds, North Tyneside, Bolton, and Barrow in Furness. Labour is worried that it is likely to fare much worse in Scotland than it expected three months ago, however, even though it has pulled back some support from the Scottish National party. In Wales Labour is on the brink of being able to form a majority government. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, is hoping that the expected crushing defeat for the advocates of the alternative vote will not rebound on him personally even though he has increasingly vocally supported the reform. He signalled that even if the vote is close no political party will return to the issue for a long time. According to the Guardian/ICM poll, a majority of Labour supporters now say they will vote against AV despite Miliband’s endorsement of change. So will almost nine in 10 Conservatives and more than a quarter of definite Lib Dem voters, whose lukewarm support seems confirmed by the fact that they are now less likely than Conservative or Labour voters to say they will turn out. Young voters remain in favour of AV, but are the least likely to vote. Among all voters, before adjustment for likely turnout, 28% said they were for change, with 52% against and 20% who said they didn’t know. After adjustment for voters who say they are likely to vote, 32% back yes, down from 42% in April; 68% say no – up from 58%. Overall, Labour is on 37%, unchanged from April. The Conservatives are on 36%, up one. The Lib Dems are on 15%, unchanged, and others on a combined 11%, down two. ICM interviewed a random sample of 1035 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 2-3 May 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. AV referendum Electoral reform Alternative vote Conservatives Opinion polls Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg Liberal-Conservative coalition Local elections Local elections 2011 Julian Glover Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …NBC’s ‘Today’ Frets Celebrations After bin Laden’s Death Were ‘Very Disturbing’ to Children
May 4, 2011 No Comment
On NBC's Today on Wednesday, co-host Matt Lauer worried about Americans celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden: “…your children are going to see, and have already seen, people in the streets celebrating about the death of someone and that's a contradictory image for them.” Today contributor and psychiatrist Gail Saltz replied: “Absolutely, very disturbing for them.” The segment was on how to talk to children about the killing of bin Laden and Saltz speculated that kids may ask: “Why are people partying, being happy that anybody was killed?” She suggested those who celebrated may now regret their actions: “I think it's really important to talk about this, because what you saw was a lot of people who, in the impulse of the moment, reacted in a way that later on they may not be happy about.” Saltz further declared: …this is a conversation really about moral development that you're going to help your child with. So do they feel right about people partying, and smiling, and looking happy? Does it look different enough from recent pictures we've seen of what went on in Egypt and so on? I think those are the kinds of – and I think it's fine for you to say, 'I don't think they should be celebrating,' if you don't. Almost as an afterthought she briefly entertained an alternative perspective: “Or 'I think they were celebrating because of their patriotism.'” At the end of the segment, Lauer concluded: “And always when you're having these discussions try to emphasize things like open-mindedness and-” Both Saltz and child development specialist Robyn Silverman quickly joined in the political correctness. Saltz finished Lauer's sentence: “Tolerance.” Silverman agreed: “So important.” Saltz then added: “And say that this man looked a certain way doesn't mean that everybody who looks that way is a bad person.” Silverman chimed in: “Absolutely.” Lauer agreed: “That's important.” Here is a transcript of the May 4 exchange: 8:21AM ET (…) MATT LAUER: Some typical questions, this one's from our viewers. 'I talked to my girls about it, they are 8, 10, and 12. They asked me why he was killed and why they didn't just put him in jail where all bad people go.' How do you answer that question? ROBYN SILVERMAN [CHILD DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST]: I mean, it's a tough question because we – that's what we're taught, that they should go away. But we need to help them see that while this guy was alive, people were frightened about what he could do next, no matter where he was. So the people who were in charge of the safety of our country made a decision that he couldn't be alive. LAUER: And this kind of plays on that but takes it to the next step, Gail. We're – your children are going to see, and have already seen, people in the streets celebrating about the death of someone and that's a contradictory image for them. DR. GAIL SALTZ [PSYCHIATRIST AND TODAY CONTRIBUTOR]: Absolutely, very disturbing for them. Why are people partying, being happy that anybody was killed? I think it's really important to talk about this, because what you saw was a lot of people who, in the impulse of the moment, reacted in a way that later on they may not be happy about. In other words, the question of what is the difference between justice here and revenge? These are the kinds – because this is a conversation really about moral development that you're going to help your child with. So do they feel right about people partying, and smiling, and looking happy? Does it look different enough from recent pictures we've seen of what went on in Egypt and so on? I think those are the kinds of – and I think it's fine for you to say, 'I don't think they should be celebrating,' if you don't. Or 'I think they were celebrating because of their patriotism.' LAUER: Robin, let me try this one on you, and I don't have a lot of time left. But it seems as if in the very near future we will either see a photo or not see a photo of the body of Osama bin Laden. Your children are going to be possibly exposed to that photo and it's going to be disturbing to them, they're going to have questions. How do you handle it? SILVERMAN: You wait for them to come to you. Limit media exposure as much as you can. Keep routines similar and be available to your children as much as possible for their concerns and their questions. LAUER: And always when you're having these discussions try to emphasize things like open-mindedness and- SALTZ: Tolerance LAUER: Tolerance and things like that. SILVERMAN: So important. SALTZ: And say that this man looked a certain way doesn't mean that everybody who looks that way is a bad person. SILVERMAN: Absolutely. LAUER: That's important. Gail and Robin, thank you both very much.
Continue reading …
Gruesome photos taken in the aftermath of the US raid on Bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout show bodies of al-Qaida militants Gruesome photos taken in the immediate aftermath of the US raid on Osama bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout have emerged showing the blood-soaked bodies of three unidentified al-Qaida militants. Reuters released the pictures as the Obama administration announced it would not be publishing a picture of Bin Laden’s body. The disturbing images, the release of which has not been sanctioned by the White House, give a sense of the extreme violence employed by US Navy Seals as they stormed through the compound in the early hours of Monday. Two of the men lie in pools of congealed blood; a third lies prone with his arms flung over his head. Around are scattered hints of life before the Americans struck: computer cables, bedding, a tin mug and a plastic gun. The photos may also explain why the White House is refusing to release a similar image of Bin Laden: if it is nearly as graphic, it could provide an incendiary rallying point to America’s Islamist enemies. Security in New York and Washington, as well as at US bases and embassies round the world, have been stepped up in case of al-Qaida retaliation over the killing. The pictures emerged as the Obama administration insisted the killing of Bin Laden was legal and not an execution, while human rights groups and international lawyers pressed the White House for more details of the mission. Eric Holder, the US attorney-general, said the killing was justified and that had Bin Laden attempted to surrender, the US forces would have taken him alive. Meanwhile a senior Pakistani intelligence official told the Guardian that members of the Bin Laden family were being held in custody in Pakistan, including his Yemeni-born wife, Amal Ahmed al-Sadah, and his 12-year-old daughter, who allegedly claimed her father had been shot in cold-blood in front of her. The official did not confirm a report by al-Arabiya news that the daughter is claiming her father had been held first and then shot. George Little, a CIA spokesman, denied Bin Laden had been held by US forces before being shot. “There is no indication that Bin Laden was somehow captured and later killed inside the compound. It would be wrong to suggest otherwise.” Questions about the legality of the killing have grown after the White House backtracked on Tuesday on its initial account of the mission, admitting that Bin Laden had not been armed. The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, refused to provide further details about the shooting in Abbottabad. The Obama administration has been forced on the defensive after offering conflicting accounts of what happened. Asked on Wednesday whether the team that killed Obama had come under fire, Carney said the White House had gone to the limit in providing details and that any more would risk future operations. “I am not going to get into operational details,” he said. Carney, asked about the legality of the killing, read from a statement, saying it was consistent with the laws of war and that if Bin Laden had surrendered, he would have been taken alive. Holder, giving evidence to the Senate armed services committee, said it had not been a kill mission but “a kill or capture” mission. “If he had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should obviously have accepted that, but there was no indication that he wanted to do that and therefore his killing was appropriate,” Holder said. The attorney-general said Bin Laden had no intention of being captured. “Let me make something very clear, the operation in which Osama bin Laden was killed was lawful. He was the head of al-Qaida, an organisation that had conducted the attacks of September 11. He admitted his involvement,” Holder said. Andrea Prasow, a Washington-based spokeswoman for Human Rights Watch, said: “Our position is that we do not have enough information to determine whether the killing of Bin Laden was lawful. We hope the US government will provide a more detailed accounting of what happened so we can understand if it was in fact lawful under either international humanitarian law – the so-called law of war – or under human rights law.” Philippe Sands, a University College London professor currently writing a book on the making of modern international law, said much would depend on the exact circumstances of Bin Laden’s death. “If no one else was around, if they had him in a room unarmed and the building was covered, then it looks pretty bad,” Sands said. He added that the US would have an additional layer of defence under international law. The “doctrine of necessity” excuses wrongdoing if the actions taken can be demonstrated to be the only way to protect an essential interest, like the lives of large number of citizens. Benjamin Ferencz, an American lawyer who was a US prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials and who lives in New York state, asked whether the killing was justifiable self-defence or premeditated illegal assassination. He would have preferred he had been captured and put on trial. Ferencz, 92, said : “The picture I get is that a bunch of highly trained, heavily armed soldiers find an old guy in pyjamas and shot him in the chest and head and that borders, without access to more facts, on murder.” He added: “Even [the head of the Luftwaffe Hermann] Göring had a right to trial.” The rules of engagement for the Seal team made it unlikely that Bin Laden would have had much chance to surrender. The counterterrorism adviser at the White House, John Brennan, in an interview with Fox, said he could only have surrendered if the team believed he did not pose a threat and were confident he did not have a bomb under his clothes. The Pakistani authorities may get confirmation or a conflicting account from the members of Bin Laden’s family and others from the compound it has in custody. Pakistani intelligence said it would not allow the US to interrogate them. “That would occur only if there was written assent from their country of origin. We are yet to receive any request to my knowledge but given the [critical] statements coming out of Washington and the fact that this [the raid] was not an operation we were involved in, we would not accept,” the Pakistani intelligence official said. Osama bin Laden al-Qaida Global terrorism Pakistan United States Ewen MacAskill Declan Walsh Julian Borger guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Gruesome photos taken in the aftermath of the US raid on Bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout show bodies of al-Qaida militants Gruesome photos taken in the immediate aftermath of the US raid on Osama bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout have emerged showing the blood-soaked bodies of three unidentified al-Qaida militants. Reuters released the pictures as the Obama administration announced it would not be publishing a picture of Bin Laden’s body. The disturbing images, the release of which has not been sanctioned by the White House, give a sense of the extreme violence employed by US Navy Seals as they stormed through the compound in the early hours of Monday. Two of the men lie in pools of congealed blood; a third lies prone with his arms flung over his head. Around are scattered hints of life before the Americans struck: computer cables, bedding, a tin mug and a plastic gun. The photos may also explain why the White House is refusing to release a similar image of Bin Laden: if it is nearly as graphic, it could provide an incendiary rallying point to America’s Islamist enemies. Security in New York and Washington, as well as at US bases and embassies round the world, have been stepped up in case of al-Qaida retaliation over the killing. The pictures emerged as the Obama administration insisted the killing of Bin Laden was legal and not an execution, while human rights groups and international lawyers pressed the White House for more details of the mission. Eric Holder, the US attorney-general, said the killing was justified and that had Bin Laden attempted to surrender, the US forces would have taken him alive. Meanwhile a senior Pakistani intelligence official told the Guardian that members of the Bin Laden family were being held in custody in Pakistan, including his Yemeni-born wife, Amal Ahmed al-Sadah, and his 12-year-old daughter, who allegedly claimed her father had been shot in cold-blood in front of her. The official did not confirm a report by al-Arabiya news that the daughter is claiming her father had been held first and then shot. George Little, a CIA spokesman, denied Bin Laden had been held by US forces before being shot. “There is no indication that Bin Laden was somehow captured and later killed inside the compound. It would be wrong to suggest otherwise.” Questions about the legality of the killing have grown after the White House backtracked on Tuesday on its initial account of the mission, admitting that Bin Laden had not been armed. The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, refused to provide further details about the shooting in Abbottabad. The Obama administration has been forced on the defensive after offering conflicting accounts of what happened. Asked on Wednesday whether the team that killed Obama had come under fire, Carney said the White House had gone to the limit in providing details and that any more would risk future operations. “I am not going to get into operational details,” he said. Carney, asked about the legality of the killing, read from a statement, saying it was consistent with the laws of war and that if Bin Laden had surrendered, he would have been taken alive. Holder, giving evidence to the Senate armed services committee, said it had not been a kill mission but “a kill or capture” mission. “If he had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should obviously have accepted that, but there was no indication that he wanted to do that and therefore his killing was appropriate,” Holder said. The attorney-general said Bin Laden had no intention of being captured. “Let me make something very clear, the operation in which Osama bin Laden was killed was lawful. He was the head of al-Qaida, an organisation that had conducted the attacks of September 11. He admitted his involvement,” Holder said. Andrea Prasow, a Washington-based spokeswoman for Human Rights Watch, said: “Our position is that we do not have enough information to determine whether the killing of Bin Laden was lawful. We hope the US government will provide a more detailed accounting of what happened so we can understand if it was in fact lawful under either international humanitarian law – the so-called law of war – or under human rights law.” Philippe Sands, a University College London professor currently writing a book on the making of modern international law, said much would depend on the exact circumstances of Bin Laden’s death. “If no one else was around, if they had him in a room unarmed and the building was covered, then it looks pretty bad,” Sands said. He added that the US would have an additional layer of defence under international law. The “doctrine of necessity” excuses wrongdoing if the actions taken can be demonstrated to be the only way to protect an essential interest, like the lives of large number of citizens. Benjamin Ferencz, an American lawyer who was a US prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials and who lives in New York state, asked whether the killing was justifiable self-defence or premeditated illegal assassination. He would have preferred he had been captured and put on trial. Ferencz, 92, said : “The picture I get is that a bunch of highly trained, heavily armed soldiers find an old guy in pyjamas and shot him in the chest and head and that borders, without access to more facts, on murder.” He added: “Even [the head of the Luftwaffe Hermann] Göring had a right to trial.” The rules of engagement for the Seal team made it unlikely that Bin Laden would have had much chance to surrender. The counterterrorism adviser at the White House, John Brennan, in an interview with Fox, said he could only have surrendered if the team believed he did not pose a threat and were confident he did not have a bomb under his clothes. The Pakistani authorities may get confirmation or a conflicting account from the members of Bin Laden’s family and others from the compound it has in custody. Pakistani intelligence said it would not allow the US to interrogate them. “That would occur only if there was written assent from their country of origin. We are yet to receive any request to my knowledge but given the [critical] statements coming out of Washington and the fact that this [the raid] was not an operation we were involved in, we would not accept,” the Pakistani intelligence official said. Osama bin Laden al-Qaida Global terrorism Pakistan United States Ewen MacAskill Declan Walsh Julian Borger guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Senator Kent Conrad is a member of the hideous Gang of Six that Dick Durbin is so willingly fronting, and it appears that his new budget is so bad that a mutiny is a brewing. You know how I dislike ConservaDems being in a position to cut their way out of a deficit. It’s impossible, it’s destructive to the American worker, and it’s failing around the world. Yet for Conrad, austerity rules. Ryan Grimm: Senate Democrats are furious at their lead budget negotiator for crafting a blueprint that they think moves the party too far to the right, a senior Democratic aide said. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has been bargaining for months in secret with Republicans in the so-called Gang of Six to craft a budget that might win bipartisan acceptance. On Tuesday, Conrad abruptly dropped the veil and rolled out his own offering for party colleagues — to brutal reviews. “He’s going to be a man without a country,” the Democratic aide said, describing a contentious Tuesday briefing. The problem for Democrats is that, rather than put down a firm Democratic marker from which the party can negotiate, Conrad has adopted a plan that resembles the work he’s done with legislators across the aisle. In bringing it forward himself, Conrad sets the starting point for the Democratic position in a more conservative spot than President Barack Obama’s budget — and that was already a compromise. Obama’s plan includes a spending freeze for federal workers, among many other concessions to the GOP. “He’s setting this out like it’s the official Democratic position,” a Democratic staffer said. “I don’t know if this can pass his own committee without major changes.” Democrats think Conrad decided release his budget before the Gang of Six because the talks were collapsing. He is hoping to salvage the work of the bipartisan group by attracting a few Republicans to the more conservative plan… read on Since Conrad was given such a lofty position as being part of the infamous Gang of Six, I wonder why the outrage from Democratic Senators? Did they think he would do anything less egregious?
Continue reading …Senator Kent Conrad is a member of the hideous Gang of Six that Dick Durbin is so willingly fronting, and it appears that his new budget is so bad that a mutiny is a brewing. You know how I dislike ConservaDems being in a position to cut their way out of a deficit. It’s impossible, it’s destructive to the American worker, and it’s failing around the world. Yet for Conrad, austerity rules. Ryan Grimm: Senate Democrats are furious at their lead budget negotiator for crafting a blueprint that they think moves the party too far to the right, a senior Democratic aide said. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has been bargaining for months in secret with Republicans in the so-called Gang of Six to craft a budget that might win bipartisan acceptance. On Tuesday, Conrad abruptly dropped the veil and rolled out his own offering for party colleagues — to brutal reviews. “He’s going to be a man without a country,” the Democratic aide said, describing a contentious Tuesday briefing. The problem for Democrats is that, rather than put down a firm Democratic marker from which the party can negotiate, Conrad has adopted a plan that resembles the work he’s done with legislators across the aisle. In bringing it forward himself, Conrad sets the starting point for the Democratic position in a more conservative spot than President Barack Obama’s budget — and that was already a compromise. Obama’s plan includes a spending freeze for federal workers, among many other concessions to the GOP. “He’s setting this out like it’s the official Democratic position,” a Democratic staffer said. “I don’t know if this can pass his own committee without major changes.” Democrats think Conrad decided release his budget before the Gang of Six because the talks were collapsing. He is hoping to salvage the work of the bipartisan group by attracting a few Republicans to the more conservative plan… read on Since Conrad was given such a lofty position as being part of the infamous Gang of Six, I wonder why the outrage from Democratic Senators? Did they think he would do anything less egregious?
Continue reading …Senator Kent Conrad is a member of the hideous Gang of Six that Dick Durbin is so willingly fronting, and it appears that his new budget is so bad that a mutiny is a brewing. You know how I dislike ConservaDems being in a position to cut their way out of a deficit. It’s impossible, it’s destructive to the American worker, and it’s failing around the world. Yet for Conrad, austerity rules. Ryan Grimm: Senate Democrats are furious at their lead budget negotiator for crafting a blueprint that they think moves the party too far to the right, a senior Democratic aide said. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has been bargaining for months in secret with Republicans in the so-called Gang of Six to craft a budget that might win bipartisan acceptance. On Tuesday, Conrad abruptly dropped the veil and rolled out his own offering for party colleagues — to brutal reviews. “He’s going to be a man without a country,” the Democratic aide said, describing a contentious Tuesday briefing. The problem for Democrats is that, rather than put down a firm Democratic marker from which the party can negotiate, Conrad has adopted a plan that resembles the work he’s done with legislators across the aisle. In bringing it forward himself, Conrad sets the starting point for the Democratic position in a more conservative spot than President Barack Obama’s budget — and that was already a compromise. Obama’s plan includes a spending freeze for federal workers, among many other concessions to the GOP. “He’s setting this out like it’s the official Democratic position,” a Democratic staffer said. “I don’t know if this can pass his own committee without major changes.” Democrats think Conrad decided release his budget before the Gang of Six because the talks were collapsing. He is hoping to salvage the work of the bipartisan group by attracting a few Republicans to the more conservative plan… read on Since Conrad was given such a lofty position as being part of the infamous Gang of Six, I wonder why the outrage from Democratic Senators? Did they think he would do anything less egregious?
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Donald Rumsfeld headed to Hannity’s show to clarify his opinion on waterboarding, information extraction, and the Bin Laden timeline. In the process, he manages to use careful language and sleight of hand to distort what he really said the day before, while confirming that indeed, waterboarding KSM did not yield any usable information that led to Bin Laden. I’m guessing Bill O’Reilly and Donald Rumsfeld just don’t get along, because Rumsfeld was glad to subject himself to a little softball on Hannity’s show not even an hour after O’Reilly tried to take a bite out of Alan Colmes . Let’s review the actual timeline, courtesy of Marcy Wheeler : Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, months after he was waterboarded and via “standard” interrogation , admits he knows someone named Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, but denies he has anything to do with al Qaeda. Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004, reveals that Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti was an al Qaeda courier Under CIA interrogation, Abu Faraj al-Libi admits he learned he was replacing KSM through a courier, but denied knowing al-Kuwaiti so strenuously CIA figured he must be important Via still unclear means, CIA learns Abu Ahmed’s real name US picks up Abu Ahmed talking to someone else it was monitoring, speaking from a location away from the compound US tracks Abu Ahmed back to compound Marcy follows up later with this post , proving the “enhanced interrogation techniques” did not yield Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s name. Instead, KSM lied to interrogators while he was being tortured. There’s your timeline. Now listen to Donald Rumsfeld try to distort it. I’ll add the transcript below with some occasional interruptions for commentary. HANNITY: Let me ask you this. I think it’s pretty clear now that discovering who this courier was through strong interrogation techniques that were employed during the Bush Administration without which this day would never have occurred. So can we — uh – It seems to me we need to reignite this debate about enhanced interrogation techniques in this country. Is that a good idea? Editorial insert: No, it’s a helluva bad idea, and really we just don’t torture. That is all. We do. not. torture. Back to regularly scheduled programming. RUMSFELD: I think it certainly is a reasonable idea. Is it correct that CIA director Panetta today — HANNITY: Yes. RUMSFELD: — indicated that one of the individuals who provided important information had in fact been waterboarded? Is that correct? HANNITY: Yes. RUMSFELD: Well, that’s my understanding. And I think that anyone who suggests that the enhanced techniques — let’s be blunt – waterboarding — did not produce an enormous amount of valuable intelligence just isn’t facing the truth. It’s time to refer back to the timeline above and reiterate point number one: KSM name-dropped under standard interrogation techniques months after he had been waterboarded. There was no cause/effect there. Back to Rumsfeld. The facts are, General Mike Hayden came in, he had no connection with waterboarding anybody, he looked at all the evidence and concluded that a major fraction of the intelligence in our country on Al Qaeda came from individuals — the three, only three people — who were waterboarded. Muddy water alert! Referring to the OLC torture memo (PDF) with regard to the three individuals (all considered “high-value), we find this: Consistent with its heightened standard for use of the waterboard, the CIA has used this technique in the interrogations of only three detainees to date (KSM, Zubaydah, and ‘Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri) and has not used it since the March 2003 interrogation of KSM. What Rumsfeld is doing here is conflating past waterboarding with the actual standard interrogation techniques which first yielded a name, which wasn’t even the courier’s real name , in 2004. But he goes even further with it. HANNITY: Well, there were only three people. And that led to the information of the nickname of the courier. And this by the way — we’ve had this for years and this was being pursued during the Bush years. The courier’s name was found, he was eventually identified, and through eavesdropping we were able to locate him and then locate Bin Laden. But that brings up the issue of black sites, enhanced interrogation, rendition, all the things we’ve discussed. We would not have had the success! And these are the very policies…I praised the president yesterday. I think it was a gutsy move, that he decided to go in and get him so we could have identification. But if he had had his way and Democrats had their way, we wouldn’t have had this intelligence, sir. Dang, we may be past mud and right on into sludge and muck mixed with some strong manure. Because Hannity, without coming right out and saying it, says the waterboarding was the direct reason for the information which was, of course, not true and doesn’t fit in the timeline even a little bit. RUMSFELD: You’re exactly right. I also agree that he made the right decision. Rather than using cruise missiles or drones to attack the facility I think using the SEAL teams and going in there and actually getting him physically, identifying him, knowing that’s what’s happened and being certain about it was exactly the right call. I’m told there was some confusion today on some programs, even one on Fox I think, suggesting that I indicated that no one who was waterboarded at Guantanamo provided any information on this. That’s just not true. BREAK for manure stirring: That is clearly NOT what was said. See how carefully Rumsfeld misstates what was said by Colmes on O’Reilly? Colmes: Actually, it was false information they got through waterboarding . It was actually when they ran the names by this guy that he never heard of them. In order to confuse the entire issue, Rumsfeld, with Hannity’s blessing, invents a scenario that is entirely different than what anyone has said happened. So yes, it’s quite easy to deny something that was never said in the first place. RUMSFELD: What I said was, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo by the US military. In fact, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo, period. Three people were waterboarded by the CIA away from Guantanamo and then later brought to Guantanamo and in fact, as you point out, the information that came from those individuals was critically important. Guantanamo is irrelevant. That’s a smokescreen, which Rumsfeld then uses to confuse and muck the issue even more by again conflating the information elicited under standard interrogation techniques with the CIA waterboarding. But if you read carefully, what you see is Rumsfeld agreeing that waterboarding techniques did not elicit the information. Standard techniques did. You may have noticed on the chyron at the bottom that Karl Rove was to follow the Rumsfeld interview. After wading through this excrement-laden flow of nonsense, there is no way I will be inflicting that segment on any of you, or transcribing it. Rumsfeld has left a stench where clarity used to be.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Donald Rumsfeld headed to Hannity’s show to clarify his opinion on waterboarding, information extraction, and the Bin Laden timeline. In the process, he manages to use careful language and sleight of hand to distort what he really said the day before, while confirming that indeed, waterboarding KSM did not yield any usable information that led to Bin Laden. I’m guessing Bill O’Reilly and Donald Rumsfeld just don’t get along, because Rumsfeld was glad to subject himself to a little softball on Hannity’s show not even an hour after O’Reilly tried to take a bite out of Alan Colmes . Let’s review the actual timeline, courtesy of Marcy Wheeler : Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, months after he was waterboarded and via “standard” interrogation , admits he knows someone named Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, but denies he has anything to do with al Qaeda. Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004, reveals that Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti was an al Qaeda courier Under CIA interrogation, Abu Faraj al-Libi admits he learned he was replacing KSM through a courier, but denied knowing al-Kuwaiti so strenuously CIA figured he must be important Via still unclear means, CIA learns Abu Ahmed’s real name US picks up Abu Ahmed talking to someone else it was monitoring, speaking from a location away from the compound US tracks Abu Ahmed back to compound Marcy follows up later with this post , proving the “enhanced interrogation techniques” did not yield Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s name. Instead, KSM lied to interrogators while he was being tortured. There’s your timeline. Now listen to Donald Rumsfeld try to distort it. I’ll add the transcript below with some occasional interruptions for commentary. HANNITY: Let me ask you this. I think it’s pretty clear now that discovering who this courier was through strong interrogation techniques that were employed during the Bush Administration without which this day would never have occurred. So can we — uh – It seems to me we need to reignite this debate about enhanced interrogation techniques in this country. Is that a good idea? Editorial insert: No, it’s a helluva bad idea, and really we just don’t torture. That is all. We do. not. torture. Back to regularly scheduled programming. RUMSFELD: I think it certainly is a reasonable idea. Is it correct that CIA director Panetta today — HANNITY: Yes. RUMSFELD: — indicated that one of the individuals who provided important information had in fact been waterboarded? Is that correct? HANNITY: Yes. RUMSFELD: Well, that’s my understanding. And I think that anyone who suggests that the enhanced techniques — let’s be blunt – waterboarding — did not produce an enormous amount of valuable intelligence just isn’t facing the truth. It’s time to refer back to the timeline above and reiterate point number one: KSM name-dropped under standard interrogation techniques months after he had been waterboarded. There was no cause/effect there. Back to Rumsfeld. The facts are, General Mike Hayden came in, he had no connection with waterboarding anybody, he looked at all the evidence and concluded that a major fraction of the intelligence in our country on Al Qaeda came from individuals — the three, only three people — who were waterboarded. Muddy water alert! Referring to the OLC torture memo (PDF) with regard to the three individuals (all considered “high-value), we find this: Consistent with its heightened standard for use of the waterboard, the CIA has used this technique in the interrogations of only three detainees to date (KSM, Zubaydah, and ‘Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri) and has not used it since the March 2003 interrogation of KSM. What Rumsfeld is doing here is conflating past waterboarding with the actual standard interrogation techniques which first yielded a name, which wasn’t even the courier’s real name , in 2004. But he goes even further with it. HANNITY: Well, there were only three people. And that led to the information of the nickname of the courier. And this by the way — we’ve had this for years and this was being pursued during the Bush years. The courier’s name was found, he was eventually identified, and through eavesdropping we were able to locate him and then locate Bin Laden. But that brings up the issue of black sites, enhanced interrogation, rendition, all the things we’ve discussed. We would not have had the success! And these are the very policies…I praised the president yesterday. I think it was a gutsy move, that he decided to go in and get him so we could have identification. But if he had had his way and Democrats had their way, we wouldn’t have had this intelligence, sir. Dang, we may be past mud and right on into sludge and muck mixed with some strong manure. Because Hannity, without coming right out and saying it, says the waterboarding was the direct reason for the information which was, of course, not true and doesn’t fit in the timeline even a little bit. RUMSFELD: You’re exactly right. I also agree that he made the right decision. Rather than using cruise missiles or drones to attack the facility I think using the SEAL teams and going in there and actually getting him physically, identifying him, knowing that’s what’s happened and being certain about it was exactly the right call. I’m told there was some confusion today on some programs, even one on Fox I think, suggesting that I indicated that no one who was waterboarded at Guantanamo provided any information on this. That’s just not true. BREAK for manure stirring: That is clearly NOT what was said. See how carefully Rumsfeld misstates what was said by Colmes on O’Reilly? Colmes: Actually, it was false information they got through waterboarding . It was actually when they ran the names by this guy that he never heard of them. In order to confuse the entire issue, Rumsfeld, with Hannity’s blessing, invents a scenario that is entirely different than what anyone has said happened. So yes, it’s quite easy to deny something that was never said in the first place. RUMSFELD: What I said was, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo by the US military. In fact, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo, period. Three people were waterboarded by the CIA away from Guantanamo and then later brought to Guantanamo and in fact, as you point out, the information that came from those individuals was critically important. Guantanamo is irrelevant. That’s a smokescreen, which Rumsfeld then uses to confuse and muck the issue even more by again conflating the information elicited under standard interrogation techniques with the CIA waterboarding. But if you read carefully, what you see is Rumsfeld agreeing that waterboarding techniques did not elicit the information. Standard techniques did. You may have noticed on the chyron at the bottom that Karl Rove was to follow the Rumsfeld interview. After wading through this excrement-laden flow of nonsense, there is no way I will be inflicting that segment on any of you, or transcribing it. Rumsfeld has left a stench where clarity used to be.
Continue reading …