Stephen Harper’s Conservatives won a majority, but the historic losses of the Liberals and Bloc Québécois are more startling For all its faults (and I’m in favour of electoral reform, for what it’s worth), at least you think you know where you stand with the first past the post system. You get majority governments, with the executive dominating the legislature, and stable (or stagnant) two-party systems, concentrating power overwhelmingly in the hands of the few. But just as the UK prepares for a referendum on our electoral system this week, Canada’s elections Monday – in which Stephen Harper’s Conservatives gained a majority , and the official opposition party changed from the Liberals to the New Democratic party – shows perhaps more than ever the surprises this system can still throw up when traditional voting patterns shift. Stephen Harper’s Conservative rule up until this point was already something of an anomaly, with his previous terms in office under a minority government. In retrospect, it’s astonishing that Harper dominated the political landscape through much of the 2000s despite the fact that the Conservative party hadn’t won a majority since 1988. In March, when the government was found to be in contempt of parliament – another precedent in the Commonwealth parliamentary system – Harper’s government fell, forcing the 2 May elections . The results of the election now give him four years of full-blown Conservative rule, a fact that hasn’t been welcomed by those who see him as Canada’s George Bush: Naomi Klein tweeted that a “hair-raising shock doctrine is coming our way”, as Harper now has the mandate to pursue his cuts to welfare provision and what many see as his support of environmental destruction (bear in mind that one of Harper’s milder actions on the environment was to dismiss the Kyoto protocol a “socialist scheme” . But as Harper assumes office as the leader of a majority government, the composition of the parliament looks almost unrecognisable. Not only have the Liberals lost their position as the main party of opposition, but the party leader, the once seemingly indomitable Michael Ignatieff lost his own seat in what’s being described as an ‘historical collapse’ of the Liberals, previously one of Canada’s two main parties. In a strange parallel to this collapse of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe is resigning after losing his own riding , while the Bloc Québécois’ support has imploded to the point where it is hard to image the Québec sovereignty movement resurfacing as a national issue (can you be a “bloc” when you only have four seats in parliament?). This unprecedented shift in voting patterns is largely due to the ascendancy of the New Democratic party. The rise of “Jack Mania” – at least, in Québec – for the NDP’s leader Jack Layton could be seen in some ways as Canada’s 2011 “I agree with Nick” moment: the Conservatives focused most of their campaigning energies on attacking the Liberals and Ignatieff , with the NDP poised to position themselves as the new viable alternative to the Conservatives, as well as sweeping up protest votes to the Bloc Quebecois . One of the key points of the Conservative campaign to finally secure a majority was built on the premise that another Conservative minority government – which looked possible in the early stages of the campaign – would create a cumbersome coalition of opposition parties . This doesn’t sound much like the rhetoric used in first past the post system election campaigns: citing the spectre of unwieldy coalitions to implore the voters to – this time round, please – elect a majority government. Perhaps the most optimistic parallel between last year’s UK election and the sudden reshaping of Canada’s political landscape this week is the rise of Elizabeth May, who has just become the first Green MP to be elected to Canadian parliament – and who, like Caroline Lucas, was not invited to the televised campaign debate . May’s voice will be sorely needed in opposition to Harper’s conservative vision, and her victory, like Caroline Lucas’s, was a triumph over the first past the post system under which parties like the Green party lose out. Although the UK’s 2010 election and Canada’s 2011 election produced vastly different outcomes – one a period of coalition government, the other ending a of minority government rule – the two elections show that first past the post doesn’t ensure a stable two-party system; actual votes still bend the structure in dynamic ways. On his day of legitimate victory under Canada’s electoral system, perhaps Harper would prefer it if we didn’t notice that one of the interesting parallels is that, for most of his rule so far, Harper’s Conservative party, like David Cameron’s Conservative party now, didn’t have a majority. In any case, now Harper finally has his majority, the image of Canada as America’s liberal, progressive neighbour might – like Ignatieff and the Bloc Québécois – also suddenly drop off the political radar. Canada Stephen Harper Michael Ignatieff United States Liberal-Conservative coalition David Cameron Nick Clegg Electoral reform First past the post AV referendum Heather McRobie guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
William and Kate title in shops within 72 hours of marriage Publisher Michael O’Mara is hoping to make it into the record books after hustling Diana biographer Andrew Morton’s book on William and Kate into shops just 72 hours after the couple were married. The biography, William and Catherine: Their Lives, Their Wedding, runs to more than 200 pages. Morton picked the photograph for the jacket 100 minutes after the couple kissed, completing the text for the book’s final chapter on the day of the wedding. It was then sent for overnight printing in Italy, with the first copies in the 100,000 print run delivered to Waterstone’s Charing Cross at 3pm on Monday, 72 hours after the last photo in the book was taken. Michael O’Mara has now submitted its application for a record to Guinness World Records. “We did it in just under 72 hours – I think that was as fast as it could possibly have been done,” said Michael O’Mara. “The first three quarters takes us from birth to the day before the wedding and the last section covers the day – obviously that was the one we had to scramble to get together. It’s probably only 2,500 words, not including the captions, and about 40 pictures, to cover the day … everyone in the world’s already seen it, you’re just trying to add colour.” O’Mara anticipates that he will be trying to break his own record: “In 1986 we got into the Guinness Book of Records for a book on Andrew and Fergie’s wedding. We did it in about 76 hours and that was a record for the fastest big colour book ever published … As far as I know no one has ever bettered this until now.” Publishing Booksellers Royal wedding Monarchy Alison Flood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Anger follows alleged gang rape and murder of lesbian campaigner Human rights campaigners have warned of an “epidemic” of brutal homophobic attacks in South Africa after the murder and alleged gang rape of a lesbian activist. Noxolo Nogwaza was killed last month after what appeared to be a so-called “corrective rape” , an increasingly common crime in which men rape lesbians to “turn” them straight or “cure” them of their sexual orientation. The 24-year-old’s face and head were disfigured by stoning, she was stabbed several times with broken glass and evidence suggested she was raped. A beer bottle, a big rock and used condoms were found on and near her body. Human Rights Watch noted that no arrests have been made and claimed homophobic violence is continuing unchecked in South Africa’s townships. Dipika Nath, a researcher in the group’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights programme, said: “Nogwaza’s death is the latest in a long series of sadistic crimes against lesbians, gay men and transgender people in South Africa. The vicious nature of the assault is a potent reminder that these attacks are premeditated, planned and often committed with impunity.” Nogwaza was an active member of the Ekurhuleni Pride Organising Committee, which has organised pride marches for Kwa-Thema and nearby townships in Gauteng province since 2009. Members have faced harassment and attacks because of their visibility. More than 2,000 people attended Nogwaza’s funeral last weekend. A group sang that they would use razor blades to cut off the genitals of the suspects if the police did not arrest them, the New Age newspaper reported. Some carried posters that read: “Love me or hate me I will continue to be a lesbian,” and “Raping me won’t change me.” Nogwaza’s death came three years after that of another activist, international footballer Eudy Simelane , also in Kwa-Thema. Both were “out” as lesbians in the community, both were apparently tortured and sexually assaulted before being killed, and the bodies of both were dumped in public places. Campaigners say that 31 lesbians have been murdered because of their sexuality in the past decade and more than 10 lesbians a week are raped or gang raped in Cape Town alone. Nath added: “Like sexual assaults of women in general, rapes and other violence against lesbians and gender non-conforming people have reached epidemic proportions in South Africa. If the South African government is committed to protecting the rights of all people equally, leaders must address the specific motives targeting the LGBT community in these crimes.” In March the government agreed to set up a national working group to address “corrective rape” to meet the demands of an online petition with 170,000 signatures from 163 countries – a record number for a campaign on the social change website Change.org. The petition to the justice ministry stated: “The South African government and the justice system is failing these victims of corrective rape by letting the perpetrators out on ridiculously low bail, and taking literally years to bring the court cases to a conclusion. In the meantime the victims have to live with seeing their rapists every day, being taunted and threatened by them, as are those who help the victims.” South Africa Gay rights David Smith guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The only thing more predictable than Americans’ jubilation over the killing of Osama Bin Laden is the Republican campaign to give George W. Bush credit for it. Sadly for the right-wing propaganda machine , as Stephen Colbert warned President Bush five years ago, “reality has a well-known liberal bias.” Bush, after all, shrugged off Bin Laden’s escape after the U.S. failure at Tora Bora by proclaiming, “I truly am not that concerned about him.” And it was President Obama who as promised tripled American resources in Afghanistan and authorized unilateral strikes without the permission of Pakistan. But you’d never know it from the conservative voices celebrating the death of Bin Laden eight years to the day after President Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. While GOP leaders like Eric Cantor couldn’t bring themselves to credit Barack Obama by name, John Yoo, Karl Rove, Rep. Steve King and other cheerleaders for the Bush torture team dubiously claimed so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding provided the vital information leading to Bin Laden’s killing. But it was former Bush Defense Secretary and serial fabulist (see, for example, here and here ) Donald Rumsfeld who regurgitated the GOP talking point in its purest form: “All of this was made possible by the relentless, sustained pressure on al Qaeda that the Bush administration initiated after 9/11 and that the Obama administration has wisely chosen to continue.” Of course, Rumsfeld’s revisionist history is untrue. More pathetic still, he knows it is untrue. For starters, it was Donald Rumsfeld himself who cancelled the 2005 U.S. special forces operation designed to “snatch and grab” Ayman Al Zawahiri and other senior Al Qaeda leaders. The story, following July 2006 revelations that the CIA had previously disbanded its Bin Laden unit , gives lie to one of the central tenets of the so-called Bush Doctrine: no safe havens for terrorists. As the New York Times reported in July 2007, Rumsfeld ran roughshod over then CIA Director Porter Goss, scuttling the mission at the last moment even as the U.S. forces were boarding planes for the assault: But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning. Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said. In contrast, candidate Barack Obama was crystal clear that he would unilaterally strike Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan with or without permission from Islamabad. In August 2007 , as you’ll recall, Senator Obama received a hellstorm of criticism for his statements regarding attacking Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan. As part of a broad – and forceful – foreign policy speech on August 1, Obama rightly took the Bush administration to task for the failure of its ” no safe havens ” doctrine in Pakistan. Regarding the Al Qaeda sanctuary safely nestled along the Afghan border, Obama declared: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” And while Republican presidential candidate John McCain in February 2008 blasted Obama’s advocacy of unilateral American attacks against Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, by the beginning of that year the Bush administration itself was already carrying them out . From almost the inception of his campaign, Obama argued that the diversion of U.S. military assets from Afghanistan to Iraq meant that “the people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice.” In a June speech, Obama highlighted McCain’s denial of this inescapable point: “We had al Qaeda and the Taliban on the run back in 2002. But then we diverted military, intelligence, financial, and diplomatic resources to Iraq. And yet Senator McCain has said as recently as this April that, ‘Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.’ I think that just shows a dangerous misjudgment of the facts, and a stubborn determination to ignore the need to finish the fight in Afghanistan.” During a major national security address on July 15, 2008 , candidate Obama restated his case: “The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won’t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.” Throughout the summer and fall of 2008, the Pentagon and U.S. commanders in the field made clear they agreed with both Barack Obama’s assessment of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and his call for deploying additional resources there. That July, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and American commander there (and incoming CENTCOM chief) General David Petraeus acknowledged Al Qaeda was shifting its focus back to Afghanistan and Pakistan. By August, the Pentagon was backing Obama’s call to send at least two more brigades to the region, reinforcements which as he rightly noted could only come from one place. General David McKiernan , Stanley McChrystal’s predecessor on the ground in Afghanistan, agreed with Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen that the situation along the Pakistan frontier is “precarious and urgent.” As McKiernan himself made clear, the only “way” was to get the troops from Iraq: Finding those particular troops to supplement the 101st, however, depends on conditions and troop levels in Iraq, adds McKiernan, who took over the NATO command in June. “That’s really a zero-sum decision.” In early July 2008, Admiral Mullen admitted as much . On the very day that 2,200 U.S Marines learned their tours in Afghanistan will be extended by 30 days, Mullen told reporters that the United States could only deploy more forces there by first drawing down from Iraq: “I don’t have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq. Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there.” In 2009, now President Obama took the steps to remedy the under-funded, under-resourced and floundering American effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unlike John McCain, who on July 17, 2003 declared the U.S. “can muddle through” in Afghanistan while focusing on Iraq, Obama tripled the U.S. force on the ground. As the President explained in his December 1, 2009 speech at West Point : “When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.” That same month, General Stanley McChrysta l echoed Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ admission there hadn’t been good intelligence on the Al Qaeda leader’s whereabouts in “years.” Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee one week after a scathing report documenting the U.S. failure to capture Bin Laden when he was “within our grasp” at Tora Bora in December 2001, General McChrystal emphasized the costs of that defeat: “I believe he is an iconic figure at this point whose survival emboldens al Qaida as a franchise organization across the world. I don’t think we can defeat him until he is captured or killed.” That language is a far cry from President Bush’s pooh-poohing of the Bin Laden threat in the aftermath of the Tora Bora fiasco. That nonchalance was on display during Bush’s March 13, 2002 press conference: Q: But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive? PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. Of course, when the threat to President Bush’s political prospects rose, so did the specter of Bin Laden. As he faced a tough reelection fight against John Kerry, the same Bush who promised after 9/11 to get Bin Laden ” dead or alive ” pretended on October 13, 2004 he never claimed he was “not that concerned about him”. “Gosh, I just don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. It’s kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course we’re worried about Osama bin Laden.” It would have been helpful if President Bush had been worried about Osama Bin Laden when it could have made a difference. Bush, after all, responded to the infamous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (the one Condoleezza Rice later told the 9/11 Commission, “I believe the title was, ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.’”) by telling his CIA briefer: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.” According to one Israeli source years later, it was precisely Bin Laden’s ass Bush was focused on. In a review of a 2007 biography of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli paper Ha’aretz included this purported exchange between President Bush and the now-comatose Sharon: Speaking of George Bush, with whom Sharon developed a very close relationship, Uri Dan recalls that Sharon’s delicacy made him reluctant to repeat what the president had told him when they discussed Osama bin Laden. Finally he relented. And here is what the leader of the Western world, valiant warrior in the battle of cultures, promised to do to bin Laden if he caught him: “I will screw him in the ass!” Whether that story was apocryphal or not, George W. Bush did not screw Osama Bin Laden in the ass. And, sadly for the Republican propaganda machine, he wasn’t responsible for killing him, either. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …
Three-year freeze for Swiss bank assets of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, Egypt’s Hosni Murbarak and Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali The Swiss government says it has identified potential assets to be frozen worth 830m Swiss francs (nearly $1bn or £600m) belonging to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and the ousted presidents of Egypt and Tunisia. Swiss president and foreign minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, speaking in the Tunisian capital, Tunis, said the assets include 360m Swiss francs that may belong to Gaddafi or his entourage. She said Switzerland had also linked 410m Swiss francs to the former Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and 60m Swiss francs to Tunisia’s deposed autocrat, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Switzerland has ordered banks and other financial institutions to freeze possible assets belonging to the three men and their key supporters to prevent the funds from being secretly withdrawn. The Swiss government has said Tunisia and Egypt have already started legal proceedings to claim the assets. The government added that neither country has yet provided the necessary evidence of possible criminal wrongdoing involving the money. Switzerland froze assets linked to Ben Ali and 40 people in his entourage on 19 January, less than a week after he was toppled by popular revolt. On 11 February, Switzerland froze assets of Mubarak and his associates. The Swiss government sent diplomatic cables to Tunisia and Egypt in late March explaining they must submit evidence so authorities can decide if the offences are punishable in Switzerland. In both cases, the money will remain locked away for three years while the two countries satisfy Swiss legal requirements. The Swiss also have asked a court to authorise the seizure of millions of dollars frozen in accounts belonging to former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier. The Swiss finance department said it has initiated proceedings before the federal administrative court, a quarter-century after the funds were first frozen in Switzerland. That was shortly after Duvalier’s removal from power in 1986. Earlier this year, Switzerland also froze funds tied to Laurent Gbabgo, the former president of Ivory Coast who refused to cede power and finally was captured. Switzerland is trying hard to shed its reputation as a favoured location for dictators’ money because of its banking secrecy rules, and has established an investigative unit to help track down hidden funds. The three-year freeze on assets is the norm, which Calmy-Rey and the other six members of Switzerland’s governing federal council have said is meant to give nations time to draft possible criminal cases against former leaders. Calmy-Rey says Switzerland is willing to help make those cases because it wants to avoid being used to hide funds illegally. A new law affecting the seizure of assets went into effect on 1 February that makes it easier for the Swiss government to freeze and seize the money. Switzerland Muammar Gaddafi Hosni Mubarak Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali Human rights Arab and Middle East unrest Europe Banking Egypt Middle East Tunisia Libya guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Three-year freeze for Swiss bank assets of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, Egypt’s Hosni Murbarak and Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali The Swiss government says it has identified potential assets to be frozen worth 830m Swiss francs (nearly $1bn or £600m) belonging to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and the ousted presidents of Egypt and Tunisia. Swiss president and foreign minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, speaking in the Tunisian capital, Tunis, said the assets include 360m Swiss francs that may belong to Gaddafi or his entourage. She said Switzerland had also linked 410m Swiss francs to the former Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and 60m Swiss francs to Tunisia’s deposed autocrat, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Switzerland has ordered banks and other financial institutions to freeze possible assets belonging to the three men and their key supporters to prevent the funds from being secretly withdrawn. The Swiss government has said Tunisia and Egypt have already started legal proceedings to claim the assets. The government added that neither country has yet provided the necessary evidence of possible criminal wrongdoing involving the money. Switzerland froze assets linked to Ben Ali and 40 people in his entourage on 19 January, less than a week after he was toppled by popular revolt. On 11 February, Switzerland froze assets of Mubarak and his associates. The Swiss government sent diplomatic cables to Tunisia and Egypt in late March explaining they must submit evidence so authorities can decide if the offences are punishable in Switzerland. In both cases, the money will remain locked away for three years while the two countries satisfy Swiss legal requirements. The Swiss also have asked a court to authorise the seizure of millions of dollars frozen in accounts belonging to former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier. The Swiss finance department said it has initiated proceedings before the federal administrative court, a quarter-century after the funds were first frozen in Switzerland. That was shortly after Duvalier’s removal from power in 1986. Earlier this year, Switzerland also froze funds tied to Laurent Gbabgo, the former president of Ivory Coast who refused to cede power and finally was captured. Switzerland is trying hard to shed its reputation as a favoured location for dictators’ money because of its banking secrecy rules, and has established an investigative unit to help track down hidden funds. The three-year freeze on assets is the norm, which Calmy-Rey and the other six members of Switzerland’s governing federal council have said is meant to give nations time to draft possible criminal cases against former leaders. Calmy-Rey says Switzerland is willing to help make those cases because it wants to avoid being used to hide funds illegally. A new law affecting the seizure of assets went into effect on 1 February that makes it easier for the Swiss government to freeze and seize the money. Switzerland Muammar Gaddafi Hosni Mubarak Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali Human rights Arab and Middle East unrest Europe Banking Egypt Middle East Tunisia Libya guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Four addresses searched of five men alleged to have been filming near nuclear site in Cumbria Counter-terrorism officers have begun questioning five men from east London alleged to have been filming near the Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria. Meanwhile, police in London staged the first of a series of raids on addresses linked to those detained. The Metropolitan police said four houses in east London had been searched. The five were arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which says a “constable may arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist”. The investigation is at an early stage. Some past arrests by UK counter-terrorism officials have led to people being released without charge. The arrests have attracted considerable interest because they came hours after the announcement of the death of Osama bin Laden. The police say they are not “at this stage” connecting the arrests to the killing of the al-Qaida leader by US special forces, however. The men were detained at 4.32pm on Monday after a vehicle was stopped and checked by officers from the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC), which polices the facility in west Cumbria. The five, all in their 20s and from London, were held in police custody overnight in Carlisle before being taken to Manchester in the morning, a spokesman for Cumbria police said. This morning, the investigation was taken over by the north-west counter-terrorism unit. One of the officers involved in the arrests believed the men were thought to have been filming near the nuclear plant. The police have not confirmed the ethnicity of the arrested men, though they are believed to be from a Muslim background . Greater Manchester police said the investigation was in its early stages and no further information would be released immediately. They were unaware of any connection to the death of Osama bin Laden in the US operation in Pakistan. Cumbria police said a road closure affected the area for “a short period of time”. A spokeswoman for Sellafield confirmed that the five men had been arrested close to the site, saying: “It is a security issue and our security people are having discussions.” She said the plant had not been evacuated but the investigation had the potential to affect traffic. The sprawling coastal site is heavily protected by both private security guards and officers from the CNC, some of whom are armed. Sellafield is responsible for decommissioning and reprocessing nuclear waste and manufacturing fuel, on behalf of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The site has been operating since the 1940s, when it was used as a Royal Ordnance factory supporting the second world war effort. The site is also home to the world’s first commercial nuclear power station, Calder Hall, which operated from 1956 to 2003. Today the site comprises redundant buildings associated with early defence work, and operating facilities associated with the Magnox reprocessing programme, the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp), the Sellafield Mox plant and a range of waste treatment plants. UK security and terrorism Nuclear power Energy Vikram Dodd Helen Carter guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Four addresses searched of five men alleged to have been filming near nuclear site in Cumbria Counter-terrorism officers have begun questioning five men from east London alleged to have been filming near the Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria. Meanwhile, police in London staged the first of a series of raids on addresses linked to those detained. The Metropolitan police said four houses in east London had been searched. The five were arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which says a “constable may arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist”. The investigation is at an early stage. Some past arrests by UK counter-terrorism officials have led to people being released without charge. The arrests have attracted considerable interest because they came hours after the announcement of the death of Osama bin Laden. The police say they are not “at this stage” connecting the arrests to the killing of the al-Qaida leader by US special forces, however. The men were detained at 4.32pm on Monday after a vehicle was stopped and checked by officers from the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC), which polices the facility in west Cumbria. The five, all in their 20s and from London, were held in police custody overnight in Carlisle before being taken to Manchester in the morning, a spokesman for Cumbria police said. This morning, the investigation was taken over by the north-west counter-terrorism unit. One of the officers involved in the arrests believed the men were thought to have been filming near the nuclear plant. The police have not confirmed the ethnicity of the arrested men, though they are believed to be from a Muslim background . Greater Manchester police said the investigation was in its early stages and no further information would be released immediately. They were unaware of any connection to the death of Osama bin Laden in the US operation in Pakistan. Cumbria police said a road closure affected the area for “a short period of time”. A spokeswoman for Sellafield confirmed that the five men had been arrested close to the site, saying: “It is a security issue and our security people are having discussions.” She said the plant had not been evacuated but the investigation had the potential to affect traffic. The sprawling coastal site is heavily protected by both private security guards and officers from the CNC, some of whom are armed. Sellafield is responsible for decommissioning and reprocessing nuclear waste and manufacturing fuel, on behalf of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The site has been operating since the 1940s, when it was used as a Royal Ordnance factory supporting the second world war effort. The site is also home to the world’s first commercial nuclear power station, Calder Hall, which operated from 1956 to 2003. Today the site comprises redundant buildings associated with early defence work, and operating facilities associated with the Magnox reprocessing programme, the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp), the Sellafield Mox plant and a range of waste treatment plants. UK security and terrorism Nuclear power Energy Vikram Dodd Helen Carter guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Color me not shocked. Not only is the right desperately trying to give Bush credit for locating and killing Osama bin Laden, now the torture apologists are coming out of the woodwork as well. Expect to see more of this over the coming weeks. Resident wingnut and GOP New York Rep. Peter King went on O’Reilly’s show and claimed that torturing prisoners by waterboarding them led to locating Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Marcy Wheeler has a post up debunking King’s claims and I’ll just ask that our readers go check out her entire post here — The Osama bin Laden Trail Shows Waterboarding Didn’t Work .
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Color me not shocked. Not only is the right desperately trying to give Bush credit for locating and killing Osama bin Laden, now the torture apologists are coming out of the woodwork as well. Expect to see more of this over the coming weeks. Resident wingnut and GOP New York Rep. Peter King went on O’Reilly’s show and claimed that torturing prisoners by waterboarding them led to locating Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Marcy Wheeler has a post up debunking King’s claims and I’ll just ask that our readers go check out her entire post here — The Osama bin Laden Trail Shows Waterboarding Didn’t Work .
Continue reading …