A deal on raising the US debt limit has been struck – but will it hold up in Congress? Follow the negotiations and votes live 3.43pm: Boehner now speaking, flanked by Eric Cantor and his posse. Talking up the deal, Boehner says: “It gives us the best shot, in the 20 years I’ve been here, to build support for a balanced budget amendment.” Hmm, that’s not exactly shouting from the rooftops. “The House will vote on a measure today that although not perfect will begin to change the culture of Congress,” says Cantor. “I’ve said the bill is not perfect, and it’s not.” The big win, according to Cantor, is that there are no tax hikes in the deal. Now Jeb Hensarling, the number four in the GOP House leadership, is talking up the balanced budget amendment as well. 3.37pm: Still waiting on John Boehner to appear at his press conference. There are reports that he has told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer that he has the votes to pass the deal. Nate Silver is now forecasting a comfortable margin of victory, 258-173, in the House. 3.30pm: A gropup of protesters have been expelled from the gallery of the House chamber by the Capitol police, with chants about raising taxes. 3.25pm: “This bill is a baby that only a mother could love,” says Peter Welch, a Democratic representative, on cable news. What’s that old JFK quote? “Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat is an orphan.” 3.20pm: House vote on debt ceiling could be nail-biter, according to USA Today : As groups on the political left and right urge “no” votes on the proposal, meetings are being held to get the rank-and-file of both parties behind the deal reached Sunday night between President Obama and congressional leaders. Asked if Boehner has the votes yet, freshman GOP Rep Tom Reed of New York said: “We’ll know over the next two to three hours.” 3.15pm: It’s a nervous time in the House of Representatives right now, says MSNBC’s Chuck Todd : Lots of nervousness about this House vote right now; A tad bit of finger-pointing between two sides about who needs to fill in gaps for 216 On Fox News, commentators are getting nervous about the automatic triggers that cut spending – especially from military spending – if there’s no agreement by the “super committeee” on savings. 3.08pm: Obama for America has distributed this video from the president to its supporters. In it, Obama talks about the “cloud of uncertainty” over the economy as a result of the debt ceiling limit. 3pm: Should we all relax? Uber-blogger Nate Silver now reckons the deal will pass the House by 227-204, with a caveat : Bottom line: if Pelosi whips votes for bill, almost 100% certain to pass. If she leaves Dems to own devices, maybe a 60/40 favorite. Or Pelosi could whip votes against, in which case passage is unlikely. She has a LOT of power. But not clear what her endgame is. Meaning if Nancy Pelosi aggresively lobbys Democrats against the deal, it might fail. 2.50pm: Two of the hardline Tea Party favourites in the House, Republican representatives Jason Chaffetz of Utah and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, tell ABC News they are voting no: Chaffetz told us that he “can’t support it,” while Duncan said his “analysis of the plan is something I can’t support.” Significantly, Chaffetz says he thinks the bill will pass the House. 2.40pm: Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney weighs in and he’s against the deal: While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal. You want a Republican weather-vane, there it is. 2.37pm: Nancy Pelosi, Democratic minority leader in the House, asked if there are enough votes to pass the deal: “You’ll have to ask the Speaker. He has the majority.” Ouch. 2.25pm: Here’s a bad sign: House Speaker John Boehner was going to hold a press conference sometime after 1pm. It got delayed and delayed, and now it’s supposed to happen at 3.30pm. Why the delay? Maybe Boehner realised he was going to miss his sunbed tanning session. More likely, he hasn’t got the votes and needs the time to do some Republican arm-twisting. 2.15pm: The best short analysis of the debt deal cuts themsleves that I’ve seen has come from Josh Barro at the Manhattan Institute: The deal includes a lot of spending cuts, but it’s important to understand how backloaded these cuts are. The headline figure is $2.5 trillion in cuts over ten years, but less than 1 percent of those cuts will come in FY 2012. The near-term fiscal changes are so small that they will matter very little for the economy. The long term changes will be subject to revision by future Congresses and will hopefully come when the economy is healthier—and the parts that do go into effect will probably not be that different from whatever fiscal adjustment we were going to have to enact sooner or later. There are two parts of the spending cuts in this package that really do matter. One is the cuts that will apply in Fiscal Year 2012. There probably won’t be very big; there will be $22 billion in spending cuts compared to the baseline for 2012, or about 0.15 percent of GDP. (That’s out of the $1 trillion in cuts that will be agreed upfront.) A “Super Committee” will be charged with finding a further $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, and we can expect that the cuts it recommends will again be backloaded. (Indeed, if the Super Committee deadlocks, we will go to an automatic “trigger” process which involves no cuts at all until FY 2013). Discretionary spending cuts that come out of the Super Committee process will again be subject to the whims of future Congresses. Any changes to mandatory spending that come out of the Super Committee are more likely to be sticky — that’s the second part of the cuts that matters — but I’ll believe we’re getting meaningful entitlement reform when I see it. Barro concludes: “So, liberals who are upset that this deal is destimulative, or who expect it to tank the economy, are off base.” 1.54pm: Yikes: Nate Silver has just tweeted : My latest extrapolation from @thehill ‘s whip count: R’s approve 153-87, D’s against 59-132, bill FAILS 212-219. Blimey. Excuse me while I call my stockbroker. And if anyone from the accounts department is reading this, I’d like to be paid in Swiss francs from now on. 1.42pm: Nate Silver of the New York Times’s FiveThirtyEight blog is trying to talk Paul Krugman down from the ledge: If Democrats read the fine print on the debt deal struck by President Obama and Congressional leaders, they’ll find that it’s a little better than it appears at first glance. That’s not to say that the deal is a good one for them. It concedes a lot to Republicans, and Democrats may be wondering why any of this was necessary in the first place. But the good news, relatively speaking, has to do with the timing and structure of the spending cuts contained in the deal. First, the timing: the cuts are heavily back-loaded, so the deal is unlikely to have much direct effect on the economy in 2012. That’s what I said last night. 1.31pm: Dean Baker, a Guardian contributor and a director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research , has a strong attack on the debt deal from the left: At a time when growth has slowed to a near halt and unemployment rate is again rising, it is tragic that the nation’s political leadership has spent the last few months crafting a deal that is likely to slow growth further and take away supports from the people who have been hit hardest by the downturn. 1.26pm: Guess which Republicans are opposing the deal? Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard and David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter. According to TP Carney , the Republican uberhawks like Frum and Kristol (neocons, if you will) really don’t like the proposed cuts on military spending: Assuming this debt deal becomes law and its super-committee is formed, defense cuts could create serious divisions on the right. The Tea Party generally rates budget cuts above the need for military spending, so its easy to see why there might be tension between the two camps. 1.20pm: The Hill is running updated whip counts [warning: contains toxic levels of politics geekery] on the vote in the House and Senate: The debt-limit deal announced on Sunday night is expected to attract more than 60 votes in the Senate, but its outlook in the House is much more cloudy. Speaker John Boehner will need Democratic votes to clear the bill through the lower chamber. How many remains unclear. It doesn’t really matter since there will be enough Democratic votes in play to pass the deal, unless the House Republicans have a full-blown civil war. Which would be entertaining but unlikely. 1.10pm: There’s a House rules committee meeting going on now that will decide the timeline for the vote on the deal. There’s a suggestion that the House will vote at 6pm this evening, and that the Senate will have to vote tomorrow, unless Harry Reid can get unanimous consent to hold the vote tonight. All it takes is one senator to say no and we wait another day. (I’m looking at you, Rand Paul.) 1pm: Here’s the current state of US politics: influential liberal bastion MoveOn.org is against the debt deal. Also: influential conservative bastion the Club for Growth is against it. Both are advising “no” votes. In conclusion: Um. 12.44pm: With DeMint saying he won’t try and block the deal in the Senate, satirical radio personality Rush Limbaugh appears to be on the same page. On his radio show today, it’s reported that Limbaugh announced: I don’t know the budget battle has been won. I’m undecided about it. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t have an opinion on something. In other news, September will be composed entirely of Sundays. 12.38pm: Here we go: the godfather of the Tea Party, Republican Senator Jim DeMint, says : “I’m not going to filibuster.” That’s significant. Jim DeMint is a hugely significant figure on the US right/Tea Party faction, far more than the likes of Sarah Palin. If DeMint is not trying to block the deal, then it’ll pass the Senate, and it means that enough of the Republican head-bangers in the House will also vote for it. So, it’s a done deal. 12.32pm: White House press secretary Jay Carney has held a briefing for the media, and was mainly concerned with defending the deal. He says its not true that the White House or Democrats got “nothing” from the deal. Carney says the White House “fully expects” that new tax revenue can be added to the deficit reduction plan drawn up by the “super committee” created as part of the debt limit deal. Let’s wait and see who the Republicans appoint on their side of the committee. Rand Paul? Jim DeMint? 12.24pm: Is there a Democratic revolt in the House? Maybe. Reuters reports that Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi says she’s undecided on voting for debt limit bill, saying she’s concerned about lack of new revenues. Pelosi runs a tight ship: if she’s “undecided” that gives carte blanche to Dems in the House to vote against it. Interesting. 12.12pm: Paul Krugman joins hands (sort of) with his opponents in the Tea Party and says he would vote to blow up the US Treasury . In a blogpost entitled “If I were in the House”, Krugman writes: “Sure, it’s risky. But the whole situation is immensely risky, thanks to the extremism and bloody-mindedness of the right.” Here’s the guts of his post – read the rest of it here : I guess I have to be explicit at this point: yes, I would vote no. What about the catastrophe that would result? Several thoughts. First, what I keep hearing from people who should know is that Treasury won’t actually run out of cash tomorrow, that it still has a few more days. Second, the people who claim that terrible things would immediately happen in the markets also claimed that there would be a big relief rally once a deal was struck. Not so much: the Dow is down 121 right now. Third, the idea that a temporary disruption would permanently damage faith in US institutions now seems moot; if you haven’t already lost faith in US institutions, you’re not paying attention. As a political columnist, Paul Krugman makes a great trade economist. 12.05pm: How much will the current debt deal actually save? According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will cut deficits by $2.1tn over 10 years. Of that, the CBO says $917bn in deficit reduction comes from caps on discretionary spending, with $1.2tn more from either the “super committee” savings or the automatic spending reductions – the triggers – that come into effect if the super committee fails. All the wonky details in PDF format here . Preamble: So there’s a deal on raising the US debt ceiling . The deal, struck between the White House, Democratic and Republican leadership in Congress, will now have to be passed through the House of Representatives and the Senate before the deadline of 2 August after which the US Treasury predicts that the $14.3tn limit on government borrowing will be hit. As deals go, this is one in which neither party seems happy with the outcome . In both the Democratic and Republican party their are wings that remain deeply unhappy with the result – and all eyes are now on them as the deal moves from smoke-filled rooms to the chambers of Congress. Will the Republican right – the Tea Party-inspired, the fiscal hardliners, the swivel-eyed – continue to fight against the deal and demand more? Will the Democratic party’s left say enough is enough and revolt when it comes time to vote. Meanwhile, the details of the detail remain frighteningly vague – beyond the comprehension of members of Congress, let alone voters. The headline figures – themselves disputed – of budget savings between $2tn and $3tn involve a complex series of assumptions over a decade, and include the results of an as-yet unborn “super committee” to identify cuts. Debate is now starting in the House of Representatives – so follow all the action right here. US economy Obama administration Republicans John Boehner US Congress US politics US economic growth and recession United States Economics Richard Adams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Mitt Romney Trying to Win Tea Party Support by Denouncing Debt Ceiling Deal
August 1, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Mitt Romney has been very quiet on the debt ceiling farce even though he’s running for the GOP presidential nomination and many have asked him for comment. Some might say he’s not leading on the issue. Some might say he’s been trying to protect himself from the tea party faction of the GOP since many Conservatives don’t trust him at all, but he finally was forced to weigh in on the issue…since it’s been the #1 news story of the last few weeks. Here’s what he had to finally say. Republican presidential primary front-runner Mitt Romney rejected the debt ceiling deal reached over the weekend, saying it will lead to tax increases and cuts in military spending. “As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced — not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table,” Romney said in a statement. “President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute. While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal,” Romney said. Romney’s statement came after critics — including fellow Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman — assailed the former Massachusetts governor for not weighing in sooner on the debt negotiations. Romney advisers said they were taking a cautious approach to avoid commenting before the contours of a deal became clear. Romney could have spoken out a long time ago and staked a position on it instead of hiding behind a wall of silence all this time. Michele Bachmann, Mrs. “Pray away the Gay” wasn’t afraid be attacked by the GOP gurus like BIll O and Krauthammer to say that she wanted the US to default on its commitments and would never vote to raise the debt ceiling. Even Herman Cain commented on it – even though he flopped around like Mitt usually does. In reality, Romney would never go for the Cut, Cap and Balance lunacy either, but it costs him nothing since that will be defeated and he doesn’t have to vote for it. Here’s a video from C&L’s most excellent archives back in Dec, 2007 from Meet The Pres s when Timmeh put together a mash up of many of Mitt’s flip flops. This is going to be a tough hurdle for him to overcome in the Republican primary although his competition shouldn’t be too difficult to defeat if we were dealing with normal people. MTP transcript: RUSSERT: Let me talk to you about your campaign. This is how it has been described in numerous cartoons, editorials, news articles: “A Changed Man. Many candidates change. Romney seems to have given himself a makeover. Which has prompted more than a few people to ask: Who is this guy?” Some of your opponents passed out these flip-floppers, that Romney flips and flops on the various issues. And it’s become a real issue for you in Iowa. The Des Moines Register asked Republicans who aren’t supporting you what’s the major factor for not supporting Romney? And look at this: Shifting his position on issues like abortion, 51 percent of Republicans say that’s why they haven’t embraced your candidacy. I want to take abortion first. I participated in your debate in 2002 when you ran for governor of Massachusetts. I asked you about that issue, and this was your response. Let’s watch. (Videotape) ROMNEY: My position has been the same throughout my political career, and it goes back to the days of 1970. There was a woman who was running for political office, U.S. Senate. She took a very bold and courageous stand in 1970, and that was in a conservative state. That was that a woman should have the right to make her own choice as to whether or not to have an abortion. Her name was Lenore Romney, she was my mom. I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. (End videotape) RUSSERT: “Devoted and dedicated” to honoring your word. When you ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy, you were asked the same question. This was your response. (Videotape) ROMNEY: Many, many years ago I had a dear close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. Offscreen Voice: Thank you, Mr… ROMNEY: And you will not see me wavering on that. (End videotape) RUSSERT: You–will not see you wavering on that issue. You now have said you support the 2004 Republican Party platform, which says this: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We” suggest “a human life amendment to the Constitution.” Such amendment would ban abortions all across the country. Why such a dramatic and profound change after pledging never to waiver on a woman’s right to choose?
Continue reading …Mitt Romney Trying to Win Tea Party Support by Denouncing Debt Ceiling Deal
August 1, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Mitt Romney has been very quiet on the debt ceiling farce even though he’s running for the GOP presidential nomination and many have asked him for comment. Some might say he’s not leading on the issue. Some might say he’s been trying to protect himself from the tea party faction of the GOP since many Conservatives don’t trust him at all, but he finally was forced to weigh in on the issue…since it’s been the #1 news story of the last few weeks. Here’s what he had to finally say. Republican presidential primary front-runner Mitt Romney rejected the debt ceiling deal reached over the weekend, saying it will lead to tax increases and cuts in military spending. “As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced — not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table,” Romney said in a statement. “President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute. While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal,” Romney said. Romney’s statement came after critics — including fellow Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman — assailed the former Massachusetts governor for not weighing in sooner on the debt negotiations. Romney advisers said they were taking a cautious approach to avoid commenting before the contours of a deal became clear. Romney could have spoken out a long time ago and staked a position on it instead of hiding behind a wall of silence all this time. Michele Bachmann, Mrs. “Pray away the Gay” wasn’t afraid be attacked by the GOP gurus like BIll O and Krauthammer to say that she wanted the US to default on its commitments and would never vote to raise the debt ceiling. Even Herman Cain commented on it – even though he flopped around like Mitt usually does. In reality, Romney would never go for the Cut, Cap and Balance lunacy either, but it costs him nothing since that will be defeated and he doesn’t have to vote for it. Here’s a video from C&L’s most excellent archives back in Dec, 2007 from Meet The Pres s when Timmeh put together a mash up of many of Mitt’s flip flops. This is going to be a tough hurdle for him to overcome in the Republican primary although his competition shouldn’t be too difficult to defeat if we were dealing with normal people. MTP transcript: RUSSERT: Let me talk to you about your campaign. This is how it has been described in numerous cartoons, editorials, news articles: “A Changed Man. Many candidates change. Romney seems to have given himself a makeover. Which has prompted more than a few people to ask: Who is this guy?” Some of your opponents passed out these flip-floppers, that Romney flips and flops on the various issues. And it’s become a real issue for you in Iowa. The Des Moines Register asked Republicans who aren’t supporting you what’s the major factor for not supporting Romney? And look at this: Shifting his position on issues like abortion, 51 percent of Republicans say that’s why they haven’t embraced your candidacy. I want to take abortion first. I participated in your debate in 2002 when you ran for governor of Massachusetts. I asked you about that issue, and this was your response. Let’s watch. (Videotape) ROMNEY: My position has been the same throughout my political career, and it goes back to the days of 1970. There was a woman who was running for political office, U.S. Senate. She took a very bold and courageous stand in 1970, and that was in a conservative state. That was that a woman should have the right to make her own choice as to whether or not to have an abortion. Her name was Lenore Romney, she was my mom. I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. (End videotape) RUSSERT: “Devoted and dedicated” to honoring your word. When you ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy, you were asked the same question. This was your response. (Videotape) ROMNEY: Many, many years ago I had a dear close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. Offscreen Voice: Thank you, Mr… ROMNEY: And you will not see me wavering on that. (End videotape) RUSSERT: You–will not see you wavering on that issue. You now have said you support the 2004 Republican Party platform, which says this: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We” suggest “a human life amendment to the Constitution.” Such amendment would ban abortions all across the country. Why such a dramatic and profound change after pledging never to waiver on a woman’s right to choose?
Continue reading …
Scotland Yard dismisses counter-terror unit’s bizarre appeal for anti-anarchist whistleblowers as ‘badly worded’ The Metropolitan police initiated an embarrassing climbdown after a police station in Belgravia, west London, published a leaflet asking the public and businesses to report anyone with anarchist sympathies . The call for information on a political rather than criminal group echoed a similar appeal for information about al-Qaida activity and “could have been better worded”, Scotland Yard admitted. City of Westminster police’s “counter-terrorist focus desk” had last week called for anti-anarchist whistleblowers, stating next to an anarchist emblem: “Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Any information relating to anarchists should be reported to your local police.” The move angered some anarchists who insisted that being an anarchist does not imply criminal behaviour. After 24 hours trying to discover why the counter-terrorism desk at Belgravia police station had issued the injunction under the banner of Project Griffin, an initiative raising awareness of counter-terrorism and security issues among business, public sector and security personnel, Scotland Yard said: “The Metropolitan police service does not seek to stigmatise those people with legitimate political views. “People purporting to be anarchists have caused criminal damage this year to business premises, and government buildings in Westminster. The message we were trying to convey was to gather information on criminal acts to help us prevent crime and bring offenders to justice.” Metropolitan police Police London Robert Booth guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Units smash tents and make arrests as Egypt prepares for trial of former ruler Hosni Mubarak Egypt’s army has violently retaken Cairo’s Tahrir Square from protesters, less than 48 hours before the former president Hosni Mubarak is to stand trial in the capital. Armed riot police and soldiers fired into the air as tanks moved in on Tahrir, which has been occupied by demonstrators for more than three weeks. Witnesses said some protesters were taken away. Activists accuse Egypt’s ruling military generals of dragging their feet on any meaningful reform in the country and warned that the revolution that toppled Mubarak earlier this year was in danger of being hijacked by conservative forces. Eyewitnesses reported swarms of security personnel storming the square from several directions, smashing tents and stalls before dragging away some protesters into military detention. Egypt’s cabinet office said “thugs” had been arrested. Some locals cheered as the sit-in was dispersed, highlighting a growing division over tactics at the heart of the protest movement. Around 30 of the political forces participating in the occupation had decided to suspend their involvement throughout the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which began on Monday. But several hundred hardcore demonstrators remained in Tahrir, including some relatives of those killed in the anti-government uprising this year, vowing only to leave when Mubarak had faced justice. “When normal people beat us in Abbasiya, that was painful,” wrote one activist on Twitter, referring to clashes last week which left dozens injured. “To hear that people are cheering [today] because the army beat martyrs’ families, that’s devastating.” Local news outlet al-Shorouk said military personnel went on to destroy a series of recently installed revolutionary artworks inside Sadat metro station, which lies underneath the square. The move is likely to further exacerbate tensions between revolutionaries and the supreme council of the armed forces (SCAF), which has been forced to defend itself in recent weeks against claims that it is not truly committed to democratic transition or the holding of former regime officials to account. On Sunday night the army’s chief of staff, Sami Anan, denied suggestions that SCAF had cut a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, guaranteeing the country’s largest Islamist group a strong showing in November’s parliamentary elections in exchange for the organisation providing political support to the military. Anan accused some media outlets of fuelling sedition and insisted the military was seeking to return to barracks as soon as possible. He also responded angrily to repeated allegations from protesters and human rights groups that some pro-change demonstrators were being held in military detention and tortured, calling on those making the claims to furnish proof. Several local and international campaign organisations have published details of arbitrary arrests and subsequent military abuses since the fall of Mubarak more than six months ago. The latest unrest comes as the nation gears up for the beginning of Mubarak’s trial, which is due to open on Wednesday. At the weekend the attorney general, Abdel Meguid Mahmoud, issued a formal summons ordering the toppled dictator to be transferred to Cairo from his current location, a hospital bed in the Red Sea resort town of Sharm El-Sheikh, where the 83-year-old has been under detention since April. Mubarak will answer a series of charges relating to economic fraud and the unlawful killing of protesters, and will stand in the dock alongside his two sons, his former interior minister, Habib El-Adly, and a number of other senior regime officials. The court case will be heard in a tightly secured police academy on the outskirts of the capital, and broadcast live on state television. Egypt Hosni Mubarak Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Jack Shenker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Man and woman captured in UK-led counter-terror operation in Herat are freed after lawyers threatened to take case to court A British couple seized by special forces in Afghanistan on suspicion of planning a terrorist attack have been released, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has disclosed. They were due to be extradited at the end of last week to Britain, where they faced the prospect of being held in custody or subjected to control orders. The couple’s release came after their lawyer threatened to challenge their continuing detention in the British courts. British officials indicated there was insufficient evidence against the couple to convince a UK court that there was a substantial case against them. However, British government officials said their release, in southern Afghanistan, did not mean the end of the matter. “It’s not over,” said one. The MoD said only that two individuals had been released from detention in Kandahar “in accordance with UK detention policy”. The man and the woman were seized by British special forces in the western Afghan city of Herat more than a week ago, then were transferred to what was described as a “secure facility” in Kandahar. The operation was sensitive and potentially a legal minefield, officials made clear at the time. The two are known to British security services and may have gone to Afghanistan to contact militant groups there. British officials said the capture of the couple was a “counter-terrorist” operation. British special forces, of which there are about 500 in Afghanistan, work closely with the security and intelligence services there. Afghan authorities insisted that, although their troops were involved in the capture of the couple, the operation was “UK-led”. British officials said on Monday that the man and woman would remain under surveillance. They were due to be flown back to the UK, but their lawyers let it be known they would immediately seek an application for habeas corpus – in essence, for the couple to be either charged or released – in the British courts. Clive Stafford-Smith, director of the legal charity Reprieve, wrote last week to the Foreign Office to ask for clarification of the Britons’ legal position. He said: “We are extremely concerned: if they were to be transferred to Afghan custody, they would not only face the death penalty, but also would face serious torture as well.” The MoD said at the time: “All detention operations in Afghanistan carried out under the remit of the UN-mandated ISAF [International Security Assistance Force], which includes those conducted by British forces, are conducted in accordance with international law and strict policy frameworks.” Nato forces can hold suspects for up to four days before releasing them or handing them over to the Afghan authorities. However, the period can be extended. The Foreign Office said last week: “The UK has a national policy of detaining beyond 96 hours in exceptional circumstances, in particular where it could provide information that could help protect our forces or the local population.” Afghanistan Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Amy’s father meets Keith Vaz, who says home affairs select committee will look again at the funding of drug treatments The father of Amy Winehouse, who plans to set up a residential drug rehabilitation centre in memory of his daughter, won the backing of MPs for his campaign to highlight gaps in addiction treatment services in Britain. After meeting Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, Mitch Winehouse said he wanted to do something for those problem drug users who could not afford private treatment. “I want to involve myself in things that would have been important to Amy,” said Winehouse after a 45-minute meeting with Vaz at the Commons. “That is why we are going to be setting up the Amy Winehouse Foundation. This isn’t only important to me, this is important to our whole country. “There’s hundreds of thousands of young people in situations today that could be avoided, and these are our future policemen, doctors and lawyers and solicitors, that we could help. We need to be able to help our children.” Vaz said afterwards that he was sure the home affairs committee would look again at the funding of drug treatment services. Winehouse highlighted the closure of the only NHS residential rehabilitation centre for young people at Middlegate in Nettleton, Lincolnshire, last year. “When he [Winehouse] gave evidence to our inquiry into drugs two years ago, he was very clear that drug treatment in the UK was hard to access and long waits were common, and we have already expressed our concern at reports that residential rehabilitation is not readily available,” said Vaz. “This new initiative enables us to revisit this issue, and I am certainly keen to hear from all those who have had difficulty in obtaining treatment. As we said in our report, prevention is better than cure. Any initiative for rehabilitation must go hand in hand with sending out the message of prevention.” Winehouse also met James Brokenshire, a junior Home Office minister, to discuss the issue, along with Sarah Graham, a former cocaine user and addiction expert. Graham acknowledged that most treatment services were provided within the community, but argued that there were cases – such as when young people were being abused at home – where help was not available. She said: “As a rich country, we should be able to afford a rehabilitation centre for young people, and we don’t think charities should pay for it totally.” Winehouse and Graham were accompanied by the singer’s former managers, Raye Cosbert and Trenton Harrison-Lewis. But the claim that there were two-year waiting lists for drug treatment services in Britain was disputed by Paul Hayes, chief executive of the National Treatment Agency for substance abuse. “The popular image of a spell in a luxury rehab, beloved of celebrities and the tabloids, is not representative of the mainstream treatment and recovery services provided in this country by both the NHS and the voluntary sector,” he said. “These services are widely available, and for some years now official statistics have confirmed that more than nine out of 10 patients wait less than three weeks for treatment in England.” He said while more flexibility was needed to ensure people with drug problems were helped in the most clinically appropriate way, there was clear trend towards fewer young people needing treatment. Amy Winehouse, 27, was found dead in her north London flat on 23 July. Her family is waiting for the results of toxicology tests to establish the cause of death. She won three Grammy awards for her song, Rehab, which described her refusal to enter a drug rehabilitation clinic. Drugs policy Drugs Amy Winehouse Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Syrian protesters demand action to halt killings by Bashar al-Assad regime
August 1, 2011 No Comment
Activists appeal to international community to increase pressure as condemnation mounts over escalating bloodshed Syrian opposition activists have appealed to the international community to increase pressure on the regime of President Bashar al-Assad as condemnation mounts over escalating bloodshed. Omar Habal from the central city of Hama, where four more people were reportedly killed by shellfire on Monday, said protestors wanted foreign governments to withdraw their ambassadors from Damascus and expel Syrian diplomats from their capitals in response to a brutal crackdown in which more than 100 people were killed across Syria on Sunday. “We want action but not military intervention, we don’t need that,” Habal told the Guardian by telephone. “We need pressure, strong political pressure.” The appeal came as the UN security council was preparing to meet in New York to discuss the crisis after rare condemnation of the violence by Russia, a long-time ally of Syria, as well as unusually harsh words from the leaders of its neighbour Turkey. The US, Britain and France have all used strong language to condemn events on Sunday, the eve of Ramadan and the bloodiest day of the uprising so far. Syria’s opposition is divided, with some groups calling for the overthrow of the Assad regime while others still hope the president will launch genuine reforms. Foreign governments say that Assad has lost legitimacy but have not explicitly and directly called for his overthrow. “The international community needs to act quickly to prevent further atrocities in Syria,” said Ausama Monajed, a leading exiled dissident. “What are they waiting for? A million Syrians to be killed? It is shameful by any standard to see human beings being shot and killed and not a single condemnation from the UN Security Council. What message does that send to brutal dictators?” The EU announced on Monday that it had imposed travel bans and assets freezes on five unnamed Syrian officials, but measures imposed on 30 other senior figures have been shrugged off in Damascus. Russia said it was “seriously concerned” about the level of casualties but implied government and opposition were equally at fault. “The use of force against civilians and representatives of state structures is unacceptable and must cease,” the foreign ministry statement said. Western diplomats said it was unclear whether this meant Moscow was dropping its objections condemning Syria. China has also been reluctant to back the US, Britain and France in demanding punitive gestures, let alone action. Moscow and Beijing are unhappy at the way their support for the UN at the start of the Libya crisis was turned into a mandate for a Nato bombing campaign they now see as pursuing regime change. India, South Africa and Brazil have also opposed a resolution. William Hague, Britain’s foreign secretary, said he wanted a resolution to condemn the Syrian violence and admitted there was no possibility of military action of the type seen in Libya. “There is no prospect of a legal, morally sanctioned military intervention,” he told the BBC. Syria Bashar Al-Assad Protest Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Libya United Nations European Union William Hague Ian Black Peter Walker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ali Velshi Calls Out Alex Castellanos for Comparing the US to Greece and Claiming We’re Broke
August 1, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Republican operative and (unfortunately for the rest of us) regular CNN contributor, Alex Castellanos tried repeating the standard Republican lie that the United States is somehow “just like Greece” and that we’re going broke. Thankfully, Your Money host, Ali Velshi was there to call him out for it. If he’d treat his regular guest, Stephen Moore this way when he has him on during his weekend show, I might almost be willing to forgive him for subjecting us to that Wall Street Journa l hack week after week in the first place — almost. Naturally host, Don Lemon had to break things up when Velshi was just getting started making his points. Heaven forbid we can’t be uncivil to one of their regular propagandists when they get called out for the lies in their talking points. Transcript via CNN . LEMON: Yes, and Donna — and Wolf is going to jump in here, but just real quickly, I have to say, you know, Alex, you heard what Donna had to say, yet in the final hours, the House speaker was concerned about defense spending. And we didn’t hear some of the points that Donna just brought up. CASTELLANOS: Well, I don’t think there’s a great danger of civility breaking out in Washington any time soon… (LAUGHTER) CASTELLANOS: … despite Senators McCain and Durbin’s effort. But no, you know, something good has happened in all of this, and that is that we are talking not only about a serious issue like spending and the debt and are we going to spend ourselves along the path of Greece, but we’re also talking about jobs and taxes, as I think these senators were just talking about. I take exception a little bit to something Ali said, that we’re not talking about jobs. That’s all this debate has been about. No one’s going to invest and create jobs in a country that’s spending itself into insolvency. So the first thing you have to do is get some fiscal discipline. You know, if, Don, say some nice news network like CNN were going to hire you but you knew they were going bankrupt, it might affect your decision. VELSHI: Alex! Alex! Alex! CASTELLANOS: Spending and jobs and taxes… VELSHI: We’re not… CASTELLANOS: … we’re now seeing a preview… VELSHI: Alex! CASTELLANOS: … of the next… VELSHI: Alex! BLITZER: Go ahead, Ali. VELSHI: Alex… BRAZILE: There you go. Cut in. VELSHI: … what are you talking about? We’re going bankrupt? CASTELLANOS: Yes. VELSHI: What are you — come on! What are you talking about, Alex? We’re not going bankrupt. America’s never gone bankrupt. Greece can’t issue bonds. America can. There was no question — we have a AAA credit rating, Alex! We weren’t close to bankrupt. CASTELLANOS: Right. VELSHI: This was an invention of fiscal conservatives. CASTELLANOS: Absolutely true. VELSHI: Jobs is the issue, Alex! CASTELLANOS: And Greece — and as you know, Ali, Greece had this decision 10 years ago, and they chose to keep on going along the same path. You know, everybody keeps saying, Gosh, we’ve raised the debt ceiling automatically here 60 times. There’s no problem. That’s the problem. We keep going up to the bar like it’s routine. We’re now having a debate that says we cannot continue spending more money than we take in… VELSHI: Alex… CASTELLANOS: … and we have to do something about it. (CROSSTALK) LEMON: Ali and Alex, both hang on. Do you agree, Alex, that what Ali said, that this was an invention? This was an invention to get to this point by connecting the debt ceiling to the… BRAZILE: Yes, this is manufactured. LEMON: … deficit? CASTELLANOS: No, no, no, no. VELSHI: We all agree on one thing… CASTELLANOS: Economic stability… (CROSSTALK) LEMON: Let him answer, Ali, and then… (CROSSTALK) BRAZILE: No, Alex, this was manufactured. LEMON: Go ahead, Alex. CASTELLANOS: Ali — Ali, here’s something we can agree on. This is money. VELSHI: Yes. CASTELLANOS: The federal government can’t spend any of this that it doesn’t first take from someone else. We’re now spending — what, we’re $14 trillion in the hole. The Democrats say the way to grow this economy is to keep doing that, keep stimulating the economy by… BRAZILE: That’s not what Democrats are saying, Alex. CASTELLANOS: … taking this money and sending it to Washington… (CROSSTALK) BRAZILE: That’s not what we’re saying. CASTELLANOS: We’re going to send it to Washington and then it’s going to send it back to us. LEMON: OK, Ali, go ahead. (CROSSTALK) CASTELLANOS: The way to grow this economy is to leave it in our pockets. VELSHI: I think — we’re fully on the same side about the fact that jobs — everybody has to have a job. Everybody doesn’t have to have a house and everybody doesn’t have to have a 401(k), but everybody has to have a job. I am not sure, Alex — I would love for you to connect for me how this creates a job in America. You know, when we talk about companies staying on this sidelines, conservatives have been saying the reason companies don’t hire is because there’s uncertainty about taxes, there’s uncertainty about health care. So now — now I’m hearing that it was uncertainty about the debt ceiling. Companies will just use any excuse… CASTELLANOS: No, no, no! (CROSSTALK) LEMON: I want to bring Donna in.
Continue reading …Just ten days before the recall elections in Wisconsin, the offices of We Are Wisconsin PAC in LaCrosse have been completely gutted by fire . Fire officials in La Crosse are continuing to investigate a Saturday blaze that destroyed the regional offices of We Are Wisconsin, a union political action committee (PAC) that has pumped millions of dollars into supporting Democratic candidates in the upcoming recall elections. The La Crosse Tribune reports that the cause of the fire, which started at about 9:30 a.m., remains unknown. Firefighters thought they had the blaze under control in the afternoon, however, that wasn’t the case and it continued into the evening, the newspaper reported. We Are Wisconsin used the building at 432 Jay St. to oversee its efforts in the 32nd Senate District recall election, which will be held Aug. 9. Incumbent Republican state Sen. Dan Kapanke is being challenged by Democratic state Rep. Jennifer Shilling in that district. A spokesman for the group told the La Crosse Tribune that the group’s office was a total loss. Color me very cynical about this. Very.
Continue reading …