Economists have warned that Italian borrowing costs are approaching unsustainable levels World stock markets accelerated their falls on Tuesday as Italy struggled to avoid being sucked into the escalating European debt crisis, and Greece moved closer to default. Bank shares were in retreat across Europe, driven by fears that Italy will soon be unable to borrow on the international money markets. The euro continued to lose value rapidly and hit a low of $1.388 – it has now lost more than 3 cents against the dollar since Monday morning. The FTSE 100 index slumped by 133 points at one point in early trading in London, down more than 2.25%. At 9.30am it was hovering around 5842 points, a fall of 86 points. Barclays fell 6.5% to 218p followed by Lloyds, down 4.7% at 42p, with every share in the index losing ground. “The banks are biggest fallers, because of concerns that the European crisis is spreading to Italy and Spain,” said David Jones, chief market strategist at IG Index. There were heavier losses across Europe. The main Italian index, the FTSE MIB, tumbled by 4.1% – with shares in Italy’s biggest bank, Unicredit, being temporarily suspended after falling more than 7%. In the bond markets, the yield – or interest rate – on Italian 10-year bonds approached 6%, the highest in at least a decade. Spanish yields hit 6.2%. Economists have warned that these borrowing costs are approaching unsustainable levels. Italy is scheduled to hold an auction of government debt on Tuesday morning, which will show if international investors still have faith in the Italian government. A source at the Bank of Italy told Reuters that rumours of problems with this auction was “absolutely unfounded”. On Monday, finance minister Giulio Tremonti pledged an unprecedented package of austerity measures to reassure the markets . The slump in the euro illustrates the pressure that is building up against the single currency as Europe’s debt crisis rumbles on, warned Jane Foley, senior currency strategist at Rabobank International. “The contagion that is eating its way through the Spanish and Italian and other European bond markets has a self-prophesying element to it. The greater its foothold the more difficult it will be for affected countries to keep their debt maintenance costs and budgets in line,” Foley said. “Too much more delay and EMU [Economic and Monetary Union] could implode,” she added. Torrid time ahead European finance ministers admitted on Monday night that Greece is likely to default on some of its debts . However, the EU still lacks the firepower to offer meaningful financial help to either Italy or Spain, if needed. Gary Jenkins, head of fixed income research at Evolution Securities, warned that the lack of resolution to the wider European debt crisis is testing investors’ patience. “If the endgame is to be the issuance of common European bonds and some sort of fiscal union then one wonders why they just don’t get on with it rather than risk totally losing control of the situation,” Jenkins said in a research note. Stock markets in Asia also suffered heavy losses overnight, with Japan’s Nikkei losing 1.43% and the Hong Kong Hang Seng index dropping by 2.57%. “Yesterday’s heavy bout of selling in Europe and the US amidst escalating fears over the health of the Italian economy unsurprisingly has taken its toll … There’s the potential for another torrid day ahead,” warned Cameron Peacock, market analyst at IG Markets. The cost of insuring government debt issued by Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland all rose on Tuesday, according to data from Markit. Gavan Nolan, director of credit research at Markit, warned that “the pressure is mounting on Europe’s decision makers”. European debt crisis European banks Banking Stock markets Market turmoil Global economy Italy Greece Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Ahmed Wali Karzai, who was killed at home by a security guard, was accused of being a key figure in the illegal opium trade Ahmad Wali Karzai, the powerful half brother of the Afghan president, Hamid Kazai, has been killed by one of his security guards inside his own house in Kandahar, according to the local chief of border police. “Ahmed Wali Karzai was killed at about 11.30am. He was killed by his bodyguard inside his house,” said General Abdul Razaq. Razaq said an investigation into the assassination was under way. A tribal elder in Kandahar province also confirmed the death of Ahmad Wali Karzai. Haji Padsha, an elder of the Alikozai tribe, said that Ahmad Wali Karzai had been shot on his return from a meeting with foreigners at the former house of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the fugitive leader of the Afghan Taliban. Ahmad Wali Karzai had come under criticism in the past from local Afghans for renting the property to international officials. Ahmad Wali Karzai was a powerful figure in Afghan politics and said to be a key figure in the illegal Afghan opium trade. He was also reported to be on the payroll of the CIA. He denied both allegations. He said that international forces used these charges to deflect their own failings in Afghanistan. Ahmad Wali Karzai was the head of the provincial council in Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second biggest city, and had been the target of previous assassination attempts. In 2009, four suicide bombers stormed the provincial council office in Kandahar, killing 13 people. Ahmad Wali Karzai claimed he was the target of the attack. The Government Media and Information Centre in Kandahar sent out a message via Twitter confirming the death of Ahmad Wali Karzai. Hamid Karzai Afghanistan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Former PM ‘genuinely shocked’ to discover journalists tried to access his voicemail and obtained information from his bank account and son’s medical records Follow all the latest developments in the phone-hacking scandal on our live blog The former prime minister Gordon Brown has condemned “the most disgusting work” of News International journalists for using known criminals to invade the privacy and feelings of ordinary people, and accused the company of abusing its power for political gain. Brown was reacting to revelations that News International journalists had attempted to access his voicemail and had obtained information from his bank account, his legal file and his family’s medical records . “I’m genuinely shocked to find that this happened. If I – with all the protection and all the defences that a chancellor or a prime minister has – can be so vulnerable to unscrupulous and unlawful tactics, what about the ordinary citizen? “I find it quite incredible that a supposedly reputable organisation makes its money at the expense of ordinary people.” In an interview with the BBC and the Guardian, Brown confirmed that shortly after the birth of his son, Fraser, in October 2006, Rebekah Brooks, then editor of the Sun, telephoned his wife Sarah to say the paper had obtained details from the boy’s medical records, revealing that he was suspected to be suffering from cystic fibrosis. Brown said he had never wanted his children’s lives to be the subject of publicity. “I have never talked publicly about Fraser’s condition. Obviously we wanted to keep that private. As a parent, you want to do your best by your children.” Asked how he and his wife had reacted to the call, he said: “In tears. Your son is going to be broadcast across the media. Sarah and I were incredibly upset.” Brown said he had no idea how the Sun had obtained the information and questioned the paper’s claim last night that this had been done legitimately. “They will have to explain themselves. I can’t think of any way that the medical condition of a child can be put into the public domain legitimately unless the doctor makes a public statement or the family make a statement. “I don’t know how it appeared. The fact is that it did appear. It appeared in the Sun.” He said he had known at the time that his bank account had been penetrated by the Sunday Times but had not understood that News International had relied on the help of criminals. “I had my bank account broken into. I had my legal files effectively broken into. My tax returns went missing at one point. Medical records were broken into. I don’t know how this happened. “I do know that in two instances there is absolute proof that News International hired people to do this and the people who are doing this are criminals, known criminals in some cases with records of violence and fraud.” The Guardian previously has disclosed: • That the News of the World hired a private investigator, Jonathan Rees , who had a history of corrupt dealings with police officers and who had been jailed for plotting to plant cocaine on a woman so that she would lose custody of her children. • That the Sunday Times “blagged” – obtained private information illegally, normally by impersonating someone on the phone – Brown’s details from a London law firm ] by using the skills of a conman named Barry Beardall, who was subsequently jailed for fraud. • And that the Sunday Times repeatedly hired a former actor, John Ford, who specialised in blagging information from confidential databases, potentially in breach of the Data Protection Act. Brown said he had complained to the editor of the Sunday Times, John Witherow, when he discovered in January 2000 that the paper had blagged information from his bank account, but Witherow had not taken sufficient action. “There was no support going to come from the editor of the Sunday Times in dealing with the indiscipline among his reporters. This was a culture in the Sunday Times and other newspapers in News International, where they really exploited people.” Brown said that as prime minister he had wanted to set up a judicial inquiry. “I came to the conclusion that the evidence was becoming so overwhelming about the underhand tactics of News International using these private investigators to trawl through people’s lives, particularly the lives of people who were completely defenceless, I thought we had to have a judicial inquiry.” Senior officials, however, had blocked the plan. He said News International had attempted to interfere in his government’s policy on the BBC, on the media regulator Ofcom and generally in pursuit of their commercial interests. “We stood up to News International and refused to support their commercial ambitions when we thought they were against the public interest.” He suggested this was part of the reason why its newspapers had attacked his government. “News International pursued an incredibly aggressive agenda in the last year. News International were distorting the news in a way that was designed to pursue a particular political cause. This was an abuse of their power for political gain. “The record will show that some people at News International abused their power. There is absolutely no doubt that News International were trying to influence policy. This is an issue about the abuse of political power as well as the abuse of civil liberties.” Phone hacking Gordon Brown Newspapers & magazines National newspapers News International Newspapers The Sun Sunday Times John Witherow Rebekah Brooks Nick Davies guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
After savage fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006, parts of Lebanon thrive, while parliament is still a site of struggle On an ancient hillside in southern Lebanon, a giant digger scrapes through slate and stone to prepare foundations for yet another new home. Across the valley, in the biblical town of Qana, dozens of houses are also under construction, and many hundreds more stand fresh and stark against the midsummer sky. Since the devastating war between Hezbollah and Israel, which began five years ago today, the place where Jesus purportedly turned water into wine has witnessed a near-miraculous transformation itself. Qana is now one of the most thriving enclaves in Lebanon’s south, a place that shows little sign of the ravages of a war that reduced it to a rubble-strewn wasteland after 34 days of intense fighting. Towns and villages either side, from the Litani river to the north to the Israeli border 10km south, have helped consolidate a revival that has crept through the country since 2006 — and reshaped more than just the natural landscape. The national political power base, thrown out of kilter in the chaos of 2006, has been slowly re-orientating – away from the western-backed 14 March alliance into the orbit of the Iranian and Syrian-supported Hezbollah, which now has a whip-hand in Lebanon’s affairs. Signs of a changing Lebanon are all around. Banners of a smiling benefactor, the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamanei are peppered throughout Qana and all other Shia towns in the south. Other, less frequent posters show the two Lebanese Shia leaders, Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, and a lesser light, Nabil Berri, who controls a second political party-cum-militia, Amal. Iran has used both to dispense hundreds of millions in cash to Lebanese who were caught up in the war. The war that the two arch foes fought was their most intense and savage since Hezbollah’s inception in 1982. It erupted early on July 12 2006 after Hezbollah members crossed into Israel and ambushed a border patrol, killing two soldiers and abducting two more. The Israeli response quickly escalated into daily bombings for the next five weeks, mostly in the south. Less visible than the reconstruction project – but far more instructive – has been the power struggle for Lebanon, fought not in the country’s parliament, but in the sitting rooms of its feudal lords and in the corridors of power of its neighbours. “Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have had the pro-western bloc in a vice for the past three years,” said one senior western diplomat in Beirut. “And they have finally got them. “The past six months has been a profound shift here. No-one who backs the March 14 project can seriously say that the western agenda hasn’t been set back.” After ousting the government of Saad Hariri in January, Hezbollah now has enough numbers within the parliament – through the support of roughly half the country’s Christian and Druze minorities, as well as Amal lawmakers – to set the political and legislative agenda. Hezbollah has vowed not to use its influence to railroad the parliament and claims that the country’s new prime minister, Najib Miqati – a Sunni from northern Lebanon – is not beholden to it. Yet on one key issue – perhaps the most significant since 2006 for the country’s deeply divided blocs, it is proving immovable. The party’s lawmakers and its secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, have demanded that the parliament disavow a UN-backed tribunal set up to place on trial the killers of former statesman, Rafiq Hariri, who was killed on Valentine’s Day 2005 in the most contentious and far-reaching assassination in the country for several decades. The tribunal earlier this month alleged that four members of Hezbollah had played direct roles in Mr Hariri’s death – an assertion that if proven would pose a grave threat to the group’s legitimacy as a patriotic body. Mr Miqati is so far struggling to find a position that satisfies both the 14 March forces, who see him as a turncoat and the Hezbollah-led government, whose trust he needs to survive as leader. In the streets of Dahiya, however, the jury has already returned. “The Israelis killed Hariri and everyone knows it,” said Ahmed Badredine, a motor mechanic. “Their intent towards Lebanon was there for the world to see in 2006. And when there is another war we will beat them again.” Summer has often been fighting season in the south. And in the densely wooded lands around the Litani, preparations have been made for the next war ever since the guns fell silent last time. Hezbollah knows it has a legend to protect after battling the powerful Israeli military to a stand-still in 2006. Israel, meanwhile, has a score to settle after believing its deterrent factor – an important part of it’s armoury – was dented by its enemy’s ability to fire rockets seemingly at will, despite a never-ending blitz of return fire.” “It will come soon,” said a second Dahiya man, Haithem Kissos. “The resistance is stronger than ever and the Zionists cannot let that reality stand.” Lebanon Israel Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Phone-hacking: police chiefs to tell MPs that it was a cock-up not a conspiracy
July 12, 2011 No Comment
Four senior officers will appear before Commons committee to salvage tarnished reputation of the Metropolitan police Police chiefs will try to stanch the battering to the Metropolitan police’s reputation caused by the phone-hacking scandals by telling a powerful committee of MPs that mistakes had been made, but they were the result of cock-ups and confusion and not the sign of any conspiracy. The home affairs committee resumes its hearings on Tuesday into phone hacking with four past and present Scotland Yard chiefs. First up is assistant commissioner John Yates, who will tell MPs that he did not examine any documents before declaring in 2009 that the Met did not need to reopen its phone-hacking investigation, which had closed two years earlier after gaining two convictions. Yates appears before MPs on a crucial day for Britain’s biggest police force, who are under fire for missing numerous allegedly criminal acts of phone hacking by the News of the World, and for some of its officers allegedly selling information to the paper which facilitated the hacking of the royal family. A concerted Yard fightback saw Yates acknowledge to the Sunday Telegraph that his 2009 decision was “pretty crap” and admit mistakes, followed on Monday by the Met accusing News International of leaking to try to derail its corruption investigation. Tuesday’s hearings, police chiefs will hope, will at least not add to the damage. They hope the flood of revelations about the police will then begin to dry up. In a letter to the committee released on Monday, Yates said the failure to detect the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone was “a source of great regret”. He denied ever having said he had “reviewed” the Met’s phone-hacking investigation following revelations in the Guardian in July 2009. Yates, in his letter to MPs, said he talked to the head of the 2006/7 inquiry: “Following detailed briefings from the senior investigating officer, it was apparent that there was no new material in the Guardian article that would justify either reopening or reviewing the investigation. A short while later, this view was endorsed independently by the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC. “Therefore, as can be seen, in relation to events that took place in 2009, I was provided with some considerable reassurance (and at a number of levels) that led me to a view that this case neither needed to be reopened or reviewed.” But prosecution sources indicated they do not agree. A source said the Crown Prosecution Service’s view was still that “the legal advice given by the CPS to the Metropolitan police on the interpretation of the relevant offences did not limit the scope and extent of the criminal investigation”, as contained in a letter in April by Keir Starmer to MPs on the culture, media and sport committee. Yates’s previous sessions before MPs have been tetchy affairs. Labour MP Tom Watson used parliamentary privilege to attack Yates: “John Yates’s review of the Mulcaire evidence was not an oversight. Like Andy Hayman, he chose not to act, he misled parliament. He misled readers of the Sunday Telegraph only yesterday.” Last night, Watson told BBC Newsnight: “He should resign with dignity.” Tory MP George Eustice also said he no longer had confidence in Yates. Bob Milton, a Metropolitan police commander between 1999-2003 who headed the Special Branch protection squad and was in charge of security vetting for officers at the level of national security, also gave Yates less than enthusiastic backing. “John Yates is a very, very competent police officer. He has admitted that perhaps he had a lack of judgment two years ago. He will have to make his own decision as to whether he feels that his own position is untenable,” he said on Newsnight. Asked what his own view was, Milton replied: “It depends why he made the decision. If he made it on operational grounds, then fair enough. If for any other reason he was influenced in any other way, then he should step down.” Also before the committee today is former assistant commissioner Andy Hayman, who is expected to say he had limited involvement in the decision-making when the royal household contacted police over concerns their mobile phones may have been hacked. The investigation was handled by specialist operations, which include royal protection but also houses the counter terrorism command. The 2006 investigation is accepted by the Met to have been too limited in its scope, failing to inform scores of victims, although it led to the conviction in 2007 of a News of the World reporter and a private investigator. After leaving the Met over controversy about his expenses, Hayman wrote occasional columns about policing for the Times, which is also owned by News International. Also before the committee will be former counterterrorism chief Peter Clarke. Hours after the 2006 arrests were made over phone hacking, police had to arrest alleged plotters in the biggest terrorism plot ever uncovered in Britain, which saw people convicted of planning to explode liquid bombs aboard planes heading from London to north America. Sue Akers, head of the current hacking inquiry, will also testify, though the need not to compromise the investigation will restrict the scope of her answers. The position of Met commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson also looks rocky, says Chris Boothman, a lawyer and independent member of the Met authority, which supervises the service: “I don’t think the commissioner’s position is safe. This is about the management and supervision of the police service. No one has the power to intervene in the way investigations are run, so the buck stops with the commissioner. If there have been failings, the commissioner has to take responsibility for it.” Last night the New York Times claimed that five senior Met officers discovered their mobile phone messages had been targeted shortly after Scotland Yard began its initial phone hacking inquiry in 2006. “If it is true that police officers knew their phones had been hacked, it is a serious matter that requires immediate investigation,” said ToryMP John Whittingdale, chairman of the culture, media and sport committee, which investigated phone hacking. “It would be shocking.” The Guardian also understands the Independent Police Complaints Commission plans to take over Scotland Yard’s investigation into allegations that its officers were paid by the News of the World. The Independent Police Complaints Commission has confirmed that it will assert its authority over the Metropolitan police “as and when” the force identifies individual officers suspected of receiving bribes. Police Metropolitan police John Yates Sue Akers Phone hacking Vikram Dodd Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Law for Prevention of Damage to State of Israel through Boycott means anyone proposing boycott could be sued The Israeli parliament tonight passed a law in effect banning citizens from calling for academic, consumer or cultural boycotts of Israel in a move denounced by its opponents as anti-democratic. The “‘Law for Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott” won a majority of 47 to 38, despite strong opposition and an attempt to filibuster the six-hour debate. Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not take part in the vote although the bill had the backing of the cabinet. Under the terms of the new law, an individual or organisation proposing a boycott may be sued for compensation by any individual or institution claiming that it could be damaged by such a call. Evidence of actual damage will not be required. The law aims to protect individuals and institutions in Israel and the Palestinian territory it has occupied, illegally under international law, since 1967. It in effect bans consumer boycotts of goods produced in West Bank settlements, or of cultural or academic institutions in settlements. It also prevents the government doing business with companies that comply with boycotts. Israeli civil rights groups immediately issued a letter of protest over the law. Hassan Jabareen of Adalah, a legal centre for Israeli-Arab citizens, said: “Defining boycott as a civil wrong suggests that all Israelis have a legal responsibility to promote the economic advancement of the settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. This means that Israeli organisations opposing the settlements as a matter of principle are in a trap: any settler can now constantly harass them, challenging them to publicly declare their position on the boycott of settlements and threatening them with heavy compensation costs if they support it.” As debate on the bill opened in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament’s legal adviser presented an opinion that parts of the proposed law were “borderline illegal”. “The broad definition of a boycott on the state of Israel is a violation of the core tenet of freedom of political expression and elements in the proposed bill are borderline illegal,” Eyal Yinon said. Among the bill’s opponents were dozens of Israeli intellectuals, including the celebrated author Amos Oz, who issued a letter describing the proposed law as the “worst of the anti-democratic bills in the Knesset. The bill will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals”. According to the Association of Civil Rights in Israel, the bill constituted “a direct violation of freedom of expression”. Following the vote, executive director Hagai El-Ad said: “The boycott law will lead to unprecedented harm to freedom of expression in Israel and will bring justified criticism against Israel from abroad. We will all have to pay the price for this atrocious law.” Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian chief negotiator, said the bill would punish those who “refuse to recognise the illegal situation associated with Israel’s settlement enterprise in occupied Palestinian territory”. The bill’s sponsor, Ze’ev Elkin of the rightwing Likud party, said Israel had been dealing for years with boycotts by Arab states but the domestic boycott movement was a “travesty”. The law was not intended to silence people but to “protect the citizens of Israel”, he said. “If the state of Israel does not protect itself, we will have no moral right to ask our allies for protection from such boycotts.” Before the vote, Elkin told the pro-settlement news website Arutz Sheva: “I hope the [legislators] will understand that this is a battle between Zionism and the new left.” The law follows moves to boycott a cultural centre and a university in the huge West Bank settlement of Ariel, and the contractual agreement of some Israeli companies not to use material originating in settlements in work on the new Palestinian city of Rawabi. Campaigners also claim that consumer boycotts against produce and goods originating in settlements are growing both in Israel and abroad. There has been a raft of proposals over recent years denounced by opponents as anti-democratic, including the withdrawal of financing for Israeli films deemed to be critical of government policies and attempts to restrict the international funding of campaigning groups. The Israeli left and rights groups claim the proposals represent a growing intolerance of dissent in Israel, encouraged by rightwing parties which claim political activity against government policy is part of a campaign of “de-legitimisation” of the Jewish state. Civil rights groups said they would challenge the new law in the courts, putting a spotlight on Israel’s 44-year occupation. A national campaign was due to be launched by activists . Israel Palestinian territories Middle East Harriet Sherwood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Human Rights Watch claims Obama administration ‘failing to act on evidence’, and also names Cheney and Rumsfeld in report A US human rights group has called on foreign governments to prosecute George W Bush and some of his senior officials for war crimes if the Obama administration fails to investigate a growing body of evidence against the former president over the use of torture. The New York-based Human Rights Watch said in a report released on Tuesday that the US authorities are legally obliged to investigate the top echelons of the Bush administration over crimes such as torture, abduction and other mistreatment of prisoners. It says that the former administration’s legal team was part of the conspiracy in preparing opinions authorising abuses that they knew to have no standing in US or international law. Besides Bush, HRW names his vice-president, Dick Cheney, the former defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the ex-CIA director, George Tenet, as likely to be guilty of authorising torture and other crimes. The group says that the investigation and prosecutions are required “if the US hopes to wipe away the stain of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo and reaffirm the primacy of the rule of law”. HRW acknowledges the broad allegations are not new but says they should be given fresh attention because of growing documentary evidence with the release of previously classified papers, admissions made in books by Bush and others, and from a leaked International Committee of the Red Cross report that details illegal practices by the former administration. The author of the HRW report, Reed Brody, says the issue also deserves renewed scrutiny because the Obama administration has all but abandoned its obligations. “It’s become abundantly clear that there is no longer any movement on the part of the Obama administration to live up to its responsibilities to investigate these cases when the evidence just keeps piling up. Just this year we have the different admissions by President Bush that he authorised waterboarding,” he said. HRW says Bush and his senior officials are open to prosecution under the 1996 War Crimes Act as well as for criminal conspiracy under federal law. “There is enough strong evidence from the information made public over the past five years to not only suggest these officials authorised and oversaw widespread and serious violations of US and international law, but that they failed to act to stop mistreatment, or punish those responsible after they became aware of serious abuses,” it said. Among the accusations in the report are that Bush approved waterboarding, ordered the CIA secret detention programme and approved illegal abductions of individuals delivered to foreign countries for torture, known as renditions. The report described Cheney as “the driving force behind the establishment of illegal detention policies and the formulation of legal justifications for those policies” including torture. Rumsfeld is said to have “approved illegal interrogation methods that facilitated the use of torture by US military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq”, and Tenet “oversaw the CIA’s use of waterboarding”, and that the agency also “disappeared” detainees by holding them in incommunicado detention in secret locations. HRW says an investigation should also examine roles played by Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and the then attorney general, John Ashcroft, and administration lawyers in crafting the legal justifications for torture. HRW calls on foreign governments to act if the US fails to. “Under international law any country has jurisdiction over torture and war crimes,” said Brody. The organisation noted that over the past two decades an increasing number of countries, particularly in Europe, have applied universal jurisdiction laws in prosecuting individuals responsible for crimes in Rwanda, the Balkans and Africa. The US itself used the principle of universal jurisdiction to prosecute “Chuckie” Taylor – son of former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, now on trial before an international tribunal – for torture in Liberia. Asked if foreign leaders, such as Bush’s ally, Tony Blair, were also vulnerable to prosecution, Brody said there was a difference between political responsibility and criminal liability for directly ordering abuses. But he said that the political complicity of some European countries makes it necessary for them to act. Reported roles President George Bush: He has publicly admitted that in two cases he approved the use of waterboarding. Bush also authorised the “illegal CIA secret detention and renditions programmes, under which detainees were held incommunicado and frequently transferred to countries such as Egypt and Syria where they were likely to be tortured”. Vice President Dick Cheney: “The driving force behind the establishment of illegal detention and interrogation policies, chairing key meetings at which specific CIA operations were discussed, including the waterboarding of one detainee, Abu Zubaydah, in 2002.” Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “Approved illegal interrogation methods and closely followed the interrogation of Mohamed al-Qahtani, who was subjected to a six-week regime of coercive interrogation at Guantanamo that cumulatively appears to have amounted to torture”. The CIA director, George Tenet: “Authorised and oversaw the CIA’s use of waterboarding, stress positions, light and noise bombardment, sleep deprivation, and other abusive interrogation methods, as well as the CIA rendition program”. United States George Bush Torture Obama administration Human rights Dick Cheney Donald Rumsfeld Chris McGreal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
At least seven officers were injured in the riot where up to 200 nationalist youths were hurling petrol bombs and masonry in west Belfast Police have used water canons to try to quell a riot after coming under attack by around 100-200 nationalist youths hurling petrol bombs and masonry in west Belfast. During the violence, in which at least seven officers were injured, a bus was hijacked on the nationalist Falls Road then set alight and driven towards a police cordon separating the area from the loyalist district close to the M1 motorway. The Northern Ireland police service said the vehicle crashed a short distance away. The violent crowd was trying to get close to a loyalist bonfire near the motorway, said the force. Petrol was thrown at officers in North Queens Street where around 40 people have gathered, it added. Meanwhile in north Belfast there are unconfirmed reports of shots being fired close to the Ardoyne district. Police are advising motorists to avoid using the motorway near the Falls Road, Donegall Road and Broadway. Northern Ireland Henry McDonald guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Syrian regime angered by diplomats’ visits to Hama, as US accuses government of slow response to violence Angry Syrians loyal to President Bashar al-Assad have stormed the US and French embassies in Damascus to protest against their ambassadors’ visits to Hama over the weekend – criticised by the Syrian government as a “flagrant intervention” in its affairs. Demonstrators waving flags and pictures of the president surrounded the embassies, chanting slogans including “We will die for you, Bashar”. Protesters, many of them bused in, scaled the US embassy building and replaced the stars and stripes with the Syrian flag. Graffiti were scrawled on the buildings, tomatoes and litter thrown, and glass smashed. Men dressed in riot gear and security officers appeared to do nothing to restrain the crowds at the US embassy. At the French embassy, witnesses said shots were fired into the air to disperse the attacks. US ambassador Robert Ford’s residence also came under attack. Earlier, ad-Dounia, a TV station close to the regime, had called on people to send the ambassador a message. Washington and Paris condemned the attacks. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said: “We demand [Syria] meet their international responsibilities immediately to protect all diplomats and the property of all countries.” Under international law, host countries are obliged to protect foreign mission staff and property. “By either allowing or inciting this kind of behaviour by these mobs against American and French diplomats and their property, they are clearly trying to deflect attention from their crackdown internally and to move the world’s view away from what they are doing,” Clinton said. “It just doesn’t work.” Clinton also warned Assad and his supporters that there was no truth to suggestions by some that the US wanted to see the current regime stay in power for the sake of stability. “President Assad is not indispensable and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power,” she said. The US has repeatedly protested over the suppression of unrest during the past few months and urged Assad to reform or step aside. But, unlike in the case of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, it has not called explicitly for his overthrow. Human rights groups say more than 1,500 civilians have been killed and hundreds more injured as security forces try to suppress unprecedented and growing opposition to the Assad regime. Thousands have been detained and many tortured. The unprecedented scenes in the capital contrasted with those at the weekend in the flashpoint central city of Hama, which has become the focus of international attention after slipping out of government control. Despite drawing the ire of Syrian officials, Ford’s deliberately high-profile visit to Hama was met with roses and cheers on Thursday and Friday. The city, where the memory of a bloody 1982 crackdown endures, has become the heart of a popular fightback against the government. Then, under the president’s father, Hafez, the assault was to quell an armed Islamist uprising. Today Assad faces a movement of overwhelmingly unarmed protesters. “We are treated like animals rather than people and now we are starting to behave like citizens,” said one 55-year-old man, whose brother and father were killed in the 1982 assault. Government forces, including the security services, police – and on some days even the traffic police – withdrew the weekend after 3 June, a bloody Friday when more than 70 people were shot dead during protests after Friday prayers. Residents have since organised themselves, taking on the traditional role of the government in creating a functioning city, and since last weekend, when tanks approached the outskirts of the city, resisting any broad incursion by security services and the army. Names have been changed to protect identities. Nour Ali is a pseudonym for a journalist in Syria Syria Bashar Al-Assad United States France guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Bill Maher can't go an hour without saying something disgusting about Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. On CNN's “Piers Morgan Tonight” Monday, the misogynistic comedian said that he hopes the former Alaska governor gets into the presidential race “so that they split the MILF vote” (video follows with transcript and commentary): PIERS MORGAN, HOST: If you had a choice, gun to your head, which one is it? Palin or Bachmann? BILL MAHER: I would need a gun to my head. I hope Sarah Palin gets in so that they split the MILF vote. For those needing a translation, MILF stands for “Mom I'D Like To F–k.” Classy guy, isn't he? And, of course, Morgan thought this was hysterical. More importantly, MSNBC indefinitely suspended Mark Halperin last month for calling President Obama a d–k. Isn't this worse, or is all fair when it's directed at conservative woman? Whatever the answer, Maher wasn't done: MAHER: But I guess Bachmann, I don't know. Who could say? Because, at least she's somebody who can read. You know, she has a job. She was a lawyer. She’s in Congress. She's not someone who just sits there and reads the prayers on her Blackberry like Sarah Palin. I mean, you know, we're splitting hairs here. MORGAN: Could Sarah Palin become president? Is it possible in the current climate? MAHER: Absolutely. Yes. People who say this one is a joke, or this one is a joke. I remember when I was twelve years old in 1968 and Ronald Reagan was first considering running for president, and I remember what a joke that was. Ronald Reagan? You mean the “Bedtime for Bonzo” guy? Well, I think he did become president. Yes, absolutely, because if she could get the nomination, and anything can happen with, I mean, this Republican Party is not your father's Republican Party. Somewhere along the line they got on a short bus to Crazy Town, and if someone gets the nomination of one of the two major parties, especially in a bad economy with a black president, yeah, she could become president. Honestly, what does it say about our society that this disgusting creature gets invited on so-called cable news networks to spout his highly misogynistic opinions?
Continue reading …