US cable news channel takes action after Mark Halperin calls US president ‘kind of a dick’ Poll: Was MSNBC right to suspend Halperin? A political journalist who said president Barack Obama was being “kind of a dick” live on air has been suspended by US cable news channel MSNBC. Mark Halperin, a political analyst and editor-at-large for Time magazine , made the remark on MSNBC’s Morning Joe programme on Thursday during a discussion about an Obama press conference the previous day. Halperin asked the show’s presenters jokingly: “Are we on the seven-second delay today? … I want to characterise how I thought the president behaved.” The presenters appeared to encourage him to speak his mind and after apparent confusion between the studio and the show’s production team in the gallery about whether a delay button was being used, Halperin said: “I thought he was kind of a dick yesterday.” This prompted a shocked reaction from the Morning Joe co-presenter Joe Scarborough , a former Republican congressman: “Oh my God … delay that! Delay that! What are you doing? I can’t believe you – I was joking!” Halperin then expanded on his comment, saying he thought the president was “posturing” over a deal with the Republicans over spending cuts and tax rises. Later in the show a sombre-looking Halperin apologised, after the show’s presenters admitted they had goaded him into saying it but did not think he would go through with it and also apologised. Shortly after the show Halperin was suspended by MSNBC. “Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable,” the broadcaster said in a statement . “We apologise to the president, the White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst.” Halperin also issued a statement: “I completely agree with everything in MSNBC’s statement about my remark. I believe that the step they are taking in response is totally appropriate. “Again, I want to offer a heartfelt and profound apology to the president, to my MSNBC colleagues, and to the viewers. My remark was unacceptable, and I deeply regret it.” • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook . MSNBC TV news Television industry US television industry United States Barack Obama Jason Deans guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …US cable news channel takes action after Mark Halperin calls US president ‘kind of a dick’ Poll: Was MSNBC right to suspend Halperin? A political journalist who said president Barack Obama was being “kind of a dick” live on air has been suspended by US cable news channel MSNBC. Mark Halperin, a political analyst and editor-at-large for Time magazine , made the remark on MSNBC’s Morning Joe programme on Thursday during a discussion about an Obama press conference the previous day. Halperin asked the show’s presenters jokingly: “Are we on the seven-second delay today? … I want to characterise how I thought the president behaved.” The presenters appeared to encourage him to speak his mind and after apparent confusion between the studio and the show’s production team in the gallery about whether a delay button was being used, Halperin said: “I thought he was kind of a dick yesterday.” This prompted a shocked reaction from the Morning Joe co-presenter Joe Scarborough , a former Republican congressman: “Oh my God … delay that! Delay that! What are you doing? I can’t believe you – I was joking!” Halperin then expanded on his comment, saying he thought the president was “posturing” over a deal with the Republicans over spending cuts and tax rises. Later in the show a sombre-looking Halperin apologised, after the show’s presenters admitted they had goaded him into saying it but did not think he would go through with it and also apologised. Shortly after the show Halperin was suspended by MSNBC. “Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable,” the broadcaster said in a statement . “We apologise to the president, the White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst.” Halperin also issued a statement: “I completely agree with everything in MSNBC’s statement about my remark. I believe that the step they are taking in response is totally appropriate. “Again, I want to offer a heartfelt and profound apology to the president, to my MSNBC colleagues, and to the viewers. My remark was unacceptable, and I deeply regret it.” • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook . MSNBC TV news Television industry US television industry United States Barack Obama Jason Deans guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Court questions whether ‘combat immunity’ is a valid defence where soldiers are sent into battle without the proper equipment The British military could be sued for failing to train and equip soldiers fighting in war zones properly following a high court ruling that has questioned whether ministers can rely on “combat immunity” to defend such cases. The high court said the Ministry of Defence was wrong to argue that civil claims brought against it because of “personal injury or death of members of the armed forces” had no merit “because the damage was incurred in combat”. Mr Justice Owen refused a ministry application to throw out several claims of common law negligence and said the issue could be decided at trial. In the same ruling, however, the judge ruled against families seeking compensation after three soldiers were killed in Iraq when their Snatch Land Rovers were hit by hidden bombs. Lawyers for the families said that the vehicles were completely unsuited for Iraq and that the ministry had an obligation, under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to take reasonable steps to provide troops with proper protection. The judge said the incidents in Iraq were beyond the jurisdiction of the convention, which extends only to the UK and other European nations. Both of Mr Justice Owen’s rulings are likely to be taken to the court of appeal as the judiciary attempts to scrutinise and redefine the rights of soldiers, and their families, to seek compensation from the armed services. During a three-day hearing in May, the high court heard about a series of incidents that took place in Iraq between March 2003 and August 2007. Three of the episodes involved attacks on Snatch Land Rovers that killed British soldiers: Private Phillip Hewitt, 21, of Tamworth, Staffordshire; Private Lee Ellis, 23, of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester; and Lance Corporal Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, Essex. Sue Smith, Hewitt’s mother, led the families’ campaign, insisting the MoD had failed the soldiers under human rights laws because the lightly armoured Land Rovers offered completely inadequate protection. Her lawyer, Jocelyn Cockburn, said: “Sue Smith and the other Snatch Land Rover families have fought for years to bring this matter to the attention of the courts. Their main motivation was to have these vehicles removed from use so that other soldiers would not be killed unnecessarily. They achieved that. “Now the families are appealing [against] this ruling because they want the MoD to be accountable for allowing their loved ones to go into combat in vehicles that were manifestly unsuitable for the job. “This is important because, if the MoD knows it has a legal duty to protect soldiers, then in future the safety of soldiers will be a priority – as it should be.” Ms Smith added: “It cannot be right that British soldiers are considered to be outside the jurisdiction when they are sent to fight for their country.” Separately, the judge was asked to consider claims that, under common law, the MoD had been negligent to send Ellis into combat without the proper equipment. A similar case has been brought by the families of three soldiers who were involved in a “friendly fire” incident in Iraq involving two Challenger tanks. One of the tanks fired on the other during the confusion of battle – killing Corporal Stephen Allbutt, and injuring Troopers Daniel Twiddy and Andrew Julien. In this case, lawyers argued that the MoD should have provided better surveillance devices so the tanks were able to identify each other more easily. Relying on the principle of “combat immunity”, the ministry argued that this was a complete legal defence for incidents that took place in war zones, and that the provision of equipment was an issue for politicians, not just the military. The judge disagreed. “There can be no doubt,” he said, “that the [MoD] is under a general duty to provide adequate training, suitable equipment and a safe system of work for members of the armed forces.” He said that the negligence claims arising from the Challenger tank case, and the claim brought on behalf of Ellis’s 10-year-old daughter Courtney, could go to trial. Shubhaa Srinivasan, the lawyer representing the Challenger tank victims, said: “It is a real victory for them and for all service personnel. The judgment sends a clear message that the MoD cannot renege from the military covenant by saying it does not owe a duty of care to properly equip our soldiers.” A ministry spokesman said: “The courts have upheld our arguments on Article 2 of the ECHR. We will be seeking leave to appeal against the decision about liability claims for equipment provision.” Military Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Court questions whether ‘combat immunity’ is a valid defence where soldiers are sent into battle without the proper equipment The British military could be sued for failing to train and equip soldiers fighting in war zones properly following a high court ruling that has questioned whether ministers can rely on “combat immunity” to defend such cases. The high court said the Ministry of Defence was wrong to argue that civil claims brought against it because of “personal injury or death of members of the armed forces” had no merit “because the damage was incurred in combat”. Mr Justice Owen refused a ministry application to throw out several claims of common law negligence and said the issue could be decided at trial. In the same ruling, however, the judge ruled against families seeking compensation after three soldiers were killed in Iraq when their Snatch Land Rovers were hit by hidden bombs. Lawyers for the families said that the vehicles were completely unsuited for Iraq and that the ministry had an obligation, under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to take reasonable steps to provide troops with proper protection. The judge said the incidents in Iraq were beyond the jurisdiction of the convention, which extends only to the UK and other European nations. Both of Mr Justice Owen’s rulings are likely to be taken to the court of appeal as the judiciary attempts to scrutinise and redefine the rights of soldiers, and their families, to seek compensation from the armed services. During a three-day hearing in May, the high court heard about a series of incidents that took place in Iraq between March 2003 and August 2007. Three of the episodes involved attacks on Snatch Land Rovers that killed British soldiers: Private Phillip Hewitt, 21, of Tamworth, Staffordshire; Private Lee Ellis, 23, of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester; and Lance Corporal Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, Essex. Sue Smith, Hewitt’s mother, led the families’ campaign, insisting the MoD had failed the soldiers under human rights laws because the lightly armoured Land Rovers offered completely inadequate protection. Her lawyer, Jocelyn Cockburn, said: “Sue Smith and the other Snatch Land Rover families have fought for years to bring this matter to the attention of the courts. Their main motivation was to have these vehicles removed from use so that other soldiers would not be killed unnecessarily. They achieved that. “Now the families are appealing [against] this ruling because they want the MoD to be accountable for allowing their loved ones to go into combat in vehicles that were manifestly unsuitable for the job. “This is important because, if the MoD knows it has a legal duty to protect soldiers, then in future the safety of soldiers will be a priority – as it should be.” Ms Smith added: “It cannot be right that British soldiers are considered to be outside the jurisdiction when they are sent to fight for their country.” Separately, the judge was asked to consider claims that, under common law, the MoD had been negligent to send Ellis into combat without the proper equipment. A similar case has been brought by the families of three soldiers who were involved in a “friendly fire” incident in Iraq involving two Challenger tanks. One of the tanks fired on the other during the confusion of battle – killing Corporal Stephen Allbutt, and injuring Troopers Daniel Twiddy and Andrew Julien. In this case, lawyers argued that the MoD should have provided better surveillance devices so the tanks were able to identify each other more easily. Relying on the principle of “combat immunity”, the ministry argued that this was a complete legal defence for incidents that took place in war zones, and that the provision of equipment was an issue for politicians, not just the military. The judge disagreed. “There can be no doubt,” he said, “that the [MoD] is under a general duty to provide adequate training, suitable equipment and a safe system of work for members of the armed forces.” He said that the negligence claims arising from the Challenger tank case, and the claim brought on behalf of Ellis’s 10-year-old daughter Courtney, could go to trial. Shubhaa Srinivasan, the lawyer representing the Challenger tank victims, said: “It is a real victory for them and for all service personnel. The judgment sends a clear message that the MoD cannot renege from the military covenant by saying it does not owe a duty of care to properly equip our soldiers.” A ministry spokesman said: “The courts have upheld our arguments on Article 2 of the ECHR. We will be seeking leave to appeal against the decision about liability claims for equipment provision.” Military Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Being a Christian doesn’t mean you’re a homophobic miscreant. My sister is a pretty devout Christian who believes people have a right to be who they are, gay or straight. However, there’s a dark shroud that covers some members of the extreme religious right. I simply don’t understand the hatred they feel towards the gay community. I know it can make you some big bucks via the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell route and they blamed 9/11 partially on the gays so I guess the the cash is enticing to some. Enter Marcus Bachmann, husband of Michele. When trying to figure out where presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) gets her stringent, anti-gay views, you only have to look as far as her husband. Dr. Marcus Bachmann, who has described himself as his wife’s “ strategist ,” runs a Christian-based counseling center in Minnesota that has been rumored to offer reparative treatment for those looking to “ ungay ” themselves. Just last summer, Dr. Bachmann explained his position on homosexuality while offering theoretical advice to parents concerned that one of their children was gay. BACHMANN: We have to understand: barbarians need to be educated . They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps… And let’s face it: what is our culture, what is our public education system doing today? They are giving full, wide-open doors to children, not only giving encouragement to think it but to encourage action steps. That’s why when we understand what truly is the percentage of homosexuals in this country, it is small. But by these open doors, I can see and we are experiencing, that it is starting to increase. Let’s educate them straight. That’s the ticket. If the MSM reports on this I’d look for Michele to say she doesn’t share the exact views of her husband and she shouldn’t be judged by his words. Only we have her words and actions on her anti-Gay agenda: Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, who will officially announce her run for president Monday, said today she would support a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and woman, thereby overturning New York ‘s new law legalizing gay marriage . And then there’s her nasty behavior in Minnestoa back in 2003. In 2003, after the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued its famous ruling permitting gay marriage, Bachmann proposed an amendment to the Minnesota constitution banning gay marriage — despite the fact that the state legislature had already passed a law making same-sex unions illegal. Even the politicians who were sufficiently gay-phobic to have passed the original anti-marriage law were floored by the brazen pointlessness of Bachmann’s bill. “It’s unnecessary, it’s redundant, it’s duplicative,” said Assistant Senate Majority Leader Ann Rest. She’s long held these views and seems to have worked harder in the Minnesota legislature at passing anti gay initiatives than she ever did on any bill since being elected to Congress.
Continue reading …
Check out our brilliant route map, stage analysis, mountain fly-throughs and guides to team tactics Paddy Allen Giulio Frigieri Jenny Ridley Martin Shuttleworth Peter Storey Ken Macfarlane William Fotheringham
Continue reading …
Judge tells killer with a fetish for cutting hair from women that he will never be released Danilo Restivo will spend the rest of his life in prison for the ritualistic killing of mother-of-two Heather Barnett after a judge ruled that his crime was of such “inhuman depravity” he should never be freed. Restivo, who had a fetish for cutting locks of hair from girls and women, killed seamstress Barnett at her flat in Bournemouth before mutilating her body and placing a hank of someone else’s hair in her right hand and a clump of her own beneath her left. Restivo, an Italian national, now faces extradition over the killing of 16-year-old Elisa Claps in the loft of a church in Potenza, southern Italy, in 1993. He left strands of her hair in her hands and next to her body. Restivo was found guilty in just five hours by a jury at Winchester crown court of the murder of Barnett, 48, in 2002. All 12 members of the jury chose to return to court to hear Restivo’s sentence. Some wept as they heard a victim impact statement read on behalf of Barnett’s daughter, Caitlin, aged 11 at the time of the murder, who found the body when she came home from school. Passing sentence, Mr Justice Burnett told Restivo the murder was so serious that no minimum term would be appropriate. “The seriousness of this offence is exceptionally high… the depravity of the killing, the careful planning and preparation, its sexual content and the previous killing of Elisa Claps drive me to the conclusion that the alternative starting point (for a minimum prison term) of 30 years would not be appropriate. “I can find no mitigation in this case, none have been advanced on your behalf. There is, in my judgment, no minimum period which could be properly set – you will never be released from prison.” The judge said the crime was of “inhuman depravity”, made worse by the fact that Restivo would have known his victim’s children would find her body. He said: “You knew an 11-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy would find their mother butchered on the bathroom floor. This feature of the case will haunt those who sat through it. “Why you picked Heather Barnett as your victim I do not know but it’s clear that you did so to satisfy a sadistic, sexual appetite. The evidence in this case shows you are a cold, depraved, calculated killer.” Restivo is now subject to a European arrest warrant and is expected to be extradited to Italy – where the case has attracted huge interest – to stand trial for the murder of Claps. Outside court Heather Barnett’s brother, IT teacher Ben Barnett, spoke of his relief at seeing Restivo jailed for lifeand revealed the killer attended his sister’s funeral. Undercover police observed mourners at the funeral and wake, where Restivo may even have consoled Heather’s children Terry, then 14, and Caitlin. Detectives had told the grieving family they were sure Restivo would show up at the service in February 2003 because he would get a thrill from it. Mr Barnett said: “Restivo and his wife, Fiamma, came to Heather’s funeral and the wake. They were neighbours and at that stage he was one suspect of about 10 or so. “The police approached us before the funeral and asked if they could attend to see who else turned up. They thought the murderer might come and get some gratification from it. “He would have spoken to the children, because they knew him as a neighbour. He is a callous and calculating person. “He left Heather for her children to find and made sure he was the person who tried to comfort them. I will never understand that.” Mr Barnett added: “I feel relieved; relieved that we don’t have to go through this anymore and that the police suspicions were right all along. “Our biggest fear was always that this might happen to somebody else and the evidence shows that it quite realistically could have done. I think he would have killed again. “Restivo has already had eight years of freedom that my sister never had. I’ve thought about the death penalty, but I think it’s too good for him. It seems like the easy way out. I think he’s going to have a miserable rest of his life in prison. Mr Barnett also criticised the Italian police investigation and said that, if Claps’s body had been found earlier, Heather would still be alive. He said: “The thing I find most confusing is that they should have found Elisa’s body in the place where she was suspected to have been murdered. All the evidence points to the fact she had been there from that day and I don’t know how the police could have missed it. Somebody has a lot of questions to answer. “If the investigation had been carried out properly and they proved Restivo murdered Elisa, then my sister would still be alive today.” Crime Italy Steven Morris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Coalition says leader of insurgents who attacked Intercontinental Hotel among victims of air strike on Haqqani network fighters Nato aircraft killed an insurgent leader linked to a deadly hotel attack in the Afghan capital this week, the coalition has said, a raid that raised questions about whether Afghan forces are ready for the looming security transition. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack on the Intercontinental, one of two major hotels used by foreigners and Afghan government officials, a rare night-time raid that began on Tuesday and ended five hours later with 12 killed. However, the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said the al-Qaida-linked Haqqani network had also been involved in the assault by nine suicide bombers and gunmen. ISAF identified the Haqqani network leader killed in an air strike as Ismail Jan, whom it described as a deputy to the senior Haqqani commander in Afghanistan, Haji Mali Khan. It said on Thursday he and “several Haqqani fighters” were killed in the air strike in the Gardez district of Paktia province south of Kabul on Wednesday. “The Haqqani network, in conjunction with Taliban operatives, was responsible for the Tuesday-night attack on the Kabul Intercontinental hotel which killed 12 people, including a provincial judge,” ISAF said in a statement. The raid came only a week after the US president, Barack Obama, announced a phased withdrawal of combat troops, with 10,000 to leave by the end of this year and 23,000 more by the end of September 2012. Obama’s announcement preceded the start of a gradual transition of responsibility to Afghan forces from next month that will end with all foreign combat troops leaving Afghanistan by the end of 2014. With that process to begin in seven areas next month, the hotel raid raised serious questions about whether Afghan forces, particularly the police, were ready to take over. “It shows one of the concerns is that the Afghan security forces are growing in quantity, not in quality,” said Thomas Ruttig, co-director of the Kabul-based Afghanistan Analysts Network. The attack ended when snipers on board a Nato helicopter killed the last three attackers fighting from the roof of the hotel. Earlier television footage showed Afghan forces firing wildly into the air. ISAF has been training members of the 126,000-strong Afghan national police since 2009. Afghan police, who will be at the frontline of the security transition in villages and towns across Afghanistan, have long been viewed as inept and lagging behind the training of the better-equipped army, which had been the focus of training efforts since the Taliban were toppled in late 2001. Violence has risen to record levels across Afghanistan over the past 18 months as Nato troops, especially US forces, hit back against a growing insurgency, especially in the Taliban heartland in the south. A quarterly report by the UN secretary-general to the security council about Afghanistan found that the number of security incidents since March had risen 51% on the same period in 2010, with suicide attacks rising sharply. Attacks in the Taliban heartland of Kandahar were especially worrying. “The city of Kandahar and its surroundings registered the majority of the incidents during the reporting period, with a quarter of the overall attacks and more than half of all assassinations recorded countrywide,” the report said. But Ruttig said the attack also highlighted other problems confronting Afghanistan before the start of the transition process, which also includes handing the running of civil institutions and projects over to Afghans. Not least is the political paralysis that has gripped the country for months. “The fact that neither Nato nor the Afghans were able to prevent it says something – that transition needs to be something more than just security,” Ruttig said of the hotel attack. “Security forces are only part of transition. There also needs to be a strengthening of political institutions and, at the moment, the parliamentary crisis has brought politics to a standstill,” he told Reuters. Last week a special poll court set up by a decree by the president, Hamid Karzai, overturned the results for a quarter of parliamentary seats from last year’s elections, effectively throwing out 62 MPs who had been declared winners. The move, and the court itself, have been branded unconstitutional and illegal by Afghan and western officials and observers. Critics have said the court was set up by Karzai to further his own political agenda and silence opposition. Afghanistan Hamid Karzai Nato Taliban guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
First drone strike in Somalia reported to have wounded senior al-Shabab militants The US has conducted its first drone strike on Islamist militants in Somalia, marking the expansion of the pilotless war campaign to a sixth country. The missile strike on a vehicle in the southern town of Kismayo, reported last week as a helicopter assault, wounded two senior militants with al-Shabab and several foreign fighters according to the Washington Post . Armed Predator and Reaper drones already operate in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya, where they are controlled by the US military or the CIA. The CIA-run programmes are controversial. Although they provide the Obama administration with a low-risk weapon against Islamist militants, they stir intense anti-American hostility among the local population. Opposition is most vociferous in Pakistan, where the government said on Wednesday it was shutting down a big CIA drone base, and had ordered US personnel based there to leave. The closure of Shamsi airbase is unlikely to end the strikes. The CIA has moved its drones to bases across the border in Afghanistan, and some strikes have already taken place from there, according to a senior Pakistani military official. Racked by decades of civil war, Somalia has become an al-Qaida hub, after Yemen and Pakistan’s tribal belt. The US military previously targeted militants based there using helicopter gunships, special forces teams and cruise missiles fired from aircraft carriers. The US has also flown surveillance drones over Somalia – one was shot down in October 2009 – but now they are being used for assassination. The targets of the 23 June strike were reportedly close to Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian peninsula. In May, Awlaki escaped a drone strike in Yemen carried out by the Joint Special Operations Command, an elite military unit that orchestrated the Osama bin Laden raid. Now control of the Yemen strikes is reported to be passing to the CIA. The closure of Shamsi airbase is a blow to President Barack Obama efforts to flush al-Qaida from Pakistan. Shamsi, in western Balochistan province, was the launchpad for strikes against al-Qaida and Taliban militants in the tribal belt, particularly in Waziristan. Washington politicians have warmly embraced the drone strikes, which allow them to target elusive enemies in remote parts of the world with little risk to US personnel. In Pakistan, drone strikes have killed 2,500 people since 2004, according to higher estimates. Military analysts say they represent the future of airborne warfare. Ground personnel help the pilotless craft take off, but control quickly passes to remote-control pilots stationed thousands of miles away in the US. The CIA drones are controlled from a suburban facility near the spy agency’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia, while military drones are controlled from airbases in Texas, Nevada and elsewhere. Shamsi was built by Arab sheikhs for falcon hunting trips, but has been occupied by the CIA since at least 2004, when Google Earth images showed Predator drones parked on the runway. Pakistani defence ministry officials said they were closing the base in retaliation to slowed payments from the coalition support fund – a multibillion-dollar US subsidy for Pakistani military operations. A senior US official in Islamabad said the government was engaging in “diplomacy by headlines” but Pakistan’s leaders are also responding to hostile public opinion. A recent Pew poll found that just 3% of Pakistanis favoured drone strikes. The CIA is likely to continue its Pakistan campaign from its Afghan bases. In unusually direct comments on Wednesday, Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan said the US would continue to “deliver precise and overwhelming force against al-Qaida” in the tribal areas. The widening drone campaign has elicited concerns from human rights activists about civilian casualties, and from legal experts about the consequences of an unaccountable form of warfare. Last year a senior UN official warned of the risks of a “PlayStation warfare” mentality. Somalia Pakistan US military CIA United States Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Great Firewall of China website shows users are unable to access any location within google.com Google’s new social network service, Google+, has apparently been blocked in China within a day of being launched. The company also halted new signups after a torrid first 24 hours in which “insane” demand to join it forced the company to close it to new members briefly. According to the site Great Firewall of China, which uses a server based in China to try to access external web locations, Google users inside China are unable to access any location within google.com, which includes the URL for Google+, at plus.google.com. Another access-checking service, Just Ping, also reports that the plus.google.com URL is inaccessible within China . The blocking by the Chinese government, using its “great firewall” – a censorship system which blocks a huge number of websites outside the Chinese borders on the basis that they contain “destabilising” content such as pornography or unsuitable views – matches that applied to other western social networks, including Facebook and Twitter . By contrast, the Guardian’s site is accessible in many parts of China.) Google’s main URL, google.com, has been blocked inside China since the company decided to withdraw from the mainland in 2010 in protest at what it saw as government-inspired hacking . According to the Great Firewall site, its Chinese version, google.cn, is also blocked while that of China-sanctioned Baidu is not. Google+ is being seen as Google’s answer to Facebook, which boasts almost 700m users – although it is effectively banned inside China, where only people who use encrypted connections to the outside world are able to join it. Vic Gundotra, one of the company’s top engineers who watched the development closely, posted on Google+ early on Thursday morning (at roughly 8.45pm on Wednesday night in Google’s Pacific timezone) that “we’ve shut down the invite mechanism for the night. Insane demand. We need to do this carefully, and in a controlled way. Thank you for all of your interest!” Invites were opened up again on Thursday afternoon, though only on a limited basis. There are no details yet on how many people have joined the service. China’s government on Friday celebrates an important anniversary, of 90 years since the founding of the Communist party of China, and it has instituted a number of crackdowns on internet use and heightened censorship. Earlier this week Google revealed that it receives a steady stream of requests for private data from developed countries — but that it had had no content removal requests from the Chinese government in the second half of 2010. However it received 90 requests from China-controlled Hong Kong for user data, an increase of 80% from the same period in 2009; it acquiesced to 53 of them, a 59% compliance rate. Google Digital media Social networking Blogging China Charles Arthur guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …