Showing posts with label Guantanamo Bay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guantanamo Bay. Show all posts

Friday, May 24, 2013

NEWS,24.05.2013



Brazil to open huge oil field to auction


Brazil says it will auction concessions to drill and explore an offshore oil field believed to hold up to 12bn barrels of crude, the country's largest find.
The tender process for the Libra oil field will take place in mid-October, said National Oil Agency (ANA) director Magda Chambriard, changing an originally scheduled date in late November.
"I have worked in the oil industry for 30 years and have never seen anything like it," she said.
"Something this size will raise eyebrows all over the world."
Libra, discovered in 2010, is within the vast Santos Basin, located about 180km off the coast of Rio de Janeiro.
Oil in the Santos basin, first discovered in 2007, lies under a thick layer of salt between five and seven kilometers below the ocean surface.
Brazil's first oil field auction in five years 142 land and ocean oil blocs in unexplored regions in north and north-eastern Brazil in mid-May raked in a record $1.4bn.
The ANA estimates that Libra holds between 26 and 42bn barrels of crude.
Chambriard said that its recoverable reserves of between eight and 12bn barrels are based on an estimated 30% on-site recovery rate.
The estimates, completed in May, are based on data obtained by drilling in the area and updates previous estimates, she said.
By way of comparison, the so-called Marlim field, which is the most productive one Brazil now has operating  at 600 000 barrels per day has a recoverable oil volume of 2bn barrels, Chambriard said.
Another, called Roncador, has 2.5bn she added. But Libra is another thing altogether.
The next pre-salt oil bloc auction will not likely be held until 2015, Chambriard said.
Brazil currently consumes some 800 million barrels of crude a year, so in the Libra reserve alone "there is enough oil to satisfy the current consumption rate for 12 years," said Florival Carvalho, a senior ANP official.
Brazil currently extracts some 300 000 barrels per day from the pre-salt region.

Cap on executive pay dropped - France


The French government has decided to drop a plan to impose a ceiling on executive pay in the private sector, though it will go ahead with a two-year super-tax on firms paying million-euro salaries, says Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici.
Moscovici told the daily Les Echos in an interview that the year-old Socialist government wanted to support business and job creation and was working to accelerate the take-up of tax credits aimed at lowering companies' labour costs.
"After several months of dialogue, I have decided to focus our legislative action on the 75% tax on salaries above €1m, which will be paid by the employer, Moscovici said, asked if a proposed law to cap pay was still in the works.
"We will not go beyond that: there will be no specific law on the governance of companies."
Moscovici said that instead the government was holding discussions with the business sector on the idea of letting shareholders have a say in a director's pay.
"Our aim is to avoid rooting the rules in law," he said.
"We prefer to go with 'a demanding auto-regulation', but careful, if the decisions announced are not up to scratch we still have the possibility of legislating."
President Francois Hollande's government is battling to overturn an image of being anti-business after corporate heads lashed out at its 75% super-tax plan and fought back at a plan last year to raise capital gains taxes.
The government has since rejigged its super-tax plan so that it applies to companies rather than employees over 2014 and 2015.
It has also altered the new capital gains tax rules so that entrepreneurs will not be punished for selling companies they have founded.
Moscovici said more needed to be done however, as France strives to return its economy to growth and halt soaring unemployment, which has risen to 10.6%.

North Korea: No guarantee of peace


China told a top North Korean envoy on Friday it wants a peaceful, denuclearised Korean Peninsula, and said the emissary warned there is "no guarantee of peace" but that his country was willing to hold talks with all sides.
The official state Xinhua News Agency said a top Chinese army general, Fan Changlong, made the call for denuclearisation in his meeting on Friday with North Korean Vice Marshal Choe Ryong Hae.
His comments were a reiteration of China's established position, but could be seen as a rebuke of its neighbouring ally, following a half-year gap in high-level contacts during which Pyongyang angered Beijing by conducting rocket launches, a nuclear test and other sabre-rattling.
Tensions surrounding the nuclear issue have "intensified strategic conflicts among involved parties and jeopardised the peace and stability of the peninsula”, continued Fan, a vice chairperson of the Central Military Commission overseeing China's armed forces.
A message from Kim
Choe, a personal envoy of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, was widely expected to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping and deliver a message from Kim before returning.
"Conditions on the Korean Peninsula and in the east Asian region are complex and exceptional, and there is no guarantee of peace. North Korea's people require a peaceful and stable environment to build their nation," Choe was quoted as saying.
"North Korea is willing to work with all sides to search for a method of solving the problems through dialogue," Choe said.
The envoy's comments reflect both the threatening tone of North Korea's recent statements, and its desire to show deference to Beijing's hopes for a return to nuclear disarmament talks.
Choe met on Thursday with the ruling Communist Party's fifth-ranked official, and Chinese state media later quoted the envoy as saying that North Korea "is willing to accept the suggestion of the Chinese side and launch dialogue with all relevant parties”.
Sanctions
Beijing considered Pyongyang's recent moves an affront to its interests in regional stability and showed its displeasure by joining with the US to back UN sanctions, and cut off dealings with North Korea's Foreign Trade Bank.
China is North Korea's last significant diplomatic ally and main source of trade and economic assistance.
China's North Korea watchers said it is unlikely that Chinese leaders would have accepted Choe's visit without a promise from Pyongyang, that it was prepared to return to diplomacy as Beijing has sought.
"The relationship is rocky, so they will try to mend the relationship," Cui Yingjiu, a retired professor of Korean at Peking University, said of North Korea.
"Second, they also want to improve relations with the US and need China to be their intermediary."

N Korean envoy meets China president


A North Korean envoy met China's President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Friday and handed him a personal letter from leader Kim Jong-Un, Chinese state-run media reported.
Choe Ryong-Hae told Xi that North Korea is willing to take positive actions to solve problems through dialogue, the semi-official China News Service said, after months of high tensions over Pyongyang's nuclear programme.
The report did not disclose the contents of the letter.
It quoted Choe saying dialogue included the long-stalled six-party talks aimed at North Korea's denuclearisation, which are chaired by China and bring together the two Koreas, the US, Russia and Japan.
Choe also said that North Korea needs to create a peaceful regional environment.
China is North Korea's key economic benefactor and diplomatic protector.
The report quoted Xi as telling Choe that China's position is for the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula and Beijing hopes for a resumption of the six-nation negotiations.
The six-party talks have sought to persuade Pyongyang to abandon nuclear development in exchange for aid and security guarantees, but the process has stalled for years amid repeated North Korean atomic tests and ballistic missile launches.

Obama seeks to end 'war on terror'


Twelve years after the "war on terror" began, President Barack Obama wants to pull the United States back from some of the most controversial aspects of its global fight against Islamist militants.

In a major policy speech on Thursday, Obama narrowed the scope of the targeted-killing drone campaign against al-Qaeda and its allies and took steps toward closing the
Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba.

He acknowledged the past use of "torture" in US interrogations; expressed remorse over civilian casualties from drone strikes; and said that the
Guantanamo detention facility "has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law".

After launching costly wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is tiring of conflict. While combating terrorism is still a high priority for the White House, polls show by large margins that Americans' main concerns are the economy and domestic concerns such as healthcare.

"We have now been at war for well over a decade," Obama said near the start of his address. Toward the end, he added: "But this war, like all wars, must end."

Though aimed first at a domestic audience, Obama's speech at
Washington's National Defence University was also the latest milestone in his campaign to reshape the global image of the US - particularly in the Islamic world.

Policy shift

But he faces obstacles from opponents in Congress who will try to block the closure of
Guantanamo prison and reject his call to repeal the Authorisation for Use of Military Force passed right after the 11 September 2001, attacks. The law is the legal basis for much of the "war on terror".

Faced with criticism about civilian casualties in attacks by unmanned aerial vehicles, Obama said the United States would only use those drone strikes when a threat was "continuing and imminent", a nuanced change from the previous policy of launching strikes against a significant threat.

Under new presidential guidance signed by Obama this week, the defence department will also take over some lethal drone operations from the CIA.

That would subject drone attacks to more scrutiny from Congress and might lead to the Pentagon taking over drone operations in
Yemen, but not in Pakistan, where the CIA is likely to continue to run the programme.

With al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden killed in a
US raid in 2011, a number of the group's top members taken out in drone strikes, and the US military role in Afghanistan winding down, Obama made clear it was time for a policy shift.

"Beyond
Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless 'global war on terror' - but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America," Obama said.

‘Signature’ drone strikes

Human rights groups mostly welcomed Obama's assertion that
America could not remain on "a perpetual war-time footing", but some activists said he was not going far enough.

Republican opponents warned against being too quick to declare al-Qaeda a spent force.

"The President is correct to highlight the successes in
America's war on terror that have occurred since 11 September 2001," said Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican mentioned as a possible US presidential candidate in 2016.

"He is wrong, however, to understate the continued threat to the US homeland or to suggest that the lethality of the threats posed by a weakened al-Qaeda and its affiliates is a return to a pre-9/11 norm that Americans should just accept," Rubio said in a statement.

The new
US drone rules are likely to reduce "signature" drone strikes, in which the United States targets what appear to be suspicious-looking groups of people. Those attacks are blamed for many civilian casualties in Pakistan's tribal areas near Afghanistan and in Yemen.

Obama "has clearly raised the bar significantly for the use of drone strikes with the very specific and restrictive criteria," said John Bellinger, former state department legal adviser in President George W Bush's administration.

"The standard for targeting is now the same for Americans and non-Americans - it must be a continuing and imminent threat of violence to Americans. And there must be a near certainty that no non-combatants will be killed," he said.

Closing Guantanamo Bay

The number of drone strikes has dropped in the past year after peaking in the middle of Obama's first term.

The New
America Foundation's widely cited drone attack database shows there have been 355 drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004 and more than 60 in Yemen since 2009.

Despite the new limits on drone attacks, pilotless aircraft are increasingly playing a role in the armoury of the
United States and other countries. The US Navy made aviation history on 14 May by launching an unmanned stealth jet off an aircraft carrier for the first time, with an eye on possible rivals like China and Iran.

While Obama largely has a free hand as commander in chief to set US drone policy, Congress has used its power of the purse to block him from closing
Guantanamo.

"I am grateful for the president's declaration that it remains his intent to close Gitmo. I am not confident he will get congressional support," said David Gushee, an ethics professor at
Mercer University.

Obama has been frustrated by his inability to make good on his 2008 campaign pledge to shut the prison, which was opened by his predecessor, President George W Bush, to hold men rounded up on suspicion of involvement with al-Qaeda and the Taliban after the 11 September attacks.

Closure plan

A hunger strike by 103 of the 166 detainees - 32 of whom have lost so much weight that they are being force-fed - has put pressure on Obama to take action.

"There is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened," Obama said.

Obama's latest Guantanamo proposals will likely meet much of the same resistance his earlier ones did from Republicans and some Democrats who do not want to fund the transfer of detainees away from Cuba.

But two Senate Republicans, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said they could support closing Guantanamo and moving some of its functions to the United States if Obama presented a workable plan.

Obama suggested a suitable site could be found on the
US mainland to hold military tribunals.

McCain and Graham have proposed that trials could be held at
Charleston Naval Yard in South Carolina. A supermax prison in Illinois has also been proposed in the past for housing Guantanamo inmates.

"I don't mind if we try to find a place to move it into the
United States," said Graham, who has been critical of Obama's security policies.

"What I want is a legal system consistent with being at war, and the reason we haven't closed
Guantanamo Bay is that we don't have a plan to close it," he said.

While he cannot shut
Guantanamo on his own, Obama has announced steps aimed at getting some prisoners out. He lifted a moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen out of respect for that country's reforming government. Yemenis make up the largest group of prisoners.

Of the 86 detainees who have been cleared for transfer or release, 56 are from
Yemen. But al-Qaeda has a presence in the country and Washington will likely want guarantees that the prisoners will not take up arms against the United States after they are sent home.

Among the TV audience for Obama's speech were detainees at
Guantanamo, who rely on television broadcasts and newspapers for hints about their fate.

"Detainees follow all coverage of
Guantanamo closely, including today's speech, and the post-speech commentary, analysis and editorials," said Navy Captain Robert Durand, a spokesperson for the Guantanamo detention operation.

"There is interest and discussion, but no discernible reaction," he said.

Ban lifted on Guantanamo-Yemen transfers


President Barack Obama is lifting his self-imposed ban on transferring Guantanamo Bay detainees to Yemen, a step toward his goal of closing the US military-run prison that he said "has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law."

Nearly 100 of the 166 terrorist suspects held at the prison in
Cuba are from Yemen and have had nowhere to go even if they had been cleared for transfer. Obama wouldn't send them home, and no other country was welcoming them.

Their hopelessness after a decade or more of imprisonment has contributed to a hunger strike at the detention facility that helped reignite the long-stalled effort to close it.

A leadership upheaval in
Yemen has improved the country's security but not eliminated a terrorist organisation trying to recruit jihadists.

But Obama's decision announced on Thursday is not without risk. Detainees who have been released to
Yemen in the past have joined terrorist fighters in the Arab nation.

The security concerns prompted Obama to suspend transfers to
Yemen in January 2010 after a Nigerian man attempted to blow up a US-bound flight on Christmas Day 2009 with explosives hidden in his underwear on instructions from al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen.

Co-operation with US

Senator Saxby Chambliss, an opposition Republican, was among those on Capitol Hill criticising Obama's change in policy.

"Between December 2009 and today, has
Yemen shown any indication that they are more capable of looking after those individuals? Absolutely not," Chambliss said. "And If we were to transfer those individuals to Yemen, it would be just like turning them loose."

Yemeni watchers in the
US say there is reason to hope security has improved since long-time authoritarian leader Ali Abdullah Saleh was ousted after mass uprisings last year.

Al-Qaeda had been on the upswing under Saleh, but his successor, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, has made fighting terrorism a top goal and restored co-operation with the
United States in the effort.

Obama announced that he was lifting the moratorium on Yemeni transfers in a speech at the
National Defence University in which he also defended targeted killings by US aerial drones and pushed Congress anew to authorise Guantanamo's closure.

The president did not explain his rationale behind the change in
Yemen policy, but senior administration officials cited Hadi's leadership as an increasingly able partner to the US.

Flown in shackles

A Yemeni official told The Associated Press that a delegation, including the country's human rights minister, returned this week after a trip to
Washington, where they agreed to set up of a rehabilitation centre to help reintegrate detainees with the support of the US and other Arab nations.

Rageh Badi, an adviser to Yemen's prime minister, said in an interview that the transfer ban had cast a shadow on the relations with the
United States. Badi said lifting the ban is a "welcome step, a progressive one that removes much of the ambiguity and confusion between the US administration and the Yemeni government."

Yemeni authorities previously had a system to monitor returned detainees, but it ceased to function after massive anti-government protests swept most of the country, starting in early 2011.

Of the estimated 30 Yemenis who returned from
Guantanamo, only a handful had stayed in Sanaa, the capital, while the rest moved to remote areas where government authority is minimal, or nonexistent.

David Remes, an attorney who represents many Guantanamo detainees, described a system roughly like parole for his clients who have been released to
Yemen.

He said they have been flown in shackles aboard a military aircraft back to Sanaa and turned over to state forces, who spend a couple days debriefing them about their years of captivity before they return to their families.

Peaceful lives

If they want to leave town, they are required to register with state security forces, who keep track of their movements, Remes said.

"Although there is no such thing as zero risk, the men who have returned from
Guantanamo are overwhelmingly living peaceful lives," Remes said. "And you can't hold 99 of 100 men captive because one might engage in bad acts when he is released, even two."

Yet some have returned to jihad. Among them is Saeed Ali al-Shihri, who emerged as the second-most senior commander of
Yemen's branch of al-Qaeda after being released from six years of detention at Guantanamo Bay.

Yemini officials said in January that al-Shihri was killed in a
US drone attack, but al-Qaeda denied he was killed and last month released an audio recording of him criticising Yemen's neighbour Saudi Arabia for its policy of allowing the US to launch drone strikes from bases in the kingdom.

In confusion that underscores how difficult it can be to keep track of former detainees, it was the second time the group denied al-Shihri's death. US officials had previously announced al-Shihri's death in an airstrike in September last year. A DNA test, however, proved that the body recovered was not that of al-Shihri.

According to security officials in
Yemen, there has not been any evidence to link any of the returnees with suicide bombings in the country.

However, some of them are thought to have fought against government forces in the southern Abyan province in 2011 and 2012, when al-Qaeda fighters took advantage of the security vacuum to seize large swathes of the area before they were pushed back by security forces last year.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the media.

MI5 aware of suspects before attack


Britain's security services faced questions on Friday over whether they could have done more to prevent the murder of a soldier hacked to death in a busy London street, after it emerged that his suspected killers were known to intelligence officers.
The two suspects, Michael Adebolajo, 28 and Michael Adebowale, 22, are under guard in hospitals after being shot and arrested by police after the murder of 25-year-old Afghan war veteran Lee Rigby on Wednesday in broad daylight.
They have not yet been charged.
Adebolajo, filmed justifying the killing as he stood near the body holding a knife and meat cleaver in bloodied hands, was born in Britain to a Nigerian immigrant family.
Adebowale is a naturalised British citizen born in Nigeria.
Another man and a woman have also been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder, an early indication that police are investigating whether the attack was part of a wider plot.
Prime Minister David Cameron said a parliamentary committee would carry out an investigation into the role of the security services.
Britain's MI5 domestic spy agency had been aware of the men, but neither was considered a threat, a government source told Reuters.
Dramatic video footage showing the moment when police shot the two men was published on a British newspaper's website on Friday.
The shaky, 10-second clip shows one of the men sprinting towards a police car with a knife in his hand before he is shot and tumbles to the ground.
"It is important for the public to know that the security services and the police are operating properly," former London police chief Ian Blair told BBC radio.
Investigation
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said there would be a thorough investigation into the role of the police and intelligence agencies.
However, he said the incident underlined how "difficult it is in a free society to be able to control everyone".
The attack was the first Islamist killing since July 2005, when four suicide bombers struck London transport.
At that time, questions were also raised about the security services after it was revealed two of the bombers had been identified in a surveillance operation, but were not followed up.
Richard Barrett, former head of counter-terrorism at the Secret Intelligence Service MI6, Britain's foreign spy agency, said it would be impractical to track every person who expressed radical views in case they tipped over into violent extremism.
"To find the signals, the red flags as it were, I think is enormously hard," he told the BBC.
Adebolajo, who converted to Islam and took the name "Mujahid" - warrior - used to attend events run by the banned Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, its leader Anjem Choudary has said.
Detectives are trying to determine whether the suspects had links to militants in Britain or overseas.
Sources familiar with the investigation have said no sign has emerged so far of direct links between the attack and an Islamist insurgency in the suspects' ethnic homeland Nigeria. Their surnames suggest they are from the Christian south of Nigeria, not the Muslim north where insurgents are active.
Police stepped up security at religious venues and transport hubs.
‘Lone wolves’
The murder, just a month after the Boston Marathon bombing, revived fears of "lone wolves", who may have had no direct contact with al-Qaeda but plan their own attacks.
A source close to the investigation told Reuters the attackers were known to MI5.
Adebolajo had handed out radical Islamist pamphlets, but neither was considered a serious threat.
Another source close to the inquiry said the local backgrounds of the suspects in a multicultural metropolis - nearly 40% of Londoners were born abroad - and the simplicity of the attack made prevention difficult. It required little preparation beyond buying a set of butcher's knives.
Peter Clarke, the former head of London's Counter Terrorism Command who led the investigation into the 2005 bombings, said if the men did turn out to be acting alone, it showed the difficulty the security services faced in trying to stop them.
"To an extent, if these people are acting as individuals it makes it even more difficult than if they're an organisation," he told Reuters. "Instead of having to dismantle an organisation, you are having to investigate and counter an ideology."
The two men used a car to run down Rigby outside Woolwich Barracks in southeast London and then attacked him with a meat cleaver and knives, witnesses said.
The pair told bystanders they acted in revenge for British wars in Muslim countries.
Rigby, who had a 2-year-old son, was not in uniform. The bandsman was working locally as an army recruiter.
In Nigeria, with a mixed Christian-Muslim population and where the authorities are battling an Islamist insurgency, a government source said there was no evidence the Woolwich suspects were linked to groups in west Africa.
British investigators are looking at information that at least one of the suspects may have had an interest in joining Somalia-based Islamist rebel group al-Shabaab, which is allied to al-Qaeda, a source with knowledge of the matter said.

Monday, February 4, 2013

NEWS,04.02.2013


Media lampoons Berlusconi's tax promise


Silvio Berlusconi's rivals lampooned him as a snake charmer and a TV huckster selling pots and pans on Monday after he promised sweeping tax cuts if his centre right wins Italy's election this month.The former prime minister launched his "last great electoral and political battle" on Sunday with a plan to reduce government spending, enact fiscal reform and what he called a "shock proposal" - reimbursing Italians for a much-hated tax on primary residences imposed last year.Forced from power in 2011 after financial market turmoil that threatened to push Italy into a Greek-style debt crisis, Berlusconi has focused his comeback hopes on attacking the austerity policies of Mario Monti's technocrat government."Even an imbecile is able to invent new taxes and impose them on citizens but only an intelligent person can cut costs," Berlusconi said at a rally in Milan, the northern city where he made his media and real estate fortune. But the day after, it was Berlusconi who was mercilessly derided by most newspapers and political opponents. Corriere della Sera, Italy's leading paper, ran a cartoon depicting him dressed as a smiling joker in a carnival outfit throwing coins and banknotes to everyone in his wake.Monti called Berlusconi "a snake charmer" and accused him of trying to sell "a dream even more fantastic than that in Alice in Wonderland".Just about the only comfort Berlusconi found in the media was in a headline in Il Giornale, a newspaper owned by his family: "Finally, More Money".The real estate tax, known as IMU, was imposed on primary residences last year by Monti to help with Italy's financial crisis, after it had been abolished in 2008 by Berlusconi.It is estimated to have raised some €4bn last year, a sum Berlusconi dismissed as no more than 0.5% of the €800bn annual budget.He said he would scrap the tax at his first cabinet meeting and refund payments already made. He promised to phase out a regional tax on businesses, reduce personal income tax rates, not hike value added tax (VAT) or impose a "wealth tax" on higher earners."This can work if alternative revenues are found," said Professor Fabio Marchetti, a tax expert at Rome Luiss university. "But I think it is rather utopian and demagoguery because it would make us the only country with no tax on primary residences." Berlusconi was criticised even by former allies.Giulio Tremonti, economy minister in the last Berlusconi government, said reimbursing the real estate tax "would objectively create a problem for public accounts."Vittorio Feltri, a journalist who was for years the editor of Il Giornale, said: "If the state can't find the money to pay its suppliers or make tax refunds, where is it going to find the money to reimburse the real estate tax?"Berlusconi said the money would come in part from striking a deal with Switzerland to tax financial activities there by Italian citizens."But a possible accord with Switzerland is still in stormy waters," said Professor Marchetti, adding that it could never be worked out before the new government takes office in April.Berlusconi promised to save money by cutting government waste, halving the number of parliamentarians, and eliminating public financing of political parties. Income would come from new taxes on things he called "not of primary necessity" - tobacco, gambling and lottery tickets."Some people will buy into it and it certainly will have an effect on some people's voting intentions but the unknown is how much of an effect it can have," said Marchetti.Most opinion polls indicate that the centre-left coalition, headed by Democratic Party secretary Pier Luigi Bersani, will win the Feb. 24-25 election. But the gap between the centre left and the centre right has narrowed steadily since Berlusconi returned to active politics. ($1 = 0.7301 euros)

German car sales down


New car registrations in Germany, a key measure of demand in one of the most crucial sectors of Europe's top economy, fell sharply in January, official data showed on Monday.Some 192 100 new cars were registered in January, a slump of 9% compared with the same month a year earlier, the VDA auto industry calculated.Export sales of German-made cars were down as well, falling by 8% to 310 700 units in January.In terms of output, the number of cars rolling off the production line fell by 11% to 394 300, VDA added.

 

Obama: more tax revenue needed


President Barack Obama said on Sunday more tax revenue would be needed in the coming years to reduce the US deficit but raising tax rates was not a key issue."I don't think the issue right now is raising rates," Obama said in an interview on CBS."There is no doubt we need additional revenue, coupled with smart spending reductions in order to bring down our deficit. And we can do it in a gradual way so that it doesn't have a huge impact," he said.At the beginning of the year Obama pushed through legislation to address the US fiscal cliff that raised income tax rates on households making more than $450 000 a year.


UK banks face break-up under new law


Britain's biggest banks will face being broken up if they fail to ring-fence their retail and investment arms, under draft legislation set to be announced by finance minister George Osborne on Monday.The new law will empower the government and a new banking watchdog to "electrify the ring-fence" if banks refuse to separate high-risk operations from savers' deposits.Launching the Banking Reform Bill, Chancellor of the Exchequer Osborne was due to say that banks will no longer be able to become "too big to fail", forcing the taxpayer to bail them out.The government had already announced plans to force banks to ring-fence operations by 2019, in a bid to avoid taxpayers having to bail out troubled banks as was the case during the financial crisis.But the draft law has been toughened up to include "electrification" of the ring-fence after the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards complained last month that the proposals fell "well short of what is required".Osborne had previously warned the commission against "unpicking the consensus" on structural reform of the banking sector but appears to have accepted its warning that the draft law left room for loopholes.The announcement puts the finance minister on a collision course with Britain's banks, which claim the legislation would make London less attractive as a global financial centre."This will create uncertainty for investors, making it more difficult for banks to raise capital, which will ultimately mean that banks will have less money to lend to businesses," said Anthony Browne, chief executive of the British Bankers' Association."Above all, what banks and business need is regulatory certainty so that banks can get on with what they want to do, which is help the economy grow."But Osborne was set to tell bankers: "When the RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) failed, my predecessor Alastair Darling felt he had no option but to bail the entire thing out."Not just RBS on the high street, but the trading positions in Asia, the mortgage books in sub-prime America, the property punts in Dubai."I want to make sure that the next time a Chancellor faces that decision they have a choice. To keep the bank branches going, the cash machines operating, while letting the investment arm fail."If passed, the Banking Reform Bill would also establish a new watchdog for the industry and force investment and retail banks to have separate bosses.

No sign US eavesdropped on Cole suspect


A judge at Guantanamo Bay refused on Monday to suspend a pre-trial hearing for the prisoner accused of orchestrating the attack on the USS Cole, ruling that defence lawyers had offered no evidence supporting their suspicion that the CIA can eavesdrop on their private conversations with their client.Army Colonel James Pohl said that unless the defence can offer evidence of eavesdropping, the hearing for Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri would continue."I can't stop a trial simply because something might happen," Pohl told defence attorney Navy Lieutenant Commander Stephen Reyes during a heated exchange at the start of the scheduled four-day hearing.Pohl granted ali-Nashiri's lawyers a three-hour recess to consider whether they can ethically continue representing him if they suspect that their privileged conversations are being monitored.The hearing was held at the US naval base in Cuba. AP watched a video feed of the hearing at Fort Meade.Al-Nashiri, a Saudi national, is charged with orchestrating the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors and wounded 37. He has been imprisoned at the Guantanamo since 2006, after being held by the CIA in a series of secret prisons. He is considered to be one of the most senior leaders in al-Qaeda.The eavesdropping issue sprang from an episode last week in another Guantanamo case in which an undisclosed government agency unilaterally silenced courtroom loudspeakers to prevent spectators from hearing classified information. Pohl, who was surprised by the action, ordered the agency on Thursday to disconnect the equipment.Reyes said the defence wants to know whether any third party can secretly monitor privileged conversations at the courtroom defence table, in a nearby holding cell or elsewhere on the base.Prosecutor Anthony W Mattivi assured the judge that no such capability exists. Reyes wasn't satisfied."Now that we know there's a man behind the curtain, we can't say, 'Ignore the man behind the curtain’," Reyes said.Reyes said he especially wants to know if the CIA can eavesdrop on those conversations."If it is the CIA that is conducting the listening, this is the same organisation that detained and tortured Mr al-Nashiri," Reyes said.A CIA inspector general's report said al-Nashiri was waterboarded and threatened with a gun and a power drill because interrogators believed he was withholding information about possible attacks against the US. Such practices were allowed under rules approved by the George W Bush administration but many them have since been repudiated as torture.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

NEWS,12.01.2013



President Obama, Do Not Let Your First Promise Be Your Last Deed

 

As President Barack Obama prepares to be inaugurated for his second term, he re-enters the Oval Office with several challenging tasks in front of him. One of the most challenging, and most important, is his unfulfilled commitment to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Today marks the 11th anniversary of the first detainees being taken to Guantanamo Bay.On one hand, I know in my heart that in the past 11 years, our country has taken major steps forward from the culture of fear that developed immediately following the tragic events of September 11th. Yet, at the same time, I recognize that critical measures still need to be taken before we can honestly say that our country has emerged politically, morally and spiritually from the unlawful post-9/11-era policies. As much as we try to remove the years of U.S.-sponsored torture and indefinite detention from the forefront of our political consciousness, Guantanamo Bay remains a vivid American symbol representing a rejection of the rule of law and a threat to our national security. The stakes in closing Guantanamo are high. It is an international symbol of torture. Faith groups have made it clear that the tenets of their traditions teach them that torture is immoral and absolutely unacceptable under all circumstances. If Guantanamo remains open, it implies that our country has not permanently put torture behind us. The soul of our nation that our children and grandchildren will inherit is at risk. By signing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, which further complicates the possibility of transferring people out of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, President Obama signaled his reluctance to make good on his early assurance that he would close the detention center. It seems as though the president is unwilling to invest the political capital necessary to fulfill one of his earliest promises to the American people. I believe however, that if President Obama used his influence, he could close Guantanamo Bay. All religions teach that human beings in the final analysis are judged by what they actually do. It is the behavior, not the rhetoric, of a nation or individual that is judged. No matter what Obama's intentions are, it is the successful act of closing Guantanamo that would endure. That is why it is so critically important for the president to take action early in his second term in a way which represents the American people and the values we cherish so greatly. The longer he waits -- and the closer he is to being on the way out of the Oval Office -- there will be more validation for holding people indefinitely and using torture. If he does not shutter Guantanamo, Guantanamo will outlast his presidency. And that would be a terrible legacy. Today, 166 detainees remain at Guantanamo, and the likelihood of transferring any of these men out of Guantanamo this year has decreased because of the recent legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president. President Obama, I urge you: Do not let your first promise be your last deed. Use your executive power to close Guantanamo Bay and once and for all, lead us out of the dark shadow of September 11th and restore our moral standing as a nation that can be a light unto others.


Hagel Nomination: Stakes Are High, But Far From Over

 

In the lead up the President Obama's announcement, there was an intense debate over former Senator Chuck Hagel's potential nomination as Secretary of Defense. At times Hagel's opponents became a touch hysterical indulging in excessively harsh rhetorical attacks. At first, they charged that he was not sufficiently pro-Israel or hawkish enough on Iran. But then, as is often the case, Hagel's opponents began to hyperventilate, upping the ante by claiming that the Senator was anti-Semitic or "obsessively addicted to dialogue" with Islamic extremist movements.Hagel was, to be sure, vigorously defended by stalwarts in the foreign policy establishment. In the end, despite the virulent attacks emanating mainly from the leading lights of the neo-conservative movement and right wing pro-Israel groups, President Obama did, in fact, nominate Chuck Hagel to be his next Secretary of Defense.I know Chuck Hagel. He is a thoughtful and sober advocate of the realist approach to foreign policy. His priority has always been to defend America's interests in the world through diplomacy and, only when absolutely necessary, to commit American forces to combat missions in defense of those interests. By disposition, he has an aversion to ideologically-based reckless behavior. His criticism of the war in Iraq, his opposition to the reckless use of force against Iran, and his critique of Israeli actions that impede peace are well-known. So too was his refusal while in the Senate to participate in AIPAC's frequent "hoop jumping" exercises. He resisted signing, as he termed them, the pro-Israel lobby's "stupid letters."There were moments when I expected the Administration to avoid further conflict by throwing Hagel overboard and moving instead to a "safer" pick for Secretary of Defense. That the president offered a strong endorsement of Hagel and then proceeded with the nomination was a very good sign. But it's not over yet.Republicans see the possibility of further weakening and distracting the president by "roughing up" his nominee and will in all likelihood subject Hagel to tough grilling when he finally appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee for confirmation. Their questions will, no doubt, focus on his support for Israel and his attitudes toward Iran. They will try to beat him into submission, forcing him to use the very shopworn language found the AIPAC letters he refused to sign when he served in the Senate. They will want him to demonstrate that he is more committed to Israel and more hawkish on Iran than he has been in the past.While I certainly hope that Hagel won't fold under the pressure, I am bracing myself for a degree of disappointment. And while I believe the president is committed and will fight for his nominee, I am also prepared to acknowledge that Hagel's confirmation is not a sure thing.What is at stake for Republicans is far more than just Israel and Iran. It is the entire neo-conservative enterprise that led the U.S. into two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which they cannot admit were failures) and has them still advocating for more aggressive military engagements in Syria and Iran.A U.S. national security team led by John Kerry and Chuck Hagel will not only be more compatible with President Obama's world view, but will make possible a dramatic departure from the foreign policy that neo-conservatives have promoted and maintained for the past decade. A confirmation of Hagel will open the door to debate allowing the opportunity for realists to put American national security policy on a more sober and less ideological footing.A Hagel confirmation, especially if he is resists embracing language that demonstrates subservience to Israel will also represent a threat to the power of the pro-Israel lobby to use intimidation to dictate Congressional behavior.One thing should be clear, however, and that is if Hagel is confirmed there will not be a radical change in this Administration's approach to Israel or an American acceptance of an Iran with nuclear weapons. Hagel and Kerry, like Obama, are supporters of Israel. The Administration will continue to support that state's defense requirements and, in all likelihood, will not rush headlong into a new Middle East peace initiative since they appear to believe that conditions for that simply do not exist. At the same time, Israel will continue to face the U.S.'s growing displeasure with its occupation and settlement policies. And the Administration will not end its pressure on Iran to be more transparent with its nuclear ambitions and agree with international community's insistence that they forsake advanced enrichment. But the Obama Administration will now be fortified by a team that understands that engagement and not foolish adventurism is the best way to resolve the standoff while insuring that we not be dragged into another potentially devastating Middle East war.At this point, we know what the stakes are, but have no way of knowing how this will play out. Will Hagel fold? Will Obama surrender to pressure and pull his nominee, risking defeat and embarrassment? Or will the Senate defeat Hagel's bid for confirmation? Any of these would be a setback of substantial proportions. On the other hand should Hagel stay the course, making clear his support for Israel while asserting his freedom and independence to criticize Israeli policies when necessary, and should Democrats decide to choose to support their president instead of the lobby and the pressure from the neo-cons, then we might well be on our way to a healthier political environment where realism trumps ideology and where honest political differences can be debated in our government without fear of retribution.
The stakes are high, but the outcome is far from certain.

Twisting Venezuela

 

Realizing Hugo Chavez's cancer may prove terminal, his government desperately buys time through shameless gimmicks blatantly violating Venezuela's constitution. Through whatever means necessary, it is determined to secure another six-year presidential term and beyond. It aims to further consolidate the Bolivarian Revolution's survival, increasingly ingrain it into the social fabric and ensure it becomes irreversible in Venezuela and throughout Latin America. Regardless of the magnitude of Mr. Chavez's illness, securing his physical presence in Venezuela, even if temporary, will be strategically critical to Nicolas Maduro, the current vice president and Chavez's anointed heir. In a likely presidential contest against Henrique Capriles, the dynamic opposition leader, Mr. Maduro's electoral chances grow more complicated with El Comandante's absence. Combined with factionalism in Chavismo's upper ranks, a pro-Chavez sympathy vote alone may not guarantee victory. Another free but unfair election would be needed in which the politicized instruments of state power are fully exploited to create an unequal level playing field.To further underscore this manipulation, the indefinite delay of Chavez's constitutionally mandated oath of office has been rubber-stamped by Venezuela's Supreme Court, stacked with Chavista loyalists. Its twisted reasoning simply defies any internationally accepted standards of jurisprudence. Even the Catholic Church has pleaded for compliance with the Constitution. After all, it remains one of the last remaining independent and influential voices in Venezuela.Furthermore, the government continues to use the private sector as scapegoats when its own economic mismanagement is responsible for the consistently deteriorating economy. Troubles include scarcity of basic food supplies and distressed oil production. The government engages in ploys such as sending troops to seize sugar mills in order to distract public attention from its own ineptitude. Venezuela's opposition is engaged in a full-scale media assault against the government's constitutional violations. Henrique Capriles remains the opposition's undisputed leader. Despite defeat in the October presidential contest, his convincing performance was the best of any opposition leader since Chavez assumed power. Furthermore, despite several opposition losses in the gubernatorial elections of December 2012, Capriles prevailed in Venezuela's second largest state. This victory further consolidated his position as opposition leader. His formidable discipline, determination and preparedness serve as critical unifying factors. Should snap presidential elections be called, Capriles can effectively seize the initiative and build upon the momentum of his recent campaigns. Any talk of a weakening opposition in light of the December gubernatorial defeats is simply overblown. Voter turnout in December barely reached 50 percent, whereas participation in the October 7th presidential election was over 80 per cent. Secondly, Chavez's cancer relapse galvanized the sympathy vote, particularly among his grassroots. Thirdly, the government strategically set the date of gubernatorial elections for December 16th. After all, it was just two months after the presidential election which maximizes voter fatigue and one week before the Christmas holiday which further distracts voters. Much of Venezuela's anti-Chavez middle classes tend to mobilize for vacation during this period. Finally, as in all recent Venezuelan elections, overwhelming state control over all instruments of power prevents an electoral level playing field. For now, Venezuela's future remains hostage to the health of a single individual whose ideology contradicts Venezuela's long-term national interest. Even if Chavez disappears and as Chavismo wanes, de-Chavezation will take a long time. It would be best for Venezuela to embark on this journey sooner rather than later.