An internal Justice Department inquiry into the conduct of Bush administration lawyers who wrote secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations has concluded that the authors committed serious lapses of judgment but should not be criminally prosecuted, according to government officials briefed on a draft of the findings.
The report by the Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics unit within the Justice Department, is also likely to ask that state bar associations consider possible disciplinary action, including reprimands or even disbarment, for some of the lawyers involved in writing the legal opinions, the officials said.
The conclusions of the 220-page draft report are not final and have not yet been approved by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. The officials said it is possible the final report might be subject to revision, but they did not expect major alterations in its main findings or recommendations.
The draft report is described as very detailed, tracing e-mail messages between Justice Department lawyers and officials at the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency. Among the questions it is expected to consider is whether the memos reflected the lawyers’ independent judgments of the limits of the federal anti-torture statute or were skewed deliberately to justify what the C.I.A. proposed.
At issue are whether the Justice Department lawyers acted ethically in writing a series of legal opinions from 2002 to 2007. The main targets of criticism are John Yoo, Jay S. Bybee, and Steven G. Bradbury, who as senior officials in the department’s Office of Legal Counsel were the principal authors of the memos.
The opinions permitted the C.I.A. to use a number of interrogation methods that human rights groups have condemned as torture, including waterboarding, wall-slamming, head-slapping and other techniques. The opinions allowed many of these practices to be used repeatedly and in combination.
Several legal scholars have remarked that in approving waterboarding — the near-drowning method that President Obama and his aides have described as torture — the Justice Department lawyers did not cite cases in which the United States government had prosecuted American law enforcement officials and Japanese interrogators in World War II for using the procedure.
In a letter made public on Monday, the Justice Department advised two Democratic senators on the Judiciary committee, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, that the former department lawyers who wrote the opinions had until Sunday to submit written appeals to the findings.
The draft report on the interrogation opinions was completed in December and has provoked controversy within counterterrorism circles, which has intensified since last month when the Obama administration disclosed four previously secret opinions written from 2002 and 2005, which for the first time detailed the approved procedures.
courtsey.the nytimes
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Swine flu plan to award GCSEs without exam
Exam boards are working on contingency plans to award children GCSE and A-level grades based on coursework marks if they are unable to attend an exam because of swine flu, the schools minister, Jim Knight, has revealed.
Five schools and a nursery have now closed after children were diagnosed with the H1N1 virus and some have had to urgently reschedule practical tests for art and music GCSEs scheduled for this week. There are now fears for the Sats tests, due to be taken by 600,000 11-year olds next week, and the GCSE and A-level exams, which are scheduled to run through to the end of June.
John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Schools are extremely worried about the exams, GCSEs, AS and A-levels. They need to know what to do if one of the pupils or staff is ill. They want to know what the contingency plans are for external examinations."
One further person, an adult living in the south-east who has returned from Mexico, was confirmed to have swine flu by the Health Protection Agency today, bringing the total number of confirmed cases in the UK to 28, with 333 still under investigation.
Knight said exam boards were considering new contingency plans but urged schools not to panic and rush to close unless they had received specific advice from the HPA. It comes after one school, Dolphin school in Battersea, south London and its nursery, closed without taking advice from the HPA.
Knight said: "I would be surprised if schools were to unilaterally decide to close without consulting the Health Protection Agency, who are experts in this matter.
"I don't advocate schools doing anything without reference to the HPA. The HPA has been thorough and professional in advice to schools on swine flu. Heads have a legal responsibility to make sure their children and staff are safe at school. I would encourage schools to take advice from the HPA before they make the decision to close."
He revealed that the exam boards were looking at expanding the system of giving "special consideration" to pupils who are sick at the time of their exams. Under the system, GCSEs, A-levels and other qualifications can be awarded on the basis of coursework grades and marks from modules already sat. Knight said: "There are already procedures in place if candidates can't sit their exams and are given special consideration. That can be put into action if things get worse. In contingency terms all these things are being discussed by exam boards."
Other options include looking at how pupils can sit exams in isolation even if a school is closed. The exams watchdog, Ofqual, said: "We are looking again at contingency plans to take coordinated action for the exam season if needed." The exam boards are due to meet on Thursday to discuss the situation as it unfolds.
Private schools have been issued with guidance advising them to expand their medical facilities to "quarantine" any infected pupils. The HPA said it was not advising the same to all schools.
It does not advise schools to close automatically as soon as a pupil is diagnosed with swine flu, but recommends a risk assessment to see if is is possible to limit the disruption to other children's education. Most schools affrected have called in the local authority's health protection unit to help them decide whether to shut their doors.
"All the schools that have closed did close on the advice of the health protection unit, apart from the Dolphin schools, where the board of governors made the decision to do so," the HPA said.
Though cases of swine flu have so far been mild in the UK, the HPA says it must be treated differently from seasonal flu.
"Although it would be unusual to close a school in response to a single case of flu, in the light of evidence emerging that swine influenza can spread rapidly in the school setting, it is recommended that, if a probable or confirmed case of swine flu occurs in a school setting, consideration should be given to closing the school temporarily (initially for a period of seven days)," the HPA guidance says.
Key to the decision to close is how easily the flu could spread. Staff should consider how long any sick child has been in school, for instance, and whether classes or year groups intermingle and all eat together.
No such precautions are recommended for offices and workplaces. The HPA said schools were a special case because children play together and are frequently in close physical contact. If an office worker gets swine flu, public health officials will trace his or her close contacts, who will include work colleagues. Only those who have been working within one metre of the affected person for an hour or more are considered sufficiently at risk to be given antiviral drugs such as Tamiflu, which can prevent them falling sick.
Tonight one flu expert warned that the UK's much-lauded drug stockpile might not be enough if people in contact with flu are given drugs, as children in UK schools have been. Dr John McConnell, editor of the Lancet Infectious Diseases journal, said in an online comment in the Lancet that 16 times as much antiviral medicine is needed to prevent illness as to treat people. "By this measure, the UK has stockpiles of oseltamivir [Tamiflu] sufficient to treat 30 million people (about half the population) but to prevent infection in only 1.9 million," he said.
courtsey:the guardian.com,uk
Five schools and a nursery have now closed after children were diagnosed with the H1N1 virus and some have had to urgently reschedule practical tests for art and music GCSEs scheduled for this week. There are now fears for the Sats tests, due to be taken by 600,000 11-year olds next week, and the GCSE and A-level exams, which are scheduled to run through to the end of June.
John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Schools are extremely worried about the exams, GCSEs, AS and A-levels. They need to know what to do if one of the pupils or staff is ill. They want to know what the contingency plans are for external examinations."
One further person, an adult living in the south-east who has returned from Mexico, was confirmed to have swine flu by the Health Protection Agency today, bringing the total number of confirmed cases in the UK to 28, with 333 still under investigation.
Knight said exam boards were considering new contingency plans but urged schools not to panic and rush to close unless they had received specific advice from the HPA. It comes after one school, Dolphin school in Battersea, south London and its nursery, closed without taking advice from the HPA.
Knight said: "I would be surprised if schools were to unilaterally decide to close without consulting the Health Protection Agency, who are experts in this matter.
"I don't advocate schools doing anything without reference to the HPA. The HPA has been thorough and professional in advice to schools on swine flu. Heads have a legal responsibility to make sure their children and staff are safe at school. I would encourage schools to take advice from the HPA before they make the decision to close."
He revealed that the exam boards were looking at expanding the system of giving "special consideration" to pupils who are sick at the time of their exams. Under the system, GCSEs, A-levels and other qualifications can be awarded on the basis of coursework grades and marks from modules already sat. Knight said: "There are already procedures in place if candidates can't sit their exams and are given special consideration. That can be put into action if things get worse. In contingency terms all these things are being discussed by exam boards."
Other options include looking at how pupils can sit exams in isolation even if a school is closed. The exams watchdog, Ofqual, said: "We are looking again at contingency plans to take coordinated action for the exam season if needed." The exam boards are due to meet on Thursday to discuss the situation as it unfolds.
Private schools have been issued with guidance advising them to expand their medical facilities to "quarantine" any infected pupils. The HPA said it was not advising the same to all schools.
It does not advise schools to close automatically as soon as a pupil is diagnosed with swine flu, but recommends a risk assessment to see if is is possible to limit the disruption to other children's education. Most schools affrected have called in the local authority's health protection unit to help them decide whether to shut their doors.
"All the schools that have closed did close on the advice of the health protection unit, apart from the Dolphin schools, where the board of governors made the decision to do so," the HPA said.
Though cases of swine flu have so far been mild in the UK, the HPA says it must be treated differently from seasonal flu.
"Although it would be unusual to close a school in response to a single case of flu, in the light of evidence emerging that swine influenza can spread rapidly in the school setting, it is recommended that, if a probable or confirmed case of swine flu occurs in a school setting, consideration should be given to closing the school temporarily (initially for a period of seven days)," the HPA guidance says.
Key to the decision to close is how easily the flu could spread. Staff should consider how long any sick child has been in school, for instance, and whether classes or year groups intermingle and all eat together.
No such precautions are recommended for offices and workplaces. The HPA said schools were a special case because children play together and are frequently in close physical contact. If an office worker gets swine flu, public health officials will trace his or her close contacts, who will include work colleagues. Only those who have been working within one metre of the affected person for an hour or more are considered sufficiently at risk to be given antiviral drugs such as Tamiflu, which can prevent them falling sick.
Tonight one flu expert warned that the UK's much-lauded drug stockpile might not be enough if people in contact with flu are given drugs, as children in UK schools have been. Dr John McConnell, editor of the Lancet Infectious Diseases journal, said in an online comment in the Lancet that 16 times as much antiviral medicine is needed to prevent illness as to treat people. "By this measure, the UK has stockpiles of oseltamivir [Tamiflu] sufficient to treat 30 million people (about half the population) but to prevent infection in only 1.9 million," he said.
courtsey:the guardian.com,uk
Heir to Gandhi dynasty claims power now rests with the poor
Rahul Gandhi, the suave, Cambridge-educated heir to India's most powerful political dynasty, is on a mission to show that he is at one with the poorest and most downtrodden in India's rural heartland.
In a sports ground on the dry plains of Rajasthan, 15,000 people, most of them farmers, sat beneath an orange canopy, enduring temperatures of 42C, as he told them that his Congress party had the fate of India's common man, the am aadmi, at its heart.
The audience, many of them wafer thin and wearing broken plastic shoes, had nothing in common with this privileged emblem of India's elite, and yet Gandhi's potent political heritage and his determination to focus on the needs of the dispossessed won him enthusiastic applause.
A young mother, nursing her one-month-old daughter, wrapped on her lap in a frayed yellow strip of cloth, said she had braved the heat so her child could see the country's future prime minister. "I want her to grow up in an India ruled by Rahul Gandhi," she said.
Gandhi, 38, showed no signs of exhaustion on the 30th day of his helicopter tour of India, battling simultaneously to win votes for his party and to secure the continued pre-eminence of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, which has been at the summit of Indian politics for the past 60 years. Two-thirds of the way through polling, India's election rests on a knife-edge, with analysts uncertain who will be victorious when the results are given on 16 May.
The Congress party has staked its hopes for survival on Gandhi's ability to win the hearts of the 700 million Indians who still live on less than two dollars a day.
Gandhi, who was last year appointed the Congress party's general secretary, is giving the challenge everything he has.
In recent months he has cast aside his image as India's most eligible bachelor – his handsome, dimpled smile no longer features regularly on magazine society pages – and adopted a more sober persona, rebranding himself as the biggest champion of India's impoverished masses since Mother Teresa died.
During his address Gandhi did not speak of his family, but everyone in the audience knew his lineage: from his great-grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru, the country's first prime minister, through to Indira, her son Rajiv – who took over as prime minister after Indira's murder and was blown up by a suicide bomber in 1991 – and his wife, Sonia, current leader of the Congress party, who declined the post of prime minister despite leading the Congress party to victory in 2004.
In this state the votes are finely balanced between the Congress party and the main opposition Bharatiya Janata party, and much of Rahul's speech was directed against his political rivals. Wiping the sweat from his glasses, he reminded his audience of the BJP's ill-fated "India Shining" slogan, which was the theme of its over-confident 2004 election campaign, when its leaders focused exuberantly on the nation's soaring economic growth. The Congress party successfully retaliated, pointing out that the vast majority of Indians endured lives that could scarcely be described as shining, and swept to power, promising to defend the interests of those left behind.
The Congress party has been in power, in a coalition with several allied parties, for five years, but the benefits of growth have yet to spread to the rural poor.
Gandhi argued that this was still a work in process, listing initiatives which have brought subsidised work schemes to the countryside and reduced the crippling interest paid by farmers.
He told the audience how this year he had brought "an English minister to see how people in India's villages lived". He was referring to a trip in January with David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, when the two spent a night in a mud hut in Gandhi's constituency, sleeping on charpoys. The excursion provoked considerable controversy in Delhi. "The BJP said 'why are you showing our poverty off to the English?'" Gandhi said, bending forward over the podium. "I was not showing off our poverty, I was showing him the powerhouse of India. These poor people are the people who will make India great. India's powerhouse is not in the cities, not in the metros. It lies in the villages."
The crowds roared their approval and rushed forward to see Gandhi's departure. If there was a contradiction between his earnest avowal of empathy with the nation's excluded, and his rapid exit in a helicopter back to his Delhi residence, in a rich, tree-lined enclave of the capital, it was not remarked upon by the supporters left behind in a cloud of dust.
It was hard to find anyone in the crowds to criticise him, even obliquely.
Jag Ram, 70, a cotton farmer, had risen at four to go 30 miles (48 km) in a bus with 20 other farmers to hear Gandhi speak. His membership of the dispossessed class was obvious from his mismatched shoes. He said he had benefited from the programme to relieve farmers' debts, and planned to vote Congress again, as his father and grandfather did. It was the first time he had seen the youngest active member of the dynasty. "His relatives gave their lives for this country, that's why we should vote for his party." Rahul was beginning to acquire something of his grandmother's stature, he added. "He is not old enough yet, but in the future it would be good to see him as India's prime minister."
The question of age is a key element in Gandhi's campaign. With 70% of India's population under 35, the Congress party hopes its flagging popularity can be revitalised by the transformation of Gandhi into a powerful force within the party. India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, is 76, and recently had heart surgery, while Lal Krishna Advani, the leader of the BJP, is 81. There is much talk of the need for a younger generation.
Gandhi likes to dwell on his youth, calling on India's millions of "other youngsters" to join the Congress party youth wing to help rebuild India. Working with the youth groups is his immediate focus, he says, rejecting the idea that he is angling to be named prime minister if the Congress does well in the polls.
Sonia Gandhi has stated that she will back the current prime minister to stay in his post, and her son has agreed. "Mr Singh is the best prime minister that this country could have," Rahul said.
Political analysts used to dismiss Rahul as the less talented of Sonia and Rajiv's two children, casting him in the shadow of his younger sister, Priyanka, who despite enormous popularity (down in part to her physical resemblance to Indira Gandhi) has refused to enter politics. However, observers concede that Rahul, after five years as an MP, no longer has the awkward schoolboy demeanour that used to characterise his speeches, and agree that he has developed confidence. His earlier political diffidence, his weekends spent paragliding or dining glamorous women at Delhi's most expensive Italian restaurant (where starters cost more than the average weekly salary), have all been replaced by a zeal to claim his "birthright". Over the past year he has travelled extensively, familiarising himself with the remote rural extremes of the nation.
At a press conference in Delhi yesterday he returned to his theme of the need to spread India's growth to the dispossessed. "I go to the villages where there is nothing, and I see people who are amazing, who put all of us to shame. The real energy of India is in the villages. We need to transfer the growth to that population."
Returning to a theme well-worn by his father, he asked why it was that only 10 paisa of every rupee of government money spent on development actually reached its intended target – the outcome, historically, of entrenched corruption.
But these lines of argument, while successful themes for an opposition party, could backfire for a party already in power. MJ Akbar, a columnist and magazine editor, said: "We have become so entranced by the dynasty that we are really forgetting the larger issues – has poverty been reduced since they've been in power? Has the quality of life improved? Has governance improved? If only 10 paisa are getting through, then who's responsible? They've been in power for the last five years, they should be making sure that 90% gets through to the poor."
Gandhi believes his party cannot be held responsible for such ancient problems. "We run one of the biggest administrative systems in the world, next to China," he said. "To change this is not an event. It is a process, a long-term process."
Critics also say that Gandhi's emphasis on poverty alleviation means he barely mentions India's new economic woes, its failure to contain terrorism, and his government's inability to push through long-promised reforms. They add that Gandhi is remarkably hazy when he comes to outlining precisely how his party will further spread the benefits of growth.
In his speeches Gandhi talks with passion about the power of India's democracy, but that too is dangerous territory, because, as his enemies delight in pointing out, there is something deeply undemocratic, if not positively feudal, about the way he has been helped to rise by his party. Maywati, chief minister in Uttar Pradesh and an arch political foe, calls him a "crown prince who inherited power".
There is a paradox with his career: how is it that a five-generation political dynasty has catapulted its heir to a position of power at the head of the world's largest democracy? "It is undemocratic," Gandhi agreed yesterday. "My position gives me certain advantages."
Somewhat unconvincingly, he said his background had instilled in him a desire to reform a system riddled with nepotism. "The fact that the Indian political system tends to be about who you know and who your brother is, that is just a fact of life. I want to change that. I consider it an honour and my duty to try to change the system of which I am the result. It is ironic, but that is how it is."
excertps from the guardian uk
In a sports ground on the dry plains of Rajasthan, 15,000 people, most of them farmers, sat beneath an orange canopy, enduring temperatures of 42C, as he told them that his Congress party had the fate of India's common man, the am aadmi, at its heart.
The audience, many of them wafer thin and wearing broken plastic shoes, had nothing in common with this privileged emblem of India's elite, and yet Gandhi's potent political heritage and his determination to focus on the needs of the dispossessed won him enthusiastic applause.
A young mother, nursing her one-month-old daughter, wrapped on her lap in a frayed yellow strip of cloth, said she had braved the heat so her child could see the country's future prime minister. "I want her to grow up in an India ruled by Rahul Gandhi," she said.
Gandhi, 38, showed no signs of exhaustion on the 30th day of his helicopter tour of India, battling simultaneously to win votes for his party and to secure the continued pre-eminence of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, which has been at the summit of Indian politics for the past 60 years. Two-thirds of the way through polling, India's election rests on a knife-edge, with analysts uncertain who will be victorious when the results are given on 16 May.
The Congress party has staked its hopes for survival on Gandhi's ability to win the hearts of the 700 million Indians who still live on less than two dollars a day.
Gandhi, who was last year appointed the Congress party's general secretary, is giving the challenge everything he has.
In recent months he has cast aside his image as India's most eligible bachelor – his handsome, dimpled smile no longer features regularly on magazine society pages – and adopted a more sober persona, rebranding himself as the biggest champion of India's impoverished masses since Mother Teresa died.
During his address Gandhi did not speak of his family, but everyone in the audience knew his lineage: from his great-grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru, the country's first prime minister, through to Indira, her son Rajiv – who took over as prime minister after Indira's murder and was blown up by a suicide bomber in 1991 – and his wife, Sonia, current leader of the Congress party, who declined the post of prime minister despite leading the Congress party to victory in 2004.
In this state the votes are finely balanced between the Congress party and the main opposition Bharatiya Janata party, and much of Rahul's speech was directed against his political rivals. Wiping the sweat from his glasses, he reminded his audience of the BJP's ill-fated "India Shining" slogan, which was the theme of its over-confident 2004 election campaign, when its leaders focused exuberantly on the nation's soaring economic growth. The Congress party successfully retaliated, pointing out that the vast majority of Indians endured lives that could scarcely be described as shining, and swept to power, promising to defend the interests of those left behind.
The Congress party has been in power, in a coalition with several allied parties, for five years, but the benefits of growth have yet to spread to the rural poor.
Gandhi argued that this was still a work in process, listing initiatives which have brought subsidised work schemes to the countryside and reduced the crippling interest paid by farmers.
He told the audience how this year he had brought "an English minister to see how people in India's villages lived". He was referring to a trip in January with David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, when the two spent a night in a mud hut in Gandhi's constituency, sleeping on charpoys. The excursion provoked considerable controversy in Delhi. "The BJP said 'why are you showing our poverty off to the English?'" Gandhi said, bending forward over the podium. "I was not showing off our poverty, I was showing him the powerhouse of India. These poor people are the people who will make India great. India's powerhouse is not in the cities, not in the metros. It lies in the villages."
The crowds roared their approval and rushed forward to see Gandhi's departure. If there was a contradiction between his earnest avowal of empathy with the nation's excluded, and his rapid exit in a helicopter back to his Delhi residence, in a rich, tree-lined enclave of the capital, it was not remarked upon by the supporters left behind in a cloud of dust.
It was hard to find anyone in the crowds to criticise him, even obliquely.
Jag Ram, 70, a cotton farmer, had risen at four to go 30 miles (48 km) in a bus with 20 other farmers to hear Gandhi speak. His membership of the dispossessed class was obvious from his mismatched shoes. He said he had benefited from the programme to relieve farmers' debts, and planned to vote Congress again, as his father and grandfather did. It was the first time he had seen the youngest active member of the dynasty. "His relatives gave their lives for this country, that's why we should vote for his party." Rahul was beginning to acquire something of his grandmother's stature, he added. "He is not old enough yet, but in the future it would be good to see him as India's prime minister."
The question of age is a key element in Gandhi's campaign. With 70% of India's population under 35, the Congress party hopes its flagging popularity can be revitalised by the transformation of Gandhi into a powerful force within the party. India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, is 76, and recently had heart surgery, while Lal Krishna Advani, the leader of the BJP, is 81. There is much talk of the need for a younger generation.
Gandhi likes to dwell on his youth, calling on India's millions of "other youngsters" to join the Congress party youth wing to help rebuild India. Working with the youth groups is his immediate focus, he says, rejecting the idea that he is angling to be named prime minister if the Congress does well in the polls.
Sonia Gandhi has stated that she will back the current prime minister to stay in his post, and her son has agreed. "Mr Singh is the best prime minister that this country could have," Rahul said.
Political analysts used to dismiss Rahul as the less talented of Sonia and Rajiv's two children, casting him in the shadow of his younger sister, Priyanka, who despite enormous popularity (down in part to her physical resemblance to Indira Gandhi) has refused to enter politics. However, observers concede that Rahul, after five years as an MP, no longer has the awkward schoolboy demeanour that used to characterise his speeches, and agree that he has developed confidence. His earlier political diffidence, his weekends spent paragliding or dining glamorous women at Delhi's most expensive Italian restaurant (where starters cost more than the average weekly salary), have all been replaced by a zeal to claim his "birthright". Over the past year he has travelled extensively, familiarising himself with the remote rural extremes of the nation.
At a press conference in Delhi yesterday he returned to his theme of the need to spread India's growth to the dispossessed. "I go to the villages where there is nothing, and I see people who are amazing, who put all of us to shame. The real energy of India is in the villages. We need to transfer the growth to that population."
Returning to a theme well-worn by his father, he asked why it was that only 10 paisa of every rupee of government money spent on development actually reached its intended target – the outcome, historically, of entrenched corruption.
But these lines of argument, while successful themes for an opposition party, could backfire for a party already in power. MJ Akbar, a columnist and magazine editor, said: "We have become so entranced by the dynasty that we are really forgetting the larger issues – has poverty been reduced since they've been in power? Has the quality of life improved? Has governance improved? If only 10 paisa are getting through, then who's responsible? They've been in power for the last five years, they should be making sure that 90% gets through to the poor."
Gandhi believes his party cannot be held responsible for such ancient problems. "We run one of the biggest administrative systems in the world, next to China," he said. "To change this is not an event. It is a process, a long-term process."
Critics also say that Gandhi's emphasis on poverty alleviation means he barely mentions India's new economic woes, its failure to contain terrorism, and his government's inability to push through long-promised reforms. They add that Gandhi is remarkably hazy when he comes to outlining precisely how his party will further spread the benefits of growth.
In his speeches Gandhi talks with passion about the power of India's democracy, but that too is dangerous territory, because, as his enemies delight in pointing out, there is something deeply undemocratic, if not positively feudal, about the way he has been helped to rise by his party. Maywati, chief minister in Uttar Pradesh and an arch political foe, calls him a "crown prince who inherited power".
There is a paradox with his career: how is it that a five-generation political dynasty has catapulted its heir to a position of power at the head of the world's largest democracy? "It is undemocratic," Gandhi agreed yesterday. "My position gives me certain advantages."
Somewhat unconvincingly, he said his background had instilled in him a desire to reform a system riddled with nepotism. "The fact that the Indian political system tends to be about who you know and who your brother is, that is just a fact of life. I want to change that. I consider it an honour and my duty to try to change the system of which I am the result. It is ironic, but that is how it is."
excertps from the guardian uk
Pentagon warns over Chinese boats
The Pentagon has accused Chinese fishing boats of "dangerous" manoeuvres near a US Navy surveillance ship in the Yellow Sea last week.
Two boats came within 30 yards (27 metres) of the USNS Victorious in an "unsafe and dangerous" fashion on Friday, a statement said.
Correspondents say the US response was muted compared to its reaction to similar incidents earlier in the year.
Beijing accuses US vessels of entering its exclusive economic zone illegally.
There was no immediate Chinese response to the US statement on Tuesday.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Victorious had been conducting "routine operations".
The Victorious sounded its alarm and shot water from its fire hoses to try to deter the vessels in an hour-long incident, one unnamed US official told the Associated Press news agency.
But the vessels did not leave until the Victorious radioed a nearby Chinese military vessel for help, Mr Whitman added.
Asked why the tone of the US statement was muted this time, he said: "We will be developing a way forward to deal with this diplomatically."
There have been four incidents in the past month in which Chinese-flagged fishing vessels manoeuvred too close to two unarmed ships staffed by civilians and used by the Pentagon for underwater surveillance and submarine-hunting missions, reported.
Two boats came within 30 yards (27 metres) of the USNS Victorious in an "unsafe and dangerous" fashion on Friday, a statement said.
Correspondents say the US response was muted compared to its reaction to similar incidents earlier in the year.
Beijing accuses US vessels of entering its exclusive economic zone illegally.
There was no immediate Chinese response to the US statement on Tuesday.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Victorious had been conducting "routine operations".
The Victorious sounded its alarm and shot water from its fire hoses to try to deter the vessels in an hour-long incident, one unnamed US official told the Associated Press news agency.
But the vessels did not leave until the Victorious radioed a nearby Chinese military vessel for help, Mr Whitman added.
Asked why the tone of the US statement was muted this time, he said: "We will be developing a way forward to deal with this diplomatically."
There have been four incidents in the past month in which Chinese-flagged fishing vessels manoeuvred too close to two unarmed ships staffed by civilians and used by the Pentagon for underwater surveillance and submarine-hunting missions, reported.
UN rebukes Israel over Gaza raids
United Nations inquiry into attacks by Israeli forces on UN property during the Gaza conflict four months ago has heavily criticised Israel's army.
It found Israel to blame in six out of nine incidents when death or injury were caused to people sheltering at UN property and UN buildings were damaged.
In one case, Palestinian militants were found to have fired at a UN warehouse.
The Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, rejected the report, saying it was biased.
"We have the most moral army in the world," he said.
"IDF [Israeli Defense Force] commanders and soldiers made every effort to avoid hurting uninvolved civilians."
Ban Ki-moon calls for progress in peace negotiations
He accused Hamas of hiding its fighters among civilians and in the vicinity of UN installations.
The UN report says the Israeli military took "inadequate" precautions to protect UN premises and civilians inside and recommends further investigation into possible war crimes.
One of the incidents highlighted in the document is the firing of artillery shells near a UN-run school in Jabalia where Palestinians were sheltering on 6 January.
The panel says more than 40 people died outside the school - Israel says only 12 were killed, and seven of them were "terror operatives".
The board of inquiry also criticises Israel's use of white phosphorus shells which the UN says caused the incineration of the UN's main food warehouse in Gaza.
Reparations sought
The BBC's Laura Trevelyan at the UN says it is a hard-hitting report which includes heavy criticism of the Israeli military's actions and subsequent explanations and justifications.
UN REPORT'S MAIN FINDINGS
Israeli army responsible in six cases in which UN property was damaged and UN staff and other civilians hurt or killed
No military activity was carried out from within UN premises in any of the incidents
Israeli military's actions "involved varying degrees of negligence or recklessness"
Israeli military took "inadequate" precautions to protect UN premises and civilians inside
Case studies: Weapons use
The UN board's first recommendation seeks "formal acknowledgment" by Israel that its initial public statement that Palestinians had fired from the school grounds and from within the UN field office compound "were untrue and are regretted".
A later Israeli inquiry said militants had fired from a site about 80m away from the school.
Israel also contends that Hamas militants had positioned themselves near the UN relief agency headquarters.
Another recommendation says the UN should take appropriate action to seek reparation for all deaths and injuries involving its personnel and property.
The report says Israel's actions were in breach of the agreement that UN premises and those sheltering within them should be immune from attack, something which cannot be set aside for military action.
The board says investigating the deaths outside the UN school is outside its remit.
It recommends that this and allegations of war crimes committed in Gaza and southern Israel by Palestinian militants and Israel should be investigated by another inquiry.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has stressed this report is not a legal document.
It found Israel to blame in six out of nine incidents when death or injury were caused to people sheltering at UN property and UN buildings were damaged.
In one case, Palestinian militants were found to have fired at a UN warehouse.
The Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, rejected the report, saying it was biased.
"We have the most moral army in the world," he said.
"IDF [Israeli Defense Force] commanders and soldiers made every effort to avoid hurting uninvolved civilians."
Ban Ki-moon calls for progress in peace negotiations
He accused Hamas of hiding its fighters among civilians and in the vicinity of UN installations.
The UN report says the Israeli military took "inadequate" precautions to protect UN premises and civilians inside and recommends further investigation into possible war crimes.
One of the incidents highlighted in the document is the firing of artillery shells near a UN-run school in Jabalia where Palestinians were sheltering on 6 January.
The panel says more than 40 people died outside the school - Israel says only 12 were killed, and seven of them were "terror operatives".
The board of inquiry also criticises Israel's use of white phosphorus shells which the UN says caused the incineration of the UN's main food warehouse in Gaza.
Reparations sought
The BBC's Laura Trevelyan at the UN says it is a hard-hitting report which includes heavy criticism of the Israeli military's actions and subsequent explanations and justifications.
UN REPORT'S MAIN FINDINGS
Israeli army responsible in six cases in which UN property was damaged and UN staff and other civilians hurt or killed
No military activity was carried out from within UN premises in any of the incidents
Israeli military's actions "involved varying degrees of negligence or recklessness"
Israeli military took "inadequate" precautions to protect UN premises and civilians inside
Case studies: Weapons use
The UN board's first recommendation seeks "formal acknowledgment" by Israel that its initial public statement that Palestinians had fired from the school grounds and from within the UN field office compound "were untrue and are regretted".
A later Israeli inquiry said militants had fired from a site about 80m away from the school.
Israel also contends that Hamas militants had positioned themselves near the UN relief agency headquarters.
Another recommendation says the UN should take appropriate action to seek reparation for all deaths and injuries involving its personnel and property.
The report says Israel's actions were in breach of the agreement that UN premises and those sheltering within them should be immune from attack, something which cannot be set aside for military action.
The board says investigating the deaths outside the UN school is outside its remit.
It recommends that this and allegations of war crimes committed in Gaza and southern Israel by Palestinian militants and Israel should be investigated by another inquiry.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has stressed this report is not a legal document.
Bernanke Sees Hopeful Signs but No Quick Recovery
The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, said on Tuesday that the economy appeared to be stabilizing on many fronts but cautioned that a recovery was still months away and that “further sizable job losses” will continue even after an upturn begins.
“We continue to expect economic activity to bottom out, then to turn up later this year,” Mr. Bernanke told the congressional Joint Economic Committee, according to his prepared remarks.
“Even after a recovery gets under way, the rate of growth of real economic activity is likely to remain below its longer-run potential for a while,” he predicted. “We expect that the recovery will only gradually gain momentum and that economic slack will diminish slowly.”
Notwithstanding his caveats, the Fed chairman gave his most upbeat assessment since the United States fell into its most severe financial crisis since the Depression and its steepest recession since at least the early 1980s.
He noted that consumer spending, which sank sharply the second half of 2008, actually grew in the first quarter of this year. Sales of existing homes have been “fairly stable” since late last year, in part because plunging home prices have made houses more affordable and interest rates on some fixed-rate mortgages have fallen below 5 percent.
Mr. Bernanke said conditions in credit markets have revived slightly in recent weeks. Homeowners are refinancing mortgages at a rapid clip, and financial institutions have stepped up their sale of securities backed by of credit card loans, automobile debt and student loans.
At the same time, the Fed chairman made it clear that the recession is not yet over and that many people will experience harder times in the months ahead. The nation has already lost five million jobs since the recession began more than one year ago, and unemployment usually continues to climb for many months after economic growth begins.
Mr. Bernanke noted that business investment was still “extremely weak,” which means that businesses are still contracting and will continue to shed workers. The unemployment rate hit 8.5 percent in March, and the Labor Department is expected to report on Friday that the jobless rate jumped sharply again in April.
The Fed chairman suggested that many of the nation’s 19 biggest banks will be instructed to raise additional capital when the Fed announces the results of “stress tests” on Thursday, and he tacitly acknowledged that the federal government will become a bigger shareholder in at least some of those institutions.
The tests are designed to determine whether the banks would have enough capital if the economic downturn is worse than expected. The banks have six months to raise that capital from private investors, but will have to take government money in exchange for shares of common stock if private money is unavailable.
“Following the announcement of the results, bank holding companies will be required to develop comprehensive capital plans,” Mr. Bernanke said, without specifying an exact number. Asked if he expected banks to raise the “majority” of the required capital from private sources, Mr. Bernanke predicted only that the amount could be “significant.”
Mr. Bernanke came under sharp criticism for his decision against immediately stopping credit card companies from abruptly doubling or tripling their interest rates to consumers, often for people who have remained current on all their payments.
The Fed is preparing new protections for credit card customers, but it will not impose them until much later this year. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said he had asked Mr. Bernanke to use the Fed’s emergency powers to act immediately but that the Fed chairman refused to do so.
“You’ve acted swiftly to use your emergency powers to stabilize teetering financial institutions,” Mr. Schumer said. “What about the family that’s had a $10,000 balance and had its rate jump from 7 to 23 percent?”
Mr. Bernanke said he was “very concerned” about such practices, but said that cutting short the normal process for approving new regulations might simply provoke banks to raise their rates even more quickly or to cut many customers off entirely.
“It’s a quandary,” he told Mr. Schumer.
“I’m very frustrated,” the senator responded. “You could have figured out a better way than the one you have chosen.”
“We continue to expect economic activity to bottom out, then to turn up later this year,” Mr. Bernanke told the congressional Joint Economic Committee, according to his prepared remarks.
“Even after a recovery gets under way, the rate of growth of real economic activity is likely to remain below its longer-run potential for a while,” he predicted. “We expect that the recovery will only gradually gain momentum and that economic slack will diminish slowly.”
Notwithstanding his caveats, the Fed chairman gave his most upbeat assessment since the United States fell into its most severe financial crisis since the Depression and its steepest recession since at least the early 1980s.
He noted that consumer spending, which sank sharply the second half of 2008, actually grew in the first quarter of this year. Sales of existing homes have been “fairly stable” since late last year, in part because plunging home prices have made houses more affordable and interest rates on some fixed-rate mortgages have fallen below 5 percent.
Mr. Bernanke said conditions in credit markets have revived slightly in recent weeks. Homeowners are refinancing mortgages at a rapid clip, and financial institutions have stepped up their sale of securities backed by of credit card loans, automobile debt and student loans.
At the same time, the Fed chairman made it clear that the recession is not yet over and that many people will experience harder times in the months ahead. The nation has already lost five million jobs since the recession began more than one year ago, and unemployment usually continues to climb for many months after economic growth begins.
Mr. Bernanke noted that business investment was still “extremely weak,” which means that businesses are still contracting and will continue to shed workers. The unemployment rate hit 8.5 percent in March, and the Labor Department is expected to report on Friday that the jobless rate jumped sharply again in April.
The Fed chairman suggested that many of the nation’s 19 biggest banks will be instructed to raise additional capital when the Fed announces the results of “stress tests” on Thursday, and he tacitly acknowledged that the federal government will become a bigger shareholder in at least some of those institutions.
The tests are designed to determine whether the banks would have enough capital if the economic downturn is worse than expected. The banks have six months to raise that capital from private investors, but will have to take government money in exchange for shares of common stock if private money is unavailable.
“Following the announcement of the results, bank holding companies will be required to develop comprehensive capital plans,” Mr. Bernanke said, without specifying an exact number. Asked if he expected banks to raise the “majority” of the required capital from private sources, Mr. Bernanke predicted only that the amount could be “significant.”
Mr. Bernanke came under sharp criticism for his decision against immediately stopping credit card companies from abruptly doubling or tripling their interest rates to consumers, often for people who have remained current on all their payments.
The Fed is preparing new protections for credit card customers, but it will not impose them until much later this year. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said he had asked Mr. Bernanke to use the Fed’s emergency powers to act immediately but that the Fed chairman refused to do so.
“You’ve acted swiftly to use your emergency powers to stabilize teetering financial institutions,” Mr. Schumer said. “What about the family that’s had a $10,000 balance and had its rate jump from 7 to 23 percent?”
Mr. Bernanke said he was “very concerned” about such practices, but said that cutting short the normal process for approving new regulations might simply provoke banks to raise their rates even more quickly or to cut many customers off entirely.
“It’s a quandary,” he told Mr. Schumer.
“I’m very frustrated,” the senator responded. “You could have figured out a better way than the one you have chosen.”
look at the rhetoric surrounding Elections 2009 and wonder — has any political party promised to improve the state of the environment for you and me? Or thought about our right to fresh air or clean water — commodities that have become a rarity in an urbanising India?
Over the past few weeks I’ve studied the manifestos of all political parties and silently witnessed the city around me change. Ancient trees are being decapitated for wider roads, a park’s been taken over for a multiplex and a storm drain, a barrier against monsoon floods, has been filled with sand to make way for a parking lot. Grab and construct is the new mantra for the ‘development’ of our cities.
We spend three hours on an average on roads, stuck in traffic jams, while one in every five Indians suffers from respiratory disorders. Indian cities are headed towards an urban disaster. Take the depleting quality of the air we breathe or the water we drink (that's if we get it in our taps); while rivers turn into noxious black threads with methane bubbling on their surfaces and landfill sites expand.
Analysts predict that in the next thirty years, more than half of India will be living in urban areas. But does any leader or political party have a vision to address the impending environmental problems? Caste and religion continue to dominate the rhetoric of Election 2009, but is global India, with a growth rate of 9 per cent, doing anything about the toxic gas chambers that are our cities or the brown sludge flowing from our taps?
You could dismiss my angst for clean air and water as an elitist preoccupation that doesn’t affect a majority of the population. But take a look at the alarming figures collected by the Central Pollution Control Board and the Centre for Science and Environment. Out of the 100 Indian cities monitored, almost half have critical levels of particulate matter. Fifty-two cities hit critical levels, 36 have high levels and a mere 19 are at moderate levels. Only three cities — Dewas, Tirupati and Kozhikode — recorded low pollution levels.
Adding to the gas chambers are toxic gases like nitrogen oxide — a major contributor to acid rain and global warming — that are on the rise even in smaller cities like Jamshedpur, Dhanbad, Nashik and Chandrapur. Indian cities can be cured of the curse of pollution, but various policy measures will have to be initiated. One way out could be the introduction of compressed natural gas in the public transport system, and financial incentives for people to buy more fuel-efficient cars or to switch to public transport.
If we look at the availability of water in Indian cities, the situation is no different. According to a 2007 World Bank study on 27 cities, the average duration of water supply was not more than four hours and in some, like Rajkot, it’s less than 0.3 hours. Not even one Indian city gets continuous water supply, and a majority are in the red in terms of plummeting ground water tables. Besides, in the poorer parts of our nation, people have to buy water and have to spend, on an average, one to two hours per day foraging for it.
And what about the impending threat from climate change? There is now enough scientific evidence to show that climate change will first affect the poor, with disastrous consequences for India's farmers and fishermen. But has any political party woken up to this threat? The BJP, interestingly, has a separate section on the environment in its manifesto, referring to the need to move towards a low carbon economy. Does that mean it will scrap the 54-odd thermal power projects that were cleared under the UPA government? Climate change may already be upon us in many ways. But one look at the National Climate Change Action Plan launched by the Prime Minister will tell us that most of the targets under the eight missions are non-measurable, so there’s no way to measure the outgoing government’s performance.
And how ‘green’ are our politicians themselves? While one has drained the wetlands of an endangered bird only to build an airstrip in his native village, another, with strong prime ministerial aspirations, spent more than Rs 80 crore ravaging a green belt on the edge of the Okhla bird sanctuary, while yet another in Madhya Pradesh got the course of a river diverted, to make it flow close to his private resort. Media campaigns ask voters to stop complaining and go out and vote. Yes, I too will go and vote. But I am still waiting for that one political party or candidate who promises me, a citizen of India, my right to clean air and water.
ecxcerpts from bahar dutt as publised in Hindusthan times
Over the past few weeks I’ve studied the manifestos of all political parties and silently witnessed the city around me change. Ancient trees are being decapitated for wider roads, a park’s been taken over for a multiplex and a storm drain, a barrier against monsoon floods, has been filled with sand to make way for a parking lot. Grab and construct is the new mantra for the ‘development’ of our cities.
We spend three hours on an average on roads, stuck in traffic jams, while one in every five Indians suffers from respiratory disorders. Indian cities are headed towards an urban disaster. Take the depleting quality of the air we breathe or the water we drink (that's if we get it in our taps); while rivers turn into noxious black threads with methane bubbling on their surfaces and landfill sites expand.
Analysts predict that in the next thirty years, more than half of India will be living in urban areas. But does any leader or political party have a vision to address the impending environmental problems? Caste and religion continue to dominate the rhetoric of Election 2009, but is global India, with a growth rate of 9 per cent, doing anything about the toxic gas chambers that are our cities or the brown sludge flowing from our taps?
You could dismiss my angst for clean air and water as an elitist preoccupation that doesn’t affect a majority of the population. But take a look at the alarming figures collected by the Central Pollution Control Board and the Centre for Science and Environment. Out of the 100 Indian cities monitored, almost half have critical levels of particulate matter. Fifty-two cities hit critical levels, 36 have high levels and a mere 19 are at moderate levels. Only three cities — Dewas, Tirupati and Kozhikode — recorded low pollution levels.
Adding to the gas chambers are toxic gases like nitrogen oxide — a major contributor to acid rain and global warming — that are on the rise even in smaller cities like Jamshedpur, Dhanbad, Nashik and Chandrapur. Indian cities can be cured of the curse of pollution, but various policy measures will have to be initiated. One way out could be the introduction of compressed natural gas in the public transport system, and financial incentives for people to buy more fuel-efficient cars or to switch to public transport.
If we look at the availability of water in Indian cities, the situation is no different. According to a 2007 World Bank study on 27 cities, the average duration of water supply was not more than four hours and in some, like Rajkot, it’s less than 0.3 hours. Not even one Indian city gets continuous water supply, and a majority are in the red in terms of plummeting ground water tables. Besides, in the poorer parts of our nation, people have to buy water and have to spend, on an average, one to two hours per day foraging for it.
And what about the impending threat from climate change? There is now enough scientific evidence to show that climate change will first affect the poor, with disastrous consequences for India's farmers and fishermen. But has any political party woken up to this threat? The BJP, interestingly, has a separate section on the environment in its manifesto, referring to the need to move towards a low carbon economy. Does that mean it will scrap the 54-odd thermal power projects that were cleared under the UPA government? Climate change may already be upon us in many ways. But one look at the National Climate Change Action Plan launched by the Prime Minister will tell us that most of the targets under the eight missions are non-measurable, so there’s no way to measure the outgoing government’s performance.
And how ‘green’ are our politicians themselves? While one has drained the wetlands of an endangered bird only to build an airstrip in his native village, another, with strong prime ministerial aspirations, spent more than Rs 80 crore ravaging a green belt on the edge of the Okhla bird sanctuary, while yet another in Madhya Pradesh got the course of a river diverted, to make it flow close to his private resort. Media campaigns ask voters to stop complaining and go out and vote. Yes, I too will go and vote. But I am still waiting for that one political party or candidate who promises me, a citizen of India, my right to clean air and water.
ecxcerpts from bahar dutt as publised in Hindusthan times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)