The U.S. military has begun flying armed Predator drones inside Pakistan and has given Pakistani officers significant control over targets, flight routes and decisions to launch attacks under a new joint operation, according to U.S. officials familiar with the program.
The project was begun in recent weeks to bolster Pakistan's ability and willingness to disrupt the militant groups that are posing a growing threat to the government in Islamabad and fueling violence in Afghanistan.
For the U.S. military, the missions represent a broad new role in searching for Islamic militants in Pakistan. For years, that task has been the domain of the CIA, which has flown its own fleet of Predators over the South Asian nation.
Under the new partnership, U.S. military drones will be allowed for the first time to venture beyond the borders of Afghanistan under the direction of Pakistani military officials, who are working with American counterparts at a command center in Jalalabad, Afghanistan.
U.S. officials said the program was aimed at getting Pakistan -- which has frequently protested airstrikes in its territory as a violation of sovereignty -- more directly and deeply engaged in the Predator program.
"This is about building trust," said a senior U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the program has not been publicly acknowledged. "This is about giving them capabilities they do not currently have to help them defeat this radical extreme element that is in their country."
The Pakistanis, however, have yet to use the drones to shoot at suspected militants and are grappling with a cumbersome military chain of command as well as ambivalence over using U.S. equipment to fire on their own people.
The program marks a significant departure from how the war against Taliban insurgents has been fought for most of the last seven years. The heavy U.S. military presence in Afghanistan has been largely powerless to pursue militants who routinely escape across the border into Pakistan.
But the initiative carries serious risks for Pakistan, which is struggling to balance a desire for more control over the drones with a deep reluctance to become complicit in U.S.-operated Predator strikes on its own people.
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, on a visit to Washington last week, reiterated his nation's request for its own fleet of Predators. U.S. officials have all but ruled that out, and they described the new, jointly operated flights as an effective compromise.
Pakistani officials did not deny the existence of the new program, saying Tuesday that they were working with U.S. officials to better utilize the American technology. In a statement, Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, said the nation remained concerned that the "unilateral" CIA drone strikes violated its sovereignty.
"Pakistan has not been averse to using every available means in tracking down Al Qaeda and other terrorists," Haqqani said. "We have been working with the U.S. side to find ways in which the U.S. technological advantage matches up with our desire to uphold our sovereignty within our borders."
CIA Predators flown covertly in Pakistan continue to focus on the United States' principal target, Al Qaeda. The military drones, meanwhile, are intended to undermine the militant networks that have moved closer to Islamabad, the capital, in recent weeks.
Over the last month, officials said, the United States has offered Pakistan control over multiple flights involving both Predator and more heavily armed Reaper drones.
Pakistan declined an offer to use the drones for its recent military offensives in the Swat Valley and Buner areas, and poor weather has caused other sorties to be scrapped. But the senior U.S. military official said at least two missions had been flown in recent weeks under Pakistani direction.
So far the missions have not involved the firing of any missiles, and some U.S. officials have expressed frustration that the Pakistanis have not used the Predator capabilities more aggressively. Officials said Pakistan was given the authority to order strikes during the jointly operated flights as long as there was U.S. agreement on the targets.
"It is their decision," a senior military officer said. "We are trying to put them in the chain, so they control the whole thing, save the hardware."
The program may be one result of U.S. military efforts to cultivate closer ties with Pakistan. Over the last year, Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has made repeated trips to Islamabad to push for greater Pakistani cooperation.
The program also is part of a broader overhaul of the U.S. military approach in the region. Army Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, named this week to become the new top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, expanded the use of Predators while in Iraq and is expected to do the same in his new post.
The missions are being controlled from the jointly operated command center in Jalalabad. The center contains a "fusion cell" that merges information gathered from American surveillance with human intelligence collected by Pakistani and Afghanistan forces.
Debates between Pakistanis and Americans have taken place within the center over whether potential targets are Taliban leaders or Pakistani tribesmen with only loose ties to extremist groups. Nonetheless, U.S. officials said most Pakistani officers in the command center understood the militant threat and were anxious to move aggressively.
However, the Pakistanis' superiors have had more reservations and have equivocated when asked for permission to fire on suspected militants. U.S. officers said those Pakistani officials may not have understood that any delay could allow targeted individuals to slip away.
In response, Pakistanis have repeatedly emphasized to U.S. military officers that they are reluctant to fire missiles at their own citizens.
"They have asked us to try and understand what it is like to be a military that is now required to go against its own people," said the senior military officer. "I do not think we always have the right perspective of how difficult it is."
The Pakistani reluctance may also reflect ambivalence in Islamabad over the CIA's Predator program. The intelligence agency is in the midst of a campaign of strikes on Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan's tribal frontier.
The most recent CIA strike came Tuesday, reportedly killing eight people in the South Waziristan region of Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas Since August, the agency has carried out at least 55 strikes, compared with 10 reported attacks in 2006 and 2007 combined.
Despite Pakistan's frequent complaints about the strikes, U.S. officials have said the missions are authorized by the Pakistani government. CIA officials credit Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, with providing on-the-ground information that often leads to Predator strikes. In turn, the CIA has shared sensitive imagery and intercepts with Pakistani counterparts.
Despite that arrangement, U.S. officials avoided offering Pakistan greater control over the CIA drones, in part because of concerns about giving Pakistan direct access to a sensitive and secret intelligence operation. At times, U.S. intelligence officials have voiced suspicions that elements of the ISI, which has long-standing relationships with Taliban leaders, have warned targets in advance of U.S. strikes.
U.S. officials also cited a reluctance to take CIA drones away from their efforts to track and kill senior Al Qaeda figures, and stressed that the military drones would pursue a different set of targets, mainly Taliban-linked fighters.
The use of Defense Department drones presents disadvantages to Pakistan. The military's unmanned aircraft program, for example, is not shrouded in the same level of secrecy as the CIA's, eroding Pakistan's already attenuated ability to continue to deny involvement.
"If it's true that Pakistan is actually controlling some of these drones, that undermines the concerns [they express] about the attacks," said Seth Jones, a counter-terrorism expert at Rand Corp. who frequently travels to the region.
Pakistan's permission is crucial to Predator operations, representing an added incentive for U.S. officials to share control of the aircraft.
"The key is you've got to have the approval of the host government," said Scott Silliman, a former Air Force lawyer who is now a law professor at Duke University. "If you do not, you cross over the line of invading the territorial sovereignty of another country."
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Records Show Billions Withdrawn Before Madoff Arrest
About $12 billion was pulled out of accounts at Bernard L. Madoff’s firm in 2008, according to several people briefed on an analysis of Mr. Madoff’s business records.
About $6 billion, or half, was taken out in just the three months before the financier was arrested in December and charged with operating an extensive Ponzi scheme, these people said.
Those figures offer a bit of hope for Mr. Madoff’s thousands of defrauded customers. Under federal law, the trustee overseeing the Madoff bankruptcy can sue to retrieve that money from the investors who withdrew it.
Indeed, the trustee, Irving H. Picard of Baker & Hostetler, filed two lawsuits on Tuesday seeking the return of a total of $6.1 billion, which he estimated had been withdrawn over the last decade.
One case seeks the return of $5.1 billion from various trust funds and partnerships run by Jeffry M. Picower, a prominent Palm Beach, Fla., investor whose charitable foundation was considered one of the notable victims of Mr. Madoff’s fraud.
Mr. Picard also sued to recover $1 billion withdrawn last year by Harley International, a hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands and administered by a unit of the Dutch bank Fortis.
Both lawsuits were filed in Federal Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. And both assert that the defendants, as professional investors, should have realized that their profits were too high and too consistent — and Mr. Madoff’s paperwork and procedures were too sloppy — to be legitimate.
But the complaint against Mr. Picower goes further, accusing him of participating in a web of transparently false transactions with Mr. Madoff that were aimed at compensating him for “perpetuating the Ponzi scheme” at the expense of other investors.
In 1999, for example, one of Mr. Picower’s accounts posted an annual profit of more than 950 percent, the suit said. That account was one of two that reported annual returns from 1996 to 1999 ranging from 120 percent to more than 550 percent, the suit said.
In other accounts, backdated transactions generated billions of dollars of fictional year-end losses and one account grew by 30 percent in just two weeks in 2006 — thanks to trades that purportedly occurred months before the account was even opened.
A lawyer for Mr. Picower and his wife, Barbara, who was also named as a defendant, denied the allegations.
“Mr. and Mrs. Picower considered themselves friends of the Madoffs for over 35 years,” said the lawyer, William D. Zabel of Schulte Roth & Zabel. “They were totally shocked by his fraud and were in no way complicit in it.”
Mr. Zabel added: “They lost billions in personal assets, and most dear to them, all of the assets of their esteemed foundation.” The Picower Foundation closed its doors after Mr. Madoff’s arrest.
According to people familiar with the analysis of Mr. Madoff’s cash records, most of the $12 billion that flowed out of his fraudulent money-management operation last year was withdrawn by various “feeder funds,” which had raised cash from investors and pooled it to invest with Mr. Madoff.
Several of those feeder funds have already been the targets of lawsuits by Mr. Picard, who is searching for assets to be shared among customers who lost what they believed to be almost $65 billion in the Ponzi scheme.
It is not clear where the cash taken out of the Madoff accounts is located, or how much of it can be recovered through litigation.
In the lawsuit seeking to recover more than $1 billion withdrawn by Harley International, Mr. Picard asserts that the fund should have detected the fraud before investing more than $2 billion of its clients’ money.
According to that complaint, Harley International made 14 transfers out of its Madoff account over the last six years, including $425 million that was withdrawn three months before the Ponzi scheme became public.
A spokeswoman for Harley International, Jamie Moss, did not return calls seeking comment.
In the complaint, Mr. Picard said Harley International, which invested client money with Mr. Madoff since at least 1996, received “unrealistically high and consistent annual returns” of about 13.5 percent. That outpaced the swings in the stock index on which Mr. Madoff had apparently based his trading strategy.
Trading records indicate that the Madoff firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, made at least 148 stock trades in Harley International’s account in the last decade at prices that did not match the trading range for those stocks on the dates the trades supposedly occurred.
Mr. Picard claims those trades should have raised red flags for “any investment professional managing the account.”
The Harley lawsuit is similar to one Mr. Picard has filed recently against J. Ezra Merkin, the New York financier who lost over $2 billion investing with Mr. Madoff.
The lawsuit against Mr. Picower mirrors similar allegations Mr. Picard made in a complaint against Stanley Chais, an investment manager and prominent Los Angeles philanthropist. Both investors have said they intend to fight the lawsuits.
Mr. Picard has raised about $1 billion in assets for Mr. Madoff’s victims, but the lawsuits filed in the last two weeks could push that number much higher.
Mr. Madoff pleaded guilty on March 12 to running the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. He is scheduled to be sentenced next month and faces 150 years in prison.
About $6 billion, or half, was taken out in just the three months before the financier was arrested in December and charged with operating an extensive Ponzi scheme, these people said.
Those figures offer a bit of hope for Mr. Madoff’s thousands of defrauded customers. Under federal law, the trustee overseeing the Madoff bankruptcy can sue to retrieve that money from the investors who withdrew it.
Indeed, the trustee, Irving H. Picard of Baker & Hostetler, filed two lawsuits on Tuesday seeking the return of a total of $6.1 billion, which he estimated had been withdrawn over the last decade.
One case seeks the return of $5.1 billion from various trust funds and partnerships run by Jeffry M. Picower, a prominent Palm Beach, Fla., investor whose charitable foundation was considered one of the notable victims of Mr. Madoff’s fraud.
Mr. Picard also sued to recover $1 billion withdrawn last year by Harley International, a hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands and administered by a unit of the Dutch bank Fortis.
Both lawsuits were filed in Federal Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. And both assert that the defendants, as professional investors, should have realized that their profits were too high and too consistent — and Mr. Madoff’s paperwork and procedures were too sloppy — to be legitimate.
But the complaint against Mr. Picower goes further, accusing him of participating in a web of transparently false transactions with Mr. Madoff that were aimed at compensating him for “perpetuating the Ponzi scheme” at the expense of other investors.
In 1999, for example, one of Mr. Picower’s accounts posted an annual profit of more than 950 percent, the suit said. That account was one of two that reported annual returns from 1996 to 1999 ranging from 120 percent to more than 550 percent, the suit said.
In other accounts, backdated transactions generated billions of dollars of fictional year-end losses and one account grew by 30 percent in just two weeks in 2006 — thanks to trades that purportedly occurred months before the account was even opened.
A lawyer for Mr. Picower and his wife, Barbara, who was also named as a defendant, denied the allegations.
“Mr. and Mrs. Picower considered themselves friends of the Madoffs for over 35 years,” said the lawyer, William D. Zabel of Schulte Roth & Zabel. “They were totally shocked by his fraud and were in no way complicit in it.”
Mr. Zabel added: “They lost billions in personal assets, and most dear to them, all of the assets of their esteemed foundation.” The Picower Foundation closed its doors after Mr. Madoff’s arrest.
According to people familiar with the analysis of Mr. Madoff’s cash records, most of the $12 billion that flowed out of his fraudulent money-management operation last year was withdrawn by various “feeder funds,” which had raised cash from investors and pooled it to invest with Mr. Madoff.
Several of those feeder funds have already been the targets of lawsuits by Mr. Picard, who is searching for assets to be shared among customers who lost what they believed to be almost $65 billion in the Ponzi scheme.
It is not clear where the cash taken out of the Madoff accounts is located, or how much of it can be recovered through litigation.
In the lawsuit seeking to recover more than $1 billion withdrawn by Harley International, Mr. Picard asserts that the fund should have detected the fraud before investing more than $2 billion of its clients’ money.
According to that complaint, Harley International made 14 transfers out of its Madoff account over the last six years, including $425 million that was withdrawn three months before the Ponzi scheme became public.
A spokeswoman for Harley International, Jamie Moss, did not return calls seeking comment.
In the complaint, Mr. Picard said Harley International, which invested client money with Mr. Madoff since at least 1996, received “unrealistically high and consistent annual returns” of about 13.5 percent. That outpaced the swings in the stock index on which Mr. Madoff had apparently based his trading strategy.
Trading records indicate that the Madoff firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, made at least 148 stock trades in Harley International’s account in the last decade at prices that did not match the trading range for those stocks on the dates the trades supposedly occurred.
Mr. Picard claims those trades should have raised red flags for “any investment professional managing the account.”
The Harley lawsuit is similar to one Mr. Picard has filed recently against J. Ezra Merkin, the New York financier who lost over $2 billion investing with Mr. Madoff.
The lawsuit against Mr. Picower mirrors similar allegations Mr. Picard made in a complaint against Stanley Chais, an investment manager and prominent Los Angeles philanthropist. Both investors have said they intend to fight the lawsuits.
Mr. Picard has raised about $1 billion in assets for Mr. Madoff’s victims, but the lawsuits filed in the last two weeks could push that number much higher.
Mr. Madoff pleaded guilty on March 12 to running the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. He is scheduled to be sentenced next month and faces 150 years in prison.
New York Assembly Passes Gay Marriage Bill
The State Assembly approved legislation on Tuesday night that would make New York the sixth state to allow same-sex marriage — a pivotal vote that shifts the debate to the State Senate, where gay rights advocates and conservative groups alike are redoubling their efforts.
In a sign of how opinion in Albany has shifted on the issue, several members of the Assembly who voted against the measure in 2007 voted in favor of it on Tuesday.
The final vote was 89 to 52, including the backing of five Republicans.
Supporters of the bill aggressively sought new votes, particularly from Assembly members whose districts lie within Senate districts where a senator’s vote is believed to be in play. As a matter of strategy, same-sex marriage advocates said that they hoped to use those votes as a way to leverage support from senators who are worried that supporting the measure could cost them politically.
As the Assembly prepared to vote on Tuesday, advocates on both sides of the issue were gearing up for campaigns to sway undecided senators.
Gay rights groups, led by the Empire State Pride Agenda, will begin the first phase of a statewide advertising campaign on Wednesday. The first advertisement is a 30-second television spot featuring a woman from Cicero, N.Y., just outside Syracuse. She explains that she would like her two daughters — one who is a lesbian, one who is straight — to be treated equally under the law. It will air in the Albany, Syracuse and Buffalo areas.
The campaign’s organizers are planning more commercials in other cities across the state in the coming weeks, with an emphasis on areas where senators are believed to be on the fence.
“This is about putting a face on the people who are affected by this,” said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the pride agenda. “Marriage equality should not be a political issue. It is too important; it affects too many people.”
Conservative religious organizations were mobilizing as well. In the hours leading up to the Assembly vote, lobbyists for New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms and the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group that has sued the state for recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, were holding meetings with lawmakers.
“Certainly we want to keep the pressure on,” said the Rev. Jason J. McGuire, legislative director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. Mr. McGuire’s organization is planning a rally in Albany for its supporters in June, and he added that he would continue meeting with senators in the hope of persuading them to vote against same-sex marriage.
“We all understand — both sides of the issue — that this fight is going to continue in the State Senate,” he said.
The Conservative Party is also applying pressure: it has threatened to strip any politician who votes for same-sex marriage of its affiliation with the party and its ballot line.
“We can’t look the other way,” said Michael R. Long, the party’s chairman, who added that he had informed the Republican leaders of the Senate and the Assembly of his threat to take away the Conservative ballot line — which in some elections can mean the difference of thousands of votes — from anyone who votes yes on the bill.
“We’re going to work as hard as we can in the next few weeks,” he said. “We intend to do everything we can possible with phone calls, memos, press releases, having our members call senators.”
Despite the conservative pressure, several Republican Assembly members spoke on Tuesday about why they dropped their opposition to granting same-sex couples the right to marry.
“There’s that little voice inside of you that tells you when you’ve done something right, and when you’ve done something wrong,” said Fred W. Thiele Jr., who represents the Hamptons. “That vote just never felt right to me. That little voice kept gnawing away at me.” Mr. Thiele’s district overlaps with the Senate district of Kenneth P. LaValle, whom gay rights advocates consider to be among the half-dozen or so Republicans open to considering a yes vote.
Janet L. Duprey, a Republican whose district along the Canadian border in the North Country overlaps with the Senate district of Elizabeth Little, another Republican who gay rights supporters believe is within reach, said a lesbian couple who live on her street helped change her mind.
“They are asking only for equal protection under the law,” Ms. Duprey said. “They deserve no less than to have the same rights and ability to share their love.”
Bob Reilly, a Democratic assemblyman whose district includes parts of Saratoga and Albany Counties, apologized to colleagues for voting no in 2007 before casting a yes vote on Tuesday.
Opponents of the bill condemned same-sex marriage as a moral outrage and an affront to religious institutions in New York. Some, like James N. Tedisco, a Republican whose district includes Schenectady and Saratoga Springs, drew comparisons to polygamy.
“I think you can see the kind of slippery slope we’re going down here,” he said. “What I see here is individuals trying to change the definition of a longstanding institution called marriage to fit into their agenda.”
Some supporters insisted the bill was, in fact, nothing earth-shattering.
“We do nothing revolutionary or extraordinary today,” said Richard L. Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester County.
The electronic display in the Assembly chamber that listed the bill number and a brief description suggested as much. It said, “Relates to individuals ability to marry.”
In a sign of how opinion in Albany has shifted on the issue, several members of the Assembly who voted against the measure in 2007 voted in favor of it on Tuesday.
The final vote was 89 to 52, including the backing of five Republicans.
Supporters of the bill aggressively sought new votes, particularly from Assembly members whose districts lie within Senate districts where a senator’s vote is believed to be in play. As a matter of strategy, same-sex marriage advocates said that they hoped to use those votes as a way to leverage support from senators who are worried that supporting the measure could cost them politically.
As the Assembly prepared to vote on Tuesday, advocates on both sides of the issue were gearing up for campaigns to sway undecided senators.
Gay rights groups, led by the Empire State Pride Agenda, will begin the first phase of a statewide advertising campaign on Wednesday. The first advertisement is a 30-second television spot featuring a woman from Cicero, N.Y., just outside Syracuse. She explains that she would like her two daughters — one who is a lesbian, one who is straight — to be treated equally under the law. It will air in the Albany, Syracuse and Buffalo areas.
The campaign’s organizers are planning more commercials in other cities across the state in the coming weeks, with an emphasis on areas where senators are believed to be on the fence.
“This is about putting a face on the people who are affected by this,” said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the pride agenda. “Marriage equality should not be a political issue. It is too important; it affects too many people.”
Conservative religious organizations were mobilizing as well. In the hours leading up to the Assembly vote, lobbyists for New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms and the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group that has sued the state for recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, were holding meetings with lawmakers.
“Certainly we want to keep the pressure on,” said the Rev. Jason J. McGuire, legislative director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. Mr. McGuire’s organization is planning a rally in Albany for its supporters in June, and he added that he would continue meeting with senators in the hope of persuading them to vote against same-sex marriage.
“We all understand — both sides of the issue — that this fight is going to continue in the State Senate,” he said.
The Conservative Party is also applying pressure: it has threatened to strip any politician who votes for same-sex marriage of its affiliation with the party and its ballot line.
“We can’t look the other way,” said Michael R. Long, the party’s chairman, who added that he had informed the Republican leaders of the Senate and the Assembly of his threat to take away the Conservative ballot line — which in some elections can mean the difference of thousands of votes — from anyone who votes yes on the bill.
“We’re going to work as hard as we can in the next few weeks,” he said. “We intend to do everything we can possible with phone calls, memos, press releases, having our members call senators.”
Despite the conservative pressure, several Republican Assembly members spoke on Tuesday about why they dropped their opposition to granting same-sex couples the right to marry.
“There’s that little voice inside of you that tells you when you’ve done something right, and when you’ve done something wrong,” said Fred W. Thiele Jr., who represents the Hamptons. “That vote just never felt right to me. That little voice kept gnawing away at me.” Mr. Thiele’s district overlaps with the Senate district of Kenneth P. LaValle, whom gay rights advocates consider to be among the half-dozen or so Republicans open to considering a yes vote.
Janet L. Duprey, a Republican whose district along the Canadian border in the North Country overlaps with the Senate district of Elizabeth Little, another Republican who gay rights supporters believe is within reach, said a lesbian couple who live on her street helped change her mind.
“They are asking only for equal protection under the law,” Ms. Duprey said. “They deserve no less than to have the same rights and ability to share their love.”
Bob Reilly, a Democratic assemblyman whose district includes parts of Saratoga and Albany Counties, apologized to colleagues for voting no in 2007 before casting a yes vote on Tuesday.
Opponents of the bill condemned same-sex marriage as a moral outrage and an affront to religious institutions in New York. Some, like James N. Tedisco, a Republican whose district includes Schenectady and Saratoga Springs, drew comparisons to polygamy.
“I think you can see the kind of slippery slope we’re going down here,” he said. “What I see here is individuals trying to change the definition of a longstanding institution called marriage to fit into their agenda.”
Some supporters insisted the bill was, in fact, nothing earth-shattering.
“We do nothing revolutionary or extraordinary today,” said Richard L. Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester County.
The electronic display in the Assembly chamber that listed the bill number and a brief description suggested as much. It said, “Relates to individuals ability to marry.”
A General Steps From the Shadows
Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the ascetic who is set to become the new top American commander in Afghanistan, usually eats just one meal a day, in the evenings, to avoid sluggishness.
He is known for operating on a few hours’ sleep and for running to and from work while listening to audio books on an iPod. In Iraq, where he oversaw all secret commando operations for five years, former intelligence officials say he had an encyclopedic, even obsessive, knowledge about the lives of terrorists and pushed his ranks aggressively to kill as many of them as possible.
But General McChrystal has also moved easily from the dark world to the light. Fellow officers on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where he is director, and former colleagues at the Council on Foreign Relations describe him as a warrior-scholar, comfortable with diplomats, politicians and the military man who would help promote him.
“He’s lanky, smart, tough, a sneaky stealth soldier,” said Maj. Gen. William Nash, a retired officer. “He’s got all the Special Ops attributes, plus an intellect.”
If General McChrystal is confirmed by the Senate, as expected, he will take over the post held by Gen. David D. McKiernan, who was forced out Monday. Obama administration officials have described the shakeup as a way to bring a more aggressive and creative approach to the faltering war in Afghanistan.
Most of what General McChrystal has done over a 33-year career remains classified, including service between 2003 and 2008 as commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, an elite unit so clandestine that the Pentagon for years refused to acknowledge its existence. But former C.I.A. officials say that General McChrystal was among those who, with the C.I.A., pushed hard for a secret joint operation in the tribal region of Pakistan in 2005 aimed at capturing or killing Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld canceled the operation at the last minute, saying it was too risky and was based on what he considered questionable intelligence, a move that former intelligence officials say General McChrystal found maddening.
When General McChrystal took over the Joint Special Operations Command in 2003, he inherited an insular, shadowy commando force with a reputation for spurning partnerships with other military and intelligence organizations. But over the next five years he worked hard, his colleagues say, to build close relationships with the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. He won praise from C.I.A. officers, many of who had stormy relationships with commanders running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“He knows intelligence, he knows covert action and he knows the value of partnerships,” said Henry Crumpton, who ran the C.I.A.’s covert war in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks.
As head of the command, which oversees the elite Delta Force and units of the Navy Seals, General McChrystal was based at Fort Bragg, N.C. But he spent much of his time in Iraq commanding secret missions. Most of his operations were conducted at night, but General McChrystal, described nearly universally as a driven workaholic, was up for most of the day as well. His wife and grown son remained back in the United States.
“He sacrificed his life for Iraq,” said one former colleague.
General McChrystal was born Aug. 14, 1954, into a military family. His father, Maj. Gen. Herbert J. McChrystal Jr., served in Germany during the American occupation after World War II and later at the Pentagon. General Stanley McChrystal was the fourth child in a family of five boys and one girl; all of them grew up to serve in the military or marry into it.
“They’re all pretty intense,” said Judy McChrystal, one of General McChrystal’s sisters-in-law, who is married to the eldest child, Herbert J. McChrystal III, a former chaplain at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
General McChrystal graduated from West Point in 1976 and spent the next three decades ascending through conventional and special operations command positions as well as taking postings at Harvard and the Council on Foreign Relations. He was a commander of a Green Beret team in 1979 and 1980, and he did several tours in the Army Rangers as a staff officer and a battalion commander, including service in the Persian Gulf war of 1991.
One blot on his otherwise impressive military record occurred in 2007, when a Pentagon investigation into the accidental shooting death in 2004 of Cpl. Pat Tillman by fellow Army Rangers in Afghanistan held General McChrystal accountable for inaccurate information provided by Corporal Tillman’s unit in recommending him for a Silver Star.
At the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, where General McChrystal directs the 1,200-member group, he has instituted a daily 6:30 a.m. classified meeting among 25 top officers and, by video, military commanders from around the world. In half an hour, the group races through military developments and problems over the past 24 hours; at the top of the list this week were Pakistan, Afghanistan and an American soldier who gunned down five American service members in Baghdad.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, brought General McChrystal back to Washington to be his director last August, and the physical proximity served General McChrystal well, Defense officials said. In recent weeks, Admiral Mullen recommended General McChrystal to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates as a replacement for General McKiernan
One other thing to know about General McChrystal: when he was a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in 2000, he ran a dozen miles each morning to the council’s offices from his quarters at Fort Hamilton on the southwestern tip of Brooklyn.
“If you asked me the first thing that comes to mind about General McChrystal, I think of no body fat,” said Leslie H. Gelb, the president emeritus of the council.
He is known for operating on a few hours’ sleep and for running to and from work while listening to audio books on an iPod. In Iraq, where he oversaw all secret commando operations for five years, former intelligence officials say he had an encyclopedic, even obsessive, knowledge about the lives of terrorists and pushed his ranks aggressively to kill as many of them as possible.
But General McChrystal has also moved easily from the dark world to the light. Fellow officers on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where he is director, and former colleagues at the Council on Foreign Relations describe him as a warrior-scholar, comfortable with diplomats, politicians and the military man who would help promote him.
“He’s lanky, smart, tough, a sneaky stealth soldier,” said Maj. Gen. William Nash, a retired officer. “He’s got all the Special Ops attributes, plus an intellect.”
If General McChrystal is confirmed by the Senate, as expected, he will take over the post held by Gen. David D. McKiernan, who was forced out Monday. Obama administration officials have described the shakeup as a way to bring a more aggressive and creative approach to the faltering war in Afghanistan.
Most of what General McChrystal has done over a 33-year career remains classified, including service between 2003 and 2008 as commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, an elite unit so clandestine that the Pentagon for years refused to acknowledge its existence. But former C.I.A. officials say that General McChrystal was among those who, with the C.I.A., pushed hard for a secret joint operation in the tribal region of Pakistan in 2005 aimed at capturing or killing Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld canceled the operation at the last minute, saying it was too risky and was based on what he considered questionable intelligence, a move that former intelligence officials say General McChrystal found maddening.
When General McChrystal took over the Joint Special Operations Command in 2003, he inherited an insular, shadowy commando force with a reputation for spurning partnerships with other military and intelligence organizations. But over the next five years he worked hard, his colleagues say, to build close relationships with the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. He won praise from C.I.A. officers, many of who had stormy relationships with commanders running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“He knows intelligence, he knows covert action and he knows the value of partnerships,” said Henry Crumpton, who ran the C.I.A.’s covert war in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks.
As head of the command, which oversees the elite Delta Force and units of the Navy Seals, General McChrystal was based at Fort Bragg, N.C. But he spent much of his time in Iraq commanding secret missions. Most of his operations were conducted at night, but General McChrystal, described nearly universally as a driven workaholic, was up for most of the day as well. His wife and grown son remained back in the United States.
“He sacrificed his life for Iraq,” said one former colleague.
General McChrystal was born Aug. 14, 1954, into a military family. His father, Maj. Gen. Herbert J. McChrystal Jr., served in Germany during the American occupation after World War II and later at the Pentagon. General Stanley McChrystal was the fourth child in a family of five boys and one girl; all of them grew up to serve in the military or marry into it.
“They’re all pretty intense,” said Judy McChrystal, one of General McChrystal’s sisters-in-law, who is married to the eldest child, Herbert J. McChrystal III, a former chaplain at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
General McChrystal graduated from West Point in 1976 and spent the next three decades ascending through conventional and special operations command positions as well as taking postings at Harvard and the Council on Foreign Relations. He was a commander of a Green Beret team in 1979 and 1980, and he did several tours in the Army Rangers as a staff officer and a battalion commander, including service in the Persian Gulf war of 1991.
One blot on his otherwise impressive military record occurred in 2007, when a Pentagon investigation into the accidental shooting death in 2004 of Cpl. Pat Tillman by fellow Army Rangers in Afghanistan held General McChrystal accountable for inaccurate information provided by Corporal Tillman’s unit in recommending him for a Silver Star.
At the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, where General McChrystal directs the 1,200-member group, he has instituted a daily 6:30 a.m. classified meeting among 25 top officers and, by video, military commanders from around the world. In half an hour, the group races through military developments and problems over the past 24 hours; at the top of the list this week were Pakistan, Afghanistan and an American soldier who gunned down five American service members in Baghdad.
Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, brought General McChrystal back to Washington to be his director last August, and the physical proximity served General McChrystal well, Defense officials said. In recent weeks, Admiral Mullen recommended General McChrystal to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates as a replacement for General McKiernan
One other thing to know about General McChrystal: when he was a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in 2000, he ran a dozen miles each morning to the council’s offices from his quarters at Fort Hamilton on the southwestern tip of Brooklyn.
“If you asked me the first thing that comes to mind about General McChrystal, I think of no body fat,” said Leslie H. Gelb, the president emeritus of the council.
Hitachi posts record loss for Japanese manufacturers
Japanese companies unveiled a string of gloomy results today as major exporters continue to take a battering from the global recession.
Hitachi confirmed it had suffered the worst loss ever for a Japanese manufacturer and warned of another difficult year ahead.
The firm, which makes consumer electronics and industrial equipment, said net losses had mounted to ¥787.3bn (£5.3bn) in the year through to 31 March from a ¥58.1bn loss a year earlier.
Hitachi said it expected losses to come to ¥270bn this year amid a sharp drop in demand for electronic gadgets, chips and cars incorporating its products.
In January it responded to the fall in sales by announcing plans to shed 7,000 jobs, or almost 2% of its global workforce.
"The global economy is not expected to see a fully fledged recovery until 2010 at the earliest," the company said.
"The global economic outlook is being shaped by concerns about the US and other industrialised nations slipping into negative economic growth, and about slowing economic growth in emerging economies and the yen's appreciation."
Hitachi's results are the biggest ever loss in Japan's manufacturing sector and the second largest in the country's corporate history after Nippon Telegraph and Telephone's ¥834.6bn loss in 2002.
There was more gloomy news today from NEC, which swung from a ¥22.7bn profit in 2007 to a loss of ¥297bn for the year that ended in March. The electronics maker said sales had fallen 8.7% to ¥4.2tn.
"The rapid economic decline and subsequent decrease in demand during the second half, particularly in the electron device business, resulted in sales declines throughout all business segments," it said in a statement.
The firm hopes its restructuring plan, which includes the loss of more than 20,000 jobs, will help it achieve a ¥10bn net profit this year.
Sony downbeat too
Sony is expected to announce its first net loss for 14 years on Thursday, in a blow to chief executive Sir Howard Stringer's efforts to revive the company's fortunes. The firm is expected to record a net loss of ¥150bn compared with a ¥369.4bn profit a year earlier after suffering a projected 13% drop in annual sales.
A week after Toyota announced its first net losses for almost 60 years, Japan's third-biggest carmaker, Nissan, said it had posted its first loss since it was rescued from near bankruptcy a decade ago by chief executive Carlos Ghosn.
The firm reported an operating loss of ¥137.9bn after a ¥790.8bn profit last year.
Ghosn warned of more volatility in the global car market, but he said recent measures to ease the effects of the recession were having an impact.
"We are beginning to see some signs of improved access to credit, the impact of government stimulus packages and a gradual return in consumer confidence," he told reporters. "The crisis is ongoing and market conditions are still volatile."
The losses were slightly lower than Nissan had projected, and although revenue plunged 22% last year, the fall was not as bad as expected. The firm said it hoped to reduce its losses over the coming year to ¥170bn.
"We are preparing ourselves to be back in profit, in the worst case, by 2010," said Ghosn, who is also chief executive of Renault.
Nissan, which is 44% owned by Renault, blamed its predicament on a triple whammy of the US financial crisis, the global recession and the strength of the yen, which eats into profits from vehicles sold overseas. It has announced 20,000 job cuts this year, including 1,200 at its plant in Sunderland.
Hitachi confirmed it had suffered the worst loss ever for a Japanese manufacturer and warned of another difficult year ahead.
The firm, which makes consumer electronics and industrial equipment, said net losses had mounted to ¥787.3bn (£5.3bn) in the year through to 31 March from a ¥58.1bn loss a year earlier.
Hitachi said it expected losses to come to ¥270bn this year amid a sharp drop in demand for electronic gadgets, chips and cars incorporating its products.
In January it responded to the fall in sales by announcing plans to shed 7,000 jobs, or almost 2% of its global workforce.
"The global economy is not expected to see a fully fledged recovery until 2010 at the earliest," the company said.
"The global economic outlook is being shaped by concerns about the US and other industrialised nations slipping into negative economic growth, and about slowing economic growth in emerging economies and the yen's appreciation."
Hitachi's results are the biggest ever loss in Japan's manufacturing sector and the second largest in the country's corporate history after Nippon Telegraph and Telephone's ¥834.6bn loss in 2002.
There was more gloomy news today from NEC, which swung from a ¥22.7bn profit in 2007 to a loss of ¥297bn for the year that ended in March. The electronics maker said sales had fallen 8.7% to ¥4.2tn.
"The rapid economic decline and subsequent decrease in demand during the second half, particularly in the electron device business, resulted in sales declines throughout all business segments," it said in a statement.
The firm hopes its restructuring plan, which includes the loss of more than 20,000 jobs, will help it achieve a ¥10bn net profit this year.
Sony downbeat too
Sony is expected to announce its first net loss for 14 years on Thursday, in a blow to chief executive Sir Howard Stringer's efforts to revive the company's fortunes. The firm is expected to record a net loss of ¥150bn compared with a ¥369.4bn profit a year earlier after suffering a projected 13% drop in annual sales.
A week after Toyota announced its first net losses for almost 60 years, Japan's third-biggest carmaker, Nissan, said it had posted its first loss since it was rescued from near bankruptcy a decade ago by chief executive Carlos Ghosn.
The firm reported an operating loss of ¥137.9bn after a ¥790.8bn profit last year.
Ghosn warned of more volatility in the global car market, but he said recent measures to ease the effects of the recession were having an impact.
"We are beginning to see some signs of improved access to credit, the impact of government stimulus packages and a gradual return in consumer confidence," he told reporters. "The crisis is ongoing and market conditions are still volatile."
The losses were slightly lower than Nissan had projected, and although revenue plunged 22% last year, the fall was not as bad as expected. The firm said it hoped to reduce its losses over the coming year to ¥170bn.
"We are preparing ourselves to be back in profit, in the worst case, by 2010," said Ghosn, who is also chief executive of Renault.
Nissan, which is 44% owned by Renault, blamed its predicament on a triple whammy of the US financial crisis, the global recession and the strength of the yen, which eats into profits from vehicles sold overseas. It has announced 20,000 job cuts this year, including 1,200 at its plant in Sunderland.
Obama's key climate bill hit by $45m PR campaign
America's oil, gas and coal industry has increased its lobbying budget by 50%, with key players spending $44.5m in the first three months of this year in an intense effort to cut off support for Barack Obama's plan to build a clean energy economy.
The spoiler campaign runs to hundreds of millions of dollars and involves industry front groups, lobbying firms, television, print and radio advertising, and donations to pivotal members of Congress. Its intention is to water down or kill off plans by the Democratic leadership to pass "cap and trade" legislation this year, which would place limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
A defeat for the bill would have global consequences. The international community is depending on America, as the world's biggest per capita polluter, to set out a firm plan for getting off dirty fuels in the months before crucial UN negotiations in Copenhagen in December.
Without such action, the chances of getting a deal that scientists say is vital to limiting dangerous climate change are much reduced.
Those high stakes have intensified the fight for control over America's energy future. "There are an awful lot of people who have an awful lot to gain and lose and they have been acting accordingly," said Evan Tracey, founder of the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG), who has tracked the proliferation of climate change ads.
But it is an unequal contest. Liberal and environmental organisations, as well as the major corporations that support climate change legislation, say they are being vastly outspent by fossil fuel interests.
"These guys are spending a billion dollars this year convincing Americans that they are clean, green, cuddly and warm," said Bob Perkowitz, founder of the eco- America PR firm. Perkowitz is to brief the White House yesterday on a new environmental messaging strategy. "The enviros are getting their message out, but they are being outspent by 10 to one." he said.On advertising, the ratio is about three to one. The oil and coal industry spent $76.1m on ads from 1 January to 27 April, according to CMAG data seen by the Guardian. Environmental groups, led by Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection, the Environmental Defence Fund and the Sierra Club, spent $28.6m on ads in the same period, Tracey said.
Despite its global significance, the fate of the draft "cap and trade" bill now lies in the hands of just a dozen Democrats, who have yet to back Obama's energy transformation. The Democratic leadership cannot take their support for granted. Seven of those pivotal Democrats received campaign donations in excess of $100,000 from the oil and gas industry, coal producers, and electricity firms during last year's elections, according to an analysis provided to the Guardian by the Centre for Responsive Politics. Another two received more than $90,000 last year.
Environmentalists say those Democrats, who hold the balance of power on the committee, pose a far greater threat to the chances of passing climate change legislation than a full vote in the House of Representatives. "If they can get that bill through the subcommittee what is going to emerge is a piece of legislation," said Tony Kreindler of the Environmental Defence Fund. "So this is ground zero for the vote."
The spoiler campaign runs to hundreds of millions of dollars and involves industry front groups, lobbying firms, television, print and radio advertising, and donations to pivotal members of Congress. Its intention is to water down or kill off plans by the Democratic leadership to pass "cap and trade" legislation this year, which would place limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
A defeat for the bill would have global consequences. The international community is depending on America, as the world's biggest per capita polluter, to set out a firm plan for getting off dirty fuels in the months before crucial UN negotiations in Copenhagen in December.
Without such action, the chances of getting a deal that scientists say is vital to limiting dangerous climate change are much reduced.
Those high stakes have intensified the fight for control over America's energy future. "There are an awful lot of people who have an awful lot to gain and lose and they have been acting accordingly," said Evan Tracey, founder of the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG), who has tracked the proliferation of climate change ads.
But it is an unequal contest. Liberal and environmental organisations, as well as the major corporations that support climate change legislation, say they are being vastly outspent by fossil fuel interests.
"These guys are spending a billion dollars this year convincing Americans that they are clean, green, cuddly and warm," said Bob Perkowitz, founder of the eco- America PR firm. Perkowitz is to brief the White House yesterday on a new environmental messaging strategy. "The enviros are getting their message out, but they are being outspent by 10 to one." he said.On advertising, the ratio is about three to one. The oil and coal industry spent $76.1m on ads from 1 January to 27 April, according to CMAG data seen by the Guardian. Environmental groups, led by Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection, the Environmental Defence Fund and the Sierra Club, spent $28.6m on ads in the same period, Tracey said.
Despite its global significance, the fate of the draft "cap and trade" bill now lies in the hands of just a dozen Democrats, who have yet to back Obama's energy transformation. The Democratic leadership cannot take their support for granted. Seven of those pivotal Democrats received campaign donations in excess of $100,000 from the oil and gas industry, coal producers, and electricity firms during last year's elections, according to an analysis provided to the Guardian by the Centre for Responsive Politics. Another two received more than $90,000 last year.
Environmentalists say those Democrats, who hold the balance of power on the committee, pose a far greater threat to the chances of passing climate change legislation than a full vote in the House of Representatives. "If they can get that bill through the subcommittee what is going to emerge is a piece of legislation," said Tony Kreindler of the Environmental Defence Fund. "So this is ground zero for the vote."
David Cameron tells Tory MPs: write cheque or face sack
whirlwind swept through Westminster todayas the main political parties ordered their MPs to pay back excessive expenses and promised to end the worst abuses of the system immediately.
On a dramatic day when the parties finally responded to the anger in the country it was David Cameron, the Tory leader, who moved most quickly, directing eight shadow cabinet members, including his closest political allies, to write cheques to refund the taxpayer for improper claims or face the sack.
Last night, in a series of television interviews, Gordon Brown said Commons officials would meet again tomorrow to work on plans for an independent figure to lead a team tasked with going through the past four years' of receipts for every MP before ruling on whether the claim was legitimate. But the Tories contested any suggestion that an agreement had been reached last night.
The communities secretary, Hazel Blears, also appeared on television brandishing a cheque she said she intended to send to the Inland Revenue, saying she planned to pay back the £13,332 made by avoiding capital gains tax when she sold one of her homes.
In a press conference today Cameron said he was shocked by revelations that party grandees, playing to the worst Conservative stereotype, had been claiming for chandeliers, moats, horse manure and the cleaning of swimming pools. The Tory leader ordered backbenchers, including some of the most senior figures in his party, to follow any payback instructions from a newly established party panel or face expulsion.
After addressing an emergency meeting of his parliamentary party, he said: "People are right to be angry that some MPs have taken public money to pay for things few could afford. You've been let down.
"Politicians have done things that are unethical and wrong. I don't care if they were within the rules – they were wrong. I can announce people from my shadow cabinet are now writing out cheques."
Labour, one step behind Cameron for most of the day, convened a meeting of the cross-party members allowances committee to start the process of agreeing which claims could be repaid if they had been granted "outwith the rules at the time".
Harriet Harman, the leader of the Commons, called for an end to flipping, whereby MPs switch the identity of their second home to maximise their claims. She also called on the committee to impose an immediate moratorium on claims for furniture, fixtures and fittings pending the outcome of the independent review being conducted by Sir Christopher Kelly, the chairman of the committee on standards in public life.
In a move that went further than Cameron, Harman also proposed a cap on the amount of mortgage tax relief MPs could claim on their second home.
Later in the day, Nick Brown, the chief whip, began meeting Labour MPs identified as making excessive claims and ordered them to consider refunding the taxpayer. Among those agreeing to reimburse the taxpayer was Margaret Moran, the Luton South MP, who had repeatedly switched her second home to maximise her claims and then filed expenses of £22,000 to cover the cost of removing dry rot from her partner's home in Southampton.
Blears, who originally denied claims that she flipped her homes, made her decision to pay money back after meeting Gordon Brown. Last night Blears wrote to the Inland Revenue setting out how she was willing to pay capital gains tax on the £45,000 profit she made in August 2004 for the sale of her one-bed flat in south London.
The Labour MP Harry Cohen also agreed to pay back claims he had made on his caravan in Essex.
Harman said it was right to address the issue on a cross-party basis, and denied she had been outmanoeuvred by Cameron, saying: "We don't have to see this in terms of a party political competition."
In a further development, the Liberal Democrats, previously unscathed from the revelations, disclosed that more than 10 of their MPs have been accused of wrongdoing. Sir Menzies Campbell, a former party leader, hired a leading interior designer to refurbish his small flat in central London at taxpayers' expense, spending nearly £10,000 on scatter cushions, a king-sized bed and a flat-screen television.
Nick Clegg, the party leader, also agreed to repay an £82 mobile phone bill on calls made to his family. He had also claimed £160 a month on gardening fees at his constituency home, but said he would not be paying this sum back.
In the most dramatic clean-up, Cameron confronted eight shadow cabinet members and told them they would be sacked if they did not agree to pay back questionable claims. He told his frontbench: "A Conservative government needs to be careful, not casual, with public money. That principle of thrift should apply to Conservative MPs as well.
"From now on, I want them to claim what is reasonable to do their job, not the maximum they can get away with."
Cameron promised to return the only maintenance claim he had made in his eight years as an MP: £680 for removing wisteria, and other repairs at his constituency home.
The shadow ministers making repayments was headed by shadow children's secretary, Michael Gove, who will return £7,000 paid for furniture, and the shadow leader of the house, Alan Duncan, who is to pay back almost £5,000 claimed for gardening. Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley will repay £2,600 for home improvements and the chairman of the party's policy review, Oliver Letwin, £2,000 to repair a leaking pipe under his tennis court. All future Tory claims are to go on a website as soon as they are made.
On a dramatic day when the parties finally responded to the anger in the country it was David Cameron, the Tory leader, who moved most quickly, directing eight shadow cabinet members, including his closest political allies, to write cheques to refund the taxpayer for improper claims or face the sack.
Last night, in a series of television interviews, Gordon Brown said Commons officials would meet again tomorrow to work on plans for an independent figure to lead a team tasked with going through the past four years' of receipts for every MP before ruling on whether the claim was legitimate. But the Tories contested any suggestion that an agreement had been reached last night.
The communities secretary, Hazel Blears, also appeared on television brandishing a cheque she said she intended to send to the Inland Revenue, saying she planned to pay back the £13,332 made by avoiding capital gains tax when she sold one of her homes.
In a press conference today Cameron said he was shocked by revelations that party grandees, playing to the worst Conservative stereotype, had been claiming for chandeliers, moats, horse manure and the cleaning of swimming pools. The Tory leader ordered backbenchers, including some of the most senior figures in his party, to follow any payback instructions from a newly established party panel or face expulsion.
After addressing an emergency meeting of his parliamentary party, he said: "People are right to be angry that some MPs have taken public money to pay for things few could afford. You've been let down.
"Politicians have done things that are unethical and wrong. I don't care if they were within the rules – they were wrong. I can announce people from my shadow cabinet are now writing out cheques."
Labour, one step behind Cameron for most of the day, convened a meeting of the cross-party members allowances committee to start the process of agreeing which claims could be repaid if they had been granted "outwith the rules at the time".
Harriet Harman, the leader of the Commons, called for an end to flipping, whereby MPs switch the identity of their second home to maximise their claims. She also called on the committee to impose an immediate moratorium on claims for furniture, fixtures and fittings pending the outcome of the independent review being conducted by Sir Christopher Kelly, the chairman of the committee on standards in public life.
In a move that went further than Cameron, Harman also proposed a cap on the amount of mortgage tax relief MPs could claim on their second home.
Later in the day, Nick Brown, the chief whip, began meeting Labour MPs identified as making excessive claims and ordered them to consider refunding the taxpayer. Among those agreeing to reimburse the taxpayer was Margaret Moran, the Luton South MP, who had repeatedly switched her second home to maximise her claims and then filed expenses of £22,000 to cover the cost of removing dry rot from her partner's home in Southampton.
Blears, who originally denied claims that she flipped her homes, made her decision to pay money back after meeting Gordon Brown. Last night Blears wrote to the Inland Revenue setting out how she was willing to pay capital gains tax on the £45,000 profit she made in August 2004 for the sale of her one-bed flat in south London.
The Labour MP Harry Cohen also agreed to pay back claims he had made on his caravan in Essex.
Harman said it was right to address the issue on a cross-party basis, and denied she had been outmanoeuvred by Cameron, saying: "We don't have to see this in terms of a party political competition."
In a further development, the Liberal Democrats, previously unscathed from the revelations, disclosed that more than 10 of their MPs have been accused of wrongdoing. Sir Menzies Campbell, a former party leader, hired a leading interior designer to refurbish his small flat in central London at taxpayers' expense, spending nearly £10,000 on scatter cushions, a king-sized bed and a flat-screen television.
Nick Clegg, the party leader, also agreed to repay an £82 mobile phone bill on calls made to his family. He had also claimed £160 a month on gardening fees at his constituency home, but said he would not be paying this sum back.
In the most dramatic clean-up, Cameron confronted eight shadow cabinet members and told them they would be sacked if they did not agree to pay back questionable claims. He told his frontbench: "A Conservative government needs to be careful, not casual, with public money. That principle of thrift should apply to Conservative MPs as well.
"From now on, I want them to claim what is reasonable to do their job, not the maximum they can get away with."
Cameron promised to return the only maintenance claim he had made in his eight years as an MP: £680 for removing wisteria, and other repairs at his constituency home.
The shadow ministers making repayments was headed by shadow children's secretary, Michael Gove, who will return £7,000 paid for furniture, and the shadow leader of the house, Alan Duncan, who is to pay back almost £5,000 claimed for gardening. Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley will repay £2,600 for home improvements and the chairman of the party's policy review, Oliver Letwin, £2,000 to repair a leaking pipe under his tennis court. All future Tory claims are to go on a website as soon as they are made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)