In an abrupt shift, Senate Democratic leaders said on Tuesday that they would not provide the $80 million that President Obama requested to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Mr. Obama, who on Thursday is scheduled to outline his plans for the 240 detainees still held in the prison, has faced growing pressure from lawmakers, particularly Republicans, to find a solution that does not involve moving the prisoners to the United States.
While Democrats generally have been supportive of Mr. Obama’s plan to close the detention center by Jan. 22, 2010, lawmakers have not stepped forward to offer to accept detainees in their home states or districts. When the tiny town of Hardin, Mont., offered to put the terrorism suspects in the town’s empty jail, both Montana senators and its Congressional representative quickly voiced strong opposition
Republicans, including the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, applauded the Democrats’ decision not to include the funds in their version of the military spending bill. Mr. McConnell, who has been warning for weeks about the dangers of closing the prison, said that he hoped it was a prelude to keeping the camp open and dangerous terror suspects off shore, where he said they belong.
Other prominent Republicans, including former Vice President Dick Cheney have unleashed similarly criticism of the Obama administration over the plan to close the detention camp. And Senate Democrats on Tuesday readily conceded that their decision to shift course in part reflected the success of Republicans in putting Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats on the defensive.
Obama administration officials have acknowledged that if the Guantánamo camp closes, as scheduled, more than 100 of the prisoners will likely need to be moved to the United States, including 50 to 100 that have been described as “too dangerous to release” but likely cannot be prosecuted.
Of the 240 detainees, 30 have been cleared for release and some will likely be transferred to foreign countries, but so far other governments have been reluctant to accept them. So far, Britain and France have each accepted one former detainee. As many as 80 detainees will be prosecuted and it is unclear what will happen to those who are convicted and sentenced to prison; some might be sentenced to death.
Senate Democratic leaders insisted that they still supported the decision to close the prison, were simply waiting for Mr. Obama to provide a more detailed plan, and had acted to avert a partisan feud that would only serve as a distraction and delay a military spending measure, which is needed to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and some other national security programs through Sept. 30. Mr. Obama had requested the $80 million be included in that bill.
The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, indicated that the administration expected that Congress would eventually release the money to close the camp and he suggested that the concerns of lawmakers would be addressed on Thursday, when Mr. Obama presents a “hefty part” of his plan to deal with the detainees.
But the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, seemed to ramp up the concerns of Congressional Democrats, insisting during a news conference that lawmakers would never allow the terror suspects to be released into the United States and suggesting that they would never allow them to be transferred to American prisons.
“Guantanamo makes us less safe,” Mr. Reid said. “However this is neither the time nor the bill to deal with this. Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president. We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.”
Pressed to explain if that meant they could not be transferred to American prisons, Mr. Reid said: “We don’t want is them to be put in prisons in the United States. We don’t want them around the United States.
The House last week overwhelmingly approved a $96.7 billion war spending measure after stripping the money for closing the detention center and inserting language barring Mr. Obama from transferring any of the detainees to the United States without first presenting a detailed plan to Congress and giving lawmakers a chance to review it.
In response, the White House, in a sharp about-face, announced that it would revive the military commissions, first created by the Bush administration, to prosecute some of the terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo.
The Obama administration said it would expand the legal rights of suspects, including a limit on the use of hearsay evidence and a ban on evidence gained from cruel treatment.
Still, discomfort continued to grow in Congress. When the bill was brought to the floor for debate on Tuesday, Mr. Reid and other leaders abruptly announced that they had shifted course and the money to close the prison would be removed.
Republicans had been planning to offer amendments to strip the money and further tighten the restrictions once the bill reached the Senate floor later this week. And they pressed ahead with some of those amendments on Tuesday, including one by Mr. McConnell requiring the administration to provide a “threat assessment” gauging the likelihood that detainees would return to terrorism if released.
At the Pentagon, a spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said he believed that the administration remained on track to meet the Jan. 22 deadline for closing the prison.
“I see nothing to indicate that that date is at all in jeopardy,” Mr. Morrell said at a news conference. As far as I can tell, everything remains on track for action to be taken, with regards to the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, by the timeline, according to the timeline prescribed by the president in the executive order.”
But Mr. Morrell also cautioned that top Defense Department officials were involved in “near-constant meetings” with counterparts at the Justice and State departments, as well as at the White House, suggesting that the time-line could change. Mr. Morrell also said he had not heard of any plans to consider transferring detainees from Guantanamo to the Bagrama military base in Afghanistan.
Mr. McConnell, at a news conference, noted that no prisoner had escaped from the Guantanamo camp since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and he said that the prison should remain open. “Guantanamo is the perfect place for these terrorists,” he said. “However, if the president ends up making -- sticking with this decision to close it next January, obviously they need a place to be. It ought not to be the United States of America.”
Mr. McConnell in his persistent, almost daily speeches about the dangers of closing the detention center can arguably take more credit than any other Republican in raising the pressure on Mr. Obama. And at the news conference, Mr. McConnell praised the president’s “flexibility” on national security issues, but of course he noted that the flexibility had largely been to adopt positions more in line with Republicans on security issues.
Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, said the majority leader had not intended to suggest that detainees could never be transferred to American prisons, but only to say that the Senate would not provide money for closing the Guantánamo camp until a task force created by Mr. Obama presents a report on detainee policy and suggestions for moving forward, which is due in July.
Mr. Reid in his comments, however, was unequivocal in insisting that the terror suspects never reach American shores.
“You can’t put them in prison unless you release them,” he said. “We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.”
Mr. Reid said that he and other Senate leaders had shifted course after seeing the version of the military spending bill approved by the House last week, a rare gesture of deference by the upper chamber of Congress to the lower one.
“In looking at the position of the House, that was more logical,” Mr. Reid said. “We have clearly said all along that we wanted a plan. We don’t have a plan. And based on that, this is not the bill to deal with this.”
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Newlyweds accused of murder
A bride and groom murdered a man the morning after their wedding night, a court heard today .
Wendy Shobrook, 39, had walked out on Barry Johnson, 40, halfway through their reception because she did not think he was paying her enough attention, Plymouth crown court was told.
Next morning, Johnson found his bride at the flat of her former boyfriend, George Auchterlonie, 45. She let Johnson in and he used an oar that was hanging on the wall as a decoration to batter Auchterlonie to death, it is alleged.
Husband and wife fled together, leaving Auchterlonie dying in a pool of blood. He is thought to have lived for several hours, but his body was only found by a neighbour three days later. He had suffered 38 separate injuries.
Johnson and Shobrook, of Plymouth, deny murdering Auchterlonie at his flat in June last year.
Martin Meeke QC, prosecuting, said Johnson and Shobrook had got married at short notice at Plymouth register office with three friends as witnesses, and gone on to celebrate at three pubs in the city.
He said Shobrook had set Auchterlonie up for the beating, enabling Johnson to attack him by letting him into the flat.
The trial continues.
Wendy Shobrook, 39, had walked out on Barry Johnson, 40, halfway through their reception because she did not think he was paying her enough attention, Plymouth crown court was told.
Next morning, Johnson found his bride at the flat of her former boyfriend, George Auchterlonie, 45. She let Johnson in and he used an oar that was hanging on the wall as a decoration to batter Auchterlonie to death, it is alleged.
Husband and wife fled together, leaving Auchterlonie dying in a pool of blood. He is thought to have lived for several hours, but his body was only found by a neighbour three days later. He had suffered 38 separate injuries.
Johnson and Shobrook, of Plymouth, deny murdering Auchterlonie at his flat in June last year.
Martin Meeke QC, prosecuting, said Johnson and Shobrook had got married at short notice at Plymouth register office with three friends as witnesses, and gone on to celebrate at three pubs in the city.
He said Shobrook had set Auchterlonie up for the beating, enabling Johnson to attack him by letting him into the flat.
The trial continues.
New law on forced prostitution weakened, say women's groups
Home Office ministers tonight defended changes to legislation to criminalise men who pay for sex with women who are forced into prostitution.
Women's groups claimed that Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, had "backtracked" by narrowing the wording of the new offence so it covers women "subjected to force, deception or threats" rather than anyone "controlled for gain by a third party".
The women's charity, Eaves, which runs the Poppy project, which helps women trafficked into Britain for sexual exploitation, says it is disappointed by a "backward move" that would fail to protect exploited British women who are not covered by trafficking legislation.
Helen Atkins, of Eaves, said the revised wording was actually narrower than that used in the international trafficking definition that required "fraud, force or coercion". She added: "The home secretary's amendment doesn't cover the exploitation of vulnerability which commonly occurs in cases of grooming of women and girls into prostitution and the psychological control that often comes with it."
But the Home Office spokeswoman said it did not believe it would make the offence too narrow: "We share the aims of the Poppy project ensuring that all those involved in prostitution through exploitation are protected by this offence. Our amendments will ensure that they are and that the offence is much clearer, allowing it to operate more effectively to bring to justice those who exploit vulnerable women."
Ministers said they were responding to concerns raised by Liberal Democrats and Conservatives that the term "controlled for gain" could apply in wider circumstances than the new offence was aimed to cover.
Ministers want to deter sex buyers from paying for sex with those who have been trafficked or otherwise forced or coerced to provide sexual services. The new wording would make it a crime to pay for sex with someone who has been subject to "force, deception or threats of a kind likely to induce or encourage" the provision of a sexual service.
Women's groups claimed that Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, had "backtracked" by narrowing the wording of the new offence so it covers women "subjected to force, deception or threats" rather than anyone "controlled for gain by a third party".
The women's charity, Eaves, which runs the Poppy project, which helps women trafficked into Britain for sexual exploitation, says it is disappointed by a "backward move" that would fail to protect exploited British women who are not covered by trafficking legislation.
Helen Atkins, of Eaves, said the revised wording was actually narrower than that used in the international trafficking definition that required "fraud, force or coercion". She added: "The home secretary's amendment doesn't cover the exploitation of vulnerability which commonly occurs in cases of grooming of women and girls into prostitution and the psychological control that often comes with it."
But the Home Office spokeswoman said it did not believe it would make the offence too narrow: "We share the aims of the Poppy project ensuring that all those involved in prostitution through exploitation are protected by this offence. Our amendments will ensure that they are and that the offence is much clearer, allowing it to operate more effectively to bring to justice those who exploit vulnerable women."
Ministers said they were responding to concerns raised by Liberal Democrats and Conservatives that the term "controlled for gain" could apply in wider circumstances than the new offence was aimed to cover.
Ministers want to deter sex buyers from paying for sex with those who have been trafficked or otherwise forced or coerced to provide sexual services. The new wording would make it a crime to pay for sex with someone who has been subject to "force, deception or threats of a kind likely to induce or encourage" the provision of a sexual service.
Michael Martin resigns as PM signals the end of the 'gentlemen's club'
On one of the most momentous days in British parliamentary history, the Speaker of the Commons, Michael Martin, resigned his office yesterday, and the prime minister desperately tried to defuse the constitutional crisis by announcing unprecedented plans to curb centuries of MPs' self-governance.
Within hours of Martin giving up the fight to retain his post as the most senior commoner in the land, Gordon Brown outlined plans to dismantle what he described as the "gentlemen's club" of parliament by handing power for the oversight of every aspect of MPs' pay, expenses and pensions to a new statutory independent regulator. At a Downing Street press conference, the prime minister said Westminster "can no longer operate as a 19th-century institution where the members make up the rules, and operate them among themselves".
He said he would be willing to pass legislation to end self-regulation immediately, on a cross-party basis, so that MPs were no longer in the invidious position of being "judge and jury of their own pay and rations".
Later Martin announced an immediate interim ban on MPs claiming for furniture and the "flipping" of second homes, two of the most incendiary practices to emerge from the expenses scandal.
His interim reforms also include:
• MPs living together must designate the same home as their main residence
• A cap on mortgage interest payments at £1,250 a month
• MPs to be "completely open" on whether they have claimed additional costs allowance on a property as a second home and are liable for capital gains tax
• All expense claims to be published online quarterly
• Only rent, hotel bills, overnight subsistence, mortgage interest, council tax, utility charges and insurance will be allowed
• Claims which are the subject of any doubts will be refused with no opportunity of appeal.
Earlier, Brown promised that Labour's national executive would deselect MPs who had broken the rules of parliament, describing the expenses claims of his communities secretary, Hazel Blears, and the Labour MP for Luton South, Margaret Moran, as "completely unacceptable" – his harshest condemnation yet.
He said his reforms would "change centuries of history for parliament" and added: "To move from self-regulation to statutory independent regulation is the only way forward." He promised to come forward with specific proposals.
Martin, appointed in 2000, became the first Speaker to be forced from office in more than 300 years. He resigned yesterday morning after consultations with close allies and a discussion with Brown on Monday afternoon and again yesterday. The prime minister is understood to have warned him that support was draining away after a disastrous performance in the Commons on Monday afternoon.
Allies of Martin such as the Labour MP Jim Sheridan and Lord Foulkes blamed an anti-Catholic conspiracy and even called for parliamentary sketchwriters who have tormented him to be censored. Labour MPs broke with precedent to applaud Martin last night after he announced the interim rules to tighten MPs' expenses and allowances.
Brown had planned to announce the changes at his Downing Street press conference, but was told by the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, that Martin should be allowed to make the statement to MPs, so reducing the prime minister's chance of taking the political credit.
Earlier, Martin resigned in an anti-climactic 33-second statement in which he said simply: "Since I came to the house 30 years ago, I have always felt that this house is at its very best when it is united. In order that unity that can be maintained, I have decided that I will relinquish the office of Speaker on 21 June."
His departure will create a hideous byelection for Labour in his Glasgow north-east constituency in late summer.
Potential successors were already discreetly campaigning in what will be the first secret ballot for Speaker in parliament's history. Leading candidates include Sir George Young, a reforming old Etonian; Sir Alan Beith, the veteran Liberal Democrat; and John Bercow, the independent-minded Tory. Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat economic spokesman, ruled himself out, as has David Davis, the former shadow home affairs spokesman.
Within hours of Martin giving up the fight to retain his post as the most senior commoner in the land, Gordon Brown outlined plans to dismantle what he described as the "gentlemen's club" of parliament by handing power for the oversight of every aspect of MPs' pay, expenses and pensions to a new statutory independent regulator. At a Downing Street press conference, the prime minister said Westminster "can no longer operate as a 19th-century institution where the members make up the rules, and operate them among themselves".
He said he would be willing to pass legislation to end self-regulation immediately, on a cross-party basis, so that MPs were no longer in the invidious position of being "judge and jury of their own pay and rations".
Later Martin announced an immediate interim ban on MPs claiming for furniture and the "flipping" of second homes, two of the most incendiary practices to emerge from the expenses scandal.
His interim reforms also include:
• MPs living together must designate the same home as their main residence
• A cap on mortgage interest payments at £1,250 a month
• MPs to be "completely open" on whether they have claimed additional costs allowance on a property as a second home and are liable for capital gains tax
• All expense claims to be published online quarterly
• Only rent, hotel bills, overnight subsistence, mortgage interest, council tax, utility charges and insurance will be allowed
• Claims which are the subject of any doubts will be refused with no opportunity of appeal.
Earlier, Brown promised that Labour's national executive would deselect MPs who had broken the rules of parliament, describing the expenses claims of his communities secretary, Hazel Blears, and the Labour MP for Luton South, Margaret Moran, as "completely unacceptable" – his harshest condemnation yet.
He said his reforms would "change centuries of history for parliament" and added: "To move from self-regulation to statutory independent regulation is the only way forward." He promised to come forward with specific proposals.
Martin, appointed in 2000, became the first Speaker to be forced from office in more than 300 years. He resigned yesterday morning after consultations with close allies and a discussion with Brown on Monday afternoon and again yesterday. The prime minister is understood to have warned him that support was draining away after a disastrous performance in the Commons on Monday afternoon.
Allies of Martin such as the Labour MP Jim Sheridan and Lord Foulkes blamed an anti-Catholic conspiracy and even called for parliamentary sketchwriters who have tormented him to be censored. Labour MPs broke with precedent to applaud Martin last night after he announced the interim rules to tighten MPs' expenses and allowances.
Brown had planned to announce the changes at his Downing Street press conference, but was told by the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, that Martin should be allowed to make the statement to MPs, so reducing the prime minister's chance of taking the political credit.
Earlier, Martin resigned in an anti-climactic 33-second statement in which he said simply: "Since I came to the house 30 years ago, I have always felt that this house is at its very best when it is united. In order that unity that can be maintained, I have decided that I will relinquish the office of Speaker on 21 June."
His departure will create a hideous byelection for Labour in his Glasgow north-east constituency in late summer.
Potential successors were already discreetly campaigning in what will be the first secret ballot for Speaker in parliament's history. Leading candidates include Sir George Young, a reforming old Etonian; Sir Alan Beith, the veteran Liberal Democrat; and John Bercow, the independent-minded Tory. Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat economic spokesman, ruled himself out, as has David Davis, the former shadow home affairs spokesman.
US Senate passes credit card bill
Lawmakers in the US Senate have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a bill that puts new restrictions on the credit card industry.
The bill would curb sudden interest rate increases and hidden fees.
The industry has warned that the measure could backfire, leading banks to issue fewer credit cards thus making it harder to get credit.
The bill would mark the first major financial reform made by the Obama administration.
Analysts said it would hurt the profits of major credit card issuers such as Citigroup and Bank of America.
The bill must again go before the House of Representatives and then be approved by President Barack Obama, who is expected to sign it into law by the end of the month.
Edward Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association, said the credit card bill, if signed into law, would undermine the availability of credit.
'Reasonable rules'
The bill would prevent companies from raising interest rates on existing balances unless a card holder was 60 days behind, and then it would require the rate to be restored to its previous level if payments were on time for six months.
Card holders would have to be told of rate increases 45 days in advance and it would also make it harder for people aged under 21 to be issued with credit cards.
"This bill bans unfair rate increases, makes companies play by reasonable rules and magnifies the fine print so consumers aren't blindsided by their monthly bills," Democratic Senator Richard Durbin said.
However, there are fears that if penalties on riskier borrowers are limited, credit card issuers could introduce annual fees and and curtail reward programmes to make up for lost revenue.
The bill would curb sudden interest rate increases and hidden fees.
The industry has warned that the measure could backfire, leading banks to issue fewer credit cards thus making it harder to get credit.
The bill would mark the first major financial reform made by the Obama administration.
Analysts said it would hurt the profits of major credit card issuers such as Citigroup and Bank of America.
The bill must again go before the House of Representatives and then be approved by President Barack Obama, who is expected to sign it into law by the end of the month.
Edward Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association, said the credit card bill, if signed into law, would undermine the availability of credit.
'Reasonable rules'
The bill would prevent companies from raising interest rates on existing balances unless a card holder was 60 days behind, and then it would require the rate to be restored to its previous level if payments were on time for six months.
Card holders would have to be told of rate increases 45 days in advance and it would also make it harder for people aged under 21 to be issued with credit cards.
"This bill bans unfair rate increases, makes companies play by reasonable rules and magnifies the fine print so consumers aren't blindsided by their monthly bills," Democratic Senator Richard Durbin said.
However, there are fears that if penalties on riskier borrowers are limited, credit card issuers could introduce annual fees and and curtail reward programmes to make up for lost revenue.
Scientists hail stunning fossil
The beautifully preserved remains of a 47-million-year-old, lemur-like creature have been unveiled in the US.
The preservation is so good, it is possible to see the outline of its fur and even traces of its last meal.
The fossil, nicknamed Ida, is claimed to be a "missing link" between today's higher primates - monkeys, apes and humans - and more distant relatives.
But some independent experts, awaiting an opportunity to see the new fossil, are sceptical of the claim.
And they have been critical of the hype surrounding the presentation of Ida.
The fossil was launched amid great fanfare at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, by the city's mayor.
Although details of the fossil have only just been published in a scientific journal - PLoS One - there is already a TV documentary and book tie-in.
Ida was discovered in the 1980s in a fossil treasure-trove called Messel Pit, near Darmstadt in Germany. For much of the intervening period, it has been in a private collection.
The investigation of the fossil's significance was led by Jorn Hurum of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway.
He said the fossil creature was "the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor" and described the discovery as "a dream come true".
The female animal lived during an epoch in Earth history known as the Eocene, which was crucial for the development of early primates - and at first glance, Ida resembles a lemur.
But the creature lacks primitive features such as a so-called "toothcomb", a specialised feature in which the lower incisor and canine teeth are elongated, crowded together and projecting forward. She also lacks a special claw used for grooming.
The preservation is so good, it is possible to see the outline of its fur and even traces of its last meal.
The fossil, nicknamed Ida, is claimed to be a "missing link" between today's higher primates - monkeys, apes and humans - and more distant relatives.
But some independent experts, awaiting an opportunity to see the new fossil, are sceptical of the claim.
And they have been critical of the hype surrounding the presentation of Ida.
The fossil was launched amid great fanfare at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, by the city's mayor.
Although details of the fossil have only just been published in a scientific journal - PLoS One - there is already a TV documentary and book tie-in.
Ida was discovered in the 1980s in a fossil treasure-trove called Messel Pit, near Darmstadt in Germany. For much of the intervening period, it has been in a private collection.
The investigation of the fossil's significance was led by Jorn Hurum of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway.
He said the fossil creature was "the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor" and described the discovery as "a dream come true".
The female animal lived during an epoch in Earth history known as the Eocene, which was crucial for the development of early primates - and at first glance, Ida resembles a lemur.
But the creature lacks primitive features such as a so-called "toothcomb", a specialised feature in which the lower incisor and canine teeth are elongated, crowded together and projecting forward. She also lacks a special claw used for grooming.
Sharp fall in exports from China
China's exports in April were down 22.6% from a year ago, the sixth successive month of decline.
April's fall in exports was also bigger than the 17.1% annual decline recorded in March.
But other data released on Tuesday suggest that Chinese government efforts to stimulate the economy are pushing up investment levels in the country.
Analysts remain optimistic that China will be the first to make its way out of recession.
For those Chinese factory owners who send most of their products abroad, there is little relief in these latest trade figures.
Some had hoped the worst was over for exporters, but the 22.6% fall was greater than many analysts had expected.
On the other hand, investment in industrial plants and property in cities was 30% higher in the first four months of the year than it had been in the same period of 2008.
Investment projects
In recent months, the government has encouraged banks to lend huge amounts to businesses to help them get through the downturn.
That money has being spent on new equipment as well as massive infrastructure projects.
The outlook for exporters remains uncertain, because they are reliant on improvements in economic conditions elsewhere, which the Chinese government has little control over.
But for the Chinese economy as a whole, the prospects are brighter.
The government's stimulus package and increased lending are helping to keep those businesses that serve the domestic market afloat.
Most analysts expect to see stronger economic growth in the second half of the year.
April's fall in exports was also bigger than the 17.1% annual decline recorded in March.
But other data released on Tuesday suggest that Chinese government efforts to stimulate the economy are pushing up investment levels in the country.
Analysts remain optimistic that China will be the first to make its way out of recession.
For those Chinese factory owners who send most of their products abroad, there is little relief in these latest trade figures.
Some had hoped the worst was over for exporters, but the 22.6% fall was greater than many analysts had expected.
On the other hand, investment in industrial plants and property in cities was 30% higher in the first four months of the year than it had been in the same period of 2008.
Investment projects
In recent months, the government has encouraged banks to lend huge amounts to businesses to help them get through the downturn.
That money has being spent on new equipment as well as massive infrastructure projects.
The outlook for exporters remains uncertain, because they are reliant on improvements in economic conditions elsewhere, which the Chinese government has little control over.
But for the Chinese economy as a whole, the prospects are brighter.
The government's stimulus package and increased lending are helping to keep those businesses that serve the domestic market afloat.
Most analysts expect to see stronger economic growth in the second half of the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)