Insurgents in Afghanistan, fighting from some of the poorest and most remote regions on earth, have managed for years to maintain an intensive guerrilla war against materially superior AmerArms and ordnance collected from dead insurgents hint at one possible reason: Of 30 rifle magazines recently taken from insurgents’ corpses, at least 17 contained cartridges, or rounds, identical to ammunition the United States had provided to Afghan government forces, according to an examination of ammunition markings by The New York Times and interviews with American officers and arms dealers.
The presence of this ammunition among the dead in the Korangal Valley, an area of often fierce fighting near Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan, strongly suggests that munitions procured by the Pentagon have leaked from Afghan forces for use against American troops.
The scope of that diversion remains unknown, and the 30 magazines represented a single sampling of fewer than 1,000 cartridges. But military officials, arms analysts and dealers say it points to a worrisome possibility: With only spotty American and Afghan controls on the vast inventory of weapons and ammunition sent into Afghanistan during an eight-year conflict, poor discipline and outright corruption among Afghan forces may have helped insurgents stay supplied.
The United States has been criticized, as recently as February by the federal Government Accountability Office, for failing to account for thousands of rifles issued to Afghan security forces. Some of these weapons have been documented in insurgents’ hands, including weapons in a battle last year in which nine Americans died.
In response, the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan, the American-led unit tasked with training and supplying Afghan forces, said it had made accountability of all Afghan police and military property a top priority, and taken steps to locate and log rifles issued even years ago. The Pentagon has created a database of small arms issued to Afghan units.
No similarly thorough accountability system exists for ammunition, which is harder to trace and more liquid than firearms, readily changing hands through corruption, illegal sales, theft, battlefield loss and other forms of diversion.
American forces do not examine all captured arms and munitions to trace how insurgents obtained them, or to determine whether the Afghan government, directly or indirectly, is a significant Taliban supplier, military officers said. The reasons include limited resources and institutional memory of issued arms, as well as an absence of collaboration between field units that collect equipment and the investigators and supervisors in Kabul who could trace it.
In this case, the rifle magazines were captured last month by a platoon in Company B, First Battalion, 26th Infantry, which killed at least 13 insurgents in a nighttime ambush in eastern Afghanistan. The soldiers searched the insurgents’ remains and collected 10 rifles, a rocket-propelled-grenade launcher, 30 magazines and other equipment.
Access to Taliban equipment is unusual. But after the ambush, the company allowed the items to be examined by this reporter.
Photographs were taken of the weapons’ serial numbers and markings on the bottoms of the cartridge casings, known as headstamps, which can reveal where and when ammunition was manufactured. The headstamps were then compared with ammunition in government circulation, and with this reporter’s records of ammunition sampled in Afghan magazines and bunkers in multiple provinces in recent years.
The type of ammunition in question, 7.62x39 millimeter, colloquially known as “7.62 short,” is one of the world’s most abundant classes of military small-arms cartridges, and can come from dozens of potential suppliers.
It is used in Kalashnikov rifles and their knockoffs, and has been made in many countries, including Russia, China, Ukraine, North Korea, Cuba, India, Pakistan, the United States, the former Warsaw Pact nations and several countries in Africa. Several countries have multiple factories, each associated with distinct markings.
The examination of the Taliban’s cartridges found telling signs of diversion: 17 of the magazines contained ammunition bearing either of two stamps: the word “WOLF” in uppercase letters, or the lowercase arrangement “bxn.”
“WOLF” stamps mark ammunition from Wolf Performance Ammunition, a company in California that sells Russian-made cartridges to American gun owners. The company has also provided cartridges for Afghan soldiers and police officers, typically through middlemen. Its munitions can be found in Afghan government bunkers.
The “bxn” marking was formerly used at a Czech factory during the cold war. Since 2004, the Czech government has donated surplus ammunition and equipment to Afghanistan. A.E.Y. Inc., a former Pentagon supplier, also shipped surplus Czech ammunition to Afghanistan, according to the United States Army, including cartridges bearing “bxn” stamps.
Most of the Wolf and Czech ammunition in the Taliban magazines was in good condition and showed little weathering, denting, corrosion or soiling, suggesting it had been removed from packaging recently.
There is no evidence that Wolf, the Czech government or A.E.Y. knowingly shipped ammunition to Afghan insurgents. A.E.Y. was banned last year from doing business with the Pentagon, but its legal troubles stemmed from unrelated allegations of fraud.
Given the number of potential sources, the probability that the Taliban and the Pentagon were sharing identical supply sources was small.
Rather, the concentration of Taliban ammunition identical in markings and condition to that used by Afghan units indicated that the munitions had most likely slipped from state custody, said James Bevan, a researcher specializing in ammunition for the Small Arms Survey, an independent research group in Geneva.
Mr. Bevan, who has documented ammunition diversion in Kenya, Uganda and Sudan, said one likely explanation was that interpreters, soldiers or police officers had sold ammunition for profit or passed it along for other reasons, including support for the insurgency. “Same story, different location,” he said.
The majority of cartridges in the remaining 13 Taliban magazines bore headstamps indicating they were made in Russia in the Soviet period. Several rounds had Chinese stamps and dates indicating manufacture in the 1960s and ’70s. A smaller number were Hungarian. Much of this other ammunition was in poor condition.
Hungarian and Chinese ammunition had also been provided to the Afghan government by A.E.Y., making it possible that several of the remaining magazines included American-procured rounds.
The American military did not dispute the possibility that theft or corruption could have steered Wolf and Czech ammunition to insurgents.
Capt. James C. Howell, who commands the company that captured the ammunition, said illicit diversion would be consistent with an enduring reputation of corruption in Afghan units, especially the police. “It’s not surprising,” he said.
But he added that in his experience this form of corruption was not a norm. Rather than deliberate diversion, he said, the more likely causes would be poor discipline and oversight in the Afghan national security forces, or A.N.S.F. “I think most A.N.S.F. don’t want their own stuff coming back at them,” he said.
Captured Taliban rifles provide a glimpse at arms diversion as well.
After the battle in the eastern village of Wanat last year, in which 9 Americans died and more than 20 were wounded, investigators found a large cache of AMD-65 assault rifles in the village’s police post, which was implicated in the attack, according to American officers. In all, the post had more than 70 assault rifles, but only 20 officers on its roster. Three AMD-65s were recovered near the battle as well.
The AMD-65, a distinctive Hungarian rifle, was rarely seen in Afghanistan until the United States issued it by the thousands to the Afghan police. They can now be found in Pakistani arms bazaars.
In the American ambush last month, all of the 10 captured rifles had factory stamps from China or Izhevsk, Russia. Those with date stamps had been manufactured in the 1960s and ’70s.
Photographs of the weapons and serial numbers were provided to Brig. Gen. Anthony R. Ierardi, the deputy commander of the transition command. Upon checking against the Pentagon’s new database, the general said one of the Chinese rifles had been issued to an Afghan auxiliary police officer in 2007. How Taliban insurgents had acquired the rifle was not clear.
The auxiliary police, which augmented the Afghan Interior Ministry, were riddled with corruption and incompetence. They were disbanded last year.
Speaking about the captured Taliban ammunition, General Ierardi cautioned that the range of headstamps could indicate that insurgent use of American-procured munitions was not widespread. He noted that the captured ammunition sampling was small and that munitions might have leaked through less nefarious means.
“The mixed ammo could suggest battlefield losses; it could suggest captured ammo,” he said. He added, however, that he did not want to appear defensive and that accountability of Afghan arms and munitions was of “highest priority.”
“The emphasis from our perspective is on accountability of all logistics property,” he said. Leakage of Pentagon-supplied armaments to insurgents was an “absolutely worst-case scenario,” he said, adding, “We want to guard against the exact scenario you laid out.”
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
India’s Challenges
The Indian National Congress party cannot afford a prolonged celebration after its overwhelming election victory. Much of the postvote analysis has focused on the daunting domestic agenda. But now that Congress has a stable mandate — and can shuck a fractious coalition — it is time for India to exercise the kind of regional and global leadership expected of a rising power.
It can start with neighboring Pakistan, arguably the most dangerous country on earth. A report in The Times on Monday reminds us just how dangerous: The United States believes Islamabad is rapidly expanding a nuclear arsenal thought to already contain 80 to 100 weapons.
We have consistently supported appropriate military aid and increased economic aid to help Pakistan fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda, strengthen democratic institutions and improve the life of its people. Squandering precious resources on nuclear bombs is disgraceful when Pakistan is troubled by economic crisis and facing an insurgency that threatens its very existence.
Trying to keep up to 100 bombs from extremists is hard enough; expanding the nuclear stockpile makes the challenge worse. Officials in Washington are legitimately asking whether billions of dollars in proposed new assistance might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program. They should demand assurances it will not be.
India is essential to what Pakistan will do. New Delhi exercised welcome restraint when it did not attack Pakistan after the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai by Pakistani-based extremists. But tensions remain high, and the Pakistani Army continues to view India as its main adversary. India should take the lead in initiating arms control talks with Pakistan and China. It should also declare its intention to stop producing nuclear weapons fuel, even before a proposed multinational treaty is negotiated. That would provide leverage for Washington and others to exhort Pakistan to do the same.
It is past time for India — stronger both economically and in international stature — to find a way to resolve tensions with Pakistan over Kashmir. If that festering sore cannot be addressed directly, then — as Stephen P. Cohen, a South Asia expert at the Brookings Institution, suggests — broader regional talks on environmental and water issues might be an interim way to find common ground. Ignoring Kashmir is no longer an option.
India has played a constructive role in helping rebuild Afghanistan, but it must take steps to allay Islamabad’s concerns that this is a plan to encircle Pakistan. It should foster regional trade with Pakistan and Afghanistan. More broadly, India must help to revive world trade talks by opening its markets. It could use its considerable trade clout with Iran, Sudan and Myanmar to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, end the genocide in Darfur and press Myanmar’s junta to expand human rights.
India is the dominant power in South Asia, but it has been hesitant to assume its responsibilities. The Congress Party has to do better — starting with Pakistan
editorial: nytimes.com
It can start with neighboring Pakistan, arguably the most dangerous country on earth. A report in The Times on Monday reminds us just how dangerous: The United States believes Islamabad is rapidly expanding a nuclear arsenal thought to already contain 80 to 100 weapons.
We have consistently supported appropriate military aid and increased economic aid to help Pakistan fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda, strengthen democratic institutions and improve the life of its people. Squandering precious resources on nuclear bombs is disgraceful when Pakistan is troubled by economic crisis and facing an insurgency that threatens its very existence.
Trying to keep up to 100 bombs from extremists is hard enough; expanding the nuclear stockpile makes the challenge worse. Officials in Washington are legitimately asking whether billions of dollars in proposed new assistance might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program. They should demand assurances it will not be.
India is essential to what Pakistan will do. New Delhi exercised welcome restraint when it did not attack Pakistan after the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai by Pakistani-based extremists. But tensions remain high, and the Pakistani Army continues to view India as its main adversary. India should take the lead in initiating arms control talks with Pakistan and China. It should also declare its intention to stop producing nuclear weapons fuel, even before a proposed multinational treaty is negotiated. That would provide leverage for Washington and others to exhort Pakistan to do the same.
It is past time for India — stronger both economically and in international stature — to find a way to resolve tensions with Pakistan over Kashmir. If that festering sore cannot be addressed directly, then — as Stephen P. Cohen, a South Asia expert at the Brookings Institution, suggests — broader regional talks on environmental and water issues might be an interim way to find common ground. Ignoring Kashmir is no longer an option.
India has played a constructive role in helping rebuild Afghanistan, but it must take steps to allay Islamabad’s concerns that this is a plan to encircle Pakistan. It should foster regional trade with Pakistan and Afghanistan. More broadly, India must help to revive world trade talks by opening its markets. It could use its considerable trade clout with Iran, Sudan and Myanmar to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, end the genocide in Darfur and press Myanmar’s junta to expand human rights.
India is the dominant power in South Asia, but it has been hesitant to assume its responsibilities. The Congress Party has to do better — starting with Pakistan
editorial: nytimes.com
Democrats in Senate Block Money to Close Guantánamo
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.”
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.”
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)