There was probably sufficient evidence to justify taking Baby P into care days before he was brutally killed, council lawyers at the centre of the case have privately admitted, according to documents seen by the Guardian.
The admission contradicts the legal advice given to social workers a week before the toddler died that proceedings to remove him from his family could not go ahead because the risk "threshold" to trigger an application to take him into care had not been crossed.
Council lawyers later told an independent serious case review inquiry investigating the tragedy that the advice, given by a locum lawyer inexperienced in child protection, was flawed and not clearly expressed.
The revelations shed fresh light on the death of Baby Peter, who was found dead on 3 August 2007 after suffering horrific injuries, including a cracked spine and bruising to his face and body. His mother and her lover were convicted in November of causing his death. They will be sentenced today.
The details of the legal advice were set out in a serious case review into the death completed in 2008. But this original report was judged inadequate by ministers. A revised report by the new head of Haringey's local safeguarding children board, Graham Badman, will be released today. It is expected to say that the care threshold adopted by Haringey officials was too high. It will also criticise the lack of urgency and thoroughness of professionals involved in the case.
Documents seen by the Guardian show that a legal meeting on Baby Peter, who was on Haringey's child protection register, had been sought by police and social workers on 4 June 2007, three days after the discovery by social workers of marks and bruises to the boy's face. But administrative errors and workload pressures meant that the meeting did not take place for another for seven weeks.
When it was finally convened, the lawyer verbally advised safeguarding officers that the threshold was not met for legal proceedings. The formal written memorandum to social workers confirming this advice was, by bitter coincidence, prepared only on the morning of Peter's death.
Asked by the original serious case review inquiry to explain its actions, the legal department admitted that, in hindsight, it was "likely that the threshold criteria were met at the time [of the legal planning meeting]".
It justified the lawyer's decision not to apply for care proceedings on the grounds that it "may have not been appropriate" to do so "if there were adequate safeguards in place to protect [Baby Peter] pending the outcome of further investigations".
Haringey's legal department admitted that there had been serious shortcomings in its conduct of the case. The original serious case review report is understood to have noted that legal services had "difficulty commenting on the appropriateness of [the lawyer's] advice" because of "insufficient recording of the legal planning meeting".
Haringey legal services told the inquiry that it was "preferable" to ensure this kind of legal advice came from experienced child protection lawyers but this had not always been possible because of "recruitment difficulties".
The revelations came as Peter's mother apologised for the first time for failing to protect a child she called "my baby boy" from the violence meted out to him over several months by her live-in boyfriend.
In a handwritten letter presented at the last minute to an Old Bailey judge on the eve of her sentencing today, the 27-year- old mother, who cannot be named, asked for forgiveness. She has admitted causing or allowing her son's death. "I except [sic] I failed my son Peter for which I pleaded guilty," she wrote. "By not being fully open with the social workers I stopped them from being able to do a full job. As a direct result of this my son got hurt and sadly lost his short life. I am never going to see my lovely son grow into the lovely sweet man I believe he would have been. I have lost all I hold dear to me, now every day of my life is full of guilt and trying to come to terms with my failure as a mother."
The letter was written in black ballpoint pen on paper torn from an exercise book and submitted to the judge by the mother in a last-minute plea for leniency.
"I can only hope and pray my family and ex-husband included can one day forgive my mistakes however I can never forgive myself for my shortcomings. I am truly sorry."
It is the only expression of remorse she has made since being arrested after the death of her only son. Peter's lifeless body was found in his blood-splattered cot on 3 August 2007. He had suffered more than 50, injuries despite 60 visits from social workers.
He was gasping for breath in the last hours of his life but neither his mother nor her boyfriend took him to hospital or called a doctor.
The mother sat in the dock playing with her hair yesterday as her child's horrific injuries were rehearsed again in advance of her sentencing and that of her 32-year-old boyfriend and another man, Jason Owens, 37, both of whom were convicted last November of causing or allowing Peter's death. The mother's boyfriend will also be sentenced for the rape of another child who was on the council's child protection register.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Markets fall as debt worries rise
Global stock markets have fallen after a warning that the UK's top credit rating is at risk.
UK shares were hit after ratings agency Standard & Poor's (S&P) changed the UK's outlook to negative.
The move sparked fears that other economies, such as the US, might face a similar fate.
The Dow Jones index ended the day down 1.5%, while the UK's FTSE 100 fell 2.8%, France's Cac 40 lost 2.7% and Germany's Dax shed 2.7% by their close.
A credit rating downgrade would make it more expensive for the UK to borrow on international markets and could jeopardise spending plans.
Governments worldwide are borrowing more as they try to stimulate their economies.
"It raises questions about our own situation (in the US) in terms of our deficits and our national debt," said Alan Skrainka, US-based chief market strategist at Edward Jones.
Asian shares also ended the day lower with the Nikkei down 1%.
'Downbeat'
Meanwhile there was more pessimism about the US economy
Claims for unemployment benefits set a record for the 16th straight week, data released earlier showed.
On Wednesday the Fed said it expected the economy would contract between 1.3% and 2% this year.
Earlier in the year, the bank predicted the economy could contract between 0.5% and 1.3%.
It also warned that US unemployment could reach 10%.
"Minutes of the last meeting painted a downbeat outlook for global economies and the financial sector, suggesting that any feelings among traders that the worst was behind us could prove premature," said David Jones, chief market strategist at IG Index.
"This combination of news over the last 24 hours has resulted in a predictable knee-jerk sell off - the question from here is whether it is the start of a more sustained slide to correct the impressive gains seen since mid-March," he added.
Debt concerns
S&P cited rising UK debt levels as a major concern.
UK public debt hit a record £8.46bn in April compared to £1.84bn in the same month last year.
Standard & Poor's said UK debt could be close to 100% of gross domestic product, and remain at that level in the medium term.
S&P's change of view on the UK economy led to a brief fall in the value of the pound against the dollar.
Immediately after the outlook change, sterling fell 3 cents to a low of $1.5519.
But the currency later recovered to hit a fresh 6-1/2 month high of $1.5890 as the dollar bore the brunt of selling pressure.
"No one wants to admit it but there might be investors nervous enough with the extreme levels of indebtedness of the US government so that just the thought of a downgrade would provide an excuse to sell dollars," said Matt Esteve, a trader at Tempus Consulting in Washington.
"If such a thing happened, the impact would be huge."
UK shares were hit after ratings agency Standard & Poor's (S&P) changed the UK's outlook to negative.
The move sparked fears that other economies, such as the US, might face a similar fate.
The Dow Jones index ended the day down 1.5%, while the UK's FTSE 100 fell 2.8%, France's Cac 40 lost 2.7% and Germany's Dax shed 2.7% by their close.
A credit rating downgrade would make it more expensive for the UK to borrow on international markets and could jeopardise spending plans.
Governments worldwide are borrowing more as they try to stimulate their economies.
"It raises questions about our own situation (in the US) in terms of our deficits and our national debt," said Alan Skrainka, US-based chief market strategist at Edward Jones.
Asian shares also ended the day lower with the Nikkei down 1%.
'Downbeat'
Meanwhile there was more pessimism about the US economy
Claims for unemployment benefits set a record for the 16th straight week, data released earlier showed.
On Wednesday the Fed said it expected the economy would contract between 1.3% and 2% this year.
Earlier in the year, the bank predicted the economy could contract between 0.5% and 1.3%.
It also warned that US unemployment could reach 10%.
"Minutes of the last meeting painted a downbeat outlook for global economies and the financial sector, suggesting that any feelings among traders that the worst was behind us could prove premature," said David Jones, chief market strategist at IG Index.
"This combination of news over the last 24 hours has resulted in a predictable knee-jerk sell off - the question from here is whether it is the start of a more sustained slide to correct the impressive gains seen since mid-March," he added.
Debt concerns
S&P cited rising UK debt levels as a major concern.
UK public debt hit a record £8.46bn in April compared to £1.84bn in the same month last year.
Standard & Poor's said UK debt could be close to 100% of gross domestic product, and remain at that level in the medium term.
S&P's change of view on the UK economy led to a brief fall in the value of the pound against the dollar.
Immediately after the outlook change, sterling fell 3 cents to a low of $1.5519.
But the currency later recovered to hit a fresh 6-1/2 month high of $1.5890 as the dollar bore the brunt of selling pressure.
"No one wants to admit it but there might be investors nervous enough with the extreme levels of indebtedness of the US government so that just the thought of a downgrade would provide an excuse to sell dollars," said Matt Esteve, a trader at Tempus Consulting in Washington.
"If such a thing happened, the impact would be huge."
US 'bomb gang extremely violent'
Four men accused of plotting to bomb New York synagogues and fire missiles at aircraft have been described as "extremely violent men" by prosecutors.
Charged with weapons and conspiracy charges at their first court appearance, they were detained until 5 June for a preliminary hearing.
They were arrested after planting what they allegedly thought were bombs at two synagogues.
Prosecutor Eric Snyder said they were "eager to bring death to Jews".
'Best target'
James Cromitie (also known as Abdul Rahman), David Williams (aka Daoud and DL), and Onta Williams (aka Hamza) appeared together in shackles at court in White Plains, New York.
Mr Snyder said Mr Cromitie had "complained" that the "best target" - the World Trade Center destroyed on September 11, 2001 - had already been targeted.
The fourth man, Laguerre Payen (aka Amin and Almondo), appeared later in court, with a bandage on his head.
Mr Payen's lawyer Marilyn Reader said he had been injured during his arrest.
She also said he suffered from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and could not read or write in English.
He is a Haitian citizen, and the other three are Americans.
Before the court hearing, New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, visiting one of the synagogues, said all four "wanted to commit jihad".
The men had allegedly agreed to buy explosives from FBI agents posing as Islamic militants.
The four are charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction within the US and conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles, officials said.
The charges carry jail terms of between 25 years and life imprisonment.
A senior FBI official in New York said three were US citizens and one was from Haiti.
BBC defence and security correspondent Rob Watson says the case appears to be a classic sting operation against suspected home-grown militants rather than a plot with any links to known international terrorism.
'No risk'
Speaking outside the Riverdale Temple, one of the intended targets, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg praised the work of New York's police and the FBI.
The alleged plot served as a reminder to New Yorkers to remain vigilant "at all times", the mayor said.
"The bottom line is that we have to be constantly vigilant and we have to constantly be sure that we have the best police department in the world, that they are well led and well trained."
Mr Kelly, the police commissioner, stressed that the arrests were the result of a lengthy operation and that despite the serious nature of the charges, no-one was ever actually put at risk.
According to prosecutors, the men planned to detonate cars packed with C-4 plastic explosives outside the Riverdale Temple and the Riverdale Jewish Center in the Bronx district of the city.
They also intended to target military planes at the New York Air National Guard base at Stewart Airport, 60 miles (85 km) north of New York City.
See a map of alleged targets
In their efforts to obtain weapons for the attack, the men dealt with an informant from the FBI, who is said to have provided the group "with an inactive missile and inert explosives."
"This was a very tightly-controlled operation but these individuals did place bombs - or what they thought were bombs - right in front of the building in which we are standing and the temple a few blocks away," Mr Kelly said.
'Sought weapons'
Outlining the charges on Wednesday night, law enforcement officials said the group set up what they believed to be 30lbs (14kg) of explosives.
According to prosecutors, Mr Cromitie told an FBI informant in June 2008 that he was angry over the US-led war in Afghanistan
He "expressed an interest in 'doing something to America"'.
From October 2008, the informant began meeting him regularly along with the four others at a house in which the FBI had concealed video and audio equipment.
The group allegedly "expressed desire" to attack targets in New York and Mr Cromitie "asked the informant to supply surface-to-air guided missiles and explosives", prosecutors say.
In April 2009, the group agreed on the synagogues they intended to attack and proceeded to conduct surveillance, including taking photographs of the warplanes at the military base, prosecutors say.
Mr Cromitie allegedly pointed out Jews in the street, saying "if he had a gun, he would shoot each one in the head", according to the district attorney's statement.
According to the statement, he told the informant that attacking the Jewish community centre would be a "piece of cake".
He also said he would be interested in joining Jaish-e-Mohammed - a Pakistan-based group considered a terrorist organisation by Washington - "to do jihad".
Charged with weapons and conspiracy charges at their first court appearance, they were detained until 5 June for a preliminary hearing.
They were arrested after planting what they allegedly thought were bombs at two synagogues.
Prosecutor Eric Snyder said they were "eager to bring death to Jews".
'Best target'
James Cromitie (also known as Abdul Rahman), David Williams (aka Daoud and DL), and Onta Williams (aka Hamza) appeared together in shackles at court in White Plains, New York.
Mr Snyder said Mr Cromitie had "complained" that the "best target" - the World Trade Center destroyed on September 11, 2001 - had already been targeted.
The fourth man, Laguerre Payen (aka Amin and Almondo), appeared later in court, with a bandage on his head.
Mr Payen's lawyer Marilyn Reader said he had been injured during his arrest.
She also said he suffered from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and could not read or write in English.
He is a Haitian citizen, and the other three are Americans.
Before the court hearing, New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, visiting one of the synagogues, said all four "wanted to commit jihad".
The men had allegedly agreed to buy explosives from FBI agents posing as Islamic militants.
The four are charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction within the US and conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles, officials said.
The charges carry jail terms of between 25 years and life imprisonment.
A senior FBI official in New York said three were US citizens and one was from Haiti.
BBC defence and security correspondent Rob Watson says the case appears to be a classic sting operation against suspected home-grown militants rather than a plot with any links to known international terrorism.
'No risk'
Speaking outside the Riverdale Temple, one of the intended targets, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg praised the work of New York's police and the FBI.
The alleged plot served as a reminder to New Yorkers to remain vigilant "at all times", the mayor said.
"The bottom line is that we have to be constantly vigilant and we have to constantly be sure that we have the best police department in the world, that they are well led and well trained."
Mr Kelly, the police commissioner, stressed that the arrests were the result of a lengthy operation and that despite the serious nature of the charges, no-one was ever actually put at risk.
According to prosecutors, the men planned to detonate cars packed with C-4 plastic explosives outside the Riverdale Temple and the Riverdale Jewish Center in the Bronx district of the city.
They also intended to target military planes at the New York Air National Guard base at Stewart Airport, 60 miles (85 km) north of New York City.
See a map of alleged targets
In their efforts to obtain weapons for the attack, the men dealt with an informant from the FBI, who is said to have provided the group "with an inactive missile and inert explosives."
"This was a very tightly-controlled operation but these individuals did place bombs - or what they thought were bombs - right in front of the building in which we are standing and the temple a few blocks away," Mr Kelly said.
'Sought weapons'
Outlining the charges on Wednesday night, law enforcement officials said the group set up what they believed to be 30lbs (14kg) of explosives.
According to prosecutors, Mr Cromitie told an FBI informant in June 2008 that he was angry over the US-led war in Afghanistan
He "expressed an interest in 'doing something to America"'.
From October 2008, the informant began meeting him regularly along with the four others at a house in which the FBI had concealed video and audio equipment.
The group allegedly "expressed desire" to attack targets in New York and Mr Cromitie "asked the informant to supply surface-to-air guided missiles and explosives", prosecutors say.
In April 2009, the group agreed on the synagogues they intended to attack and proceeded to conduct surveillance, including taking photographs of the warplanes at the military base, prosecutors say.
Mr Cromitie allegedly pointed out Jews in the street, saying "if he had a gun, he would shoot each one in the head", according to the district attorney's statement.
According to the statement, he told the informant that attacking the Jewish community centre would be a "piece of cake".
He also said he would be interested in joining Jaish-e-Mohammed - a Pakistan-based group considered a terrorist organisation by Washington - "to do jihad".
Obama vow on Guantanamo inmates
The US will find a way to cope securely with dangerous detainees at Guantanamo Bay, President Barack Obama has said.
He described Guantanamo as a "misguided experiment", but conceded some of those held still posed a threat to the US.
Some could be jailed in mainland US prisons, Mr Obama suggested, under a new legal framework for detainees that would see the camp close by early 2010.
Congress has rejected Mr Obama's move to fund the closure of Guantanamo, amid concern over moving inmates to the US.
Speaking afterwards, former Vice-President Dick Cheney strongly defended Bush-era security strategies.
He recalled the experience of being in a White House bunker during the 9/11 attacks and said this shaped the way he viewed his responsibilities.
And he defended the "enhanced interrogation" authorised by the Bush administration to extract information from terror suspects as "legal, essential, justified and successful".
Transfer concern
Mr Obama's speech on Guantanamo was made against a backdrop of rising concern in the US Congress at the president's plan to close the camp by January 2010.
Speaking at the US National Archives, where the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are kept, the president regularly spoke of the need to respect the rule of law, at one point calling the US "a nation of laws".
Mr Obama said the administration was reviewing every one of the 240 detainees still held at Guantanamo and considering what to do with them.
Where feasible, some would be tried in US civilian courts, he said; those who violated the laws of war would need to face a military commission; some had been ordered released by the courts; others could be safely transferred to another country.
The most tricky category, Mr Obama said, would be those detainees who could not be prosecuted but who posed a "clear danger to the American people".
Some detainees had received explosives training, or pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda, or made it clear, the president said, that they still wanted to kill Americans.
'No dangerous releases'
Telling his audience that he would not endanger American lives, Mr Obama said that nevertheless a new policy for this group, based in law, would need to be drawn up.
"We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall into this category," he said.
"We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified
He praised the US network of maximum-security jails, from which no prisoner has ever escaped.
"We are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and our security demands," he stressed, describing the Bush-era approach as "poorly-planned, [and] haphazard".
The existence of the prison camp itself, Mr Obama said, probably "created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained".
He conceded that following through on his pledge to close Guantanamo would be "difficult and complex", but insisted it was possible.
As president, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. Our security interests won't permit it. Our courts won't allow it."
Twice during the speech he directly promised not to release potentially dangerous people onto the streets of the US.
"We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people," he said.
Cheney riposte
Mr Obama's keynote speech was followed by remarks of a very different tone by Mr Cheney.
Dick Cheney said the Bush-era decisions had saved US lives
Mr Cheney, who has emerged as a strong critic of the Obama White House, addressed a Washington think-tank to lay out the "strategic thinking" behind the Bush administration's actions.
He began by saying that Mr Obama deserved cross-party support for wise decisions, but added that: "When he mischaracterises the decisions we made, he deserves an answer."
Mr Cheney recalled the dangerous hours on 11 September 2001 as he was shepherded to a White House bunker as hijacked airliners hit New York and the Pentagon.
He said the experience deeply affected him, and said the Bush administration's policies were dedicated to making sure no attacks of that kind could ever happen again.
Mr Cheney dismissed the "theory" that the use of waterboarding on terror suspects acted as a recruitment tool for those intent on attacking the US.
And he criticised attempts to change Bush-era terminology: even if the phrase "enemy combatants" was not used, Mr Cheney said, "the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there".
"Finding some less judgemental or more pleasant-sounding name doesn't change what they are or what they would do."
US MEDIA REACT TO OBAMA'S SPEECH
Obama's speech this morning, like most Obama speeches, made pretty points in rhetorically effective ways about the Constitution, our values, transparency, oversight, the state secrets privilege, and the rule of law. But his actions, in many critical cases, have repeatedly run afoul of those words.
Glenn Greenwald, of Salon.com, sees a gap between rhetoric and reality in the president's speech.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor - platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way... he's more comfortable as a debater, not as someone who takes responsibility for decisions.
Bill Kristol, writing in the Weekly Standard, preferred Dick Cheney's speech.
This speech, to my mind, was a conservative one by a conservative president who seeks first and foremost to use existing institutions to address the new challenges of the moment, and then seeks pragmatic compromises, always open to future checks and balances, in those places where such institutions clearly need reform and adjustment.
Atlantic Monthly's Andrew Sullivan had his faith in the president reaffirmed.
Obama found himself in a real jam about Guantanamo. He and the rest of the Left had made a bogey of it... Well, Obama wins the election, and he finds that Guantanamo does the job... But he is stuck with his original language and assertions. What to do? You can't admit error; you can't cut the Bush administration any slack. So you cover Guantanamo with a fog of words... I think that is what Obama has done in this speech.
Jay Nordlinger, in the National Review, thinks the president has been forced to face facts.
It's not an argument that can be boiled down to a bumper-sticker slogan, but it's not so complicated, either, and I think it's an effective rejoinder to his critics. He's basically saying, Look, we've got to do something so if you don't like my idea, come up with a better one. But we can't keep doing the same thing. It effectively puts the ball back in his critics' court.
He described Guantanamo as a "misguided experiment", but conceded some of those held still posed a threat to the US.
Some could be jailed in mainland US prisons, Mr Obama suggested, under a new legal framework for detainees that would see the camp close by early 2010.
Congress has rejected Mr Obama's move to fund the closure of Guantanamo, amid concern over moving inmates to the US.
Speaking afterwards, former Vice-President Dick Cheney strongly defended Bush-era security strategies.
He recalled the experience of being in a White House bunker during the 9/11 attacks and said this shaped the way he viewed his responsibilities.
And he defended the "enhanced interrogation" authorised by the Bush administration to extract information from terror suspects as "legal, essential, justified and successful".
Transfer concern
Mr Obama's speech on Guantanamo was made against a backdrop of rising concern in the US Congress at the president's plan to close the camp by January 2010.
Speaking at the US National Archives, where the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are kept, the president regularly spoke of the need to respect the rule of law, at one point calling the US "a nation of laws".
Mr Obama said the administration was reviewing every one of the 240 detainees still held at Guantanamo and considering what to do with them.
Where feasible, some would be tried in US civilian courts, he said; those who violated the laws of war would need to face a military commission; some had been ordered released by the courts; others could be safely transferred to another country.
The most tricky category, Mr Obama said, would be those detainees who could not be prosecuted but who posed a "clear danger to the American people".
Some detainees had received explosives training, or pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda, or made it clear, the president said, that they still wanted to kill Americans.
'No dangerous releases'
Telling his audience that he would not endanger American lives, Mr Obama said that nevertheless a new policy for this group, based in law, would need to be drawn up.
"We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall into this category," he said.
"We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified
He praised the US network of maximum-security jails, from which no prisoner has ever escaped.
"We are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and our security demands," he stressed, describing the Bush-era approach as "poorly-planned, [and] haphazard".
The existence of the prison camp itself, Mr Obama said, probably "created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained".
He conceded that following through on his pledge to close Guantanamo would be "difficult and complex", but insisted it was possible.
As president, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. Our security interests won't permit it. Our courts won't allow it."
Twice during the speech he directly promised not to release potentially dangerous people onto the streets of the US.
"We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people," he said.
Cheney riposte
Mr Obama's keynote speech was followed by remarks of a very different tone by Mr Cheney.
Dick Cheney said the Bush-era decisions had saved US lives
Mr Cheney, who has emerged as a strong critic of the Obama White House, addressed a Washington think-tank to lay out the "strategic thinking" behind the Bush administration's actions.
He began by saying that Mr Obama deserved cross-party support for wise decisions, but added that: "When he mischaracterises the decisions we made, he deserves an answer."
Mr Cheney recalled the dangerous hours on 11 September 2001 as he was shepherded to a White House bunker as hijacked airliners hit New York and the Pentagon.
He said the experience deeply affected him, and said the Bush administration's policies were dedicated to making sure no attacks of that kind could ever happen again.
Mr Cheney dismissed the "theory" that the use of waterboarding on terror suspects acted as a recruitment tool for those intent on attacking the US.
And he criticised attempts to change Bush-era terminology: even if the phrase "enemy combatants" was not used, Mr Cheney said, "the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there".
"Finding some less judgemental or more pleasant-sounding name doesn't change what they are or what they would do."
US MEDIA REACT TO OBAMA'S SPEECH
Obama's speech this morning, like most Obama speeches, made pretty points in rhetorically effective ways about the Constitution, our values, transparency, oversight, the state secrets privilege, and the rule of law. But his actions, in many critical cases, have repeatedly run afoul of those words.
Glenn Greenwald, of Salon.com, sees a gap between rhetoric and reality in the president's speech.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor - platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way... he's more comfortable as a debater, not as someone who takes responsibility for decisions.
Bill Kristol, writing in the Weekly Standard, preferred Dick Cheney's speech.
This speech, to my mind, was a conservative one by a conservative president who seeks first and foremost to use existing institutions to address the new challenges of the moment, and then seeks pragmatic compromises, always open to future checks and balances, in those places where such institutions clearly need reform and adjustment.
Atlantic Monthly's Andrew Sullivan had his faith in the president reaffirmed.
Obama found himself in a real jam about Guantanamo. He and the rest of the Left had made a bogey of it... Well, Obama wins the election, and he finds that Guantanamo does the job... But he is stuck with his original language and assertions. What to do? You can't admit error; you can't cut the Bush administration any slack. So you cover Guantanamo with a fog of words... I think that is what Obama has done in this speech.
Jay Nordlinger, in the National Review, thinks the president has been forced to face facts.
It's not an argument that can be boiled down to a bumper-sticker slogan, but it's not so complicated, either, and I think it's an effective rejoinder to his critics. He's basically saying, Look, we've got to do something so if you don't like my idea, come up with a better one. But we can't keep doing the same thing. It effectively puts the ball back in his critics' court.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Silent observer at UPA meet, Rahul opens up at tea party
Formally taking centre stage in Congress politics, general secretary Rahul Gandhi attended a meeting of the United Progressive Alliance coordination committee for the first time on Wednesday.
He later invited about two dozen young MPs for a tête-à-tête over tea at his residence.
The 39-year-old who addressed 120 meetings through the campaign has emerged as the face of the Congress’s success in the general election.
The Congress won 75 of the 120 seats where Gandhi campaigned.
Eight of the 10 candidates from the student and youth wings of the party won, many from difficult seats — such as Meenakshi Natarjan in Mandsaur in Madhya Pradesh.
With his participation in the coordination panel, Gandhi has been formally enlisted among the party’s key
strategists.
He did not speak at the UPA meeting, but interacted with the young MPs for over two hours. “He has had no opportunity to interact with some of the newly elected MPs,” said a party source. “He wanted to chat with them.”
Jyotiraditya Scindia, Manish Tiwari, Sachin Pilot, Sandeep Dikshit, Jitin Prasada, Jitendra Singh and Ashok Tanwar were among the MPs present.
He later invited about two dozen young MPs for a tête-à-tête over tea at his residence.
The 39-year-old who addressed 120 meetings through the campaign has emerged as the face of the Congress’s success in the general election.
The Congress won 75 of the 120 seats where Gandhi campaigned.
Eight of the 10 candidates from the student and youth wings of the party won, many from difficult seats — such as Meenakshi Natarjan in Mandsaur in Madhya Pradesh.
With his participation in the coordination panel, Gandhi has been formally enlisted among the party’s key
strategists.
He did not speak at the UPA meeting, but interacted with the young MPs for over two hours. “He has had no opportunity to interact with some of the newly elected MPs,” said a party source. “He wanted to chat with them.”
Jyotiraditya Scindia, Manish Tiwari, Sachin Pilot, Sandeep Dikshit, Jitin Prasada, Jitendra Singh and Ashok Tanwar were among the MPs present.
India Can Now Play A Bigger Part In International Events
The stunning election victory of the UPA now gives Dr Manmohan Singh's government a second chance to establish priorities, in foreign policy no less than in other spheres. It is notable that foreign policy did not become an election issue. Despite attempts to elevate the India-US nuclear deal to the status of a decisive issue, this particular subject seemed to fade away even before the campaign got into full swing. Similarly, calls for tougher handling of the issue of terrorism did not much resonate with the electors. Even the escalating Tamil casualties in the final assault by Sri Lanka on the LTTE did not become an issue affecting the vote.
In foreign policy as much as in other realms, the election result has been seen as a vote for continuity and stability. No basic re-orientation has been demanded or promised. Moreover, the strengthening of the Congress party in Parliament means that internal pressures within the ruling coalition, as became evident at crucial times during the last government, can no longer threaten to force the issue and unbalance decision- making.
Continuity is the watchword and we can legitimately expect to see foreign policy continue along its established path. This should not imply that there is no need for change or for fresh initiatives. Indeed, it should be possible as the government heads into its second term to pick up a number of threads from its previous initiatives and re-state essential goals, presenting a coherent picture of where the government aims to go over the next five years.
First 100 days
There are reports that a programme for the first 100 days is being shaped in the PM's Office, presumably along the lines of what is seen in the USA, to try to ensure that the newly installed government gets off to a flying start. Though dealings with foreign countries cannot readily be fitted into a domestic timetable, it is possible that this 100-day programme may outline some of the priority areas in external policy: an initial agenda, as it were.
Regarding the substance of the matter, it is evident that India's main problems in its external relations lie close to home. Surveying the neighbourhood in almost every direction, there are problems to be discerned. This is nothing new and differences of one sort or another with neighbours are more or less taken for granted. But India has advanced greatly: it has always loomed over its South Asian neighbours and with the rapid progress recorded over the last several years it has pulled further ahead. For it to remain entangled in regional, sometimes even parochial, issues is hardly in keeping with the country's wider interests and associations. Maybe it is now an opportune moment for another attempt to transform the neighbourhood from one of niggling contentiousness to one of genuine cooperation.
The most practical and well-received Indian move in this direction was that of then Prime Minister I.K. Gujral whose 'Gujral Doctrine' remains a signpost for South Asia. The essence of this doctrine was that India undertook to meet its smaller neighbours more than halfway and not demand strict reciprocity in its dealings with them. This brought real expectation to the region and led to some enduring agreements that helped resolve long-standing bilateral problems. Mr. Gujral did not remain in office long enough for the full impact of his doctrine to take effect. It could be time now for a fresh all-encompassing initiative by New Delhi that places India's relations with the surrounding countries on a healthier and more cooperative basis.
In its first term, the UPA did much to move in this direction. It helped achieve a democratic solution to the Maoist insurgency in Nepal and tried to moderate the closing phase of the military destruction of the LTTE. Most important, as confirmed by the Prime Minister during the campaign, back channel talks with Pakistan brought the two sides within reach of agreement on issues that have bedeviled their relationship since they first emerged as independent nations. Thus it is possible to aspire to a South Asia free of major bilateral conflict, joined in a Virtuous Circle of mutual support and cooperation. Such an ambition would be a worthy goal for the government in its second coming.
On the wider stage, India's regional and international role needs closer explication. Much has been said ~ almost too much ~ about the implications of the India-US nuclear deal. Even though the criticism that the deal tends to make us subservient to today's sole super power is wide off the mark; with the nuclear deal India has entered a new strategic era whose implications are as yet somewhat unclear. The strengthening link with the USA comes at a time when that country has become more active than ever in South Asia. The 'Afpak' strategy makes demands on the region as a whole, not on the two principals alone. The USA has been careful until now to disclaim any direct attempt to bring India into the fold of its new policy but things might change, especially if confronting the Taliban insurgency proves more difficult and more prolonged than presently anticipated.
Indian Ocean
There are also other areas of activity where a different form of collaboration has emerged, notably in the affairs of the Indian Ocean. Here, too, the purpose and the limits of Indian strategy are not too clear. Now that India is on a crest, its democratic credentials yet again on display and several years of economic success behind it, its external associations are bound to become ever more elaborate and extensive.
To give an idea of where we are headed and what shape our future global strategy might take is a task that devolves on the country's leadership. A vision for the future commensurate with the country's changing needs and capacities is required. Nor can we ignore major issues where India's role has been under question and policy adjustments may be necessary ~ such as environment and climate change, WTO, security and counter-terrorism, among others.
One matter that is likely to loom large in the near future is that of nuclear disarmament. This is something on which we occupied the moral high ground for decades. Even now, it is India that can claim to have placed the most comprehensive and closely reasoned plan before the international community. As priorities have shifted and the older nuclear powers have started to revive global disarmament concepts, a fresh opportunity has arisen for India to take its proper place within the debate.
In the wake of the election and the clear verdict it has provided, India is in a position to play a bigger part in international events. Indeed, its burgeoning interests drive it in that direction. This is a time for big ideas and imaginative projections, which represents a considerable challenge to the incoming government.
courtsey:the statesman
In foreign policy as much as in other realms, the election result has been seen as a vote for continuity and stability. No basic re-orientation has been demanded or promised. Moreover, the strengthening of the Congress party in Parliament means that internal pressures within the ruling coalition, as became evident at crucial times during the last government, can no longer threaten to force the issue and unbalance decision- making.
Continuity is the watchword and we can legitimately expect to see foreign policy continue along its established path. This should not imply that there is no need for change or for fresh initiatives. Indeed, it should be possible as the government heads into its second term to pick up a number of threads from its previous initiatives and re-state essential goals, presenting a coherent picture of where the government aims to go over the next five years.
First 100 days
There are reports that a programme for the first 100 days is being shaped in the PM's Office, presumably along the lines of what is seen in the USA, to try to ensure that the newly installed government gets off to a flying start. Though dealings with foreign countries cannot readily be fitted into a domestic timetable, it is possible that this 100-day programme may outline some of the priority areas in external policy: an initial agenda, as it were.
Regarding the substance of the matter, it is evident that India's main problems in its external relations lie close to home. Surveying the neighbourhood in almost every direction, there are problems to be discerned. This is nothing new and differences of one sort or another with neighbours are more or less taken for granted. But India has advanced greatly: it has always loomed over its South Asian neighbours and with the rapid progress recorded over the last several years it has pulled further ahead. For it to remain entangled in regional, sometimes even parochial, issues is hardly in keeping with the country's wider interests and associations. Maybe it is now an opportune moment for another attempt to transform the neighbourhood from one of niggling contentiousness to one of genuine cooperation.
The most practical and well-received Indian move in this direction was that of then Prime Minister I.K. Gujral whose 'Gujral Doctrine' remains a signpost for South Asia. The essence of this doctrine was that India undertook to meet its smaller neighbours more than halfway and not demand strict reciprocity in its dealings with them. This brought real expectation to the region and led to some enduring agreements that helped resolve long-standing bilateral problems. Mr. Gujral did not remain in office long enough for the full impact of his doctrine to take effect. It could be time now for a fresh all-encompassing initiative by New Delhi that places India's relations with the surrounding countries on a healthier and more cooperative basis.
In its first term, the UPA did much to move in this direction. It helped achieve a democratic solution to the Maoist insurgency in Nepal and tried to moderate the closing phase of the military destruction of the LTTE. Most important, as confirmed by the Prime Minister during the campaign, back channel talks with Pakistan brought the two sides within reach of agreement on issues that have bedeviled their relationship since they first emerged as independent nations. Thus it is possible to aspire to a South Asia free of major bilateral conflict, joined in a Virtuous Circle of mutual support and cooperation. Such an ambition would be a worthy goal for the government in its second coming.
On the wider stage, India's regional and international role needs closer explication. Much has been said ~ almost too much ~ about the implications of the India-US nuclear deal. Even though the criticism that the deal tends to make us subservient to today's sole super power is wide off the mark; with the nuclear deal India has entered a new strategic era whose implications are as yet somewhat unclear. The strengthening link with the USA comes at a time when that country has become more active than ever in South Asia. The 'Afpak' strategy makes demands on the region as a whole, not on the two principals alone. The USA has been careful until now to disclaim any direct attempt to bring India into the fold of its new policy but things might change, especially if confronting the Taliban insurgency proves more difficult and more prolonged than presently anticipated.
Indian Ocean
There are also other areas of activity where a different form of collaboration has emerged, notably in the affairs of the Indian Ocean. Here, too, the purpose and the limits of Indian strategy are not too clear. Now that India is on a crest, its democratic credentials yet again on display and several years of economic success behind it, its external associations are bound to become ever more elaborate and extensive.
To give an idea of where we are headed and what shape our future global strategy might take is a task that devolves on the country's leadership. A vision for the future commensurate with the country's changing needs and capacities is required. Nor can we ignore major issues where India's role has been under question and policy adjustments may be necessary ~ such as environment and climate change, WTO, security and counter-terrorism, among others.
One matter that is likely to loom large in the near future is that of nuclear disarmament. This is something on which we occupied the moral high ground for decades. Even now, it is India that can claim to have placed the most comprehensive and closely reasoned plan before the international community. As priorities have shifted and the older nuclear powers have started to revive global disarmament concepts, a fresh opportunity has arisen for India to take its proper place within the debate.
In the wake of the election and the clear verdict it has provided, India is in a position to play a bigger part in international events. Indeed, its burgeoning interests drive it in that direction. This is a time for big ideas and imaginative projections, which represents a considerable challenge to the incoming government.
courtsey:the statesman
Chandrayaan-1 orbit raised
The orbit of Chandrayaan-1, which was at a height of 100 km from the moon since November 2008, has been raised to 200 km. Manoeuvres to raise the orbit were performed between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on Tuesday.
According to a release from the Indian Space Research Organisation, Chandrayaan-1 going round the moon in this higher orbit will facilitate further studies of orbit perturbations and gravitation field variations of the moon, and imaging a wider swath of the lunar surface.
Over the past seven months, all the 11 payloads on board the spacecraft were successfully put into operation and data of excellent quality were obtained, the release said. Scientists from India and international agencies were analysing the data, and several interesting results were obtained, it said.
The scientific data is being archived and disseminated from the Indian Space Science Data Centre at Byalalu, near Bangalore.
The spacecraft operations are being performed at the Satellite Control Centre of the ISRO Telemetry, Tracking and Command Network in Bangalore and the Indian Deep Space Network at Byalalu.
Chandrayaan-1 was put into orbit on October 22, 2008.
According to a release from the Indian Space Research Organisation, Chandrayaan-1 going round the moon in this higher orbit will facilitate further studies of orbit perturbations and gravitation field variations of the moon, and imaging a wider swath of the lunar surface.
Over the past seven months, all the 11 payloads on board the spacecraft were successfully put into operation and data of excellent quality were obtained, the release said. Scientists from India and international agencies were analysing the data, and several interesting results were obtained, it said.
The scientific data is being archived and disseminated from the Indian Space Science Data Centre at Byalalu, near Bangalore.
The spacecraft operations are being performed at the Satellite Control Centre of the ISRO Telemetry, Tracking and Command Network in Bangalore and the Indian Deep Space Network at Byalalu.
Chandrayaan-1 was put into orbit on October 22, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)