A Labour MP has announced he will stand down from the House of Commons at the next general election after allegations that he overclaimed £15,000 in expenses for mortgage interest.
Wirral South's Ben Chapman is the first Labour MP to quit Westminster as a result of the expenses controversy which has dominated politics over the past fortnight.
Mr Chapman insisted that he had done nothing wrong and said his decision was prompted by the "hurtful" impact of publicity surrounding his claim on his family and supporters.
In a statement issued by his office, Mr Chapman said: "I maintain that I have done nothing wrong and have acted in good faith and with absolute transparency throughout. The House of Commons Fees Office have expressed their apologies and regret that the advice they gave me was incorrect.
"But the publicity in the Daily Telegraph, and subsequently elsewhere, has been hurtful to my family, friends and local party members and supporters, and I have therefore decided to stand down at the next general election."
Earlier, PM Gordon Brown was forced to defend two more of his Cabinet ministers. He insisted there was "no problem" with financial arrangements which meant Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon and Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell did not pay capital gains tax on second homes.
But he also lashed out at the "appalling" practices that were being uncovered at Westminster and expressed "surprise" at some of the MPs who had been taking part in them.
His comments came as a third Conservative MP, Peter Viggers, was effectively kicked out of the party after it emerged that he had claimed £1,645 for a "duck island" for his pond. David Cameron confirmed that Sir Peter had been told he could either stand down from his Gosport constituency at the next general election, or be expelled from the parliamentary party.
Meanwhile, Conservative MP for Mid-Worcestershire Peter Luff spent £17,000 of taxpayers' money on furniture and other items for his two homes during a four-year period, it has been reported.
Mr Luff made expenses claims for three lavatory seats, three food mixers, two microwaves, four beds, five tables, two ironing boards, three kettles and 10 sets of bed linen, according to the Daily Telegraph. Mr Luff insisted that his claims were "within the letter and spirit of the rules" and said he would repay any money found to have breached them.
courtsey:the guardian u.k
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Child abuse row goes on as Catholics get new leader
The new archbishop of Westminster faced continuing criticism from victims of child abuse today
as he was formally installed as the leader of the 4.2 million Catholics in England and Wales.
Child safety campaigners were outraged when the Most Rev Vincent Nichols said it took "courage" for religious orders and clergy to "face the facts from their past" in response to a report examining the systematic abuse of thousands of children by Ireland's religious orders and state-run institutions. The comment was made in an interview broadcast on Wednesday.
Judge Sean Ryan, who chaired the nine-year inquiry, only praised one order, the Rosminians, for attempting to understand the abuse as well as document it.
The Christian Brothers, who ran the largest number of institutions, agreed to drop legal challenges and give evidence only once a deal was agreed not to name guilty clerics. A spokesman for the Irish Survivors of Child Abuse, John Kelly, said: "The religious orders ran to the safety and sanctuary of the Ryan inquiry knowing their guilty evidence was granted privilege and immunity."
The archbishop sought to clarify his remarks before his investiture. On BBC 5 Live he said the "main use of the word courage" referred to victims and that anyone who overcame an addiction had to overcome "self deceit". He said: "It is a tough road to take, to face up to our own weaknesses. That is certainly true of anyone who has deceived themselves that all they have been doing is taking a bit of comfort from children."
The archbishop's spokesman reiterated an earlier call for perpetrators to face legal and police processes.
as he was formally installed as the leader of the 4.2 million Catholics in England and Wales.
Child safety campaigners were outraged when the Most Rev Vincent Nichols said it took "courage" for religious orders and clergy to "face the facts from their past" in response to a report examining the systematic abuse of thousands of children by Ireland's religious orders and state-run institutions. The comment was made in an interview broadcast on Wednesday.
Judge Sean Ryan, who chaired the nine-year inquiry, only praised one order, the Rosminians, for attempting to understand the abuse as well as document it.
The Christian Brothers, who ran the largest number of institutions, agreed to drop legal challenges and give evidence only once a deal was agreed not to name guilty clerics. A spokesman for the Irish Survivors of Child Abuse, John Kelly, said: "The religious orders ran to the safety and sanctuary of the Ryan inquiry knowing their guilty evidence was granted privilege and immunity."
The archbishop sought to clarify his remarks before his investiture. On BBC 5 Live he said the "main use of the word courage" referred to victims and that anyone who overcame an addiction had to overcome "self deceit". He said: "It is a tough road to take, to face up to our own weaknesses. That is certainly true of anyone who has deceived themselves that all they have been doing is taking a bit of comfort from children."
The archbishop's spokesman reiterated an earlier call for perpetrators to face legal and police processes.
New Zealand couple flee after finding £4m in their bank account
It might be time to end our cynicism towards cheery slogans peddled by the world's commercial banks. A couple from New Zealand, for example, now have every reason to believe their local bank's motto: making the most of life.
The pair, named in media reports as Leo Gao and Cara Young, could hardly believe their luck when they checked their account at Westpac bank on 5 May, hoping to find their request for a NZ$10,900 (£4,000) overdraft had been accepted.
Instead, the bank had deposited 1,000 times that amount: NZ$10m, or around £4m. With so many borrowers around the world constantly being told "no" by their creditors, here, finally, was a bank that liked to say "yes".
Last night the accidental millionaires from Rotorua, a tourist city on the north island overlooking, appropriately enough, the Bay of Plenty, are on an Interpol wanted list after fleeing with the bulk of their windfall two weeks ago.
While their whereabouts remains a mystery, local reports speculated they may have fled to China or South Korea after transferring as much as NZ$6m to an offshore account.
The local newspaper, the Rotorua Review, said a police official had been sent to China to search for the couple.
Police said they were treating the case as theft but offered only sketchy details. "We are currently conducting an investigation into the individuals that may have been involved in the withdrawal of the money," detective David Harvey told reporters in Rotorua, which until now was known mainly for its geysers and mud pools.
"The individuals associated with this account are believed to have left New Zealand and police were working through Interpol to locate those individuals," he said, adding that the bank had recovered some of the cash, thought to be about NZ$4m.
Westpac, an Australian bank with 10 million customers, said the overpayment had been the result of human error and it was "pursuing vigorous criminal and civil action" to recover the money.
Gao and Young, who ran a BP petrol station on the outskirts of the city, had reportedly been struggling financially for several months. The station was closed on 6 May and the couple vanished the following day. Twenty-four hours later, their business was put into receivership.
Though Gao and Young hardly qualify as a modern-day Bonnie and Clyde – they are thought to be armed with little more than a change of clothes, passports and an ATM card – the unlikely fugitives have become the topic du jour among Rotorua's 55,000 residents.
Neighbours described Gao as a "really nice guy" who lived with his mother and brothers, and Young and her daughter Lena, all of whom have vanished. "We thought he was pretty honest, but it turns out he's not," the manager of the neighbourhood's off-licence told 3 News. The saga has hurled New Zealanders into the kind of moral maze that Gao and Young appeared to have spent just a few seconds navigating before deciding to skirt around it altogether.
Given the battering the banking industry has taken over the past year, many admitted that, if gifted with a similar sum, they would rather live as wealthy fugitives than remain out of pocket but with a clear conscience.
"Best of luck to them," wrote one browser on the 3 News website. "The banks are as honest as the power companies."
But another was horrified by the level of support for the couple: "I can't believe the number of people that say they would keep the money. These people have taken money that wasn't theirs, no matter which way you look at it."
Experts do not expect it will take investigators long to catch up with the couple; the only question is how much they can splurge before they are found.
In a case in the US last year, a Pennsylvania couple quit their jobs and fled the state after withdrawing $175,000 (£110,000) that had mistakenly been credited to their account. They were arrested in Florida.
The pair, named in media reports as Leo Gao and Cara Young, could hardly believe their luck when they checked their account at Westpac bank on 5 May, hoping to find their request for a NZ$10,900 (£4,000) overdraft had been accepted.
Instead, the bank had deposited 1,000 times that amount: NZ$10m, or around £4m. With so many borrowers around the world constantly being told "no" by their creditors, here, finally, was a bank that liked to say "yes".
Last night the accidental millionaires from Rotorua, a tourist city on the north island overlooking, appropriately enough, the Bay of Plenty, are on an Interpol wanted list after fleeing with the bulk of their windfall two weeks ago.
While their whereabouts remains a mystery, local reports speculated they may have fled to China or South Korea after transferring as much as NZ$6m to an offshore account.
The local newspaper, the Rotorua Review, said a police official had been sent to China to search for the couple.
Police said they were treating the case as theft but offered only sketchy details. "We are currently conducting an investigation into the individuals that may have been involved in the withdrawal of the money," detective David Harvey told reporters in Rotorua, which until now was known mainly for its geysers and mud pools.
"The individuals associated with this account are believed to have left New Zealand and police were working through Interpol to locate those individuals," he said, adding that the bank had recovered some of the cash, thought to be about NZ$4m.
Westpac, an Australian bank with 10 million customers, said the overpayment had been the result of human error and it was "pursuing vigorous criminal and civil action" to recover the money.
Gao and Young, who ran a BP petrol station on the outskirts of the city, had reportedly been struggling financially for several months. The station was closed on 6 May and the couple vanished the following day. Twenty-four hours later, their business was put into receivership.
Though Gao and Young hardly qualify as a modern-day Bonnie and Clyde – they are thought to be armed with little more than a change of clothes, passports and an ATM card – the unlikely fugitives have become the topic du jour among Rotorua's 55,000 residents.
Neighbours described Gao as a "really nice guy" who lived with his mother and brothers, and Young and her daughter Lena, all of whom have vanished. "We thought he was pretty honest, but it turns out he's not," the manager of the neighbourhood's off-licence told 3 News. The saga has hurled New Zealanders into the kind of moral maze that Gao and Young appeared to have spent just a few seconds navigating before deciding to skirt around it altogether.
Given the battering the banking industry has taken over the past year, many admitted that, if gifted with a similar sum, they would rather live as wealthy fugitives than remain out of pocket but with a clear conscience.
"Best of luck to them," wrote one browser on the 3 News website. "The banks are as honest as the power companies."
But another was horrified by the level of support for the couple: "I can't believe the number of people that say they would keep the money. These people have taken money that wasn't theirs, no matter which way you look at it."
Experts do not expect it will take investigators long to catch up with the couple; the only question is how much they can splurge before they are found.
In a case in the US last year, a Pennsylvania couple quit their jobs and fled the state after withdrawing $175,000 (£110,000) that had mistakenly been credited to their account. They were arrested in Florida.
Council lawyers admit Baby P could have been put into care
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)