A week before Iran’s presidential election, atomic inspectors reported Friday that the country has sped up its production of nuclear fuel and increased its number of installed centrifuges to 7,200 — more than enough, weapon experts said, to make fuel for up to two nuclear weapons a year, if the country decided to use its facilities for that purpose.
In its report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that it had found no evidence that any of the fuel in Iran’s possession had been enriched to the purity needed to make a bomb, a step that would take months.
But it said that the country had blocked its inspectors for more than a year now from visiting a heavy-water reactor capable of being modified to produce plutonium that could be used in weapons. It also said that Tehran had continued to refuse to answer the agency’s questions about reports of Iranian studies obtained by Western intelligence agencies that suggest that its scientists had performed research on the design of a nuclear warhead.
Iran is required under three United Nations Security Council resolutions to cease the enrichment of uranium and to provide answers to those questions. The Iranian authorities have vigorously denied the authenticity of the studies on warhead design.
The report, one of a series made quarterly to the agency’s board, described how the pace of enrichment and the installation of new centrifuges is accelerating at an enormous underground bunker in the desert at Natanz. It said that nearly 4,920 centrifuges were currently enriching uranium, and that 2,300 more were ready to go. That represents an increase of 30 percent in the total number of installed centrifuges since a February report.
Campaigning for re-election next week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vowed that he will never bend to demands from the West or the United Nations that Iran halt its uranium enrichment. His political opponents have largely agreed, but have urged a more cooperative attitude.
Meanwhile, Israel is constantly assessing Iran’s capability of producing a nuclear weapon. Last year, it asked the Bush administration for the equipment needed in case it decided to take unilateral military action against Iran. Mr. Bush declined to provide the equipment.
In a separate report released Friday, the agency said it had found new evidence to support the claim that the complex that Israel bombed in the Syrian desert in 2007 was in fact a clandestine nuclear reactor. The clue, it said, was information uncovered on Syria’s procurement of “a large quantity of graphite,” a material that American intelligence officials have said was central to the reactor’s operation.
The agency also reported its discovery of particles of uranium in a Damascus laboratory and their “possible connection” to uranium traces already discovered at the bombed desert site. Firming up that link, it added, would require further analysis.
Significantly, the agency’s Iranian report disclosed an expansion not only in the number of centrifuges, but also in the production of nuclear fuel, said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation. “They’re improving the output,” he said. “And they can do better” by feeding uranium into the 2,300 machines that now stand empty.
Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a research organization in Washington, said Iran’s 7,200 centrifuges, if suitably arranged, could annually produce enough nuclear fuel for up to two bombs. “The facts on the ground continue to change,” he said in an interview, “and not in our favor.”
The report from the International Atomic Energy Agency noted that Iran is refusing not only to let inspectors visit a heavy-water reactor that Tehran has under construction, but also to let them verify design information about the sprawling project, as the agency’s statutes require.
The report also said Tehran had refused to give access to “relevant Iranian authorities” who could address allegations surrounding Iran’s research on the design of nuclear warheads. In the absence of that cooperation and enhanced powers of inspection, the report said, the agency “will not be in a position to provide credible assurance” about nuclear materials and activities.
Friday, June 5, 2009
New Scrutiny of Judge’s Most Controversial Case
Near the end of a long and heated appeals court argument over whether New Haven was entitled to throw out a promotional exam because black firefighters had performed poorly on it, a lawyer for white firefighters challenging that decision made a point that bothered Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Firefighters die every week in this country,” the lawyer, Karen Lee Torre said. Using the test, she said, could save lives.
“Counsel,” Judge Sotomayor responded. “We’re not suggesting that unqualified people be hired. The city’s not suggesting that. All right?”
The exchange was unusually charged. Almost everything about the case of Ricci v. DeStefano — from the number and length of the briefs to the size of the appellate record to the exceptionally long oral argument — suggested that it would produce an important appeals court decision about how the government may use race in decisions concerning hiring and promotion.
But in the end the decision from Judge Sotomayor and two other judges was an unsigned summary order that contained a single paragraph of reasoning that simply affirmed a lower court’s decision dismissing the race discrimination claim brought by Frank Ricci and 17 other white firefighters, one of them Hispanic, who had done well on the test.
That cursory treatment suggested that the case was routine and unworthy of careful scrutiny. Yet the case turned out to be important enough to warrant review by the Supreme Court, which heard arguments in April and is likely to issue a decision this month.
The Ricci case, bristling with important issues, has emerged as the most controversial and puzzling of the thousands of rulings in which Judge Sotomayor participated, and it is likely to attract more questions at her Supreme Court confirmations hearings than any other. The result Judge Sotomayor endorsed, many legal scholars say, is perfectly defensible. The procedure the panel used, they say, is another matter.
There is evidence that the three judges in the case agreed to use a summary order rather than a full decision in an effort to find common ground. Allies of Judge Sotomayor, who was the junior judge on the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, correctly point out that the Second Circuit often decides even significant cases with summary orders that adopt the reasoning of the lower court. They add that the panel’s decision reflected a respect for precedent, though it cited none. Judge Sotomayor certainly made no suggestion at the argument that she was constrained by precedent to rule for one party or the other.
At the argument, Judge Sotomayor did not indicate that she was inclined to use the case to make a larger statement about affirmative action. She was focused, instead, on the array of factual and legal issues before her.
“Race on some level was a part of this discussion” when New Haven’s civil service board decided to throw out the test, Judge Sotomayor told Ms. Torre, the lawyer for the plaintiffs.
“The entire discussion before the board was, ‘Was there an adverse impact on the minority candidates by this testing procedure?’ ” Judge Sotomayor said.
That sort of race consciousness, she said, may be perfectly lawful. “You can’t have a racially neutral policy that adversely affects minorities,” Judge Sotomayor said, “unless there is a business necessity.”
Her extensive and probing questions at the argument were typical of her methodical approach to cases, and they offer sometimes conflicting hints about her views on when the government may take account of race in decisions concerning hiring and promotion.
At times, her questions were small lectures on the governing legal standards.
“You have to look at the test and determine whether the test was in fact fair or not,” Judge Sotomayor told a lawyer for the defendants, Richard A. Roberts. “If you’re going to say it’s unfair, point to specifics, of ways it wasn’t, and make sure that there really are alternatives.”
But the summary order Judge Sotomayor joined drew none of those distinctions.
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, the clerk of the court, said in an e-mail message that such an order “ordinarily issues when the determination of the case revolves around well-settled principles of law.”
The Ricci case does not meet that standard, Judge Jose A. Cabranes wrote for himself and five other judges in a dissent from the full court’s decision not to rehear the case. The questions posed in the Ricci case, Judge Cabranes wrote, were exceptionally important “constitutional and statutory claims of first impression” — meaning ones where no binding precedent exists.
The district court judge in New Haven, whose opinion the appeals court panel affirmed and adopted, did identify three earlier Second Circuit decisions concerning the use of race by the government in hiring and promotional exams. But they did not involve precisely the same issues.
The panel’s brief decision in the Ricci case was conversational in tone, and it does not reflect Judge Sotomayor’s somewhat bureaucratic writing style.
It did strike a note of empathy, though one couched in a double negative: “We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated.”
The decision ruled that New Haven’s civil service board “had no good alternatives” and was protected because it “was simply trying to fulfill its obligations” under a federal civil rights law when it was “confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact.”
In the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor was the junior judge on the panel, which also included Judge Rosemary S. Pooler, who was the presiding judge at the argument, and Judge Robert D. Sack, who did not attend due to illness.
In the end, according to court personnel familiar with some of the internal discussions of the case, the three judges had difficulty finding consensus, with Judge Sack the most reluctant to join a decision affirming the district court. Judge Pooler, as the presiding judge, took the leading role in fashioning the compromise. The use of a summary order, which ordinarily cannot be cited as precedent, was part of that compromise.
Firefighters die every week in this country,” the lawyer, Karen Lee Torre said. Using the test, she said, could save lives.
“Counsel,” Judge Sotomayor responded. “We’re not suggesting that unqualified people be hired. The city’s not suggesting that. All right?”
The exchange was unusually charged. Almost everything about the case of Ricci v. DeStefano — from the number and length of the briefs to the size of the appellate record to the exceptionally long oral argument — suggested that it would produce an important appeals court decision about how the government may use race in decisions concerning hiring and promotion.
But in the end the decision from Judge Sotomayor and two other judges was an unsigned summary order that contained a single paragraph of reasoning that simply affirmed a lower court’s decision dismissing the race discrimination claim brought by Frank Ricci and 17 other white firefighters, one of them Hispanic, who had done well on the test.
That cursory treatment suggested that the case was routine and unworthy of careful scrutiny. Yet the case turned out to be important enough to warrant review by the Supreme Court, which heard arguments in April and is likely to issue a decision this month.
The Ricci case, bristling with important issues, has emerged as the most controversial and puzzling of the thousands of rulings in which Judge Sotomayor participated, and it is likely to attract more questions at her Supreme Court confirmations hearings than any other. The result Judge Sotomayor endorsed, many legal scholars say, is perfectly defensible. The procedure the panel used, they say, is another matter.
There is evidence that the three judges in the case agreed to use a summary order rather than a full decision in an effort to find common ground. Allies of Judge Sotomayor, who was the junior judge on the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, correctly point out that the Second Circuit often decides even significant cases with summary orders that adopt the reasoning of the lower court. They add that the panel’s decision reflected a respect for precedent, though it cited none. Judge Sotomayor certainly made no suggestion at the argument that she was constrained by precedent to rule for one party or the other.
At the argument, Judge Sotomayor did not indicate that she was inclined to use the case to make a larger statement about affirmative action. She was focused, instead, on the array of factual and legal issues before her.
“Race on some level was a part of this discussion” when New Haven’s civil service board decided to throw out the test, Judge Sotomayor told Ms. Torre, the lawyer for the plaintiffs.
“The entire discussion before the board was, ‘Was there an adverse impact on the minority candidates by this testing procedure?’ ” Judge Sotomayor said.
That sort of race consciousness, she said, may be perfectly lawful. “You can’t have a racially neutral policy that adversely affects minorities,” Judge Sotomayor said, “unless there is a business necessity.”
Her extensive and probing questions at the argument were typical of her methodical approach to cases, and they offer sometimes conflicting hints about her views on when the government may take account of race in decisions concerning hiring and promotion.
At times, her questions were small lectures on the governing legal standards.
“You have to look at the test and determine whether the test was in fact fair or not,” Judge Sotomayor told a lawyer for the defendants, Richard A. Roberts. “If you’re going to say it’s unfair, point to specifics, of ways it wasn’t, and make sure that there really are alternatives.”
But the summary order Judge Sotomayor joined drew none of those distinctions.
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, the clerk of the court, said in an e-mail message that such an order “ordinarily issues when the determination of the case revolves around well-settled principles of law.”
The Ricci case does not meet that standard, Judge Jose A. Cabranes wrote for himself and five other judges in a dissent from the full court’s decision not to rehear the case. The questions posed in the Ricci case, Judge Cabranes wrote, were exceptionally important “constitutional and statutory claims of first impression” — meaning ones where no binding precedent exists.
The district court judge in New Haven, whose opinion the appeals court panel affirmed and adopted, did identify three earlier Second Circuit decisions concerning the use of race by the government in hiring and promotional exams. But they did not involve precisely the same issues.
The panel’s brief decision in the Ricci case was conversational in tone, and it does not reflect Judge Sotomayor’s somewhat bureaucratic writing style.
It did strike a note of empathy, though one couched in a double negative: “We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated.”
The decision ruled that New Haven’s civil service board “had no good alternatives” and was protected because it “was simply trying to fulfill its obligations” under a federal civil rights law when it was “confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact.”
In the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor was the junior judge on the panel, which also included Judge Rosemary S. Pooler, who was the presiding judge at the argument, and Judge Robert D. Sack, who did not attend due to illness.
In the end, according to court personnel familiar with some of the internal discussions of the case, the three judges had difficulty finding consensus, with Judge Sack the most reluctant to join a decision affirming the district court. Judge Pooler, as the presiding judge, took the leading role in fashioning the compromise. The use of a summary order, which ordinarily cannot be cited as precedent, was part of that compromise.
Paterson and Unions Agree on Limits for New Pensio
Gov. David A. Paterson and the state’s public employee unions announced an agreement on Friday that would reduce pension benefits for future public employees and save the state billions of dollars in an attempt to control ballooning costs for retirees.
To win their support for the deal, the governor provided the unions with significant incentives and backed off earlier demands for concessions from current employees.
Mr. Paterson will shelve his plan to lay off 8,700 workers and will drop a proposal to require existing workers to give up their 3 percent annual pay raise this year and to defer a week’s pay. In addition, 4,500 workers will be offered $20,000 buyouts.
Paterson administration officials said the agreement would save the state $30 billion over 30 years, but much of the savings will not be realized for another decade.
“This agreement is a huge win for New York’s taxpayers and will lead to the most significant reform of our public pension system in decades,” the governor said in a statement. “This is real reform to the pension system, which will substantially reduce costs to the taxpayers of New York State.”
The agreement will raise the retirement age for future employees from 55 to 62, and require them to contribute 3 percent of their salaries to their pensions for their entire careers, instead of for their first decade of service, which is the current requirement.
New workers will not become vested in the pension plan until they reach 10 years of service, rather than the current five. The deal will also limit the amount of overtime that employees can use in their last years of work to increase their pension benefits.
The agreement requires legislative approval, though endorsements by the governor and the labor unions virtually assure its success.
The deal covers state workers and local governments outside New York City; the Paterson administration hopes to negotiate a similar agreement for New York City employees, but city unions are adamantly opposed to doing so. New York City has its own retirement system. The deal also does not affect police officers, correction officers, teachers and firefighters.
The urgency of the need for changes in retirement benefits was underscored last week when the state comptroller’s office reported that the pension fund, hobbled by losses amid the market’s collapse, had shrunk to $109.9 billion at the end of March from $153.9 billion a year earlier.
The deal comes days after Mr. Paterson shocked and angered police and fire union leaders by refusing to allow new officers and firefighters across the state to continue to enroll in enviable pension benefits that were phased out in the 1970s for other public employees. The governor vetoed routine legislation that would have extended the benefits — similar bills have been signed by a series of governors going back to 1981.
While his veto was praised by budget watchdogs as a sign of rare resolve from the governor, his latest labor deal received mixed reviews.
Though the administration is hoping that the buyouts and an offer to allow employees to choose a reduced workweek will still generate immediate savings, the cash-poor state will be providing raises to the 129,000 employees covered under the deal announced Friday. Those raises will cost $180 million, at a time when some other states are freezing salaries and furloughing workers. There is also a cost of up to $90 million for the buyouts.
Further, New York has a history of reversing its pension cutbacks. The state has previously required that employees contribute to their retirement beyond 10 years of service, only to roll back the requirement in an election year. Union leaders, who had criticized the governor during months of negotiations, succeeded in their insistence that existing labor contracts not be reopened.
“The governor moved significantly from his original demands for major contract concessions from the state’s work force,” said Kenneth Brynien, president of the Public Employees Federation. “Considering the deteriorating condition of the state’s finances, this represents a reasonable accommodation.”
Danny Donohue, the president of the Civil Service Employees Association, said his union “recognizes these are extraordinary times with unprecedented challenges, and we have tried to find ways to help without reopening contracts.”
The agreement creates the first new pension category for state employees since 1983 — it is called Tier V because it is one of five such classifications, and provides the least generous benefits.
But it is not likely to encompass the city. A key labor leader in New York City called it a nonstarter, given that only this week city unions concluded negotiations that led them to amend health benefits for more than 550,000 current and retired employees, guaranteeing $400 million in savings over two years.
“The city unions just completed long, tough negotiations with Mayor Bloomberg,” said Harry Nespoli, the head of the Municipal Labor Committee. “As far as Tier V is concerned, it’s not negotiable,” he said, adding, “We’ve done our share.”
Financial analysts had varying views on the agreement.
“Obviously the benefits to the state, or its taxpayers, are not immediate,” said Jeremy Gold, a New York actuary and economist who has contended that governments often understate the ultimate costs of pension benefits. But he added that restraining the benefits of future hires “may be the beginning of the way out.”
Edmund J. McMahon, director of the Empire Center for New York State Policy, a conservative-leaning research group, said the governor had not gone nearly far enough. Referring to the 4,500 buyouts, he said the deal “allows you to pay more money to union members who are already ready to retire.”
Mr. McMahon said he believed New York and other states needed to follow the shift embraced by the private sector away from the traditional defined-benefit pension plan to a 401(k)-style retirement program to prepare for a potentially calamitous future increase in pension costs.
Speaking of the governor’s deal, Mr. McMahon said, “If you contrast this to what is happening in other major states, where you have union agreements of givebacks or furloughs, it’s remarkable.”
Elizabeth Lynam, the deputy research director of the Citizens Budget Commission, a nonprofit policy group, called the move “a really good start.”
“It’s going to be tough to find the money to do the buyouts, but the pension tier is significant,” she said. “If you think about the $45 billion the pension fund lost this year, a new pension tier is desperately needed.”
To win their support for the deal, the governor provided the unions with significant incentives and backed off earlier demands for concessions from current employees.
Mr. Paterson will shelve his plan to lay off 8,700 workers and will drop a proposal to require existing workers to give up their 3 percent annual pay raise this year and to defer a week’s pay. In addition, 4,500 workers will be offered $20,000 buyouts.
Paterson administration officials said the agreement would save the state $30 billion over 30 years, but much of the savings will not be realized for another decade.
“This agreement is a huge win for New York’s taxpayers and will lead to the most significant reform of our public pension system in decades,” the governor said in a statement. “This is real reform to the pension system, which will substantially reduce costs to the taxpayers of New York State.”
The agreement will raise the retirement age for future employees from 55 to 62, and require them to contribute 3 percent of their salaries to their pensions for their entire careers, instead of for their first decade of service, which is the current requirement.
New workers will not become vested in the pension plan until they reach 10 years of service, rather than the current five. The deal will also limit the amount of overtime that employees can use in their last years of work to increase their pension benefits.
The agreement requires legislative approval, though endorsements by the governor and the labor unions virtually assure its success.
The deal covers state workers and local governments outside New York City; the Paterson administration hopes to negotiate a similar agreement for New York City employees, but city unions are adamantly opposed to doing so. New York City has its own retirement system. The deal also does not affect police officers, correction officers, teachers and firefighters.
The urgency of the need for changes in retirement benefits was underscored last week when the state comptroller’s office reported that the pension fund, hobbled by losses amid the market’s collapse, had shrunk to $109.9 billion at the end of March from $153.9 billion a year earlier.
The deal comes days after Mr. Paterson shocked and angered police and fire union leaders by refusing to allow new officers and firefighters across the state to continue to enroll in enviable pension benefits that were phased out in the 1970s for other public employees. The governor vetoed routine legislation that would have extended the benefits — similar bills have been signed by a series of governors going back to 1981.
While his veto was praised by budget watchdogs as a sign of rare resolve from the governor, his latest labor deal received mixed reviews.
Though the administration is hoping that the buyouts and an offer to allow employees to choose a reduced workweek will still generate immediate savings, the cash-poor state will be providing raises to the 129,000 employees covered under the deal announced Friday. Those raises will cost $180 million, at a time when some other states are freezing salaries and furloughing workers. There is also a cost of up to $90 million for the buyouts.
Further, New York has a history of reversing its pension cutbacks. The state has previously required that employees contribute to their retirement beyond 10 years of service, only to roll back the requirement in an election year. Union leaders, who had criticized the governor during months of negotiations, succeeded in their insistence that existing labor contracts not be reopened.
“The governor moved significantly from his original demands for major contract concessions from the state’s work force,” said Kenneth Brynien, president of the Public Employees Federation. “Considering the deteriorating condition of the state’s finances, this represents a reasonable accommodation.”
Danny Donohue, the president of the Civil Service Employees Association, said his union “recognizes these are extraordinary times with unprecedented challenges, and we have tried to find ways to help without reopening contracts.”
The agreement creates the first new pension category for state employees since 1983 — it is called Tier V because it is one of five such classifications, and provides the least generous benefits.
But it is not likely to encompass the city. A key labor leader in New York City called it a nonstarter, given that only this week city unions concluded negotiations that led them to amend health benefits for more than 550,000 current and retired employees, guaranteeing $400 million in savings over two years.
“The city unions just completed long, tough negotiations with Mayor Bloomberg,” said Harry Nespoli, the head of the Municipal Labor Committee. “As far as Tier V is concerned, it’s not negotiable,” he said, adding, “We’ve done our share.”
Financial analysts had varying views on the agreement.
“Obviously the benefits to the state, or its taxpayers, are not immediate,” said Jeremy Gold, a New York actuary and economist who has contended that governments often understate the ultimate costs of pension benefits. But he added that restraining the benefits of future hires “may be the beginning of the way out.”
Edmund J. McMahon, director of the Empire Center for New York State Policy, a conservative-leaning research group, said the governor had not gone nearly far enough. Referring to the 4,500 buyouts, he said the deal “allows you to pay more money to union members who are already ready to retire.”
Mr. McMahon said he believed New York and other states needed to follow the shift embraced by the private sector away from the traditional defined-benefit pension plan to a 401(k)-style retirement program to prepare for a potentially calamitous future increase in pension costs.
Speaking of the governor’s deal, Mr. McMahon said, “If you contrast this to what is happening in other major states, where you have union agreements of givebacks or furloughs, it’s remarkable.”
Elizabeth Lynam, the deputy research director of the Citizens Budget Commission, a nonprofit policy group, called the move “a really good start.”
“It’s going to be tough to find the money to do the buyouts, but the pension tier is significant,” she said. “If you think about the $45 billion the pension fund lost this year, a new pension tier is desperately needed.”
England humiliated by Broad's last-ball blunder
England face the prospect of being thrown out of their own party at the very first stage of the World Twenty20 after a humiliating defeat by Holland in yesterday's opening match. They were beaten by four wickets from the last delivery of a thrilling contest as orange shone bright in the murky twilight of a memorable evening at Lord's. MCC members, who presumably feared the worst, mostly stayed away.
England must now beat Pakistan in their remaining group match at The Oval on Sundayand hope they can squeeze through on net run rate. If they fail they will perhaps be looking to arrange some warm-down matches over the next few days.
Holland did beat England in 1989 and 1993. But both games, played in Holland and on matting, were essentially hit-and-giggle matches against England XIs.
If there was any giggling last night it came from the direction of the Australia and Pakistan camps as England, desperate to win a global competition for the first time, were fairly beaten by one of the three qualifiers in their worst ever one-day defeat.
It was the Essex all-rounder Ryan ten Doeschate who used his experience to see Holland over the line but it was Tom de Grooth (which means The Great in Dutch) who propelled his side towards this unlikely win. De Grooth, 30, nicknamed Two Thumbs and a youth coach in The Hague, is not one of the four players in the Holland side with county experience but it was his striking which set England back on their heels as he hit 49 from 30 deliveries with six fours and a six straight back over the bowler Stuart Broad's head.
There was always a niggling feeling in English hearts that their side's total of 162 could be pursued with some optimism by the Dutch after another fine start by Ravi Bopara and Luke Wright was not capitalised on by the rest of the batsmen.
Darron Reekers had given his side a fiery start with two sixes in a 13-ball 20 and then De Grooth maintained the impetus. But when he too was out, lobbing the ball up to Rob Key at mid-off to leave Holland 116-4 at the end of the 13th over, the outsiders looked likely to falter.
Instead they kept going, even though they hit only three boundaries off the last six overs. They wanted 42 off five overs, 30 off four, 21 off three, 17 off two and then seven off the last six balls.
It was a generally good over by Broad, with five singles coming off the first five deliveries. But his bowling was better than his fielding, as he missed a sharp return catch and three run-out chances, including that of Edgar Schiferli off the last ball of the innings.
It would have won the game had he hit – but he missed, and Schiferli and Ten Doeschate scampered through for an overthrow to win the game.
There had been a strong sense of anti-climax before the match – there always would be with England, a full member of the ICC, playing Holland, an associate member. England versus Pakistan would have been a much more attractive competition opener. Or so everyone thought.
Essentially, this World20 launcher was one that few people wanted to watch. Perhaps it was their protest against the flashing signs in front of the pavilion. The rain did not help and nor did the cancellation of the opening ceremony. In fact the ceremony was, eventually, a very English compromise.
At first it was delayed then cancelled and finally it was decided to do away with the main and interesting bit (the singing of Alesha Dixon) but carry on with some tedious speeches. The dancers, meanwhile, wore fleeces to keep themselves warm which detracted from any sense of celebration. When, eventually, Holland trotted down the pavilion steps, looking anxious to make up for the 20 minutes lost to the weather, they were promptly sent back by officials; the black-clad umpires and the sponsors' girls were not in their proper positions. But at least the lights worked and once the cricket started it skittered along.
England's in-form opener Bopara drove Dirk Nannes' opening delivery into the ground and over backward point for four and the 50 came up from 39 balls with seven fours.
The left-arm Nannes bowled quickly enough to drive his captain and wicket-keeper Jeroen Smits back to the edge of the circle but he was unable to make the breakthrough which Holland desperately needed.
For the second time in three days Bopara and Wright put on a century opening partnership but this time it was in an official Twenty20 game and it represented England's best in this form of the game, beating the 65 shared by Wright and Phil Mustard in Christchurch last year. Bopara played the classier innings, Wright the more muscular. But after reaching 100 off 11 overs England failed to kick on or even maintain their healthy momentum. Bopara had struck 46 from 34 balls when he was caught at long-on in the 12th over. Wright continued to cudgel away for 71 from 49 balls, with eight fours. But in the absence of Kevin Pietersen there was a shortage of testosterone in the middle order.
Owais Shah had scored just five when he hit the ball straight to deep square leg, Eoin Morgan,reverse-swept to destruction for just six and after Wright was caught at wide long-on neither Paul Collingwood nor Rob Key could hit the much needed boundaries: England scored nine of them from their first 10 overs but just five in the second half of their innings. They would pay for that.
"We were looking to get up to 170-180," the captain Paul Collingwood shrugged after the game. "They bowled well at the back end of our innings and we should have defended a total like that, but unfortunately they were better on the day. Holland had no fear and every time we got a wicket we thought we were on top.
"We had a lot of chances at the back end. We do it in practice but you need to do it out in the middle in pressure situations and tonight we didn't do it. There's a fine line between winning and losing
England must now beat Pakistan in their remaining group match at The Oval on Sundayand hope they can squeeze through on net run rate. If they fail they will perhaps be looking to arrange some warm-down matches over the next few days.
Holland did beat England in 1989 and 1993. But both games, played in Holland and on matting, were essentially hit-and-giggle matches against England XIs.
If there was any giggling last night it came from the direction of the Australia and Pakistan camps as England, desperate to win a global competition for the first time, were fairly beaten by one of the three qualifiers in their worst ever one-day defeat.
It was the Essex all-rounder Ryan ten Doeschate who used his experience to see Holland over the line but it was Tom de Grooth (which means The Great in Dutch) who propelled his side towards this unlikely win. De Grooth, 30, nicknamed Two Thumbs and a youth coach in The Hague, is not one of the four players in the Holland side with county experience but it was his striking which set England back on their heels as he hit 49 from 30 deliveries with six fours and a six straight back over the bowler Stuart Broad's head.
There was always a niggling feeling in English hearts that their side's total of 162 could be pursued with some optimism by the Dutch after another fine start by Ravi Bopara and Luke Wright was not capitalised on by the rest of the batsmen.
Darron Reekers had given his side a fiery start with two sixes in a 13-ball 20 and then De Grooth maintained the impetus. But when he too was out, lobbing the ball up to Rob Key at mid-off to leave Holland 116-4 at the end of the 13th over, the outsiders looked likely to falter.
Instead they kept going, even though they hit only three boundaries off the last six overs. They wanted 42 off five overs, 30 off four, 21 off three, 17 off two and then seven off the last six balls.
It was a generally good over by Broad, with five singles coming off the first five deliveries. But his bowling was better than his fielding, as he missed a sharp return catch and three run-out chances, including that of Edgar Schiferli off the last ball of the innings.
It would have won the game had he hit – but he missed, and Schiferli and Ten Doeschate scampered through for an overthrow to win the game.
There had been a strong sense of anti-climax before the match – there always would be with England, a full member of the ICC, playing Holland, an associate member. England versus Pakistan would have been a much more attractive competition opener. Or so everyone thought.
Essentially, this World20 launcher was one that few people wanted to watch. Perhaps it was their protest against the flashing signs in front of the pavilion. The rain did not help and nor did the cancellation of the opening ceremony. In fact the ceremony was, eventually, a very English compromise.
At first it was delayed then cancelled and finally it was decided to do away with the main and interesting bit (the singing of Alesha Dixon) but carry on with some tedious speeches. The dancers, meanwhile, wore fleeces to keep themselves warm which detracted from any sense of celebration. When, eventually, Holland trotted down the pavilion steps, looking anxious to make up for the 20 minutes lost to the weather, they were promptly sent back by officials; the black-clad umpires and the sponsors' girls were not in their proper positions. But at least the lights worked and once the cricket started it skittered along.
England's in-form opener Bopara drove Dirk Nannes' opening delivery into the ground and over backward point for four and the 50 came up from 39 balls with seven fours.
The left-arm Nannes bowled quickly enough to drive his captain and wicket-keeper Jeroen Smits back to the edge of the circle but he was unable to make the breakthrough which Holland desperately needed.
For the second time in three days Bopara and Wright put on a century opening partnership but this time it was in an official Twenty20 game and it represented England's best in this form of the game, beating the 65 shared by Wright and Phil Mustard in Christchurch last year. Bopara played the classier innings, Wright the more muscular. But after reaching 100 off 11 overs England failed to kick on or even maintain their healthy momentum. Bopara had struck 46 from 34 balls when he was caught at long-on in the 12th over. Wright continued to cudgel away for 71 from 49 balls, with eight fours. But in the absence of Kevin Pietersen there was a shortage of testosterone in the middle order.
Owais Shah had scored just five when he hit the ball straight to deep square leg, Eoin Morgan,reverse-swept to destruction for just six and after Wright was caught at wide long-on neither Paul Collingwood nor Rob Key could hit the much needed boundaries: England scored nine of them from their first 10 overs but just five in the second half of their innings. They would pay for that.
"We were looking to get up to 170-180," the captain Paul Collingwood shrugged after the game. "They bowled well at the back end of our innings and we should have defended a total like that, but unfortunately they were better on the day. Holland had no fear and every time we got a wicket we thought we were on top.
"We had a lot of chances at the back end. We do it in practice but you need to do it out in the middle in pressure situations and tonight we didn't do it. There's a fine line between winning and losing
Hopes for US recovery grow as job losses ease
The US unemployment rate edged up to a 25-year high of 9.4% last month as employers shed 345,000 jobs, although economist took comfort in signs that the rate of erosion in the workforce slowed down sharply.
Non-farm payroll figures released by the US commerce department revealed that the headline rate of unemployment rose by half a percentage point from April's figure of 8.9%.
However, the number of jobs disappearing from the economy was the lowest since September. Job losses significantly dropped in comparison with revised figures of 652,000 and 504,000 for March and April.
"Good news at last," said Kurt Karl, the chief US economist at Swiss Re in New York. "At some point, we had to start moving to the 300,000 range; after all, we already laid off an incredible amount of people."
Since the economic slump began at the end of 2007, the US has lost more than 6m jobs. But the slowdown in job losses is likely to provide succour for those who believe "green shoots" are beginning to emerge on the financial landscape.
In construction, job losses of 59,000 in May were considerably lower than the 108,000 positions shed in April; in the service sector, about 120,000 positions disappeared compared with 230,000 the previous month.
Nigel Gault, the chief US economist at IHS Global Insight, said: "The message is: the most extreme phase of hiring cuts in capital spending, that's now behind us. Firms were very quick to react to the downturn in the economy."
Experts remain concerned about the likely impact of woes in the Detroit carmaking industry on employment over the coming months. General Motors and Chrysler have filed for bankruptcy and are idling many of their vehicle plants.
Yet a cautious mood of optimism has powered Wall Street upwards, with the Dow Jones industrial average up by 27% since early March. Activity has increased in the battered housing market and there are signs that credit crunch has begun to thaw, with banks proving more willing to lend money.
Non-farm payroll figures released by the US commerce department revealed that the headline rate of unemployment rose by half a percentage point from April's figure of 8.9%.
However, the number of jobs disappearing from the economy was the lowest since September. Job losses significantly dropped in comparison with revised figures of 652,000 and 504,000 for March and April.
"Good news at last," said Kurt Karl, the chief US economist at Swiss Re in New York. "At some point, we had to start moving to the 300,000 range; after all, we already laid off an incredible amount of people."
Since the economic slump began at the end of 2007, the US has lost more than 6m jobs. But the slowdown in job losses is likely to provide succour for those who believe "green shoots" are beginning to emerge on the financial landscape.
In construction, job losses of 59,000 in May were considerably lower than the 108,000 positions shed in April; in the service sector, about 120,000 positions disappeared compared with 230,000 the previous month.
Nigel Gault, the chief US economist at IHS Global Insight, said: "The message is: the most extreme phase of hiring cuts in capital spending, that's now behind us. Firms were very quick to react to the downturn in the economy."
Experts remain concerned about the likely impact of woes in the Detroit carmaking industry on employment over the coming months. General Motors and Chrysler have filed for bankruptcy and are idling many of their vehicle plants.
Yet a cautious mood of optimism has powered Wall Street upwards, with the Dow Jones industrial average up by 27% since early March. Activity has increased in the battered housing market and there are signs that credit crunch has begun to thaw, with banks proving more willing to lend money.
Mother starved daughter to death, murder trial hears
The body of a seven-year-old girl who died after being starved under a "punishment regime" looked like an African famine victim, a court heard today.
Khyra Ishaq's "emaciated" body was found in May last year after she had allegedly been held captive by her mother, Angela Gordon, and Gordon's boyfriend, Junaid Abuhamza.
Khyra and five other children had been locked out of a fully stocked kitchen for up to six months, Birmingham crown court was told. On the rare occasions they were fed, they were given dry bread or porridge, which they had to eat with their hands on the floor. If the children were caught "stealing" food they were punished with "detention", made to stand outside in the cold, beaten with a cane or made to overeat until they were sick, the court heard.
Neighbours reported hearing screams of "let me out, let me out" in the middle of the night, and saw the "abnormally thin" Khyra in the garden in her underwear.
Police and social workers went to the home in Handsworth, Birmingham, several times but Gordon would not let them in, the court heard.
Jurors wept when they were shown pictures of Khyra taken before and after her death on 17 May last year. Handing over the first picture, taken in April 2007, the prosecution barrister, Timothy Raggatt QC, said: "That is Khyra Ishaq as she was in life, about a year before the events you are going to be concerned with.
"You see there a picture of a normally developing healthy girl. That is how her wider family remember her and describe her in life." Raggatt then asked the jury to turn to the picture taken at postmortem, which he suggested was reminiscent of something seen in an African famine. "That did not happen naturally – it was not a result of accident or disease. It was result of deliberate action. That is why there's a charge of murder."
The jury were shown photographs of a fully stocked kitchen and fridge. The court heard a lock was fitted high up on the kitchen door to keep the children out.
Raggatt said: "That household was not a household that was short of food, there was ample food in it for everyone. The supply of food was controlled, it was controlled by these two [defendants]."
The court was told Khyra died of an infection. But Raggatt said the fact she died of an infection was "really neither here nor there. The cause of her death was the physical state that she was in. In a nutshell, their [position] is exactly the same as anyone who kept a prisoner and sets out to starve them to the point where their life is at risk. It's just as much murder ... as if they had shot, stabbed, beaten or strangled Khyra to death."
Gordon, 34, and Abuhamza, 30, had a duty in law to care for Khyra but had betrayed that duty in every possible sense, while also mistreating five other children in their control, the prosecutor said.
"All of them, as well as being starved, were subjected to violence of differing degrees," Raggatt said.
The jury was told that Abuhamza, who denies murder, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to child cruelty charges relating to the five other children.
Gordon denies murder and five charges of child cruelty alleged to have been committed between December 2007 and 17 May 2008.
The court heard Khyra had lived a "normal and happy family life" while her natural parents were together. But the marriage failed and in 2007 Gordon and Abuhamza became a couple, with Abuhamza moving into the home.
In December 2007 things changed "dramatically", Raggatt said, when Khyra was removed from school and Gordon refused to admit visitors.
Summarising defence case statements prepared before the trial, Raggatt said Gordon had denied depriving Khyra of food.
"She is saying that none of this is her doing. Angela Gordon believes Khyra may have suffered from E coli or been poisoned by food given to her by her neighbours."
Abuhamza had acknowledged he was party to the unlawful killing of Khyra, Raggatt said.
The trial continues.
Khyra Ishaq's "emaciated" body was found in May last year after she had allegedly been held captive by her mother, Angela Gordon, and Gordon's boyfriend, Junaid Abuhamza.
Khyra and five other children had been locked out of a fully stocked kitchen for up to six months, Birmingham crown court was told. On the rare occasions they were fed, they were given dry bread or porridge, which they had to eat with their hands on the floor. If the children were caught "stealing" food they were punished with "detention", made to stand outside in the cold, beaten with a cane or made to overeat until they were sick, the court heard.
Neighbours reported hearing screams of "let me out, let me out" in the middle of the night, and saw the "abnormally thin" Khyra in the garden in her underwear.
Police and social workers went to the home in Handsworth, Birmingham, several times but Gordon would not let them in, the court heard.
Jurors wept when they were shown pictures of Khyra taken before and after her death on 17 May last year. Handing over the first picture, taken in April 2007, the prosecution barrister, Timothy Raggatt QC, said: "That is Khyra Ishaq as she was in life, about a year before the events you are going to be concerned with.
"You see there a picture of a normally developing healthy girl. That is how her wider family remember her and describe her in life." Raggatt then asked the jury to turn to the picture taken at postmortem, which he suggested was reminiscent of something seen in an African famine. "That did not happen naturally – it was not a result of accident or disease. It was result of deliberate action. That is why there's a charge of murder."
The jury were shown photographs of a fully stocked kitchen and fridge. The court heard a lock was fitted high up on the kitchen door to keep the children out.
Raggatt said: "That household was not a household that was short of food, there was ample food in it for everyone. The supply of food was controlled, it was controlled by these two [defendants]."
The court was told Khyra died of an infection. But Raggatt said the fact she died of an infection was "really neither here nor there. The cause of her death was the physical state that she was in. In a nutshell, their [position] is exactly the same as anyone who kept a prisoner and sets out to starve them to the point where their life is at risk. It's just as much murder ... as if they had shot, stabbed, beaten or strangled Khyra to death."
Gordon, 34, and Abuhamza, 30, had a duty in law to care for Khyra but had betrayed that duty in every possible sense, while also mistreating five other children in their control, the prosecutor said.
"All of them, as well as being starved, were subjected to violence of differing degrees," Raggatt said.
The jury was told that Abuhamza, who denies murder, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to child cruelty charges relating to the five other children.
Gordon denies murder and five charges of child cruelty alleged to have been committed between December 2007 and 17 May 2008.
The court heard Khyra had lived a "normal and happy family life" while her natural parents were together. But the marriage failed and in 2007 Gordon and Abuhamza became a couple, with Abuhamza moving into the home.
In December 2007 things changed "dramatically", Raggatt said, when Khyra was removed from school and Gordon refused to admit visitors.
Summarising defence case statements prepared before the trial, Raggatt said Gordon had denied depriving Khyra of food.
"She is saying that none of this is her doing. Angela Gordon believes Khyra may have suffered from E coli or been poisoned by food given to her by her neighbours."
Abuhamza had acknowledged he was party to the unlawful killing of Khyra, Raggatt said.
The trial continues.
Two charged as Cuban spies in US
former US official and his wife have been charged with spying for the Cuban government over a 30-year period.
Washington DC residents Walter Myers, 72, and Gwendolyn Myers, 71, are accused of acting as illegal agents for Cuba and wire fraud.
The couple could face up to 20 years in prison if found guilty.
The arrest follows a sting operation by the FBI, in which an agent posing as a Cuban spy persuaded the couple to give him information about their activities.
Undercover agent
Mr Myers first began working for the US State Department in 1977 as an instructor at the Foreign Service Institute, where he was given security clearance to access information classified as Top Secret.
He was later granted an even higher security clearance, performing periodic work for the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) until 1999, when he joined INR on a permanent basis.
He retired in 2007.
Mr Myers married his wife Gwendolyn in 1982. She worked as an analyst at a Washington DC bank, and was never granted security clearance by the US government.
In an affidavit released by the US Justice Department, offiicals have revealed details of the sting operation conducted by the FBI.
According to the affidavit, an undercover agent posing as a member of the Cuban Intelligence Service approached Mr Myers, telling him that he had been sent by the Cuban government to obtain information from him.
During a subsequent meeting, Mr Myers and his wife agreed to provide information about US government personnel to the undercover agent, and made statements about their past activities for the Cuban government, the affidavit alleges.
Mr Myers was first approached by the Cuban government in 1978, the Justice Department says, and he and his wife agreed shortly afterwards to provide information to Cuban intelligence.
Officials instigated the undercover operation after an analysis of Mr Myers' State Department computer hard drive revealed that in 2006-2007 he accessed more than 200 sensitive or classified intelligence reports on the subject of Cuba, which were unrelated to his official work as a senior INR analyst for the European region.
Washington DC residents Walter Myers, 72, and Gwendolyn Myers, 71, are accused of acting as illegal agents for Cuba and wire fraud.
The couple could face up to 20 years in prison if found guilty.
The arrest follows a sting operation by the FBI, in which an agent posing as a Cuban spy persuaded the couple to give him information about their activities.
Undercover agent
Mr Myers first began working for the US State Department in 1977 as an instructor at the Foreign Service Institute, where he was given security clearance to access information classified as Top Secret.
He was later granted an even higher security clearance, performing periodic work for the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) until 1999, when he joined INR on a permanent basis.
He retired in 2007.
Mr Myers married his wife Gwendolyn in 1982. She worked as an analyst at a Washington DC bank, and was never granted security clearance by the US government.
In an affidavit released by the US Justice Department, offiicals have revealed details of the sting operation conducted by the FBI.
According to the affidavit, an undercover agent posing as a member of the Cuban Intelligence Service approached Mr Myers, telling him that he had been sent by the Cuban government to obtain information from him.
During a subsequent meeting, Mr Myers and his wife agreed to provide information about US government personnel to the undercover agent, and made statements about their past activities for the Cuban government, the affidavit alleges.
Mr Myers was first approached by the Cuban government in 1978, the Justice Department says, and he and his wife agreed shortly afterwards to provide information to Cuban intelligence.
Officials instigated the undercover operation after an analysis of Mr Myers' State Department computer hard drive revealed that in 2006-2007 he accessed more than 200 sensitive or classified intelligence reports on the subject of Cuba, which were unrelated to his official work as a senior INR analyst for the European region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)