BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

Obama advisers: Bush era war criminals will walk

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

By Stephen C. Webster | Even as President-elect Obama vowed “to regain America’s moral stature in the world” during Sunday’s 60 Minutes appearance, two of his senior advisers confessed there is no intent to pursue those in the Bush administration who engaged in torture, a war crime.

Speaking on condition of anonymity to the Associated Press, the advisers said that the plan is to put a stop to current interrogation methods and to “look forward” as opposed to focusing on prior transgressions.

The Obama campaign did not offer a response before the report was published.

Human Rights Watch, a non-profit watchdog group, is lobbying the President-elect for fast action on the abuses of the Bush era.

“For far too long, the United States has undermined its ability to fight terror by adopting short-sighted policies that allowed torture and indefinite detention without charge,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, in a Sunday release. “The United States urgently needs President-elect Obama to live up to his commitment to right the wrongs of the last seven years, and to regain the moral high ground in the fight against terrorism.”

The group is pushing for Obama to bring Guantanamo detainees into the United States court system, and admit released prisoners into the country if it is feared they may be subject to torture upon returning home. They are also calling for an executive order to require the CIA to follow the US military’s interrogation rules, and the establishment of an investigatory “truth commission” with subpoena power to enforce standing laws against US war criminals.

However, if the top candidate for Obama’s Central Intelligence Agency is any indication, the activists may soon be disappointed. The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan, citing a report by Mark Ambinder that Obama is close to appointing John Brennon, who served under former CIA Director George Tenet, Sullivan decried it as, “change we cannot believe in.”

“Appointing Brennan to the CIA does not mean change from Bush,” he wrote. “That was absolutely a critical part of Obama’s message. With Brennan, we get the taint of a Bush and two-facedness of a Clinton. We need to say goodbye to all that, not perpetuate its double-speak.”

Tenet was director of the agency when it was admitted that several prisoners were subjected to waterboarding: a form of torture that simulates the experience of drowning.

“[Obama believes] torture not be allowed in any form or fashion in any part of the federal government, and he would make sure that was the case,” said Brennan to CQ Politics. “Whether the Army field manual is comprehensive enough to cover all those tactics and techniques, that’s something I think he’d look to his national security advisers for.”

Blogger and filmmaker Glenn Greenwald is skeptical too.

“Brennan has been and continues to be an extremely important adviser for Obama on intelligence issues,” he wrote. “His views on past administration conduct are, in many important instances, clearly disturbing and bear watching.”

Alleged 9/11 ‘mastermind’ Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is one such prisoner that was admittedly tortured. The American Civil Liberties Union warned Monday that Bush may try to “sabotage” Obama by “ramming through” the Mohammed tribunal. On Saturday it was also revealed that senior intelligence officials are lobbying President Bush to preemptively pardon intelligence agents who committed war crimes: an unprecedented act.

Nevertheless, one campaign meme — “hope” — has yet to flicker out for human rights activists.

“We are confident that consistent with his message of change, his actions and his criticism, he is going to repudiate the abusive counterterrorism policies of the Bush administration,” Joanne Mariner with Human Rights Watch told IPS News.

Have Your Say: Obama advisers: Bush era war criminals will walk
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Information Commissioner publishes freedom of information guidance for personal data

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published new common sense guidance for freedom of information practitioners on how to deal with requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) which relate to individuals’ personal information.

Under the FOIA and EIR an exemption exists to ensure that information is not disclosed if to do so would breach an individual’s right for personal information to be processed fairly under the Data Protection Act. The ICO’s new practical guidance addresses the balance between the requirement to provide public access to official information and the need to protect personal information.

There are often very good reasons for keeping personal information private, however the guidance stresses that information is not automatically exempt from disclosure just because it is personal data. It provides step-by-step advice on the application of the exemption, using examples from the freedom of information ruling that led to the disclosure of details of MPs’ expenses. In this case, it was necessary to disclose some personal information belonging to MPs in order to address the inadequacies of the expenses system. The guidance includes an easy-to-use flow chart to assist FOI practitioners.

In addition to advice on the application of the personal information exemption, the guidance also explains the steps that should be taken when an individual asks for information about themselves under the Freedom of Information Act
and the request must be dealt with as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act.

Also being published shortly is a freedom of information guidance update, ‘Applying the exemption for third party personal data: the Tribunal’s approach in House of Commons v IC & Leapman, Brooke and Thomas’.

The ICO is currently producing a range of new guidance documents on the practical application of the Freedom of Information Act. Existing guidance is also being updated.

Have Your Say: Information Commissioner publishes freedom of information guidance for personal data
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Guantanamo: How many children were held?

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

The ACLU raises the issue of government lying about the number of children detained at Guantanamo.This follows a release last week on incontrovertible evidence that the Pentagon was distorting the number of children held. It appears that virtually no claim made by US authorities regarding detention and interrogation operations is reliable:

Pentagon Admits Number of Guantánamo’s Children is Higher than Originally Disclosed

An AP article today announced the Pentagon has admitted that 12 children under the age of 18 have been held at Guantánamo since it opened in 2002. The news report comes on the heels of a study released last week by the U.C. Davis Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas, showing that the U.S. has held at least 12 juveniles at Guantánamo.

These reports confirm what the ACLU has been saying for months: the U.S. government has been lowballing the number of children it has imprisoned at Guantánamo. In a submission to the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child in May, the U.S. claimed that eight juveniles have ever been held at the detention camp and only two prisoners currently at Guantánamo were children at the time of their transfer to the prison. Yet in an ACLU report we issued that same month, Soldiers of Misfortune, we said that prisoner lists released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests show the number is closer to 23, while some sources estimate the number of youth held at Guantánamo as high as 60.

At a U.N. review session in Geneva, the ACLU also pointed out that the U.S. had failed to count a third prisoner currently at Guantánamo, Mohammed El-Gharani (also known as Muhammed Al-Qarani), who was only 14 when first captured and has reportedly attempted suicide several times while in custody at Guantánamo. U.N. officials of the Committee on the Rights of the Child demanded that U.S. officials explain why discrepancies in the figures of child detainees may exist, pointing out that the U.S. had failed to count El-Gharani. The government delegation’s inadequate answer? It’s tough to determine the number of teens we’ve detained at the Navy base.

In July, the ACLU renewed calls for the U.S. to release accurate numbers for the children imprisoned at Guantánamo, after an attorney for the U.K. non-profit Reprieve said testimonies collected by the NGO, which represents 30 inmates at Guantánamo, indicate the actual number is much higher than 22.

As the number of children whom the U.S. owns up to detaining climbs higher, it is becoming crystal clear that there is no transparency in the government’s Guantánamo detention practices. And as the U.S. government’s past miscalculations of child prisoner statistics are revealed, it proves that there is a profound lack of accountability for Guantánamo policies, even when children are concerned.

Sadly, this is not the first time the Bush administration has misled a human rights body and deflected public and institutional scrutiny to avoid full accountability for its Guantánamo policies. But it is not too late to correct past wrongs: Delay the upcoming trials of two of the remaining detainees who have been held since they were juveniles and assess their eligibility for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. As alleged former child soldiers, the two detainees (Omar Khadr, who was captured when he was 15, and Mohamed Jawad, who was captured when he was 16 or 17), should be treated first and foremost as candidates for rehabilitation and reintegration into society, not subjected to further victimization.

Via Psyche, Science, and Society

Have Your Say: Guantanamo: How many children were held?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Cops guilty of torturing Muslim youths go scot-free

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

By Vicky Nanjappa | Human Rights Watch has slammed the Andhra Pradesh government for the detention and torture of over 100 youths from the Muslim community, who were arrested after a spate of terror attacks in Hyderabad last year.

The state police allegedly detained several youths after the Mecca Masjid and twin blasts — 21 were later released when no evidence was found against them.

In Hyderabad, terror accused get a second chance

The HRW has asked the state government to prosecute the police officials responsible for the torture of the innocent youths.

On November 13, the Andhra Pradesh government finally admitted that the innocent youths had been tortured and announced compensation of Rs 30,000 for each of them. It also promised additional financial assistance through government loans. However, the state government is yet to initiate criminal proceedings against any of the police officers involved in the torture of the detained youths.

A city torn by terror

Many of the youths, arrested immediately after the twin blasts in Hyderabad, were detained illegally. The Criminal Procedure Code and the Constitution requires a detainee to be produced in court within 24 hours of the arrest. Some of the detainees claim that they were produced before a magistrate after five to 10 days.

Families were not notified of the detention, and were not informed of the whereabouts of their relatives when they inquired at the police stations or lodged missing person reports. In some cases, detainees said, they were taken for interrogations to unknown locations instead of a police station. Some detainees said that they were beaten by the policemen and subjected to ‘third degree’ methods.

Terror in Hyderabad

In 2007, the Andhra Pradesh Minorities Commission investigated the allegations. After interviewing those charged, while they were awaiting trial in jail, it reported that their injuries were ‘not self inflicted, these obviously arose during police custody –custodial atrocities on young detainees stand proved.’

The APMC pointed out that the detainees had not been produced before a magistrate within 24 hours and this “shows how the system has failed to protect the rights of the detainees.” The commission said that the detainees bore scars from violence, and some had been subjected to electric shocks.

‘Missing’ Hyderabad youth in police custody

In February 2008, relatives of victims and human rights activists told a visiting team of investigators from the National Commission for Minorities about the illegal detention and torture of the young Muslims. In its report, the commission noted that it had received complaints about the detainees being subjected to physical and mental torture, and that no lawyers were present during interrogation.

According to the detainees, the police officials often altered the date of their arrest in the official documents before producing them in the court. In its report, the commission expressed concern that the state police had denied all accusations of torture, and noted “action should be taken against those who failed to carry out their responsibilities within the framework of law and established procedures.”

Hyderabad blasts: Muslims say they are targetted

However, not a single policeman involved in the detention and torture of the innocent youths have been charged or prosecuted. Andhra Pradesh Minister for Minorities’ Welfare, Mohammad Shabbir Ali, who announced the compensation for the victims, said that he does not want to blame the police because they “do their work based on information, and sometimes information can be wrong.”

Says Meenakshi Ganguly, senior South Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch, “Over and over again, the police response to terrible bombings has been to round up people, simply because they happen to be Muslims. This stigmatises and alienates an entire community and makes counter-terrorism efforts even more difficult.

A year on, Hyderabad blast investigation flounders

Have Your Say: Cops guilty of torturing Muslim youths go scot-free
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Public rejects high-street enrolment for ID cards

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

Less than 30 percent of the UK public wants to enrol for ID cards at private-sector retailers, despite the home secretary’s promotion of such locations.

Only 25 percent of more than 2,000 people questioned for the government’s Central Office of Information would consider having their fingerprints, photo and signature recorded for an ID card in a supermarket, according to research commissioned by the Identity and Passport Service (IPS). This increased to just 26 percent for a petrol station, 28 percent for a department store and 29 percent for a local shop.

People responded more positively towards post offices, which would be considered by 53 percent, local authorities (63 percent) and banks (66 percent). But the preferred locations for ID-card enrolment were passport offices and police stations, with results of 84 percent and 85 percent respectively.

Despite the findings, however, two weeks ago home secretary Jacqui Smith indicated her intention to press ahead with high-street enrolment. “Enrolment should be able to happen at the convenience of the customer, on the high street, at the nearest post office, or at the local shopping centre,” she said.

Philippe Martin, senior analyst at Kable, said: “It is surprising that the home secretary has decided to go ahead with enrolling people in high-street shops and shopping centres, when this Home Office-commissioned survey shows that the overwhelming majority of people would rather not provide biometric information in this environment.”

“It appears that they have more confidence in government buildings, and are not deterred by their possibly less convenient location,” Martin said.

Liberal Democrats home affairs spokesperson Tom Brake told GC News: “Signing up for an ID card isn’t like buying a lottery ticket. It’s clear ministers are desperate to find any means to get people to sign up for an ID card. This is just their latest half-baked attempt.”

A spokesperson for the IPS said the security of data was of the utmost priority and that the IPS would never introduce an approach which would jeopardise the integrity of a person’s biometric data.

“Any third party involved in enrolment would be accredited and audited to ensure they meet and continue to meet robust and strictly administered security standards,” the spokesperson added.

“System-design standards will ensure that no data is stored locally and that all data is transmitted directly to IPS using a secure communications link. In addition, all locations and personnel will be subject to strict security standards set by IPS,” the spokesperson added.

Have Your Say: Public rejects high-street enrolment for ID cards
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Pilots threaten to strike over ID cards

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

By Ben Russell | The first wave of ID cards to be issued to British citizens has prompted airline pilots to threaten a strike rather than accept the documents.

Aviation workers have warned that proposals to make airport staff register for the cards from next year would do little to improve security. The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa), which represents 10,000 of the 12,000 commercial pilots and flight engineers in Britain, said its members were being treated as “guinea pigs”. Jim McAuslan, Balpa’s general secretary, said the Government’s “early warning system should be flashing” over opposition to the plans.

The Home Office insists the scheme will help airport workers improve security and streamline pass applications when staff move jobs. Ministers will publish draft regulations on Friday to set up a trial requiring airside staff at Manchester airport and London City airport to sign up for an ID card before they can get security passes allowing them to work there. If the regulations are approved, the first ID cards will be issued at the two airports from autumn next year as part of an 18-month trial.

Under the proposals, airport workers will be the first British citizens to be given ID cards, which are due to be introduced for young people from 2010.

But Mr McAuslan, whose union holds its annual conference at Heathrow later this week, said he would be consulting members on the possibility of industrial action if the Government presses ahead with the plans. “It may come to an industrial dispute,” he said. “We would want to avoid that. We would want the Government to think again about the compulsory nature of it and think again about the whole scheme. The Government has said previously that ID cards will be voluntary but the indications are that if you choose not to have a card you will not get an airside pass.”

The British Air Transport Association, which represents airlines including British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, branded the scheme a “dubious PR initiative by the Government and one that fails to offer any real benefits”. The shadow Home Secretary, Dominic Grieve, said: “Labour should take their heads out of the sand and abandon this £19bn white elephant which will do nothing to improve our security but may well make it worse.” The Tories have pledged to scrap the scheme if elected. Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, added: “It is no surprise that pilots are up in arms since they are one of the few groups selected as guinea pigs for this benighted experiment.”

But a spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said: “Identity cards will directly benefit airside workers – not just by improving personnel security, but also by speeding up pre-employment checks and increasing the efficiency of pass-issuing arrangements.”

The timetable

*21 November 2008: Home Office issues draft rules on ID card trial at Manchester and London City airports.

*25 November: Home Office starts issuing ID cards for foreign nationals.

*March-May 2009: Regulations on trial scheme debated by Parliament.

*Autumn 2009: First airport staff to be given ID cards.

*2010: ID cards made available to young people for the first time.

*2011-12: Public invited to register for ID cards.

*2017: Vast majority of the population enrolled on ID card database.

Have Your Say: Pilots threaten to strike over ID cards
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

IRAQ INVASION LEGAL ADVICE ‘FLAWED’

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

Legal advice given to Tony Blair prior to the invasion of Iraq was fundamentally “flawed”, a former senior law lord has said.

Lord Bingham, who stepped down in July, described the action by the UK and US as a “serious violation of international law”.

He said advice by the then-Attorney General Lord Goldsmith failed to acknowledge the lack of hard evidence implicating Iraq’s non-compliance with UN resolutions. Furthermore it neglected to make clear that only the Security Council could authorise further action, Lord Bingham suggested.

But Lord Goldsmith said that he stood by his advice to the then-prime minister.

Lord Bingham’s comments came in a speech on the rule of law at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. In it he referred to a statement made by the former attorney general in March 2003 as Britain prepared for the invasion.

“This statement was flawed in two fundamental respects,” he said. “It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had.”

“Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors had found no weapons of mass destruction, were making progress and expected to complete their task in a matter of months.”

Lord Bingham added that Lord Goldsmith’s advice passed on the belief that a decision over whether Iraq had not complied with UN resolutions could be made by anyone other than the UN Security Council.

Responding to the criticism, Lord Goldsmith said: “I stand by my advice of March 2003 that it was legal for Britain to take military action in Iraq.

“I would not have given that advice if it were not genuinely my view. Lord Bingham is entitled to his own legal perspective five years after the event, but at the time and since then many nations other than ours took part in the action and did so believing that they were acting lawfully.”

Source

Have Your Say: IRAQ INVASION LEGAL ADVICE ‘FLAWED’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Make Money From Your Blog or Site

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

Over the years I’ve been running my site I’ve picked up a few tricks here and there to make the site cover its own costs. Here I’ll be sharing a few ideas that might help other web masters.

When it comes to displaying adverts on your site there’s a few things you need to know.

CPM = Cost Per Milli
Means Cost Per Thousand, an example would be; you receive $1.00 for every 1000 impressions of an advert you serve.

CPC = Cost Per Click
Means you get paid each time someone clicks on the advert.

CPA = Cost Per Action
Means you get paid each time a sale is made from one of your click throughs.

OK with that very simplified explanation, lets have a look at some of the best networks around:

Valueclick Media (CPM)
Valueclick is one of the largest and most effective online advertising solutions. It’s very easy to use and gives good payout rates.

BidVertiser (CPC / CPM)
BidVertiser is a great network and a good an option as Adsense. What is better about BidVertiser is their smaller network, they make sure the highest bidding advertiser is displayed on your site.

Chitika (CPA / CPC)
Chitika is clever. It provides search targeted results to your visitors, for example if if they find your site via a search engine your Chitka block will display adverts related to their search.

Paypopup (CPM)
As the name suggests, Paypopup offers decent payouts in exchange for running pop ups and pop unders on your site. Straight forward and very easy to use.

Google Adsense (CPC)
Adsense is one of the highest paying contextual advertising solutions available to web masters. Although they are very common now and many sites display Adsense, they still deliver decent results. It displays adverts that match the content of your site which can be a bit hit and miss.

Clickbank (CPA)
Clickbank is the web’s leading retailer of digital products. One you create an account you search for products that match the content of your site (ideally) and place a “hoplink” on your site, each time a sale is made you get a percentage, the highest percentage I’ve seen on Clickbank is 75% which is just jaw droppping. The great thing about Clickbank is that you know exactly what is being advertised on your site, and they do pay.

Usually it’s best to use a combo of all three CPM, CPA and CPC.

I will be testing more netwroks and updating this page as I find out which ones deliver, there’s many ad networks to choose from but not all actually deliver on the promises they make.

Have Your Say: Make Money From Your Blog or Site
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 18th, 2008 at 9:36 am and is filed under Political News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: