£10 government permit plan to deter smokers

• The Guardian,
• Friday February 15 2008

A ban on the sale of cigarettes to anyone who does not pay for a government smoking permit has been proposed by Health England, a ministerial advisory board.

The idea is the brainchild of the board’s chairman, Julian Le Grand, who is a professor at the London School of Economics and was Tony Blair’s senior health adviser. In a paper being studied by Lord Darzi, the health minister appointed to oversee NHS reform, he says many smokers would be helped to break the habit if they had to make a decision whether to “opt in”.

The permit might cost as little as £10, but acquiring it could be made difficult if the forms were sufficiently complex, Le Grand said last night.

His paper says: “Suppose every individual who wanted to buy tobacco had to purchase a permit. And suppose further they had to do this every year. To get a permit would involve filling out a form and supplying a photograph, as well as paying the fee. Permits would only be issued to those over 18 and evidence of age would have to be provided. The money raised would go to the NHS.”

Le Grand said the proposal was an example of “libertarian paternalism”. The government would leave people free to make their own decisions but it would “nudge them” in the right direction.

He said there was a parallel in pensions law. If workers were automatically enrolled in a pension scheme, few would choose to opt out. But if they had to make a conscious decision to opt in, most people would stay out.

“Breaking the new year’s resolution not to smoke would be costly in terms of both money and time … [This] would probably have a greater impact on poor smokers than on rich ones, hence contributing to a reduction in health inequalities.”

The paper, written by Le Grand and Divya Srivastava, an LSE researcher, acknowledges: “Administratively it would require addressing the problem of the existing black markets and smuggling in tobacco; but this should probably be done anyway.”

They add: “Politically, this might be viewed by some as giving people a ‘licence’ to smoke; and by full-blooded libertarians as a subtle and hence even more dangerous form of paternalism – paternalism squared.

“On the other hand, the popularity even among smokers of the smoking ban in public places suggests that firm actions in this area can lead to political as well as health pay-offs.”

The paper also proposes incentives for large companies to provide a daily “exercise hour” for employees and a ban on salt in processed food.

A Department of Health spokeswoman said last night: “We will be consulting later this year on the next steps for tobacco control. Ministers are looking for input from a full range of stakeholders.”

Terror search powers abused

SECURITY: A Transport Police officer searches a rail passenger’s bag

By ANDREW PICKEN

Transport Reporter

POLICE officers claim they are being threatened with the sack if they do not hit “targets” for the number of people stopped and searched under anti-terror laws.

Two serving British Transport Police (BTP) officers have told the News of increasing pressure to undertake the searches brought in after last year’s attack on Glasgow Airport attack, with at least 30-a-day at city train stations.

The insiders claim that officers are being given unofficial daily targets by supervisors. And they have told how the searches were diverting them from other roles.

They also claim officers have:

• Resorted to stopping schoolboys, pensioners and even priests to make up the numbers.

• Been told to take names from the phone book where people have not given their personal details.

• Been warned they will face disciplinary action if they do not stop enough people.

In one apparent internal e-mail passed to the News – which the whistleblowers claim was sent to all senior Scottish BTP officers across Scotland from a Glasgow-based Inspector Vincent Smith – the importance of ensuring officers are carrying out the searches is stressed after just ten people were stopped in one day across the whole country.

It states: “(Assistant Chief Constable] Pacey has indicated officers not complying with his instructions will be moved from their posts or even disciplined to the level of losing their jobs.”

The BTP today said that it had no record of this specific e-mail but admitted that Insp Smith and ACC Pacey had sent a number of e-mails encouraging officers to carry out their duties under the anti-terror laws. It also insisted no “specified targets” existed.

Politicians and campaign groups said the claims raised serious human rights issues.

One of the officers, who asked to not be named, said: “This has really affected morale and I know a lot officers are uncomfortable with what seems to be a near obsession with stop and search.

“At the start of the shift, officers are told by supervisors ‘I need you to do say five or six today’ and questions are asked if you’re not achieving this. My worry is they seem to be using them as fishing exercises for other things like drugs and weapons but using terrorism laws as a catch-all power.”

He said several officers had raised objections to the prolific use of the powers, which has seen over 4000 people stopped at Haymarket and Waverley stations since last July.

The officer added: “You have officers stopping grannies or 15-year-old children and it is just embarrassing. They are so focused on keeping the numbers up and making sure the paperwork is up to date. People have been told to just get names out of the phone book so forms are completed.”

Independent Lothians MSP Margo MacDonald said: “I have no objection to intelligence-led stop and searches but I am appalled at the idea officers are working to some sort of quota.

“I will be pressing the justice minister to see if he is aware of this matter and to see if he will pass on my concerns to the UK Government.”

A spokesman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said: “If these claims are true then it is disturbing.”

Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill said: “I’ve already had a very useful meeting with ACC David McCall and others from BTP where I expressed my concerns about the high use of stop and search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act.

“I welcomed their decision to undertake a review on their use of these powers and look forward to seeing the BTP’s findings.”

A BTP spokesman said: “We have not seen the e-mail you state was sent by Inspector Smith on 27 July 2007. We are aware he has sent a number of e-mails in respect of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 encouraging officers to carry out their duties. He has also clearly stated that there are no specified t

argets.

“ACC Pacey, who has responsibility for ensuring counter terrorism policing is carried out effectively throughout the rail network, has also said it must be treated seriously.”

CONTROVERSIAL POWERS

THE special stop and search powers were introduced across the UK in the wake of the attempted terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport in June.

The powers allow officers to search anyone at random and seize anything that may be used in connection with terrorism.

They have proved so contentious because statistics obtained by the News last year showed people from some ethnic minorities have a higher chance of being stopped than the city’s predominantly white population.

Also, Scotland’s other eight police forces used the powers for a brief period after the Glasgow attacks but did not seek to extend their use, ruling they were “no longer proportionate”.

Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told

Ian Traynor in Brussels
Tuesday January 22, 2008
The Guardian

A British Trident missile. Photograph: AP

The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the “imminent” spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west’s most senior military officers and strategists.Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a “grand strategy” to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument” since there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world”.

The manifesto has been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views. It has been presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to Nato’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, over the past 10 days. The proposals are likely to be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April.

“The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible,” the authors argued in the 150-page blueprint for urgent reform of western military strategy and structures. “The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

The authors – General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and Nato’s ex-supreme commander in Europe, General Klaus Naumann, Germany’s former top soldier and ex-chairman of Nato’s military committee, General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff, and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the UK – paint an alarming picture of the threats and challenges confronting the west in the post-9/11 world and deliver a withering verdict on the ability to cope.

The five commanders argue that the west’s values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are:

· Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.

· The “dark side” of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

· Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential “environmental” migration on a mass scale.

· The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.

To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new “directorate” of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU “obstruction” of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:

· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.

· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.

· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.

· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when “immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings”.

In the wake of the latest row over military performance in Afghanistan, touched off when the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said some allies could not conduct counter-insurgency, the five senior figures at the heart of the western military establishment also declare that Nato’s future is on the line in Helmand province.

“Nato’s credibility is at stake in Afghanistan,” said Van den Breemen.

“Nato is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure,” according to the blueprint.

Naumann delivered a blistering attack on his own country’s performance in Afghanistan. “The time has come for Germany to decide if it wants to be a reliable partner.” By insisting on “special rules” for its forces in Afghanistan, the Merkel government in Berlin was contributing to “the dissolution of Nato”.

Ron Asmus, head of the German Marshall Fund thinktank in Brussels and a former senior US state department official, described the manifesto as “a wake-up call”. “This report means that the core of the Nato establishment is saying we’re in trouble, that the west is adrift and not facing up to the challenges.”

Naumann conceded that the plan’s retention of the nuclear first strike option was “controversial” even among the five authors. Inge argued that “to tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence”.

Reserving the right to initiate nuclear attack was a central element of the west’s cold war strategy in defeating the Soviet Union. Critics argue that what was a productive instrument to face down a nuclear superpower is no longer appropriate.

Robert Cooper, an influential shaper of European foreign and security policy in Brussels, said he was “puzzled”.

“Maybe we are going to use nuclear weapons before anyone else, but I’d be wary of saying it out loud.”

Another senior EU official said Nato needed to “rethink its nuclear posture because the nuclear non-proliferation regime is under enormous pressure”.

Naumann suggested the threat of nuclear attack was a counsel of desperation. “Proliferation is spreading and we have not too many options to stop it. We don’t know how to deal with this.”

Nato needed to show “there is a big stick that we might have to use if there is no other option”, he said.

The Authors:

John Shalikashvili

The US’s top soldier under Bill Clinton and former Nato commander in Europe, Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw of Georgian parents and emigrated to the US at the height of Stalinism in 1952. He became the first immigrant to the US to rise to become a four-star general. He commanded Operation Provide Comfort in northern Iraq at the end of the first Gulf war, then became Saceur, Nato’s supreme allied commander in Europe, before Clinton appointed him chairman of the joint chiefs in 1993, a position he held until his retirement in 1997.

Klaus Naumann

Viewed as one of Germany’s and Nato’s top military strategists in the 90s, Naumann served as his country’s armed forces commander from 1991 to 1996 when he became chairman of Nato’s military committee. On his watch, Germany overcame its post-WWII taboo about combat operations, with the Luftwaffe taking to the skies for the first time since 1945 in the Nato air campaign against Serbia.

Lord Inge

Field Marshal Peter Inge is one of Britain’s top officers, serving as chief of the general staff in 1992-94, then chief of the defence staff in 1994-97. He also served on the Butler inquiry into Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and British intelligence.

Henk van den Breemen

An accomplished organist who has played at Westminster Abbey, Van den Breemen is the former Dutch chief of staff.

Jacques Lanxade

A French admiral and former navy chief who was also chief of the French defence staff.

Special reports
Nato
Britain’s military
United States
Kosovo
Macedonia
Russia
Iraq

Explained
20.11.2002: 2002 Nato summit in Prague

Useful links
Nato: official site
Allied Command Atlantic
Allied Command Europe
KFor (Kosovo Force)
SFor (Stabilisation Force in Bosnia)
US defence department dictionary of Nato terms

UN transformation proposed to create ‘new world order’

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/article3356210.ece

By Andrew Grice in Delhi

Published: 21 January 2008

Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a “new world order” and “global society”.

The Prime Minister is drawing up plans to expand the number of permanent members in a move that will provoke fears that the veto enjoyed by Britain could be diluted eventually. The United States, France, Russia and China also have a veto but the number of members could be doubled to include India, Germany, Japan, Brazil and one or two African nations.

Mr Brown has discussed a shake-up of a structure created in 1945 to reflect the world’s new challenges and power bases during his four-day trip to China and India. Last night, British sources revealed “intense discussions” on UN reform were under way and Mr Brown raised it whenever he met another world leader.

The Prime Minister believes the UN is punching below its weight. In 2003, it failed to agree on a fresh resolution giving explicit approval for military action in Iraq. George Bush then acted unilaterally, winning the support of Tony Blair.

UN reform is highly sensitive and Britain will not yet publish formal proposals for fear of uniting opponents against them. Mr Brown is trying to build a consensus for change first.

His aides are adamant that the British veto will not be negotiated away. One option is for the nations who join not to have a veto, at least initially. In a speech in Delhi today, the Prime Minister will say: “I support India’s bid for a permanent place – with others – on an expanded UN Security Council.” However, he is not backing Pakistan’s demand for a seat if India wins one.

Mr Brown will unveil a proposal for the UN to spend £100m a year on setting up a “rapid reaction force” to stop “failed states” sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached. Civilians such as police, administrators, judges and lawyers would work alongside military peace-keepers. “There is limited value in military action to end fighting if law and order does not follow,” he will say. “So we must do more to ensure rapid reconstruction on the ground once conflicts are over – and combine traditional humanitarian aid and peace-keeping with stabilisation, recovery and development.”

He will call for the World Bank to lead the fight against climate change as well as poverty in the developing world, and argue that the International Monetary Fund should prevent crises like the credit crunch rather than just resolve them.

Arriving in Delhi yesterday, Mr Brown said he wanted a “partnership of equals” between Britain and India as he called for closer trade links and co-operation against terrorism. He announced £825m of aid over the next three years – £500m of which will be spent on health and education.

Mr Brown is to bring back honorary knighthoods and other awards for cricketers from Commonwealth countries. He said: “Cricket is one of the great things that bind the Commonwealth together. It used to be that great cricketers from the Commonwealth would be recognised by the British nation I would like to see some of the great players in the modern era honoured.”

Read Andrew Grice atindependent.co.uk/todayinpolitics

Security Council membership

The UN Security Council’s membership has remained virtually unchanged since it first met in 1946.

Great Britain, the United States, the then Soviet Union, China and France were designated permanent members of the UN’s most powerful body.

Initially, six other countries were elected to serve two-year spells on the council – in 1946 they were Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, the Netherlands and Poland.

The number of elected members, who are chosen to cover all parts of the globe, was increased to 10 in 1965. They are currently Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Panama, South Africa and Vietnam.

Decisions made by the council require nine “yes” votes out of 15. Each permanent member has a veto over resolutions.

The issue of UN reform has long been on the agenda. One suggestion is that permanent membership could be expanded to 10 with India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and South Africa taking places. Any reform requires 128 nations, two-thirds, to support it in the assembly.

UK Government targets ‘extremist’ websites

Hélène Mulholland

Thursday January 17, 2008
Guardian Unlimited

The government will target extremist websites that “groom” terrorists, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said today, as part of the government’s strategy of tackling radical groups.In her first major speech on terrorism, Smith said there was a consensus on the need to gather information about terrorist suspects; to protect Britain’s borders and infrastructure; to prepare for terrorist incidents; and to prevent radicalisation.”In the case of violent extremism, I have no doubt that stopping people becoming [terrorists] and supporting terrorism is the major long-term challenge we face,” the home secretary told a conference held by the International Centre for Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence. Insisting that terrorists are, “first and foremost”, criminals, Smith stressed the need to understand the causes and effects of radicalisation.

She said the number of violent extremists in Britain was on the rise, citing the conviction of 42 people for various terrorism activities last year, and the fact that five major terrorism trials were ongoing. Some 2,000 people in the UK were estimated to pose a threat to security last year, up from 1,600 in 2006 she said, adding: “Our current security threat level in this country is ’severe’, which means an attack is highly likely.”

On the threat from the internet, Smith said the government was already working closely with the communications industry to take action against paedophiles, and planned to target extremist websites in the same way. “Where there is illegal material on the net, I want it removed,” she said.

The move comes after details were revealed of an extremist website containing threats against the prime minister and calling for the creation of a “British al-Qaida”.

“If we are ready and wiling to take action to stop the grooming of vulnerable young [people] on social networking sites, then I believe we should also take action against those who groom vulnerable people for the purposes of violent extremism,” she said.

Smith said studies in Britain and abroad showed the importance of understanding what drew people to violent extremism “either as actors or supporters”.

These factors included ideologues who distort history, religion and contemporary politics; young people’s vulnerability; communities that are sometimes poorly equipped to challenge violent extremists; and a harbouring of grievances by individuals – “some genuine, some perceived, and some of course directed very specifically against the government”.

“Our strategy to deal with radicalisation to violent extremism must therefore focus on each of these factors,” she said.

But she warned that the state alone could not tackle the threat. Highlighting extra resources and the move to increase powers to counter terrorism in a forthcoming bill, Smith warned that the state could not combat the problem alone, but also relied on citizens defending the “common good”.

“It is a weakness of terrorists as a tactic that the way we respond determines the impact they will have. Whether terrorists succeed is ultimately up to us, not up to them,” she said.

“An effective response to terrorism is never dependent solely on the state and solely on law enforcement,” she added. “It depends on us. On the active commitment of individuals and communities and to certain rights and responsibilities.”

Speaking to the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme before her speech, Smith said there were specific examples of websites that “clearly fall under the category of gratifying terrorism”.

“There is growing evidence people may be using the internet both to spread messages and to plan specifically for terrorism,” she said.

“That is why, as well as changing the law to make sure we can tackle that, there is more we need to do to show the internet is not a no-go area as far as tackling terrorism is concerned.

Smith said the government planned to work with religious leaders to counter misrepresentations of Islam, and tackling ideologies that might fuel violent extremism.

Next year the government will provide more than £500m to fund security and counter-terrorism measures, rising to nearly £600m over the following two years.

US To Be Melded With Europe In 7 Years

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
7-year plan aligns U.S. with Europe’s economy
Rules, regs to be integrated without congressional review

---

Posted: January 16, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Bush and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at a White House summit meeting last April where they launched the Transatlantic Economic Council

Six U.S. senators and 49 House members are advisers for a group working toward a Transatlantic Common Market between the U.S. and the European Union by 2015.

The Transatlantic Policy Network – a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels – is advised by the bi-partisan congressional TPN policy group, chaired by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

The plan – currently being implemented by the Bush administration with the formation of the Transatlantic Economic Council in April 2007 – appears to be following a plan written in 1939 by a world-government advocate who sought to create a Transatlantic Union as an international governing body.

An economist from the World Bank has argued in print that the formation of the Transatlantic Common Market is designed to follow the blueprint of Jean Monnet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, recognizing that economic integration must inevitably lead to political integration.

As WND previously reported, a key step in advancing this goal was the creation of the Transatlantic Economic Council by the U.S. and the EU through an agreement signed by President Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – the current president of the European Council – and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at a White House summit meeting last April. Writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal “Freedom and Union,” Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., a member of the TPN advisory group, affirmed the target date of 2015 for the creation of a Transatlantic Common Market.

Costa said the Transatlantic Economic Council is tasked with creating the Transatlantic Common Market regulatory infrastructure. The infrastructure would not require congressional approval, like a new free-trade agreement would.

Writing in the same issue of the Streit Council publication, Bennett also confirmed that what has become known as the “Merkel initiative” would allow the Transatlantic Economic Council to integrate and harmonize administrative rules and regulations between the U.S. and the EU “in a very quiet way,” without introducing a new free trade agreement to Congress.

Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah

No document on the TEC website suggests that any of the regulatory changes resulting from the process of integrating with the EU will be posted in the Federal Register or submitted to Congress as new free-trade agreements or as modifications to existing trade agreements.

In addition to Bennett, the advisers to the Transatlantic Policy Network includes the following senators: Thad Cochran, R-Miss.; Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.; Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; and Gordon Smith, R-Ore.

Among the 49 U.S. congressmen on the TPN’s Congressional Group are John Boehner, R-Ohio; John Dingell, D-Mich.; Kenny Marchant, R-Texas; and F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc.

WND contacted Bennett’s office for comment but received no return call by the publication deadline.

A progress report on the TEC website indicates the following U.S. government agencies are already at work integrating and harmonizing administrative rules and regulations with their EU counterparts: The Office of Management and Budget, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A step toward world government

The Streit Council is named after Clarence K. Streit, whose 1939 book “Union Now” called for the creation of a Transatlantic Union as a step toward world government. The new federation, with an international constitution, was to include the 15 democracies of U.S., UK, France, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and South Africa.

Ira Straus, the founder and U.S. coordinator of the Committee on Eastern Europe and Russia in NATO, a group dedicated to including Russia within NATO, credits Bennett as TPN chairperson with reviving Streit’s work “seven decades later.”

A globalist with leftist political leanings, Straus was a Fulbright professor of political science at Moscow State University and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations from 2001 to 2002.

The congruity of ideas between Bennett and Streit is clear when Bennett writes passages that echo precisely goals Streit stated in 1939.

One example is Bennett’s claim in his Streit Council article that creating a Transatlantic Common Market would combine markets that comprise 60 percent of world Gross Domestic Product under a common regulatory standard that would become “the de facto world standard, regardless of what any other parties say.”

Similarly, Streit wrote in “Union Now” that the economic power of the 15 democracies he sought to combine in a Transatlantic Union would be overwhelming in their economic power and a clear challenge to the authoritarian states then represented by Nazi Germany and the communist Soviet Union.

Also writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal “Freedom and Union,” World Bank economist Domenec Ruiz Devesa openly acknowledged that “transatlantic economic integration, though important in itself, is not the end.”

“As understood by Jean Monnet,” he continued, “economic integration must and will lead to political integration, since an integrated market requires common institutions producing common rules to govern it.”

Transatlantic Common Market by 2015

Last February, the Transatlantic Policy Network formed a Transatlantic Market Implementation Group to put in place “a roadmap and framework” to direct the activity of the Transatlantic Economic Council to achieve the creation of the Transatlantic Common Market by 2015.

The Transatlantic Economic Council is an official international governmental body established by executive fiat in the U.S. and the EU without congressional approval or oversight. No new law or treaty was sought by the Bush administration to approve or implement the plan to create a Transatlantic Common Market.

The U.S. congressmen and senators are involved only indirectly, as advisers to the influential non-governmental organization.

In a February 2007 document entitled “Completing the Transatlantic Market,” the TPN’s Transatlantic Market Implementation Group writes, “The aim of this roadmap and framework would be to remove barriers to trade and investment across the Atlantic and to reduce regulatory compliance costs.”

The document further acknowledged the impact the Transatlantic Common Market agenda would have on U.S. and European legislators: “The roadmap and framework will necessarily oblige legislative and regulatory authorities in both Europe and the United States to take into consideration from the outset the impact their acts may have on transatlantic economic relations and to ensure that their respective governmental bodies involved have the necessary budgetary and organizational resources to work closely with each other.”

Clinton administration roots

The work to create a Transatlantic Common Market can be traced back to the Clinton administration’s decision to join in the 1995 New Transatlantic Agenda with the European Commission.

Today, the website of the Transatlantic Economic Council openly proclaims the TEC is “a political body to oversee and accelerate government-to-government integration between the European Union and the United States of America.”

The first meeting of the TEC was held Nov. 9 in Washington, D.C., and the next meeting is scheduled for June.

A joint statement issued at the Nov. 9 meeting specified progress was being made “in removing barriers to trade and investment and in easing regulatory burdens” in a wide range of policy areas, including drugs and disease control, the importation into the EU of U.S. poultry treated with pathogen reduction treatments, federal communication commissions allowing suppliers to create declarations of conformity for products, uniform standards for electrical products and agreements on standards for pure biofuels.

FBI Wants Instant Access To British Identity Data

Americans seek international database to carry iris, palm and finger prints

Owen Bowcott
Tuesday January 15, 2008
The Guardian

Each person’s iris is as individual as their fingerprint, but with 266 identifiable features is much more detailed. Photograph: Science Photo Library

Senior British police officials are talking to the FBI about an international database to hunt for major criminals and terrorists.The US-initiated programme, “Server in the Sky”, would take cooperation between the police forces way beyond the current faxing of fingerprints across the Atlantic. Allies in the “war against terror” – the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand – have formed a working group, the International Information Consortium, to plan their strategy.Biometric measurements, irises or palm prints as well as fingerprints, and other personal information are likely to be exchanged across the network. One section will feature the world’s most wanted suspects. The database could hold details of millions of criminals and suspects.

The FBI is keen for the police forces of American allies to sign up to improve international security. The Home Office yesterday confirmed it was aware of Server in the Sky, as did the Metropolitan police.

The plan will make groups anxious to safeguard personal privacy question how much access to UK databases is granted to foreign law enforcement agencies. There will also be concern over security, particularly after embarrassing data losses within the UK, and accuracy: in one case, an arrest for a terror offence by US investigators used what turned out to be misidentified fingerprint matches.

Britain’s National Policing Improvement Agency has been the lead body for the FBI project because it is responsible for IDENT1, the UK database holding 7m sets of fingerprints and other biometric details used by police forces to search for matches from scenes of crimes. Many of the prints are either from a person with no criminal record, or have yet to be matched to a named individual.

IDENT1 was built by the computer technology arm of the US defence company Northrop Grumman. In future it is expected to hold palm prints, facial images and video sequences. A company spokeswoman confirmed that Northrop Grumman had spoken to the FBI about Server in the Sky. “It can run independently but if existing systems are connected up to it then the intelligence agencies would have to approve,” she said.

The FBI told the Guardian: “Server in the Sky is an FBI initiative designed to foster the advanced search and exchange of biometric information on a global scale. While it is currently in the concept and design stages, once complete it will provide a technical forum for member nations to submit biometric search requests to other nations. It will maintain a core holding of the world’s ‘worst of the worst’ individuals. Any identifications of these people will be sent as a priority message to the requesting nation.”

In London, the NPIA confirmed it was aware of Server in the Sky but said it was “too early to comment on what our active participation might be”.

The FBI is proposing to establish three categories of suspects in the shared system: “internationally recognised terrorists and felons”, those who are “major felons and suspected terrorists”, and finally those who the subjects of terrorist investigations or criminals with international links. Tom Bush, assistant director at the FBI’s criminal justice information service, has said he hopes to see a pilot project for the programme up and running by the middle of the year.

Although each participating country would manage and secure its own data, the sharing of personal data between countries is becoming an increasingly controversial area of police practice. There is political concern at Westminster about the public transparency of such cooperation.

A similar proposal has emerged from the EU for closer security cooperation between the security services and police forces of member states, including allowing countries to search each other’s databases. Under what is known as the Prum treaty, there are plans to open up access to DNA profiles, fingerprints and vehicle registration numbers.

Blair joins JP Morgan as $1m-a-year adviser

• Graeme Wearden
  

This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Thursday January 10 2008. It was last updated at 08:38 on January 10 2008.

Tony Blair said he had ‘always been interested in economics’. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty

The US investment bank JP Morgan has signed up Tony Blair as a part-time senior adviser, on a salary said to exceed $1m (£500,000) a year.

The former prime minister would provide “strategic advice and insight on global political issues and emerging trends”, the company said last night.

Blair, whose contacts book could prove very valuable in the private sector, has indicated this could be just the first in a series of private-sector roles. “I have always been interested in commerce and the impact of globalisation. Nowadays, the intersection between politics and the economy in different parts of the world, including the emerging markets, is very strong,” he told the Financial Times.

Since leaving Downing Street last June, Blair has acted as an envoy to the Middle East. He has also joined the lucrative international speaking circuit – reportedly receiving $500,000 for one speech in China.

He also has a multi-million pound deal with Random House to publish his memoirs.

JP Morgan has been damaged by the US sub-prime crisis – caused by mortgages being given to people who could not pay them off. Blair himself has to service a large mortgage on a town house in Connaught Square in London, bought for £3.65m in 2004.

In moving from No 10 to the financial sector, Blair is following the example of his predecessor, John Major, who joined the private equity firm Carlyle Group in 1998.

Police to use text message tactics to snare rape suspects

Prosecutors to trial US ploy of self-incrimination

Clare Dyer, legal editor
Monday January 14, 2008

Police and prosecutors in rape cases are set to experiment with controversial techniques designed to make suspects incriminate themselves through phone calls or text messages.

The tactic, used by investigators in the United States, involves women sending texts or making calls to their alleged attackers to see if they can extract an admission of guilt.

Lawyers and detectives believe the approach could be vital in helping to boost the stubbornly low rape conviction rate in England and Wales, where barely 6% of cases reported to police end in conviction.

Article continues

---

<a href=”http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&spacedesc=mpu&site=Guardian&navsection=1699&section=104770&country=gbr&region=eng&city=huddersfield&bandwidth=xdsl&rand=5149014&tile=5149014″> <img src=”http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&spacedesc=mpu&site=Guardian&navsection=1699&section=104770&country=gbr&region=eng&city=huddersfield&bandwidth=xdsl&rand=5149014&tile=5149014″ width=”300″ height=”250″ border=”0″ alt=”Advertisement”></a> var setIframeSrcCallback = function( hasVideo ) { var adsrc=”http://ads.guardian.co.uk/html.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&spacedesc=mpu&site=Guardian&navsection=1699&section=104770&country=gbr&region=eng&city=huddersfield&bandwidth=xdsl&rand=5149014&tile=5149014″; if(hasVideo) { adSrc += “&system=video”; } document.getElementById( ‘frameId385323′ ).src = adSrc; }; if( ‘function’ == typeof addOnLoadCallback ) { addOnLoadCallback( setIframeSrcCallback ); } else { setIframeSrcCallback(false); }

---

“Police get the victim to send a text saying something like ‘how could you do that to me?’” said a senior CPS source. “They sometimes get a text back saying ‘I’m really sorry, I know I was out of order, it won’t happen again’ or something like that.”The so-called “pretext” phone call, which is lawful in some US states but not in others, is considered one of the strongest tools in the armoury of the rape investigator. It is widely used in the typical rape case where juries are reluctant to convict, those in which the man and woman know each other and the evidence comes down to his word against hers.

There is a question mark over whether the move would contravene codes made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Pace). These require police to caution a suspect before questioning him, that he is entitled to have a solicitor present and that anything he says may be taken down and used in evidence.

But senior police are discussing the issue with the Crown Prosecution Service. “We’re exploring it,” said the source. “We recognise that there are problems around the admissibility of this material, particularly in connection with Pace but we’re willing to give it a try and see what the courts say.”

He said the move would not require legislation or authorisation in advance by a judge. Neither text messages nor phone calls would count as intercept evidence, which is currently inadmissible in court.

Judges could throw it out as unfair but it would be more likely to be considered acceptable if it was used early in the investigative process right after the woman reported the rape, rather than further down the line, he added.

Police in the UK would probably start by using text messages rather than the phone calls which are more often used in the US.

The conviction rate for rape is low largely because so few cases reach court. Of those that do get to court, more than 50% result in convictions -not greatly below rates for other serious crimes. The figures suggest that more sex offenders could be brought to justice by reforms concentrating on the investigation rather than refinements to the trial process.

Recent research in Canada concluded that the use of pretext phone calls in sexual assault investigations did not contravene the country’s charter of rights. The practice, which had been used sparingly in Canada, is now set to become a more standard tool.

Prosecutors in England and Wales have been heartened by the Canadian findings because Canada has a history of strong respect for the rights of the accused and its charter of rights is similar to the European convention on human rights.

The use of pretext phone calls is common in California, where defence attorneys’ websites warn clients to beware of the practice. Police in the Michael Jackson child molestation case in 2005 tried to get his accuser, Gavin Arvizo, to make a pretext call to Jackson, but the boy refused. Jackson was acquitted.

In another California case Enrique Monteya was convicted of serious sexual assaults, including rape, against his partner’s underage daughter and jailed for 64 years after a pretext phone call from the girl. She told him she had run away and was thinking about reporting what he had done to her. Monteya replied: “Why? Don’t do that … Why you gonna do all that? They’ll put me in jail for the rest of my life. They’ll kill me. You want them to kill me?”

The move is certain to meet resistance from some judges and lawyers on civil liberties grounds. One circuit judge who sits on rape trials thought it would “almost certainly” contravene Pace.

“It’s an exceedingly dangerous course to adopt,” he said.

Source : http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2240365,00.html

Blair to face war crimes investigation?

NEWS FLASH! BLAIR WAR CRIMES INVESTIGATION
From: Coreluminus
Date: Jan 14, 2008 12:04 AM

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389332.html

NEWS FLASH! BLAIR WAR CRIMES INVESTIGATION

Please spread this far and wide!!!

PRESS RELEASE – PRESS RELEASE – PRESS RELEASE – PRESS RELEASE – PRESS RELEASE

Press Conference, Room C, 1 Parliament St.
(just off Parliament Sq.)
Tuesday 15th January 2008 3pm

John McDonnell MP and members of the Campaign to Make War History will brief MPs and the media on allegations of war crimes committed against the people of Iraq by Britain’s former Prime Minister and former Attorney General.

Officers from Scotland Yard have commenced a criminal investigation into the deaths of Iraqi citizens killed during the armed invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Metropolitan Police are acting in response to crimes reported by peace activists from We Are Change UK and The Campaign to Make War History. In an unprecedented step, the case was handed to the War Crimes division of the Counter Terrorism branch who are now investigating allegations of 14 criminal offences committed by Tony Blair, Lord Goldsmith and others. The offences are under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which came into effect under English common law, just two days before 9/11.

Two Members of We Are Change UK and a representative from the Campaign to Make War History were interviewed for six hours at Belgravia Police station on the 20th December 2007. Evidence was provided to the police relating to the crimes of:-

• genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct ancillary to these crimes under Sections 51 and 52 of The International Criminal Court Act 2001.
• a crime against peace and complicity in a crime against peace under Articles 6 and 7 of The Nuremburg Principles.
• murder, incitement to murder and conspiracy to murder under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• conspiracy to commit genocide, a crime against humanity and war crimes under the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Details of the alleged breaches of international treaties and violations of the laws of war will be provided at the meeting.

Contacts:-
Chris Coverdale (The Campaign to Make War History): 020 8540 2865;
John McDonnell MP: 020 7219 6908;
Simon Moore 0208 560 1319, Rob Little 07915 063322 (We Are Change UK)