Chinese government accused of taking babies from parents to sell on US and EU adoption markets

Chinese babies sold for adoption to US and Europe, report claims

Authorities in China are investigating reports that dozens of babies who were taken from their parents for breaching the country’s strict one-child policy were sold for adoption to families in Europe and America.

Telegraph | Jul 3, 2009

By Peter Foster in Beijing

An investigation has alleged that up to 78 babies taken into care in Guizhou province, in southern China, were sold for £1,800 each, mostly to childless couples in the US but also to families from European countries, including Sweden and Spain.

Many of the girls were genuine orphans or had been abandoned by their parents as unwanted, however, in at least three cases it is alleged the children were removed in lieu of £2,000 fines levied for breach of China’s draconian one-child policy.

The cases relate to a three-year period between 2004-2006, when the policy was being strictly enforced by the local government of Zhenyuan county in Guizhou.

The local government issued a statement saying that two senior local officials had been warned and had received “executive demerits” following a local disciplinary inquiry. The statement said the government would continue to investigate the allegations. “There will be no cover up,” the statement added.

China is a popular destination for overseas couples, particularly from the US, who want to adopt children and is generally perceived to have a well-regulated and transparent system, imposing strict requirements on applicants.

Yang Jibin, the reporter who researched the story for the Southern Weekly newspaper in Guangzhou, said he was shown a list of 80 female babies while on a visit to the Zhenyuan state orphanage, of which 78 had been adopted abroad.

He told the story of one couple, Lu and Yang, who gave up their fourth baby girl in 2003 after a visit from a birth control officer who insisted on taking the baby away, describing the girl as “abandoned baby, found and turned in by Lu” in the orphanage register.

“That was my job. I just followed the policy,” the officer was reported as saying, “They were willing to give up their baby to offset the fine” After relinquishing their child without signing any formal contracts, Lu and Yang never returned to the orphanage to visit. They added that, even if the child was now found, they would not take her back for fear of having to pay the outstanding fine.

Tang Jian, leader of Birth Control Administrative Bureau Inspection Team of Zhenyuan county apparently admitted the practice was prevalent at the time.

“It is true that some baby girls were forced be brought into the charity house and then sent abroad,” he was quoted as saying.

Other parents were less compliant when asked to give up their children. A former worker at the orphanage quoted in the report recalled one local father who tried several times to take back his daughter in 2004, even offering bribes to staff to let her go.

When this failed, he came to visit his daughter more and more often until, one day, he grabbed her, stood up and ran. “Four or five nannies surrounded him immediately and took back the baby,” the worker recalled.

British intelligence accused of ‘outsourcing torture’

David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary, last night used parliamentary privilege to directly accuse MI5 of “outsourcing torture”.

The Tory said there was clear evidence that British security services had been complicit in the mistreatment of at least 15 terror suspects in foreign jails.

Telegraph | Jul 8, 2009

David Davis MP accuses MI5 of ‘outsourcing torture’

Taking advantage of the legal protection that covers statements made in the House of Commons, he cited the case of Rangzieb Ahmed, the Rochdale-born al-Qaeda leader who claims his fingernails were pulled out during interrogations in Pakistan.

Mr Davis said that MI5 allowed Ahmed to leave Britain despite having enough evidence to charge him with terrorist offences, only to suggest his arrest to Pakistani authorities. Mr Davis said he had not seen a clearer case of “passive rendition”.

In response Ivan Lewis, the Foreign Office minister, said that he could not discuss Ahmed’s case for legal reasons.

Ahmed, who is serving a life sentence after he was found guilty of leading an al-Qaeda cell in Manchester, is challenging his conviction and claims that British officials colluded in his torture in Pakistan.

Earlier this week he claimed in an interview from prison that he was offered money or a reduced sentence by MI5 in return for dropping the torture allegations.

Mr Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden, finished second behind David Cameron in the 2005 Tory leadership race but left the shadow cabinet last year when he resigned as an MP to force a by-election to debate the erosion of civil liberties.

Under the “absolute privilege” of the House, MPs can say what they like without fear of being sued for defamation. Their words can also be reported by the press under “qualified privilege”.

MI5 and MI6 have come under increased scrutiny for failing to prevent the alleged torture of terrorism suspects in foreign prisons.

In March the Attorney General launched a police investigation into the alleged collusion of MI5 in the treatment of Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantánamo Bay prisoner.

Obama’s Cabinet Pushes Climate Bill

Top Members of the Obama Administration on Tuesday Urged the Senate to Adopt Climate Change Legislation

Saying global warming poses unprecedented threats to Americans’ way of life, four of President Barack Obama’s top environmental and energy officials urged the Senate on Tuesday to pass legislation to reduce the pollution linked to the planet’s rising temperature.

CBS | Jul 7, 2009

The heads of the Energy Department, Agriculture Department, Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency told a Senate panel it should pass a bill similar to one the House narrowly cleared late last month. That legislation would impose the first limits on greenhouse gases, eventually leading to an 80 percent reduction by mid-century by putting a price on each ton of climate-altering pollution.

“We will not fully unleash the potential of the clean energy economy unless this committee, and the Senate, put an upper limit on the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are damaging our environment,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in prepared testimony. Salazar acknowledged that another Senate panel has already advanced a bill that would boost the amount of energy generated from renewable sources.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu warned that a projected temperature increase would make the world a much different place, and said the only way to avoid that outcome is by enacting legislation to curb emissions, such as carbon dioxide, released by the burning of fossil fuels.

“Denial of the climate change problem will not change our destiny; a comprehensive energy and climate bill that caps and then reduces carbon emissions will,” Chu said.

But Chu and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admitted that reductions in the U.S. alone will not be enough to avert the worst consequences of global warming. The hope is that the legislation will inspire other countries to also act.

“U.S. action alone will not impact world carbon dioxide levels,” Jackson said. “What the U.S. does is important in terms of entering the clean energy race.”

The appearance of the three Cabinet secretaries and EPA administrator signals the beginning of the Senate’s work on a climate bill. The committee hopes to draft and advance legislation before the August recess, and Senate leaders have said they want to take up the measure this fall, before talks on a new global treaty to reduce heat-trapping gases.

The House narrowly passed its version of the bill 219-212 late last month, after months of negotiations that led to last-minute deals and significant concessions to win the votes of moderate Democrats from industrial and agricultural states concerned about the costs the bill would impose on businesses in their districts.

Further compromises will be needed for the bill to pass the Senate, and the debate launched Tuesday offered some early clues as to where those changes may occur: provisions to boost nuclear energy and to further compensate farmers for projects that would reduce greenhouse gases.

Unlike the House, the Senate has tried and failed to pass legislation to curb the global warming pollution before, a track record Republicans seized on Tuesday.

“You can be sure of this: once the American public realize what this legislation will do to their wallets, they will resoundingly reject it,” said Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the panel’s top Republican. “Perhaps that explains why we are rushing cap-and-trade through the Senate.”

All four administration officials sought to head off cost concerns, citing analyses by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that estimated the House bill would cost the average household in 2020 less than 50 cents a day.

And that, Jackson testified, leaves out the benefits of addressing global warming, such as more jobs, less money flowing overseas to oil producers and averting the floods, drought and disease expected to come when the Earth’s temperature rises.

“Can anyone honestly say that the head of an American household would not spend a dollar a day to safeguard the well-being of his or her children … and to create new American jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced?” she asked.

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

CBS | Jun 26, 2009

by Declan McCullagh

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward… and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency — and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. “It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else,” Carlin said. “That was obviously coming from higher levels.”

E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to “have any direct communication” with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.

“I was told for probably the first time in I don’t know how many years exactly what I was to work on,” said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. “And it was not to work on climate change.” One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.

For its part, the EPA sent CBSNews.com an e-mailed statement saying: “Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted.”

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. “My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide),” he said. “There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They’re not going up, and if anything they’re going down.”

Carlin’s report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there’s “little evidence” that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth’s temperature.

If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.

The EPA’s possible suppression of Carlin’s report, which lists the EPA’s John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.

“The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it’s supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way,” said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming.

Kazman’s group obtained the documents — both CEI and Carlin say he was not the source — and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday. As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to re-open the comment period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.

The EPA also said in its statement: “The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding.”

That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who said to Carlin, the report’s primary author: “I decided not to forward your comments… I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” He also wrote to Carlin: “Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc.”

One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2 — the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision.

“All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible yesterday,” Carlin said. “In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment.” (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)

In the last few days, Republicans have begun to raise questions about the report and e-mail messages, but it was insufficient to derail the so-called cap and trade bill from being approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, invoked Carlin’s report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday. “The science is not there to back it up,” Barton said. “An EPA report that has been suppressed… raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If you don’t have an endangerment finding, you don’t need this bill. We don’t need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in its decision.” (The endangerment finding is the EPA’s decision that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.)

“I’m sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach,” Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement. “But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on EPA’s finding, and frankly, on other analysis EPA has conducted on climate issues.”

The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said in January: “I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” Similarly, Mr. Obama claimed that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over… To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life.”

“All this talk from the president and (EPA administrator) Lisa Jackson about integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers — you’ve got a bouquet of ironies here,” said Kazman, the CEI attorney.

The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic

The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign.

WSJ | Jul 3, 2009

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Wherever Jim Hansen is right now — whatever speech the “censored” NASA scientist is giving — perhaps he’ll find time to mention the plight of Alan Carlin. Though don’t count on it.

Mr. Hansen, as everyone in this solar system knows, is the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Starting in 2004, he launched a campaign against the Bush administration, claiming it was censoring his global-warming thoughts and fiddling with the science. It was all a bit of a hoot, given Mr. Hansen was already a world-famous devotee of the theory of man-made global warming, a reputation earned with some 1,400 speeches he’d given, many while working for Mr. Bush. But it gave Democrats a fun talking point, one the Obama team later picked up.

So much so that one of President Barack Obama’s first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science. The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, “As administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that “the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over.”

Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an “endangerment” finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it — even if Congress doesn’t act.

Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. “We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA,” the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from “any direct communication” with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: “The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” (Emphasis added.)

Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.” Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.

The emails were unearthed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Republican officials are calling for an investigation; House Energy Committee ranking member Joe Barton sent a letter with pointed questions to Mrs. Jackson, which she’s yet to answer. The EPA has issued defensive statements, claiming Mr. Carlin wasn’t ignored. But there is no getting around that the Obama administration has flouted its own promises of transparency.

The Bush administration’s great sin, for the record, was daring to issue reports that laid out the administration’s official position on global warming. That the reports did not contain the most doomsday predictions led to howls that the Bush politicals were suppressing and ignoring career scientists.

The Carlin dustup falls into a murkier category. Unlike annual reports, the Obama EPA’s endangerment finding is a policy act. As such, EPA is required to make public those agency documents that pertain to the decision, to allow for public comment. Court rulings say rulemaking records must include both “the evidence relied upon and the evidence discarded.” In refusing to allow Mr. Carlin’s study to be circulated, the agency essentially hid it from the docket.

Unable to defend the EPA’s actions, the climate-change crew — , led by anonymous EPA officials — is doing what it does best: trashing Mr. Carlin as a “denier.” He is, we are told, “only” an economist (he in fact holds a degree in physics from CalTech). It wasn’t his “job” to look at this issue (he in fact works in an office tasked with “informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences.”) His study was full of sham science. (The majority of it in fact references peer-reviewed studies.) Where’s Mr. Hansen and his defense of scientific freedom when you really need him?

Mr. Carlin is instead an explanation for why the science debate is little reported in this country. The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign. The global-warming crowd likes to deride skeptics as the equivalent of the Catholic Church refusing to accept the Copernican theory. The irony is that, today, it is those who dare critique the new religion of human-induced climate change who face the Inquisition.

Prince Charles unveils memorial to 52 victims of 7/7

Britain’s Prince Charles (2nd L) shakes hands with British prime minister Gordon Brown (R) as Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall (L) looks on, at the dedication of the London Bombing Memorial for the victims of the city’s 2005 suicide bombings, in Hyde Park, central London, on July 7, 2009. Britain’s Prince Charles joined victims’ families in London’s Hyde Park Tuesday for the unveiling of a memorial to the 52 victims of the city’s 2005 suicide bombings. On the fourth anniversary of the July 7 attacks, around 700 people huddled in the rain for the dedication of 52 stainless steel pillars, one for each person killed when bombs ripped through three Underground trains and a bus. Getty Images

This is London | Jul 7, 2009

by Terry Kirby

As the rain beat down they stood, some in tears, clutching each other for support.

Others sought solace by resting their foreheads against the roughly textured steel columns that form the memorial to those killed in the 7 July attacks. Some ran their fingers over the surfaces, sensing the people they represent.

The families and survivors of the bombings gathered to show that the victims will never be forgotten with the opening of the “The London Bombings Memorial” in Hyde Park.

The structure is made up of 52 stainless steel pillars to represent those who lost their lives during the Tube and bus bombings four years ago today.

Prince Charles led dignitaries including Gordon Brown, Boris Johnson, David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

But the real focus was on the families, still coming to terms with their loss.

Elizabeth Nicholson, sister of Jennifer, 24, who died at Edgware Road, summed up her feelings towards the new memorial, saying: “I like the way they stand tall as though the people are still there looking down on us.

“The fact that they have imperfections just seems to represent the individual people somehow.”

The sisters’ mother, the Rev Julie Nicholson, said: “I think it creates a great sense of community, having seen the people walking around it today. It is a community both of the dead and of the living.” Jennifer’s close friend, 19-year-old student Charlotte Harris, said: “You feel able to touch them to help you remember the people they represent.”

LONDON – JULY 7: Friends and relatives of the victims attend the opening of the London Bombing Memorial in Hyde Park on July 7, 2009 in London, England. The memorial consists of 52 single columns representing the lives lost, and was officially unveiled by HRH Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, four years on from the terrorist attacks. Getty Images

Charles told the crowd: “The date of the London bombings is etched vividly on all our minds, as a brutal intrusion into the lives of thousands of people.

“Tragically, as we know, some were not so fortunate as to walk away from what happened on that awful day, and it is them that we seek to honour.”

He also praised the “resilience and fortitude of the British people” and said it was their indomitable spirit, together with the commitment and compassion of the emergency services, that got the country through 7 July and the days that followed. “Everyone has their own way in responding to trauma, grief, injury and bereavement, but I do pray that all those touched by violence everywhere will eventually find peace again,” he said.

During the ceremony, the Prince stood with his head bowed as Trevor McDonald read out the names of each of the 52. That was followed by a minute’s silence and then, as rain began to fall, Charles and Camilla laid wreathes beside a plaque with the 52 names inscribed on it.

They were followed by relatives of the 52, who placed red or white roses at either side of the plaque.

The memorial, designed by London architects Carmody Groarke consists of stainless steel pillars, each 11ft 6in tall, which form a series of interlocking groups symbolising the four different attacks: King’s Cross, Aldgate, Edgware Road and Tavistock Square. Each is inscribed with the time, date and location of the incidents.

The memorial was designed, in consultation with members of the families of five victims with advice from Antony Gormley.

Carolyn Cutmore, 26, from Windsor, the best friend of Carrie Taylor, 24, who died in the Aldgate bomb, said: “I think they are fantastic. They just fit in so well in this location in the park. They are rustic standing stones that are just going to be here forever.”

Ken Livingstone was among the 700 invited guests. He praised the striking design, saying: “I think it’s just exactly right. Often, it’s very difficult to do something like this and get it right, but I think everyone has done a great job.”

Among those present was Garri Holness, 42, who lost a leg at King’s Cross. He became one of the most prominent survivors of the attack until it was revealed he had been jailed for seven years for taking part in the rape of two schoolgirls more than 20 years ago.

MI6 chiefs to face tough inquiry over 7/7 attacks

The inquiry will re-examine what security services knew before 7/7

This is London | Jul 7, 2009

by Nicholas Cecil

The most far-ranging parliamentary inquiry into the 7 July bombings and other terrorist incidents in Britain was launched by MPs today.

MI5 and MI6 chiefs, as well as terrorism experts, will be asked to give evidence to the Commons home affairs committee.

As a monument to the victims was unveiled in Hyde Park on the fourth anniversary of the London bombings, MPs said the Tube remains “extremely vulnerable” to attack and warned against complacency.

The inquiry will re-examine what security services knew before 7/7, what should have been done and the Government’s response — including the emergency Cobra committee.

MPs will assess any “common threads” between 7 July, the failed bombings on 21 July and other terrorist incidents. These include the Crevice case, which saw five men jailed for life for an al Qaeda-linked bomb plot whose targets included a nightclub and shopping centre. Some of the Crevice plotters met two of the 7 July suicide bombers. The inquiry will re-open questions over the report by the intelligence and security committee, which cleared MI5 and the police of blame for 7/7, despite new evidence revealing their knowledge of some of the bombers.

The ISC said it was “understandable and reasonable” that the terrorists had not been detected before the attacks, in which 52 people were murdered by four suicide bombers.

But survivors and victims’ relatives dismissed it as “a complete whitewash”.

Members of the security and intelligence services may be more guarded with MPs on the home affairs committee. So while the inquiry will be more wide-ranging, it may have more difficulty obtaining information.

Another focus of the inquiry will be the Cobra committee after Andy Hayman, the former head of Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism operations, recently described it as “a nonsensical system”. Mr Hayman was at Cobra meetings during the London bombings.

The former counter-terrorism chief criticised Cobra as too bureaucratic, overly political and cumbersome. Tory MP Patrick Mercer, a member of the home affairs committee, said: “This will be the biggest inquiry into July 7 and terrorist incidents in Britain.”

Mr Mercer chaired a home affairs sub-committee whose report on the Government’s Contest counter-terrorism strategy was published today.

While praising the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, the committee issued warnings over measures to protect the Tube and the 2012 Olympics in London.

Prince Charles was today due to officially unveil the memorial in Hyde Park to the victims of 7 July bombings.

The £1million London Bombing Memorial is made up of 52 stainless steel pillars, each representing one of the victims.

US, Russia are ‘equals’: Obama

AFP | Jul 4, 2009

MOSCOW (AFP) — The United States wants to forge new relations on an equal footing with Russia, President Barack Obama said in a television interview broadcast Saturday to the Russian-language audience.

“America respects Russia, we want to build relations where we deal as equals,” he told the international Russian-language news channel Vesti ahead of his landmark visit on Monday to Moscow.

Obama said relations had “left a lot to be desired in recent years” under predecessor George W. Bush and reminded his audience that he wanted to hit the “reset” button from day one in the White House.

Describing Russia as a “great country with extraordinary culture and traditions,” he said it “remains one of the most powerful countries in the world” and is a major guarantor of “international stability and prosperity.”

Obama is due to meet both President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, which would allow him to “better understand the concerns and politics” of both men.

He said he hoped both leaders would “reach the conclusion that they can work with me in an effective manner.”

Labelling Medvedev a “thoughtful, forward-looking individual” who is “doing a fine job of leading Russia into the 21st century,” Obama added that Putin has been “a very strong leader for the Russian people.”

Obama’s remarks were translated from the dubbed Russian. There was no immediate transcript in English available from the White House.

Washington has been accused by the Russian press of playing a dangerous game by seeking to drive a wedge between Medvedev and Putin in foreign relations.

Georgia freemasons at loggerheads over admission of black man to lodge

Issue headed for Masonic trial and state courts after some lodges sought to revoke the charter of one in Atlanta for admitting 26-year-old African American

UTV | Jul 3, 2009

There is much about Freemasonry that remains shrouded in mystery to the outside world. But a group of members in the US state of Georgia appear to have clarified one thing – the supreme being in which all Masons are required to believe is not likely to be black.

Freemasonry lodges in Georgia are at loggerheads over the admission of a “non-white” member to an organisation that was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment but which is apparently still struggling to catch up with the latter part of the 20th century.

Now the issue is headed for a Masonic trial and the state courts after some lodges in Georgia sought to revoke the charter of one in Atlanta for admitting Victor Marshall, a 26-year-old African-American army reservist, last autumn.

The Atlanta lodge has fought back in the state courts by seeking to block the move on the grounds that is based on “racial animosity and hatred”.

The row blew up after Marshall attended a celebration in Savannah in February to mark the 275th anniversary of a lodge in the city. Although there are other Masons of colour in Georgia, including Asians and Hispanics, some members were disturbed to encounter a black man and laid a complaint that he did not belong.

“There were ill-informed brethren who were surprised that there was an African-American brother,” David Llewellyn, a Freemason and lawyer for the Atlanta lodge, told the New York Times, “and some of them were very upset”.

The stipulations to join the Masons are that members must be male, not slaves, of good character and have faith in a supreme being but no mention is made of racial origin.

The grand master, or leader of the Masons in Georgia, J Edward Jennings Jr, sent an email to members saying that Marshall was a legitimate member and should be treated as such. But that did not quell the row.

Under pressure, Jennings agreed to convene a Masons court to hear a complaint against the head of the Atlanta lodge, Michael Bjelajac, who is accused of violating “moral law”, the “ancient landmarks” and “immemorial usages” of Freemasonry by admitting Marshall.

But the complaint has met with ridicule in part because there are largely black Masonic lodges in the US as well as in African countries such as Ghana.

The objections to Marshall’s membership have been led by Douglas Ethridge and Starling Hicks, both worshipful masters of their respective lodges in Georgia who have both declined to be interviewed.

In court papers, Llewellyn said that when he called Etheridge to discuss the lawsuit, the Mason replied, “To hell with you, buddy”, and hung up.

Freemasonry in the US has a long history of segregation. A black stream of the organisation, known as Prince Hall Masons, was only recognised by mainstream Masons in 1990 and even then several states, including Georgia, refused to do so.

The Grand Master of the Prince Hall Masons in Georgia, Ramsey Davis, told the New York Times that he approached the mainstream leaders in the state to discuss recognition but was rebuffed.

“There’s deep-rooted racism in the leadership,” he said. “I’ve had many calls from white Masons to say they cannot understand why things are this way.”Marshall told the Associated Press that while he is disillusioned by the attitudes of some of his fellow Masons he has not lost faith in the organisation.

“I hope we’ll be victorious and that Freemasonry will come out in a more powerful light,” he said. “But of course sometimes the bad side can overwhelm the good side.”

Russia to grant U.S. Afghan supply route

Reuters | Jul 4, 2009

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia will grant President Barack Obama permission next week to ship U.S. weapons supplies across its territory, or through its airspace, en route to Afghanistan, sources on both sides told Reuters on Saturday.

The transit deal will open up an important corridor for the United States as it steps up its Afghan war against Taliban insurgents by sending in more troops. Routes via Pakistan have come under attack by militants.

It will be one of the main agreements signed during Obama’s Moscow summit next week with Kremlin chief Dmitry Medvedev, the sources said.

“The agreement will include the transit of all U.S. goods, including military ones (to Afghanistan),” a senior Kremlin source told Reuters.

A U.S. source confirmed the deal would be signed and said it would mark a step forward in cooperation on Afghanistan, which Russia views as a key area where both the former Cold War foes can work together to mend ties.

It was not immediately clear if the deal would allow the United States to fly troops over Russian territory to Afghanistan.

Medvedev has repeatedly said he is ready to widen cooperation with U.S.-led coalition and NATO forces in Afghanistan, though Moscow has ruled out sending any of its own troops to fight.

Russia has already granted Washington the right to transit ‘non-lethal’ supplies, such as food, overland via Russia — and Central Asia — to Afghanistan.

Moscow has also granted NATO members Germany, France and Spain the right to use Russian territory to transit military cargos to Afghanistan.