|
Write in your wish - and HAWK Search will fulfill it! |
Showing posts with label International. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International. Show all posts
Friday, December 3, 2010
WikiLeaks' site back with new address after six hours
PARIS: The whistleblower website WikiLeaks was back on line Friday with a new Swiss address -- wikileaks.ch -- six hours after its previous domain name -- wikileaks.org -- was shut down.
"WikiLeaks moves to Switzerland," the group declared on Twitter, although an Internet trace of the new domain name suggested that the site itself is still hosted in Sweden and in France.
Webusers accessing the wikileaks.ch address are directed to a page under the URL http://213.251.145.96/ -- which gives them access to the former site, including a massive trove of leaked US diplomatic traffic.
The original wikileaks.org domain was taken offline at 0300 GMT Friday by its American domain name system provider, EveryDNS.net, following reports of massive cyber attacks on the site.
"The interference at issue arises from the fact that wikileaks.org has become the target of multiple distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks," EveryDNS.net said in a statement.
Classic DDoS attacks occur when legions of "zombie" computers, normally machines infected with viruses, are commanded to simultaneously visit a website, overwhelming servers or knocking them offline completely.
The latest techological setback for the whistleblower site came after Amazon booted it from its computer servers on Wednesday following pressure from US politicians, prompting the site to move to a French server.
"Free speech the land of the free -- fine, our dollars are now spent to employ people in Europe," WikiLeaks said. "If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the First Amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books."
On Sunday, WikiLeaks began publishing the first batch of more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables, many of them classified as "secret", that the website is believed to have obtained from a disaffected US soldier.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said last month that he was considering requesting asylum in Switzerland and basing the whistleblowing website in the fiercely neutral Alpine country.
"That is a real possiblity," Assange said when asked whether he and the website might relocate, adding that Switzerland, and perhaps Iceland, were the only Western countries that his outfit feels safe in.
Assange told the TSR television that Wikileaks was examining the possibility of creating a foundation that would allow it operate out of Switzerland, and confirmed he might apply for asylum.
UK forces in Helmand 'made mess of things': WikiLeaks
LONDON: US and Afghan officials slammed British troops over their efforts in the restive Helmand province of Afghanistan, accusing them of making "a mess of things," in cables revealed by WikiLeaks.
The Guardian newspaper Friday published a raft of leaked memos in which senior officials, including Afghan President Hamid Karzai, criticised British troops for their inability to impose security in the southern province.
In a memo sent in April 2007, General Dan McNeill, the then commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, told a US drug-control officer that he "was particularly dismayed by the British effort.
"They had made a mess of things in Helmand, their tactics were wrong," McNeill said.
In another cable, sent February 21, 2009, a US official says Karzai said the incompetence of British troops had led to a breakdown in law and order in Helmand.
"When I first returned to Afghanistan, I had only 14 American soldiers with me," the cable quoted Karzai as saying. "Helmand was safe for girls to go to school. Now...British soldiers are in Helmand, and the people are not safe.
"We must stand on a higher moral platform than the bad guys," the president added.
In a separate memo, a US official reports Karzai as having told US senator John McCain an "anecdote in which a woman from Helmand asked him to 'take the British away and give us back the Americans'."
Another damning assessment of British efforts was revealed in a cable sent December 8, 2008, in which a US official said "we and Karzai agree the British are not up to the task of securing Helmand."
Much of the criticism levelled at the British troops regarded their failure to secure the town of Sangin.
A cable sent from Kabul on January 14, 2009, revealed that Helmand governor Gulab Mangal accused the British of doing too little to interact with the local community.
"Stop calling it the Sangin District and start calling it the Sangin Base," Mangal told British military chiefs. "All you have done here is built a military camp next to the city."
A cable sent a week later showed that Mangal told visiting US Vice-President Joe Biden that he did not "have anything against them (the British) but they must leave their bases and engage with the people."
Britain's Ministry of Defence (MoD) issued a statement Thursday defending their troops' contribution, and said the situation in Sangin -- responsibility for which was handed over to the US in September 2010 -- was much improved.
"British forces did an excellent job in Sangin, delivering progress by increasing security and taking the fight to the insurgency," an MoD spokesman said. "That work is now being continued by the US Marines.
"Both Afghan leaders, including the governor of Sangin, and the US Marines have publicly recognised and paid tribute to the sacrifice and achievements of British forces in that area," the spokesman added.
The Guardian newspaper Friday published a raft of leaked memos in which senior officials, including Afghan President Hamid Karzai, criticised British troops for their inability to impose security in the southern province.
In a memo sent in April 2007, General Dan McNeill, the then commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, told a US drug-control officer that he "was particularly dismayed by the British effort.
"They had made a mess of things in Helmand, their tactics were wrong," McNeill said.
In another cable, sent February 21, 2009, a US official says Karzai said the incompetence of British troops had led to a breakdown in law and order in Helmand.
"When I first returned to Afghanistan, I had only 14 American soldiers with me," the cable quoted Karzai as saying. "Helmand was safe for girls to go to school. Now...British soldiers are in Helmand, and the people are not safe.
"We must stand on a higher moral platform than the bad guys," the president added.
In a separate memo, a US official reports Karzai as having told US senator John McCain an "anecdote in which a woman from Helmand asked him to 'take the British away and give us back the Americans'."
Another damning assessment of British efforts was revealed in a cable sent December 8, 2008, in which a US official said "we and Karzai agree the British are not up to the task of securing Helmand."
Much of the criticism levelled at the British troops regarded their failure to secure the town of Sangin.
A cable sent from Kabul on January 14, 2009, revealed that Helmand governor Gulab Mangal accused the British of doing too little to interact with the local community.
"Stop calling it the Sangin District and start calling it the Sangin Base," Mangal told British military chiefs. "All you have done here is built a military camp next to the city."
A cable sent a week later showed that Mangal told visiting US Vice-President Joe Biden that he did not "have anything against them (the British) but they must leave their bases and engage with the people."
Britain's Ministry of Defence (MoD) issued a statement Thursday defending their troops' contribution, and said the situation in Sangin -- responsibility for which was handed over to the US in September 2010 -- was much improved.
"British forces did an excellent job in Sangin, delivering progress by increasing security and taking the fight to the insurgency," an MoD spokesman said. "That work is now being continued by the US Marines.
"Both Afghan leaders, including the governor of Sangin, and the US Marines have publicly recognised and paid tribute to the sacrifice and achievements of British forces in that area," the spokesman added.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Wikileaks: Pakistan rejects US fears on nuclear arms
Pakistan has dismissed fears expressed in US diplomatic cables, released by whistle-blower website Wikileaks, that its nuclear material could fall into the hands of terrorists.

The cables warn Pakistan is rapidly building its nuclear stockpile despite the country's growing instability.
There is also scepticism about whether Pakistan could cut links to militants.
Separately, Interpol has issued a notice asking for information on the whereabouts of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange.
'Sovereign nation'
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Hasan said the fears expressed in the cables came "off and on" but added: "We have always been telling them straight forward that [the nuclear weapons] are in secure hands, they don't have to worry about it and we will protect them."They are the dearest assets that we have and we'll not allow anything to fall into any adventurer's hands."
In one of the latest cables to be released by Wikileaks, senior UK Foreign Office official Mariot Leslie told US diplomats in September 2009 that Britain had "deep concerns about the safety and security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons".
In another cable seven months earlier, then-US ambassador Anne Patterson told Washington: "Our major concern is not having an Islamic militant steal an entire weapon but rather the chance someone working in the government of Pakistan facilities could gradually smuggle enough material out to eventually make a weapon."Another cable concerning a US intelligence briefing in 2008 said: "Despite pending economic catastrophe, Pakistan is producing nuclear weapons at a faster rate than any other country in the world."
Mr Hasan said that since the government of President Asif Ali Zardari had come to power 27 months ago "we have had a very successful, foolproof control and command system looking after the nuclear arsenal".
Mr Hasan admitted the leaks were harmful.
"You are dealing with the relationship with states. You have built them over the years and all of a sudden something gets out - it's top secret, it's classified, it harms the relationship," he said.
Cannot play media.You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version
Pakistan foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit told Agence France-Presse news agency the fears expressed in the leaks "were misplaced and doubtless fall in the realm of condescension". He said they reflected "historical biases against Pakistan".
In the leaked material Ms Patterson also said there was "no chance" of Pakistan "abandoning support for [militant] groups".
The Pakistan government, she added, saw militant groups "as an important part of its national security apparatus against India".

In material from March 2009, US cables noted that army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani might "however reluctantly" put pressure on President Zardari to step down, although he "distrusted [opposition leader] Nawaz [Sharif] even more".
The BBC's Aleem Maqbool in Islamabad says military officials here believe the Wikileaks disclosures are being used as a stick with which to bully Pakistan into giving up its nuclear programme.
But he says there are many observers who will see the concerns raised as valid, particularly considering the tens of thousands of people here whose work is connected to the nuclear programme.
'Red Notice'
The US has condemned the Wikileaks disclosures, published by the UK Guardian newspaper, as an attack on the world community.On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is in Kazakhstan for the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) summit, said she had raised the issue with the leaders she had met and none had expressed any concerns about continuing diplomatic work with the US.
The communications between the US state department and its embassies and consulates around the world were sent between 1966 and 2010.Wikileaks has so far posted only 291 of the 251,287 messages it says it has obtained. However, all of the messages have been made available to five publications, including the New York Times and the Guardian.
No-one has been charged with passing them to Wikileaks, but suspicion has fallen on US Army Private Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst arrested in Iraq in June and charged over an earlier leak of a classified video.
The cables release is the third mass Wikileaks publication of classified documents; it published 77,000 secret US files on the Afghan conflict in July, and 400,000 documents about the Iraq war in October.
Meanwhile, Interpol has issued a "Red Notice" asking people to contact the police if they have any information about Mr Assange's whereabouts.
It said the Australian was wanted for questioning in Sweden over an alleged sex offence, which he has denied.
Pakistan says there have been no incidents involving its fissile material
Saturday, November 27, 2010
South Korea Experiences a Stirring for Revenge

Jean Chung for The New York Times
Displaced Yeonpyeong Island residents Saturday at In Spa World, a bathhouse and entertainment center converted into a refugee shelter after North Korea fired artillery shells at the island.
By MARTIN FACKLER
Published: November 27, 2010
The next day, searchers found the bodies of the two men. They were burned beyond recognition.
“We never thought they would attack civilians,” Mr. Hong said Saturday as he and other survivors sat somberly drinking soju, an alcoholic beverage, near a makeshift shrine to the two men in this South Korean port city. “North Korean soldiers have full stomachs from our support, and now they repay us by firing at us. Next time, we should repay them by shooting them back.”
The South did shoot back, but many Koreans consider the limited response feeble compared with the hourlong artillery barrage on Tuesday, in which North Korea rained about 180 shells on the island, killing the civilians and two South Korean marines.
The ferocity of the attack and the deaths of the civilians appear to have started a shift in South Koreans’ conflicted emotions about their countrymen in the North, and not just among those who were shot at.
After years of backing food aid and other help for the North despite a series of provocations that included two nuclear tests, many South Koreans now say they feel betrayed and angry.
“I think we should respond strongly toward North Korea for once instead of being dragged by them,” said Cho Jong-gu, 44, a salesman in Seoul. “This time, it wasn’t just the soldiers. The North mercilessly hurt the civilians.”
That is not to say that he or other South Koreans will really push for a South Korean strike; people south of the border are well aware that the North could devastate Seoul with its weapons.
But the sentiments reflect a change of mood in a country where people have willed themselves to believe that their brotherly ties to the North would override the ideological chasm between the impoverished Communist North and the thriving capitalist South.
The attack seemed to challenge one of the underlying assumptions of a decade of inter-Korean rapprochement, which had slowed but not stopped under President Lee Myung-bak: that two nations’ shared Koreanness trumped political differences, making a return to cold war-era hostilities not only undesirable but also impossible.
“I never thought they would attack us people of the same race,” said Hong Jae-soon, 55, a homemaker who fled Yeonpyeong with most of the island’s other 1,350 residents after the attack.
She said she was in her kitchen peeling ginger to make kimchi, the spicy fermented vegetables that are both Koreas’ national dish, when she heard distant booms. As the roar got louder, and the ground began to shake, she ran outside and saw that a home four houses away from hers had been blown into rubble.
“We learned you cannot trust them,” she said.
Chung Young-ae, a 72-year-old fisherwoman who lived her entire life on the island, said she had been hunting for oysters in shallow water when she heard a series of booms, and looked up to see the mountains on fire. “I was 12 during the Korean War, and we saw planes fly overhead, but nothing like this happened,” she said. “This was worse.”
She said she cowered for two days in a cold, dark bomb shelter without blankets and with only bread to eat until she fled the island on a boat to Incheon. She expressed the torn feelings of many South Koreans — anger and a fear of escalating hostilities.
“They’re evil, they’re millipedes that should be crushed,” she said of the North Koreans. “No, we can’t fight them. But we shouldn’t help them anymore, either.”
Like many islanders, she said that while Yeonpyeong had been her lifelong home, she could never go back, for fear of being attacked again. Since the attack, all but a handful of the island’s residents have gone to the mainland.
About 500 were packed Saturday into In Spa World, a hangar-size bathhouse and entertainment center that had been hastily converted into a refugee shelter. Inside, islanders slept on the floors or lined up at a makeshift soup kitchen set up by the volunteers from the Korean Red Cross.
Choi Byung-soo said he was sitting at home with friends having lunch when his neighborhood suddenly erupted in explosions. The blasts blew out his windows. When they ventured outside, he saw a car flipped on its back, and a half-dozen columns of black smoke rose from the town. After arriving in Incheon, Mr. Choi was hospitalized for hearing loss, throat damage from the smoke and anxiety attacks.
“This was a civilian neighborhood, like Seoul,” said Mr. Choi, 34, an online marketer.
He, too, recommended a cutoff of aid to the North, as did the construction worker who watched his colleagues die, Mr. Hong.
“If we had not fed them, they would not even be able to hold their guns,” he said. “We shouldn’t attack them, because we have become a democracy, and I can still remember when we were still like them, poor and eating out of cans. But if we give them any more money, they’ll use it to kill us.”
The South did shoot back, but many Koreans consider the limited response feeble compared with the hourlong artillery barrage on Tuesday, in which North Korea rained about 180 shells on the island, killing the civilians and two South Korean marines.
The ferocity of the attack and the deaths of the civilians appear to have started a shift in South Koreans’ conflicted emotions about their countrymen in the North, and not just among those who were shot at.
After years of backing food aid and other help for the North despite a series of provocations that included two nuclear tests, many South Koreans now say they feel betrayed and angry.
“I think we should respond strongly toward North Korea for once instead of being dragged by them,” said Cho Jong-gu, 44, a salesman in Seoul. “This time, it wasn’t just the soldiers. The North mercilessly hurt the civilians.”
That is not to say that he or other South Koreans will really push for a South Korean strike; people south of the border are well aware that the North could devastate Seoul with its weapons.
But the sentiments reflect a change of mood in a country where people have willed themselves to believe that their brotherly ties to the North would override the ideological chasm between the impoverished Communist North and the thriving capitalist South.
The attack seemed to challenge one of the underlying assumptions of a decade of inter-Korean rapprochement, which had slowed but not stopped under President Lee Myung-bak: that two nations’ shared Koreanness trumped political differences, making a return to cold war-era hostilities not only undesirable but also impossible.
“I never thought they would attack us people of the same race,” said Hong Jae-soon, 55, a homemaker who fled Yeonpyeong with most of the island’s other 1,350 residents after the attack.
She said she was in her kitchen peeling ginger to make kimchi, the spicy fermented vegetables that are both Koreas’ national dish, when she heard distant booms. As the roar got louder, and the ground began to shake, she ran outside and saw that a home four houses away from hers had been blown into rubble.
“We learned you cannot trust them,” she said.
Chung Young-ae, a 72-year-old fisherwoman who lived her entire life on the island, said she had been hunting for oysters in shallow water when she heard a series of booms, and looked up to see the mountains on fire. “I was 12 during the Korean War, and we saw planes fly overhead, but nothing like this happened,” she said. “This was worse.”
She said she cowered for two days in a cold, dark bomb shelter without blankets and with only bread to eat until she fled the island on a boat to Incheon. She expressed the torn feelings of many South Koreans — anger and a fear of escalating hostilities.
“They’re evil, they’re millipedes that should be crushed,” she said of the North Koreans. “No, we can’t fight them. But we shouldn’t help them anymore, either.”
Like many islanders, she said that while Yeonpyeong had been her lifelong home, she could never go back, for fear of being attacked again. Since the attack, all but a handful of the island’s residents have gone to the mainland.
About 500 were packed Saturday into In Spa World, a hangar-size bathhouse and entertainment center that had been hastily converted into a refugee shelter. Inside, islanders slept on the floors or lined up at a makeshift soup kitchen set up by the volunteers from the Korean Red Cross.
Choi Byung-soo said he was sitting at home with friends having lunch when his neighborhood suddenly erupted in explosions. The blasts blew out his windows. When they ventured outside, he saw a car flipped on its back, and a half-dozen columns of black smoke rose from the town. After arriving in Incheon, Mr. Choi was hospitalized for hearing loss, throat damage from the smoke and anxiety attacks.
“This was a civilian neighborhood, like Seoul,” said Mr. Choi, 34, an online marketer.
He, too, recommended a cutoff of aid to the North, as did the construction worker who watched his colleagues die, Mr. Hong.
“If we had not fed them, they would not even be able to hold their guns,” he said. “We shouldn’t attack them, because we have become a democracy, and I can still remember when we were still like them, poor and eating out of cans. But if we give them any more money, they’ll use it to kill us.”
As San Francisco’s Mayor Departs, a Handful of Votes Will Usher in a New One
By JESSE McKINLEY
Published: November 27, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO — This is a city of some 815,000 people, about 49 square miles and exactly one World Series championship. And how many votes does it take to get elected mayor?
Ramin Rahimian for The New York Times
Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco signed autographs after a student event in October.
Six.
Already accustomed to some of the most combative — and liberal — politics in the land, San Franciscans have recently been rapt by a palace intrigue as to who will run the city, a debate set off by the recent election of the city’s popular two-term mayor, Gavin Newsom, as California’s lieutenant governor.
Mr. Newsom is due to step down in early January, leaving the job of naming his successor to the city’s Board of Supervisors, a highly opinionated 11-member group whose political beliefs range from left-leaning to leftist. All are Democrats, but they come in various shades of blue, including a bloc of five progressives who view traditional Democratic positions as too conservative (a navy blue, perhaps); four moderates (who are solidly teal); and two political wild cards (sea foam, anyone?).
None of those add up to a majority, which does not bode well for a speedy transition of power, say veterans of the local political scene.
“There seems to me to be millions of ways to get to six,” said Peter Ragone, a Democratic political consultant and an adviser to Mr. Newsom. “And none of them actually work.”
At stake is not only the spacious mayoral digs in San Francisco’s ornate City Hall, but also the possibility of running the city for nearly a year until voters formally elect a new mayor for a four-year term next November. It is also a position that, because of the city’s role as conservative punching bag, has often put its occupants in the national limelight, including Mr. Newsom, who found fame as an early supporter of same-sex marriage, and Dianne Feinstein, who has followed her time as mayor with a long career in the United States Senate.
The job is not necessarily going to be fun. The city is wrestling with an estimated $400 million budget deficit, a stagnant economy, potentially crippling public pension payments and one of the highest costs of living in the nation.
“You’re not going to be welcomed into the job of interim mayor as a conquering hero,” said Tony Winnicker, a mayoral spokesman. “It’s a job fraught with peril.”
Mr. Newsom, who has often tangled with the current board, even injected a bit of his own political maneuvering into the process when he recently suggested that he might delay his inauguration as lieutenant governor — planned for Jan. 3 — for several days to allow four new supervisors to be sworn in, thus creating, in his opinion, a more moderate board. (The board cannot formally name a new boss until the old one steps down, though discussions about the process are already under way at weekly board meetings.)
Mr. Newsom has since backed away from that possibility. Well, almost.
“He’s 99 percent likely to be sworn in,” Mr. Winnicker said.
Amid all that uncertainty, the list of potential candidates has continued to grow, and it includes some stolid, serious caretakers (Ed Harrington, the city’s public utility chief, for instance) and overtly sentimental and stylish characters like former Mayor Willie L. Brown.
Then there are the members of the board, several of whom harbor mayoral ambitions, including Supervisor Bevan Dufty, a moderate from the gay-friendly Castro district, who has already declared his candidacy for the 2011 election.
One name recently floated was that of Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a well-known progressive, outspoken gay-rights advocate, stand-up comedian and former member and president of the board who has run unsuccessfully for mayor twice before.
Mr. Ammiano, a San Francisco resident who was elected to the Assembly in 2008, declined to comment. But Mr. Ragone said that Mr. Ammiano could be elected with the support of the board’s five-person progressive bloc — plus a moderate — to make it to six. But he added, “it’s a risk for him,” as he could be appointed by the board and then lose in the fall.
That is also the calculation under way for the city’s progressive bloc, which has slowly and steadily built political power in the city over the last decade, said Corey Cook, a politics professor at the University of San Francisco. In 2003, progressives nearly elected one of their own, Matt Gonzales, as mayor, but he lost to Mr. Newsom.
Now Mr. Newsom is leaving, Mr. Cook said, “and the question is whether this is really the opportunity for the progressives on the board to finally find a way of electing a mayor.”
Also complicating the process is the very nature of the board, a cauldron of personalities that Mr. Cook likened to the Supreme Court. “It’s just hard to imagine there being any consensus,” he said.
Indeed, it has already taken two meetings — complete with long and sometimes oddball public comments — to decide the rules for picking the succession procedures, which will allow each board member to nominate one person for the job — any voting resident of the city — but forbids them from nominating themselves. If they are nominated by another board member, sitting supervisors will be asked to leave the board’s chambers and be sequestered without a laptop or cellphone, so as to prevent influence peddling or vote trading. (Or Web surfing, for that matter.)
The man overseeing that process, the board president’s, David Chiu, said he was impressed so far by the board’s professionalism in taking up the succession issue, noting that the votes on the procedures were all unanimous.
That streak, however, is likely to be broken when actual nominees are being voted on. A long stalemate could put Mr. Chiu in the job, at least temporarily; under the city charter, the board president is named acting mayor in the event an interim mayor is not selected.
But last week, Mr. Chiu would not comment on his own ambitions, saying he only wanted the best for the city.
“I think the most important thing is to ensure public safety for the city, readiness in case of any emergencies and to make sure the city government continues to function,” Mr. Chiu said, sounding vaguely mayoral. “And working with my colleagues to ensure that an orderly transition occurs.”
Already accustomed to some of the most combative — and liberal — politics in the land, San Franciscans have recently been rapt by a palace intrigue as to who will run the city, a debate set off by the recent election of the city’s popular two-term mayor, Gavin Newsom, as California’s lieutenant governor.
Mr. Newsom is due to step down in early January, leaving the job of naming his successor to the city’s Board of Supervisors, a highly opinionated 11-member group whose political beliefs range from left-leaning to leftist. All are Democrats, but they come in various shades of blue, including a bloc of five progressives who view traditional Democratic positions as too conservative (a navy blue, perhaps); four moderates (who are solidly teal); and two political wild cards (sea foam, anyone?).
None of those add up to a majority, which does not bode well for a speedy transition of power, say veterans of the local political scene.
“There seems to me to be millions of ways to get to six,” said Peter Ragone, a Democratic political consultant and an adviser to Mr. Newsom. “And none of them actually work.”
At stake is not only the spacious mayoral digs in San Francisco’s ornate City Hall, but also the possibility of running the city for nearly a year until voters formally elect a new mayor for a four-year term next November. It is also a position that, because of the city’s role as conservative punching bag, has often put its occupants in the national limelight, including Mr. Newsom, who found fame as an early supporter of same-sex marriage, and Dianne Feinstein, who has followed her time as mayor with a long career in the United States Senate.
The job is not necessarily going to be fun. The city is wrestling with an estimated $400 million budget deficit, a stagnant economy, potentially crippling public pension payments and one of the highest costs of living in the nation.
“You’re not going to be welcomed into the job of interim mayor as a conquering hero,” said Tony Winnicker, a mayoral spokesman. “It’s a job fraught with peril.”
Mr. Newsom, who has often tangled with the current board, even injected a bit of his own political maneuvering into the process when he recently suggested that he might delay his inauguration as lieutenant governor — planned for Jan. 3 — for several days to allow four new supervisors to be sworn in, thus creating, in his opinion, a more moderate board. (The board cannot formally name a new boss until the old one steps down, though discussions about the process are already under way at weekly board meetings.)
Mr. Newsom has since backed away from that possibility. Well, almost.
“He’s 99 percent likely to be sworn in,” Mr. Winnicker said.
Amid all that uncertainty, the list of potential candidates has continued to grow, and it includes some stolid, serious caretakers (Ed Harrington, the city’s public utility chief, for instance) and overtly sentimental and stylish characters like former Mayor Willie L. Brown.
Then there are the members of the board, several of whom harbor mayoral ambitions, including Supervisor Bevan Dufty, a moderate from the gay-friendly Castro district, who has already declared his candidacy for the 2011 election.
One name recently floated was that of Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a well-known progressive, outspoken gay-rights advocate, stand-up comedian and former member and president of the board who has run unsuccessfully for mayor twice before.
Mr. Ammiano, a San Francisco resident who was elected to the Assembly in 2008, declined to comment. But Mr. Ragone said that Mr. Ammiano could be elected with the support of the board’s five-person progressive bloc — plus a moderate — to make it to six. But he added, “it’s a risk for him,” as he could be appointed by the board and then lose in the fall.
That is also the calculation under way for the city’s progressive bloc, which has slowly and steadily built political power in the city over the last decade, said Corey Cook, a politics professor at the University of San Francisco. In 2003, progressives nearly elected one of their own, Matt Gonzales, as mayor, but he lost to Mr. Newsom.
Now Mr. Newsom is leaving, Mr. Cook said, “and the question is whether this is really the opportunity for the progressives on the board to finally find a way of electing a mayor.”
Also complicating the process is the very nature of the board, a cauldron of personalities that Mr. Cook likened to the Supreme Court. “It’s just hard to imagine there being any consensus,” he said.
Indeed, it has already taken two meetings — complete with long and sometimes oddball public comments — to decide the rules for picking the succession procedures, which will allow each board member to nominate one person for the job — any voting resident of the city — but forbids them from nominating themselves. If they are nominated by another board member, sitting supervisors will be asked to leave the board’s chambers and be sequestered without a laptop or cellphone, so as to prevent influence peddling or vote trading. (Or Web surfing, for that matter.)
The man overseeing that process, the board president’s, David Chiu, said he was impressed so far by the board’s professionalism in taking up the succession issue, noting that the votes on the procedures were all unanimous.
That streak, however, is likely to be broken when actual nominees are being voted on. A long stalemate could put Mr. Chiu in the job, at least temporarily; under the city charter, the board president is named acting mayor in the event an interim mayor is not selected.
But last week, Mr. Chiu would not comment on his own ambitions, saying he only wanted the best for the city.
“I think the most important thing is to ensure public safety for the city, readiness in case of any emergencies and to make sure the city government continues to function,” Mr. Chiu said, sounding vaguely mayoral. “And working with my colleagues to ensure that an orderly transition occurs.”
India police to investigate Roy over Kashmir remarks

In this photo taken on March 17, 2005, Indian author Arundhati Roy (R) shakes hands with Chairman of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) Yasin Malik during the inauguration of a photo exhibition entitled “Voices for Peace, Voices for Freedom”, in New Delhi. – AFP Photo
In an appeal to a local court, Sushil Pandit, a private citizen, accused Roy of sedition for saying that Kashmir was not an integral part of India at a seminar in New Delhi last month.
“The court decided to instruct the police to register a proper (complaint), investigate the crime and report back by 6th of January,” Pandit told reporters.
Roy, a fierce critic of India’s policy in Kashmir, will be investigated alongside hardline Kashmiri leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani and five other people, according to the petitioner’s lawyer and police.
“This is a ploy to distract attention from the real issue,” Roy, winner of the 1997 Booker Prize for “The God of Small Things”, told CNN-IBN television.
Police confirmed they had receiced a court order to investigate the case.
Speaking to Reuters in Kashmir’s summer capital, Srinagar, Geelani said he was aware of the case.
“This is nothing new for me. There are already dozens of cases against me,” he said.
The divided, mostly Muslim Himalayan region of Kashmir is at the heart of hostility between India and Pakistan and was the cause of two of their three wars.
Violent anti-government protests have swept Kashmir since June, killing more than 110 people. – Reuters
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)