News Blast Hits Kabul Shortly After Hagel Arrives

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Blast Hits Kabul Shortly After Hagel Arrives
Mar 9th 2013, 06:40

KABUL, Afghanistan — A suicide bomber wearing a vest bomb detonated the device outside the Afghan defense ministry Saturday, killing at least nine people in a blast just hours after Chuck Hagel, the new United States defense secretary, arrived in Kabul.

Afghan security officials at the scene of a suicide bombing outside the Afghan defense ministry in Kabul on Saturday.

Mr. Hagel was not in the site of the blast at the time, although the incident seemed timed to coincide with his visit and underscored how the heavily secured capital was still vulnernable to attacks by people intent on setting off bombs.

The defense ministry said that in addition to the nine people killed, fourteen others were wounded, including two Afghan National Army officers.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack at the ministry. Zabiullah Mujahid, the Taliban spokesman for northern and eastern Afghanistan, said the bomber was from Kandahar, and he denied that any civilians had been killed or wounded.

The Taliban have pledged repeatedly not to harm civilians, but according to the most recent United Nations report on civilian casualties the Taliban and other insurgents were responsible for 81 percent of the 2,754 civilian deaths and injuries in the Afghan conflict in 2012. 

In an initial statement, the defense ministry said the explosion, which took place near the entrance to the building, occurred at 8:54 a.m. and that only civilians were hurt.  The explosion, which was followed by heavy gunfire, occurred just as Kabul residents were going to work and streets were busy with people on foot, motorcycles and in cars.

As soon as the bomb exploded, the defense ministry locked down its  large compound so that even employees could not go out to see the damage, said a colonel in the operations department who was reached by telephone.  He said the explosion was at an area that is usually busy with  people entering and leaving the ministry compound.

Thom Shanker in Kabul and Jawad Sukhanyar contributed reporting.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

News U.S. Cancels Transfer of Bagram Prison to Afghans

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
U.S. Cancels Transfer of Bagram Prison to Afghans
Mar 9th 2013, 05:04

KABUL, Afghanistan — A ceremony in which the American military had planned to hand over full control of the Bagram Prison to Afghanistan was canceled Saturday, throwing into doubt an agreement between the two countries on custody of the remaining Afghan prisoners still being held by American forces.

The cancellation was likely to be an embarrassment to President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and comes at an awkward time, when the new secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, is on his first visit to the country.

There was no official word on why the transfer was canceled, but American officials were known to be upset with Mr. Karzai over remarks he made in a speech on Wednesday in which he criticized the Americans' slowness on the detention issue and promised to release many of the prisoners as soon as the transfer was complete.

The two countries agreed a year ago to transfer all prisoners detained on the battlefield from American to Afghan custody, and Mr. Karzai has made it a cornerstone of his efforts to demonstrate that his government is regaining full sovereignty. But disputes emerged over how the Afghans would handle the prisoners, many of them dangerous insurgents detained during raids by Special Operations units.

In September, when the accord called for the full transfer to the Afghans, the Americans boycotted a transfer ceremony and canceled the transfer of all prisoners to the Afghans because the two sides could not agree on how to handle the releases. The Americans wanted the prisoners held without trial indefinitely, and the Afghans insisted on holding trials for them.

But last month Mr. Karzai met with President Obama in Washington, and American officials said they had been assured that the Afghans would hold some of the prisoners without trial. Mr. Karzai's remarks on Wednesday cast doubt on whether the two sides had really reached an understanding on the issue.

"As soon as it takes place, we know there are innocent people in these jails, and I will order their release, as much as I am criticized for it," he said.

On Saturday, just hours after Mr. Hagel arrived in Afghanistan, a bomb exploded near the entrance to the Afghan Defense Ministry, an area that has come under attack before. Mr. Hagel was not in the area that was attacked, although the blast seemed timed to coincide with his visit and underscored that people intent on setting off bombs can reach the heavily secured capital.

The explosion occurred at about 9 a.m. and was followed by heavy gunfire just as Kabul residents were going to work. A defense ministry spokesman, Gen. Dawlat Waziri, confirmed the attack and said there were casualties but he did not know how many.  He said it was probably a car bomb but could not confirm whether it was a suicide bomb or an empty car laden with explosives.

As soon as the bomb exploded, the Defense Ministry locked down its large compound and even employees could not go out to see the damage, said a colonel in the operations department who was reached by telephone.  He said the explosion was right at the gate used by employees and visitors, which is normally crowded with people trying to get into the compound.

Alissa J. Rubin contributed reporting.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

News After Over a Century at Sea, 2 Sailors Are Laid to Rest

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
After Over a Century at Sea, 2 Sailors Are Laid to Rest
Mar 9th 2013, 03:41

Christopher Gregory/The New York Times

A procession of sailors at Arlington National Cemetery on Friday to bury a pair of their Civil War Navy predecessors.

ARLINGTON, Va. — Older women in hoop skirts and petticoats came together with youthful sailors in their dress blues for a rare public double interment at Arlington National Cemetery on Friday.

The Navy secretary said at a service at Arlington on Friday that "we do not hesitate to keep faith and to honor this tradition."

After a chapel service that included remarks by the secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, more than 500 people, including regiments of Civil War re-enactors and teenagers in camouflage-patterned pants, watched as the coffins, carried by horse-drawn wagon, were prepared for burial by a 76-member ceremonial guard.

The dead were two unidentified sailors from the ironclad warship Monitor, buried with full military honors 150 years after their ship sank during a storm off the coast of Cape Hatteras, N.C.

"This may well be the last time we bury Navy personnel who fought in the Civil War at Arlington," Mr. Mabus said. "But we do not hesitate to keep faith and to honor this tradition, even more than 150 years after the promise was made."

The flags over the sailors' coffins had 50 stars, not the 34 they fought under. And their bones, a Navy official said, were covered with contemporary dress blues.

The funeral was inspired by an enduring fascination with the sunken ironclad, which is credited with helping save the Union in the Civil War, as well as the military's pledge to leave no one behind.

It was also a reminder that family ties, however tenuous, are reinforced as much by narrative as by science.

"I've had relatives who served in World War I, World War II," said Pete Gullo, a descendent of Jacob Nicklis, whose body may have been one of those interred. "For some reason — and it shouldn't be, because he's farther back in time — it's almost like a more direct connection."

Of the 16 men who went down with the Monitor on Dec. 31, 1862, researchers have narrowed the identities of the two sailors to six possibilities. While there are no conclusive DNA matches with their descendants, forensic researchers are convinced that they will eventually find these men's stories in their bones.

Getting to know the six has helped some descendants feel a deeper sense of the sacrifice. Mr. Gullo, 47, has never served in the military, but he has thought about how Mr. Nicklis might have felt, drowning in the ship's turret.

"What was it like to suffer through that kind of very physical event?" he said.

The Monitor was a technological marvel that took the sailing — and in many ways, the sailor — out of sea warfare. It survived the world's first battle between two ironclads, fending off a much larger Rebel warship that threatened to destroy much of the Union fleet. But the Monitor's glory was short-lived.

"It's the irony of the ship that saved the Union," said David Alberg, superintendent of the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary. "Ten months later, it was lost in a storm."

In early 1862, the 62 or 63 crew members knew they were signing up for an experiment that the whole Union was watching, volunteering to be submerged astronauts in a 19th-century arms race. John Ericsson's design was unlike the wooden steamships and sailboats of the day, and only about two feet of the deck was above the water line.

Compared with the 44-gun frigates that were dominant, the Monitor was small, less than 180 feet long. It had only two guns, though with an innovation still used today: the turret rotated. The South's ironclad, the Virginia, was a Frankenstein — the salvaged hull of a destroyed Union ship, the Merrimack, 270 feet long with 10 guns.

By the time the Monitor left Brooklyn and arrived in Hampton Roads in 1862, the Virginia had already destroyed two Union frigates. The clash between the ironclads, on March 9, 1862, was deemed a draw, but the nimble Monitor successfully stopped the Confederate naval advance.

"For the Union, she was a symbol of American ingenuity," said Anna Holloway, the curator of the U.S.S. Monitor Center at the Mariners Museum in Newport News, Va.

For much of history, the Monitor's significance has overshadowed those who lived and died on it. "It's this real abstract notion," Ms. Holloway said, "and that's compounded by the fact that most of the imagery of the battle doesn't show people."

Researchers from Duke University first found the wreck in 1973, but it was not until 2002 that the turret was excavated and the skeletons were recovered. Through more than a decade of forensic and genealogical research, a sense of the sailors is beginning to emerge.

"For years working on this project, the challenges were technical, and it was very much an engineering challenge, an archaeological challenge," Mr. Alberg said, "and suddenly it became very personal."

The remains were flown to the Joint Prisoners of War, Missing in Action Accounting Command, where researchers extracted DNA samples and made other determinations about the men: the younger one smoked a pipe and had some teeth missing, and the older one may have had legs that were different lengths.

Based on genetics and artifacts found with the men, researchers narrowed their focus to six of the white enlisted men. The crew also included three free blacks.

A genealogist found papers showing that Robert Williams, who might be the older sailor, emigrated from Wales, had "swarthy" skin, suffered from syphilis and might have witnessed a murder on another boat. The other possibility, William Bryan, had a brother who died for the Confederacy.

Based on the genealogist's findings, potential descendents were asked to contribute swabs of their saliva for DNA testing.

When that trail ran cold, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the Monitor sanctuary, asked Louisiana State University scientists to reconstruct the sailors' faces, in an effort to "shake some family trees," as Mr. Alberg put it. (Researchers acknowledged that the results might fail to capture their true essences because of the lack of bushy facial hair.)

"Naval tradition holds that the site of a sunken vessel is a sacred burial ground, and that sailors who go down with their ships belong together," Mr. Mabus said. But since the bodies were recovered during the excavation, he said, it was fitting that they be buried at Arlington.

Military officials said they would go to similar lengths to identify and honor any service member, fulfilling a commitment that dates to the Korean War.

"Across the ages, even across the centuries, you have that military bond where they want to go back and bring them all back," said Michael Sledge, author of "Soldier Dead: How We Recover, Identify, Bury, and Honor Our Military Fallen."

"The military idea is an enhanced family idea," Mr. Sledge said, "a family whose ties are, in some cases, stronger than the family itself."

But the Navy was also committed to bringing family members to the burial. It spent more than $25,000 to cover travel costs for about 200 descendants of Monitor sailors to attend the ceremony.

A version of this article appeared in print on March 9, 2013, on page A10 of the New York edition with the headline: After Over a Century at Sea, 2 Sailors Are Laid to Rest.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

News Cautious Approval for a Plan to Merge a City’s Museums

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Cautious Approval for a Plan to Merge a City's Museums
Mar 9th 2013, 02:18

Monica Almeida/The New York Times

A view of the exterior of the Museum of Contemporary Art, known as MOCA, in Los Angeles, which has struggled in recent years with money and personnel.

LOS ANGELES — For many people in the philanthropic and cultural swirl of Los Angeles, the proposal seems a welcome response to a conflict that has riveted this city's art world for five years: A merger of its two biggest museums, ending a long-simmering feud, combining two arts collections, and rescuing one of them, the Museum of Contemporary Art, from a spasm of personnel turmoil and fiscal decline.

Eli Broad bailed out MOCA five years ago, with conditions.

The exterior of the Los Angeles County Museum, or Lacma.

Some works in Lacma's European gallery. The two museums are the largest in the city, and many familiar with the situation think teaming up would make sense.

Yet there is one person now in a position to block it: Eli Broad, one of the city's leading philanthropists who, at 79, finds himself again at the center of a dispute that captures the conflicting forces of wealth, philanthropy, celebrity and ego that often define Los Angeles.  Mr. Broad donated $16 million to bail out MOCA five years ago with a provision that is taking outsize importance: That it would not merge with any museum within 100 miles of its downtown flagship.

That provision, officials involved in both museums said, was aimed at the competing museum across town, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, with which Mr. Broad has had a particularly contentious history.

And this latest proposal — to merge the two museums with a promise of $100 million in fund-raising to put MOCA back on course — is being advocated by Michael Govan, the head of Lacma, marking his latest high-voltage effort to upend the art world here. Mr. Govan has become an unlikely celebrity in this town of celebrities with his inventive programming at his museum. Its success has served to highlight the difficulties of MOCA, including high-profile resignations from its board of directors and mocking criticism of some of its programming, like an exhibition devoted to disco.

Mr. Broad did not respond to requests for comment on Friday.

The Lacma proposal is not the only potential arrangement being floated before MOCA. Others include one from the University of Southern California and one from the National Gallery of Art in Washington, providing Mr. Broad with some options if he wants to block it. But the Lacma proposal was notable for the positive reaction it drew in many quarters, suggesting that after months of turmoil at MOCA — including the loss of its chief curator, declining attendance and mounting fiscal distress — the environment for such a merger might be warming.

"It's time for us all to stop lamenting what could have and should have been and recognize that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," said Ann Philbin, director of the Hammer Museum at the University of California, Los Angeles. "Michael is coming to this with great thought and consideration as well as the resources and support of his board. This is not about world domination for Michael; he is really passionate about L.A. and the health and development of its cultural landscape."

Indeed, officials close to the process said that the Lacma proposal came at the request of some members of the board of trustees at MOCA, worried about an alternative proposal to have MOCA merge its operations with the University of Southern California.

Zev Yaroslavsky, a Los Angeles County supervisor, said that the merger, if embraced by the boards of both museums, could prove an ideal way to resolve the problems of MOCA and expand Los Angeles's artistic influence at a time when "this region is on a cultural and artistic roll."

"Common sense would dictate that these two institutions, if they both agreed to it, would be as good a solution as any," he said. "It would be a Los Angeles solution from two Los Angeles artistic institutions, and it would be hugely important to us."

The behind-the-scenes turmoil involving these two museums is the latest example of the often churning and competitive environment here. Mr. Broad, who has his share of fans and critics, has been at the forefront of artistic donors and has often set strict conditions for his gifts. He also has voiced his frustration to museum executives about the small ranks of city residents willing make these kind of contributions.

Mr. Govan, who came here from New York in 2006 where he was director of the Dia Art Foundation, said it was these conflicts and struggles that made the Los Angeles arts scene so dynamic now.

"Honestly, the attraction to me right now in L.A. is the turmoil, the growing pains, the newness of it all," Mr. Govan said. "It's the growing pains of a cultural metropolis and a culture world coming of age. It's not old and set. It's still new and it's still growing."

"You're seeing it at a formative stage," he said. "The turmoil is attractive. Eli Broad has a lot to do with it, but in a prodding way. He is responsible for helping to found MOCA. He is the one who put a contemporary art museum at Lacma, and he's the one that gave that money to MOCA. We need more Eli Broads."

The big question is what Mr. Broad will do now.

Edward Goldman, the host of the show "Art Talk" on KCRW, the National Public Radio station here, said that given the history, Mr. Broad would be likely to block this merger from taking place.

"He will do everything possible to make sure this proposal is killed," he said. "He doesn't want to see his influence diminished."

But several officials suggested that Mr. Broad might not want to stand in the way if it appears there is a growing enthusiasm to a solution to this dispute. No less important, they said, is the fact that Mr. Broad is building his own museum across the street downtown from the MOCA museum, and is increasingly concerned that a downward spiral of MOCA would make it tough to draw attendees. As much as downtown Los Angeles has been on the upswing in recent years, many are still reluctant to make the trip there.

"Eli Broad has been as significant a force in bringing L.A. to where it is on the cultural map as any other individual," Mr. Yaroslavsky said. "I know Eli very well, I know he loves Los Angeles and I think that Eli will do whatever he can to make sure that L.A. is on the cutting edge of the nation's and world's artistic landscape."

Patricia Cohen and Carol Vogel contributed reporting from New York.

A version of this article appeared in print on March 9, 2013, on page A10 of the New York edition with the headline: Cautious Approval For a Plan to Merge A City's Museums.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

News Visions of Drones in U.S. Skies Touch Bipartisan Nerve

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Visions of Drones in U.S. Skies Touch Bipartisan Nerve
Mar 9th 2013, 01:38

WASHINGTON — The debate goes to the heart of a deeply rooted American suspicion about the government, the military and the surveillance state: the specter of drones streaking through the skies above American cities and towns, controlled by faceless bureaucrats and equipped to spy or kill.

Senator Rand Paul at the Capitol on Thursday, 12 hours after ending his marathon filibuster on drone policy.

Interactive Graphic

That Big Brother imagery — conjured up by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky during a more than 12-hour filibuster this week — has animated a surprisingly diverse swath of political interests that includes mainstream civil liberties groups, Republican and Democratic lawmakers, conservative research groups, liberal activists and right-wing conspiracy theorists.

They agree on little else. But Mr. Paul's soliloquy has tapped into a common anxiety on the left and the right about the dangers of unchecked government. And it has exposed fears about ultra-advanced technologies that are fueled by the increasingly fine line between science fiction and real life.

Drones have become the subject of urgent policy debates in Washington as lawmakers from both parties wrangle with President Obama over their use to prosecute the fight against terrorism from the skies above countries like Pakistan and Yemen.

But they are also a part of the popular culture — toys sold by Amazon; central plot points in "Homeland" and a dozen other television shows and movies; the subject of endless macabre humor, notably by The Onion; and even the subject of poetry. ("Ode to the MQ-9 Reaper," a serious work by the Brooklyn poet Joe Pan that was just published in the journal Epiphany, describes the drone as "ultra-cool & promo slick, a predatory dart" that is "as self-aware as silverware.")

Benjamin Wittes, a national security scholar at the Brookings Institution who has written extensively about drones, said he thought Mr. Paul's marathon was a "dumb publicity stunt." But he said it had touched a national nerve because the technology, with its myriad implications, had already deeply penetrated the culture.

"Over the last year or so, this thing that was the province of a small number of technologists and national security people has exploded into the larger public consciousness," Mr. Wittes said.

On the right, Mr. Paul has become an overnight hero since his filibuster. Self-proclaimed defenders of the Constitution have shouted their approval on Twitter, using the hashtag #StandWithRand and declaring him to be a welcomed member of their less-is-better-government club.

"The day that Rand Paul ignited Liberty's Torch inside the beltway!" one Tea Party activist wrote on Twitter. "May it never be extinguished!"

But even as the right swooned, the left did, too. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon — the only Democrat to join Mr. Paul's filibuster — said the unexpected array of political forces was just the beginning, especially as Congress and the public face the new technologies of 21st-century warfare.

"I believe there is a new political movement emerging in this country that's shaking free of party moorings," Mr. Wyden said. "Americans want a better balance between protecting our security and protecting our liberty."

P. W. Singer, whose 2009 book "Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century" anticipated the broad impact of drones, said he believed they had shaken up politics because they were "a revolutionary technology, like the steam engine or the computer."

"The discussion doesn't fall along the usual partisan lines," he said. The dozen states that have passed laws restricting drones do not fall into conventional red-blue divisions, nor do the score of states competing to be the site of the Federal Aviation Administration's test sites for drones.

The serious issues raised by the government's lethal drones seem inextricably mixed with the ubiquitous appearance of the technology in art, commerce and satire.

A four-minute video by the Air Force Research Laboratory on "micro aerial vehicles" shows a futuristic bee-size drone flying in an open window and taking out an enemy sniper with a miniature explosive payload. Since it was posted in 2009, it has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times and reposted all over the Web.

When Amazon advertised a six-inch model of the Predator, made by Maisto, in its toy section, people wrote politically charged mock reviews that became Internet hits: "This goes well," one reviewer wrote, "with the Maisto Extraordinary Rendition playset, by the way — which gives you all the tools you need to kidnap the family pet and take him for interrogation at a neighbor's house, where the rules of the Geneva Convention may not apply. Loads of fun!"

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, was not laughing Thursday when he took to the Senate floor to chastise Mr. Paul and defend the use of drones. In an interview with The Huffington Post, Mr. McCain dismissed Mr. Paul and the other critics of drones as "the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone."

But the issue is larger than Mr. Paul, whose ambitions may include a run for the presidency in 2016. For many, Mr. Paul gave voice to the dangers they whisper about to anyone who will listen: that the government is too powerful to be left unchecked.

"It's not merely the black helicopter crowd of the folks on the far right," said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups. "What Rand Paul had to say about drones absolutely fired up conspiracy theorists on the left as well as the right."

Human Rights Watch plans to join other groups next month in starting an effort called the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. The technology, fully autonomous weapons that are still at the drawing-board stage, would find and fire at their programmed targets without requiring a human being to pull the trigger.

Some national security experts find the campaign overwrought, but Mary Wareham, the advocacy director for the arms division of Human Rights Watch, noted that the Defense Department in November issued a policy directive on autonomous weapons that recognized the challenges they pose.

At the same time, there are people like Everett Wilkinson, a Tea Party organizer and self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist in Florida, who is hailing Mr. Paul as a "rock star for the Constitution." On Mr. Wilkinson's Web site, Liberty.com, he warns that the United States government is building "internment camps" for political dissidents. He is wary of what comes next.

"First they said we are just going to use drones to observe stuff, and then they put Hellfire missiles on them," Mr. Wilkinson said. "How soon are we going to have drones overhead with Tasers on them?"

In Washington, Code Pink, a leftist group of antiwar activists, showed up with flowers and chocolates at Mr. Paul's Senate offices on Thursday to thank him for standing up against abuses of power. Known around Capitol Hill mainly for disrupting Congressional hearings, the group had found a new champion.

"People say: 'Oh, my God, Code Pink is praising Rand Paul. Hell has frozen over!' " said Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of the group. "But we were glued to C-Span to the bitter end of the filibuster. We were amazed to see the education of the public that was taking place, and that has never occurred before."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

News Kenya’s Presidential Vote Yields Winner, but Margin Is Slim

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Kenya's Presidential Vote Yields Winner, but Margin Is Slim
Mar 9th 2013, 00:31

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Kenya's election commission posted complete results early Saturday showing that Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta prevailed in the country's presidential elections by the slimmest of margins, winning 50.03 percent of the vote.

That result is likely to bring controversy in Kenya and an almost certain legal challenge from Prime Minister Raila Odinga. Kenyatta needed to break the 50 percent barrier to avoid a run-off with Odinga, but he did so by only 4,099 votes out of more than 12.3 million cast.

Monday's presidential vote was the first since Kenya's 2007 election sparked two months of tribe-on-tribe violence after a disputed election win was claimed by President Mwai Kibaki. More than 1,000 people were killed in attacks that included machetes, bows and arrows and police firearms.

A win by Kenyatta could greatly affect Kenya's relations with the West. Kenyatta faces charges at the International Criminal Court for his alleged role in directing some of Kenya's 2007 postelection violence. His running mate, William Ruto, faces similar charges.

The U.S. has warned of "consequences" if Kenyatta, the son of Kenya's founding father, wins, as have several European countries. Britain, which ruled Kenya up until the early 1960s, has said they would have only essential contact with the Kenyan government if Kenyatta is president.

Odinga's camp has indicated legal challenges could be filed. Monday's presidential vote proceeded mostly peacefully, but the counting process has been stymied by a myriad of break-downs and errors.

That the winner was quietly revealed overnight — at about 2:35 a.m. local time — came as somewhat of a surprise. At about midnight the electoral commission said it would give a formal announcement of the winner at 11 a.m. Kenya time (3 a.m. EST) Saturday. Observers believed that the decision was made in part not reveal a winner overnight, something that could stir suspicions and put security forces at a disadvantage if rioting broke out.

In order to win outright, Kenyatta must not only get more than 50 percent of the vote but also must garner at least 25 percent of the vote in 24 out of Kenya's 47 provinces. Because of the way the election commission announced results, it was difficult to immediately determine if Kenyatta passed that bar.

Diplomats said they believed Odinga was not likely to protest the vote in a manner that would increase the chances of violence, but rather honor his pledge to respect the result and petition the courts with any grievances. Odinga scheduled a news conference for later Saturday morning.

The Kenyan capital has been sleepy since Monday's vote for president, the country's first election since its 2007 vote sparked tribe-on-tribe violence that killed more than 1,000 people. But security forces in riot gear took to the streets Friday in regions of the city that could turn tumultuous after results are announced.

The prime minister's supporters took to the streets in 2007 after Odinga said he had been cheated. In Kibera, Nairobi's largest slum and a bastion of Odinga support, many believe this year's results have been rigged as well.

The results showed Odinga with 43.3 percent.

"If you look at the way the tallying is being done there is rigging," said Isiah Omondi, 27. "If Uhuru wins and wins fairly, we don't have a problem with him. He can be our president. But not like this."

The election outcome is being closely watched by the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. Embassy in Kenya is larger than any American mission in Africa, underscoring Kenya's strong role in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. also has military forces stationed here near the border with Somalia. Kenya, the lynchpin of East Africa's economy, plays a vital security role in the fight against Somali militants.

Kenyatta's International Criminal Court trial is set to begin in July and could take years, meaning that if he wins he may have to rule Kenya from The Hague, Netherlands, for much of his five-year term. Another option is, as president, to decide not to attend the trial. But that decision would trigger an international arrest warrant and spark even more damaging effects for Kenya's standing with the West.

Kenyatta has promised to report to The Hague, even if he wins the presidency. The ICC on Friday delayed the trial of Ruto until late May.

Odinga's camp may have grounds to file legal challenges after myriad failures in the systems Kenya's electoral commission set up.

For instance, an electronic voter ID system intended to prevent fraud failed across the country for lack of electricity in some cases and overheating computers in others. Vote officials instead used manual voter rolls.

After the polls closed, results were to be sent electronically to Nairobi, where officials would quickly tabulate a preliminary vote count in order to maximize transparency after rigging accusations following the 2007 vote. But that system failed, too. Election officials have indicated that computer servers overloaded but have yet to fully explain the problem.

On Tuesday, as the early count system was still being used, election results showed more than 330,000 rejected ballots, an unusually high number. But after the count resumed with the arrival in Nairobi of manual tallies, the number of rejected ballots were greatly reduced, and the election commission on Thursday gave the head-scratching explanation that the computer was mistakenly multiplying the number of rejected ballots by a factor of eight.

Odinga's camp on Thursday said some votes had been doctored and called for a halt to the tallying process, saying it "lacked integrity." A day earlier, Kenyatta's camp accused the British high commissioner of meddling in the election and asked aloud why there were an unusually high number of British troops in the country.

The election commission has denied any of the results have been altered.

There were fears going into the election that the violence that rocked Kenya five years ago would return. A separatist group on the coast launched attacks on Monday that ended in the deaths of 19 people, but the vote and its aftermath has otherwise been largely peaceful.

But it's the announcement of results that could stir protests, especially if the supporters of either camp feel robbed.

___

Associated Press reporters Rodney Muhumuza and Tom Odula contributed to this report.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

News Book ‘FDR and the Jews’ Looks at Roosevelt-Holocaust Issues

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Book 'FDR and the Jews' Looks at Roosevelt-Holocaust Issues
Mar 8th 2013, 22:42

FPG/Getty Images

A new Harvard University Press book examines President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's broader record on Jewish issues.

For decades, it has been one of the most politically charged questions in American history: What did Franklin D. Roosevelt do — or, more to the point, not do — in response to the Holocaust?

The issue has spawned a large literary response, with books often bearing polemical titles like "The Abandonment of the Jews" or "Saving the Jews." But in a new volume from Harvard University Press, two historians aim to set the matter straight with what they call both a neutral assessment of Roosevelt's broader record on Jewish issues and a corrective to the popular view of it, which they say has become overly scathing.

In "FDR and the Jews," Richard Breitman and Allan J. Lichtman, professors at American University, contend that Roosevelt hardly did everything he could. But they maintain that his overall record — several hundred thousand Jews saved, some of them thanks to little-known initiatives — exceeds that of any subsequent president in responding to genocide in the midst of fierce domestic political opposition.

"The consensus among the public is that Roosevelt really failed," Mr. Breitman said in a recent interview. "In fact, he had fairly limited options."

Such statements, backed up by footnotes to hundreds of primary documents (some cited here for the first time), are unlikely to satisfy Roosevelt's fiercest critics. Even before the book's March 19 release, the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, a research organization in Washington, has circulated a detailed rebuttal, as well as a rival book, "FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith," zeroing in on what it characterizes as Roosevelt's personal desire to limit Jewish immigration to the United States.

But some leading Holocaust historians welcome "FDR and the Jews" for remaining dispassionate in a debate too often marked by anger and accusation.

"Ad hominem attacks don't help uncover the historical truth, and this book really avoids that," said Deborah Lipstadt, a professor at Emory University and a consultant on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's permanent exhibition about the American response to the Holocaust. "If people read it and don't ascribe to the authors an agenda, it could be very important."

"FDR and the Jews" offers no dramatic revelations of the sort Mr. Breitman provided in 2009, when he and two other colleagues drew headlines with evidence, discovered in the papers of a former refugee commissioner for the League of Nations, that Roosevelt had personally pushed for a 1938 plan to relocate millions of threatened European Jews to sparsely populated areas of Latin America and Africa. But it does, the authors say, provide important new detail and context to that episode, as well as others that have long loomed large in the popular imagination.

They pointed in particular to the fate of the 937 German Jewish refugees on the ocean liner St. Louis, who were turned away from Cuba in May 1939 and sent back to other European countries, where 254 died after war broke out. The episode, made famous in the 1974 novel "Voyage of the Damned" and a subsequent film, has come to seem emblematic of American callousness.

There is simply no evidence, Mr. Breitman and Mr. Lichtman say, to support accounts that the United States Coast Guard was ordered to prevent the refugees from coming ashore in Florida. What's more, they were turned away from Cuba, the authors argue, as part of a backlash against a previous influx of some 5,000 refugees to that country, who may have been admitted under the terms of a previously unknown deal between Roosevelt and the Cuban leader Fulgencio Batista, who got reduced tariffs for his nation's sugar in return.

The book notes that the St. Louis affair unfolded against a backdrop of intense isolationist and anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States while Roosevelt was preparing to press Congress to allow the sale of weapons to nations victimized by German aggression.

"Imagine if Roosevelt had let in 937 passengers but had limited success easing the Neutrality Act," Mr. Lichtman said. "He would be far more negatively judged by history than he is now."

The authors offer a similar calculus for one of the most contentious issues they discuss: the Allied refusal to bomb Auschwitz. The idea that the Allies could and should have bombed the crematories or the rail lines leading to them came to wide public attention with a 1978 article in Commentary by Mr. Wyman, who reprised it in a best-selling book, "The Abandonment of the Jews," which became the basis for the 1994 PBS documentary "America and the Holocaust:

Many people, the authors say, believe that Roosevelt refused to bomb the camp (an option, historians note, that became feasible only in May 1944, after 90 percent of Jewish victims of the Holocaust were already dead). But the book contends that there is no evidence that any such proposal came to him, though a number of Jewish leaders did meet with lower-level officials to plead for bombing. And while the authors call the objections raised by those officials "specious," they maintain (echoing others) that bombing would not have significantly impeded the killing.

"You've got two symbols" — the St. Louis and the absence of Auschwitz bombing — "taken as the bookends of American indifference and worse," Mr. Breitman said. "But both symbols are off."

By contrast, the book points to the War Refugee Board, established by Roosevelt in 1944, which they say may have helped save about 200,000 Jews — a number that, if even 50 percent accurate, they write, "compares well" with the number that might have been saved by bombing Auschwitz.

Such claims are not convincing to Rafael Medoff, the founding director of the Wyman Institute, which is dedicated to furthering the research of Mr. Wyman, a former professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who is not directly involved in its day-to-day activities. In "A Breach of Faith" Mr. Medoff argues that Jewish immigration levels in the 1930s were largely below established quotas because of Roosevelt's animus, not as a result of anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic sentiment in Congress and the State Department.

Roosevelt's vision for America was "based on the idea of having only a small number of Jews," Mr. Medoff said in an interview. Mr. Breitman and Mr. Lichtman's book, he added, is just an effort "to rescue Roosevelt's image from the overwhelming evidence that he did not want to rescue the Jews."

Mr. Breitman and Mr. Lichtman scoffed at that charge, noting that their book is certainly not always flattering to Roosevelt. They depict him as missing many opportunities to aid Jews and generally refusing to speak specifically in public about Hitler's Jewish victims, lest he be accused of fighting a "Jewish war."

"This is not an effort to write a pro-Roosevelt book," Mr. Breitman said. "It's merely pro-Roosevelt in comparison to some things that are out there."

In the end, however, their verdict is favorable, crediting Roosevelt's policies with helping to save hundreds of thousands of Jews, as well as preventing a German conquest of Egypt that would have doomed any future Jewish state.

"Without F.D.R.'s policies and leadership," they write, "there may well have been no Jewish communities left in Palestine, no Jewish state, no Israel."

Mr. Lichtman pointed out that contemporary disagreements about Israel loom behind the Roosevelt debate today. Last year, the book notes, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel cited America's refusal to bomb Auschwitz as providing potential justification for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Henry L. Feingold, the author of "The Politics of Rescue: The Roosevelt Administration and the Holocaust, 1938-1945," bemoaned the rise of "accusatory" history that elevates retrospective "what ifs" over historical context. Roosevelt, he said, had one overriding concern: to win the war.

"The survivors said, 'You didn't do enough to save us,' and who could deny it?" Mr. Feingold said. "But do you write history as it should have been or as it was?"

A version of this article appeared in print on March 9, 2013, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Book Tries for Balanced View on Roosevelt and Jews.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

News City Room: Nanny Charged With Murder Appears in Court

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
City Room: Nanny Charged With Murder Appears in Court
Mar 8th 2013, 21:34

Yoselyn Ortega in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Friday.John Marshall Mantel for The New York Times Yoselyn Ortega in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Friday.

Yoselyn Ortega, a nanny charged with fatally stabbing two children she cared for on the Upper West Side last October, appeared in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Friday for the first time since her arrest. Ms. Ortega, 50, who had been unable to attend several prior court dates, was taken to court from the prison ward for psychiatric patients at Elmhurst Hospital Center in Queens. A psychiatric exam to evaluate her fitness to stand trial has not been completed. A large scar on her throat could be seen above the gray jumpsuit she wore. The authorities have said she turned a knife on herself after attacking Lucia Krim, 6, and Leo Krim, 2, in the bathtub of their apartment.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

News Grocery Chain to Require Labels for Genetically Modified Food

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Grocery Chain to Require Labels for Genetically Modified Food
Mar 8th 2013, 21:28

Whole Foods, the grocery chain, announced Friday that it would require all foods sold in its stores that contain genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such within five years.

The company is the first retailer in the country to require the labeling, and its executives received a standing ovation when they made the announcement during the Natural Products Expo West, a trade conference, in California.

A. C. Gallo, president of Whole Foods, said the move came in response to consumer demand.

Labels now used on Whole Foods products disclose when a product has been verified as free of genetically engineered ingredients by the Non-GMO Project, a nonprofit certification organization.

"We've seen how our customers have responded to the products we do have labeled," Mr. Gallo said. "Some of our manufacturers say they've seen a 15 percent increase in sales of products they have labeled" as certified by the group.

The announcement ricocheted around the food industry and excited proponents of labeling.

"Fantastic," said Mark Kastel, co-director of Cornucopia, an organic advocacy group that favors more labeling.

Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Just Label It, a campaign for a federal requirement to label foods containing genetically modified ingredients, called the Whole Foods decision a "game changer."

"We've had some pretty big developments in labeling this year, with 22 states now having some sort of pending labeling legislation," Mr. Hirshberg said. "Now, one of the fastest growing, most successful retailers in the country is throwing down the gantlet."

He compared the potential impact of the Whole foods announcement to Walmart's decision several years ago not to sell milk from cows treated with growth hormone. Today, only a small number of milk cows are injected with the hormone.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

News Economix Blog: Federal Austerity’s Bite on Job Growth

NYT > Home Page
HomePage
Economix Blog: Federal Austerity's Bite on Job Growth
Mar 8th 2013, 18:11

The latest jobs report could have been even better. Employers added 236,000 jobs in February, evidence that the economy is gaining strength, but analysts generally agree that the number would have been higher if the federal government had not increased payroll tax rates in January.

And the sequestration of federal spending, which began last week, has joined the tax increases in restricting the pace of job growth.

As a result, the rest of the year is shaping up as a tug of war between a strengthening private sector and federal austerity.

"This is basically a picture of an economy that is showing modest growth, but has not yet felt the impact of the end of the payroll tax cut and the sequester," Dean Baker, co-director at the liberal-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote of the February data released by the Labor Department.

Government and private forecasters expect austerity, in the form of the spending cuts and tax increases, to take a big bite: about 142,000 fewer jobs a month for the rest of the year than would otherwise be added. That's more than the 134,000 jobs that employers added each month last year, on average.

"Clearly, the labor market was in decent shape before the sequester began and before the impact of the Jan. 1 payroll tax hike started to work through," wrote Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomic Advisers. "But that does not mean these two factors — a tightening worth about 1.5 percent of G.D.P. — will not reduce payroll growth in the months ahead."

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that the payroll tax increase would cost about 800,000 jobs this year, or about 67,000 a month.

Sequestration, the office estimates, will in turn cost about 750,000 jobs over the remaining 10 months of the year – or about 75,000 jobs a month.

Private economic forecasters have offered similar estimates. Macroeconomic Advisers predicted that sequestration would cost about 700,000 jobs, with most of the missed opportunities falling in the second and third quarters.

On the one hand, these estimates suggest that without federal austerity, the economy might have added more than 300,000 jobs in February. That would have been a good month even by the robust standards of the 1990s.

On the other hand, the estimates also suggest the economy will need to grow even more quickly to keep chipping away at unemployment. Another month like February, taking sequestration into account, would only increase employment by about 160,000 jobs, about enough to keep pace with population growth.

"It will take many months of job growth at this level simply to make up for the job losses during the recession," wrote Joan Entmacher, an expert in family economic security at the National Women's Law Center. "And Congress just made the task harder by refusing to block sequestration."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions