China is the victim of an Internet smear campaign, alleges its government

In its latest and broadest-ranging official statement since a major policy conference last week at the US State Department, aligning American foreign policy with "Internet freedom" and directing skepticism against China, the Chinese government said this morning it had absolutely nothing to do with any cyber-attack on anyone's Internet assets. China was careful not to mention Google by name, which might have been interpreted as an acknowledgment that such an attack happened.
"Accusation that the Chinese government participated in cyber attack, either in an explicit or inexplicit way, is groundless and aims to denigrate China," reads an official China government statement issued through the Xinhua news agency. "We firmly opposed to that [sic]. China's policy on Internet safety is transparent and consistent... China is the biggest victim country of hacking as its Internet has long been facing severe threats of hacker and online virus attacks."

A security researcher told The New York Times last week that an algorithm used to encrypt stealth connections used by the Hydraq exploit -- pegged as the weapon used in the Google attack -- was somehow Chinese in origin. But until a further explanation can be offered as to how math can have a nationality, that's actually as close as publicly available evidence actually gets to pinning the attack on China, the country. A Google spokesperson told Betanews last week that more damning evidence does exist, and it shared that evidence with the State Dept., but neither the company nor State was not in a position to make that evidence public yet

In his regular press briefing last Friday, State Dept. spokesperson P. J. Crowley confirmed to reporters that US diplomats had indeed raised the specific subject of the Google attack with their Chinese counterparts on Thursday. These discussions followed Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's speech before the Internet Freedom conference last week, as well as China's first counter-volley of denials -- indicating that the talks may not have been especially successful. "We've had conversations over the past 24 hours with the [Chinese] ambassador here in Washington regarding the speech, regarding the issue of the Google situation, and broader aspects of a relationship. And I would anticipate that we will have ongoing meetings both here in Washington and in Beijing on all of these subjects," said Crowley.
But the spokesperson then deferred several repeated questions about the possibility of a demarche -- a formal diplomatic statement countering China's accusation that the US was using Google's allegations as leverage to advance its own agenda, which it said was merely a smokescreen to advance private interests such as Google itself. That first statement read, in part, "The US has criticized China's policies to administer the internet and insinuated that China restricts internet freedom. This runs contrary to the facts and is harmful to China/US relations."
Crowley's initial response to that included the following: "We have a wide-ranging and deep relationship with China. And the number-one and number-two economies in the world are going to need to consult on a regular basis."
That didn't sound like much of a scolding was in the works; and as Crowley was later forced to admit, no demarche will be coming from the US anytime soon. But that's because, he later said, the State Dept. had been in briefings in Washington not just once but three times, with a fourth meeting scheduled perhaps for as soon as today, between the Chinese Ambassador in Washington and US Assistant Sec. of State for Asia/Pacific Kurt Campbell.
"I think we seek an explanation from China," Crowley told reporters. "We are, in fact, trying to ascertain facts. The Chinese have denied that anything has happened. I think the Google statement speaks for itself, that seems to point to the fact that something significant has happened. That is why we have raised the questions that we have and why we seek an explanation from China about what, in fact, did happen. We are trying to ascertain the facts in this case. A blanket denial that nothing happened we don't think is particularly helpful."
In a statement yesterday, China's State Council Information Office held to the state line that it was fully justified in taking whatever steps were necessary to "deal with" illegal and pornographic content appearing on China's Internet domain. The implication of that statement is that China asserts its rights to delete content that appears on servers in the state-run .cn domain. As the Chinese government admitted last January 12, the same day Google announced it had been attacked, it perceives the .cn domain as Chinese territory, and asserts the right to delete material from servers directly, even though 90% of servers in the .cn domain, by the government's own estimate, reside in the US.
China did not go into any detail about how it goes about deleting material on US servers. But one theoretical mechanism for doing so could be an encrypted communication system implanted on those servers by way of a Trojan -- something that clearly fits Hydraq's profile.
In an unsigned op-ed issued through Xinhua yesterday, the country's state run press service said, "Necessary regulation of the Internet is a consensus of the entire international community for the sake of healthy development of the Internet. No responsible country takes a laissez-faire attitude towards the use of the Internet." The statement went on to site Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's recent comments that his company, among others that do business with China, are bound by China's laws and customs. "The US move to make Internet freedom an issue just indicates its continued application of double standards," the Sunday op-ed concluded. "People just wish that the United States will respect facts and treat others equally. It is not acceptable for someone to assume for themselves the high moral ground and arbitrarily make baseless charges against others."
The following day, China's latest statement cited its country's own counterpart to the Internet Society as saying cyber attacks on that country from abroad increased some 148% from 2008 to 2009, including from the Conficker worm, which it suggested was a foreign agent.

Supreme court overturns anonymity orders for four terror suspects

Orders giving anonymity to four terror suspects who appealed against asset-freezing orders made by the Treasury were overturned today by the supreme court in a move greeted by observers as a resounding victory for press freedom.
The justices held that there "never was the slightest justification" for such orders, and said "the courts below appeared to have granted anonymity orders without any very prolonged consideration and without explaining their thinking".
Orders were justifiable in an extreme case, such as when a party or witness in proceedings or their family might be in peril of their lives or safety as a result of being identified. But none of the terror suspects could show that identifying them would put anyone at risk of physical violence, the court said.
Its decision came in a judgment following an application by Guardian News and Media, supported by Times Newspapers, Associated Press, Bloomberg news, Index on Censorship, Dow Jones, the Economist, Article 19 and the Media Legal Defence Initiative, in a case in which five men were appealing against orders made by the Treasury freezing their financial assets and restricting their lifestyles.
All five were given anonymity. One, initially referred to as G, was later named as Mohammed al-Ghabra after having been identified through a Bank of England press release.
When the case reached the supreme court the media applied to be able to name the other four – three brothers referred to as A, K and M, and a man referred to as HAY.
M and HAY objected to the application, saying they should remain anonymous because identifying them would have a serious effect on their private lives and their families, and expose them to suspicion to which they would be unable to respond. HAY also claimed that identifying him would expose relatives in Egypt, his home country, to the risk of retributive action by the authorities there.
Lawyers representing the other two were unable to say where they were or to contact them.
The supreme court said there was a growing tendency for courts to make anonymity orders, which had become a "deeply ingrained" habit.
It also expressed concern that courts were being misled, saying that HAY – Hani El Sayed Sabei Youssef – was named in a Bank of England press release in 2005, had featured in press articles and had sued the Home Office for wrongful imprisonment in an openly reported case.
Lord Rodger, who gave the judgment, said: "HAY is also known as Dr Hani al-Seba'i and under that name he acts as the director of the al-Maqrizi Centre for Historical Studies in London. He gives statements to the press and often broadcasts on al-Jazeera.
"Despite this, there is no evidence that any members of his family, whether in this country or in Egypt, have been adversely affected in any way. These matters, which must have been well known to Mr Youssef, should not have been concealed from the courts.
"It is plain that there never was the slightest justification for making an anonymity order in his case. It must be set aside."
The widespread and growing phenomenon of giving anonymity to litigants should stop, Rodger said.
Stories about identifiable individuals "are simply much more attractive to readers than stories about unidentified people. It is just human nature," he said.
"A report of the proceedings challenging the freezing orders which did not reveal the identities of the appellants would be disembodied. Certainly, readers would be less interested and, realising that, editors would tend to give the report a lower priority. In that way informed debate about freezing orders would suffer.
"On the other hand, if newspapers can identify the people concerned, they may be able to give a more vivid and compelling account which will stimulate discussion about the use of freezing orders and their impact on the communities in which the individuals live. Concealing their identities simply casts a shadow over entire communities."
While allowing the media to identify the men could lead to "outrageously hostile" coverage about them, that was "not sufficient reason for curtailing that freedom" for all members of the press.
Solicitor Mark Stephens, of law firm Finers Stephens Innocent, who represented the media, said: "This case was brought because judges were being hoodwinked into covering up the names of litigants and defendants and had forgotten the importance of free speech.
"Government lawyers too were at fault in supporting and justifying unjustified claims to secrecy."
The decision should also mean that the ban on the naming of the children in the Edlington torture attack case should be lifted, he said, adding: "It is overwhelmingly in the public interest that the press should investigate and explain the background to this brutal and tragic crime without being inhibited by orders requiring that the family must remain anonymous.
"No court henceforth should grant an anonymity order in a significant case unless it is satisfied that the litigant, if identified, would be in serious danger of physical attack.
"Indeed, it was a complete outrage that doctors and social workers in that case should have also sought anonymity, until now, such has been the expectation of anonymity of even third parties."

US lawyers persuaded Lord Goldsmith to change his mind on Iraq war

American government lawyers helped to persuade Lord Goldsmith to give Tony Blair the “green light” for the Iraq war just weeks before the invasion, it emerged today.

Lord Goldsmith said that guidance from Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary had also been crucial in changing his own advice to the Prime Minister in late February 2003.

The Attorney-General at the time of the war said told the Iraq Inquiry today that he had initially warned Mr Blair that United Nations resolution 1441, passed in November 2002, did not provide a legal basis for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

In his initial five-page draft opinion, which he gave to Mr Blair on January 14, he warned that he still believed a further resolution was necessary, specifically authorising the use of force.
He was encouraged to visit Washington the following month where he met senior US officials and lawyers - including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Will Taft, a senior State Department legal adviser.

He said they had all been clear that President Bush's one "red line" in the negotiations on 1441 was that they should not "concede a veto" to the French on military action - something which they were adamant had not happened.

Lord Goldsmith said he had also been influenced by Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador to the UN, and a “detailed letter from Jack Straw which … provided a very clear view about what the negotiating issues had been and now it had been resolved.”

He returned to London on February 11 and the following day changed his provisional legal advice to say that it would be reasonable to conclude that 1441 did authorize an invasion, but that it would be “safer” to get a second resolution.

The former Attorney General told the Iraq Inquiry said that the change of decision rested on the interpretation of “two or three” words in resolution 1441.

“At one stage my personal view was that taking all these factors into the balance. The balance came down in favour of saying no, a second resolution is needed,” he said.

“I then ultimately reached – when I had to reach a definitive view on this - a different view.”

Lord Goldsmith said gave his “provisional advice” to Jonathan Powell, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, on February 27 which said there was a “reasonable case that a second resolution was not necessary.”

Obama's State of the Union: Immigration? Gays in the military?

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed a few more subjects that may surface in the State of the Union tomorrow night, including immigration and gays in the military -- but he provided few details and noted that the address is still being worked through.
"Let's wait for tomorrow's speech," Gibbs said.
The spokesman did say Obama would mention immigration but it's up to Congress to get the ball rolling on legislation. "We've started a process on this," Gibbs said, and if Congress can put together "a coalition to get the way forward, then it's something we'll work through."
Gibbs had little to say on the Clinton-era "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding gays in the military. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said this week that the White House asked him to postpone a hearing on Don't Ask, Don't Tell until after the president's address.
As for tone, expect the president to be "feisty" at times, Gibbs said. "I don't doubt that at times he's going to believe that while Washington may not want to make progress in certain ways that Washington has to be pushed to make that progress," he said, "whether that's health care reform or cutting our budget."
"He looks at the State of the Union as a time in which to update the American people on what's been done and where we go from here, going forward," Gibbs said. "This is not about him; this is about what we have to do, going forward, for the American people."

London meeting seeks ways to win Afghan war after 8-year slog

LONDON — Will one more international conference help western forces regain the upper hand in the desperate battle for Afghanistan?
That is the hope of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and 60 foreign ministers gathering in London on Thursday to look for ways to turn around the faltering war effort and speed the snail-paced reconstruction program.
"The conference will be a major opportunity for Afghanistan to explain to the rest of the world our plans for reconciliation and reintegration," Karzai said in Turkey on Tuesday. "Afghanistan is in the frontline of the war on terror. The Afghan people are giving daily sacrifices in this struggle."
The conference will see the unveiling of an ambitious plan to sap the Taliban insurgency by convincing some of its lower and mid-level fighters to lay down their weapons in exchange for money, job training and other financial incentives.
The long range goal is to create order from chaos: to transform Afghanistan into a relatively stable country with a functioning, credible government and no camps or canyons where al-Qaida's fugitive leaders can hide and plot.
The likelihood of immediate success: next to nil. Even if things work out, it will take several years at least for poorly paid and loosely trained Afghan security forces and police to be ready to take control of their battered country, bled dry by on-and-off warfare for the past three decades.
No one pretends the war is going well: casualties are up, public support in coalition countries is down, and ever-bolder Taliban rebels have successfully attacked the centre of Kabul, power base of the feeble central government led by Karzai. Al-Qaida leaders, on the run for eight years, have regrouped, their tentacles grasping beyond their base near the Pakistan-Afghan border.
The conflict is at a crossroads, with America and its NATO allies sending 37,000 more troops in a bid to blunt the Taliban's momentum as the Afghan government seeks financial help with ambitious plans to "Afghanize" the conflict by taking over security duties in the next five years.
The reconstruction effort is getting a boost as well. NATO Tuesday named Mark Sedwill, who was Britain's ambassador to Kabul, to be its new civilian representative in Afghanistan. He will be charged with administering reconstruction projects and act as a civilian counterpart to the military commander, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced plans to boost its troop strength, in order to provide more training for Afghan forces, and to nearly double Germany's reconstruction aid to Afghanistan, increasing it from $310 million to $605 million per year.
Despite gloomy reports from the battlefield, there are glimmers of hope - with polls showing most Afghans now blame the Taliban, not western forces, for the bloodshed and instability, a reversal from just a year earlier.
Still, it is not clear if the plan to persuade Taliban fighters who are not linked to al-Qaida to give up their weapons and join the political process - a centrepiece of the conference agenda - will be successful even if participants make money available. Taliban leaders say the plan is doomed.
The Afghan government plans to offer jobs, vocational training and other financial incentives to Taliban soldiers willing to switch sides. The goal is to reach out to 20,000 to 35,000 insurgents - but skeptics doubt whether large numbers would desert at a time when many insurgents believe they are winning.
Some militants believe they can outlast western forces, which may be called home due to budgetary restraints and ebbing public enthusiasm for the mission. President Barack Obama says he plans to start withdrawing some U.S. troops by July, 2011.
The conference is also expected to endorse a new timetable for expanding Afghan security forces and giving them control of various parts of the country as part of a plan to reduce western troop levels by the middle of next year if possible.
The diplomats will also discuss ways to channel more international aid directly through Afghan ministries while, at the same time, working to curb systematic graft and bribery inside the government.
The conference, which may name a top civilian co-ordinator for Afghanistan, is also designed at least in part to bolster two leaders in trouble.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, facing a difficult election campaign, hopes to bolster his leadership credentials, and Karzai - damaged by electoral fraud and unable to win parliamentary backing for his cabinet choices - plans to demonstrate that his government still has strong international support.
There are some reasons for confidence even though the numbers of soldiers killed in roadside attacks has steadily increased in the last 12 months.
Analysts believe the troop surge ordered by Obama and new tactics aimed at winning over ordinary Afghans pushed by McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, may blunt the Taliban's recent gains.
Michael Codner, director of the Military Sciences Department at the Royal United Services Institute in London, said the additional troops may convince on-the-fence Afghans not to back the Taliban.
"It is quite likely the surge could bring a tipping point in the right direction rather than having it muddle along forever," he said. "The situation before looked pretty feeble and doomed."
Codner said the number of troops being added is adequate for the task they face.
He cautioned that public support for the war, at least in Britain, has dropped because there is little confidence in Brown's assertion that the fighting will help protect British towns and cities from al-Qaida attacks.
"There's a great deal of skepticism," Codner said. "That's because the mission is not clear. The government is saying it is direct security, that al-Qaida will set up there again if we don't do this, but unfortunately the public feels if we do these operations, we'll get an asymmetric attack at home, as in the July 7 bombings."
He was referring to the July 7, 2005 attacks on the London transit system that killed 52 people. The co-ordinated bombings by radicalized British Muslims were blamed by some on Britain's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Germany wants Afghan withdrawal from 2011: FM

BERLIN: Germany wants to start bringing its soldiers home from Afghanistan in 2011, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said on Tuesday ahead of an international conference in London.

"In the next four years we want to create the conditions to enable our military presence to be wound down gradually. We want to begin this year, step by step, with the handover of security responsibilities," Westerwelle said.

"In 2011 we want to begin reducing our own contingent, and by 2014 we want to have handed over responsibility for security to Afghanistan," said Westerwelle, who will represent Germany at Thursday's talks.

He noted, however, that the plans did not include setting a fixed date for the complete withdrawal of Germany's troops in the country, currently numbering 4,300 and based mostly in the north.

Chancellor Angela Merkel announced earlier that Germany planned to send 500 more soldiers, and to have 350 reservists on stand-by, as well as boost its training of Afghan security forces and increase development aid.

German troops currently form the third-largest contingent in the 110,000-strong international force behind the United States and Britain, with the upper limit capped by parliament at 4,500 soldiers.

French panel calls for burqa ban

PARIS: A French parliament report called Tuesday for a ban on the full Islamic veil, saying Muslim women who wear the burqa were mounting an "unacceptable" challenge to French values.

After six months of hearings, a panel of 32 lawmakers recommended a ban on the face-covering veil in all schools, hospitals, public transport and government offices, the broadest move yet to restrict Muslim dress in France.

"The wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is unacceptable," the report said. "We must condemn this excess."

The commission however stopped short of proposing broad legislation to outlaw the burqa in the streets, in shopping centres and other public venues after raising doubts about its constitutionality.

"The wearing of the full veil is the tip of the iceberg," said communist lawmaker Andre Gerin, the chair of the commission, who presented the report to the parliament speaker.

"There are scandalous practices hidden behind this veil," said Gerin who vowed to fight the "gurus" he said were seeking to export a radical brand of fundamentalism and sectarianism to France.

Call for ban on Indian films in Pak in response to players' IPL snub

Lahore, Jan.26 (ANI): The Lahore High Court (LHC) has summoned the Ministry of Sports and Culture and the Association of Film Producers Lahore High Court (LHC) on February 9 to submit its reply on a petition seeking a ban on the screening of Indian films in Pakistan.

LHC Chief Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif also directed the petitioner, Muhammad Hussain, to help the court to decide as to why Indian films should be banned.

The petitioner's counsel, Ishtiaq Ahmed Chaudhry, said the whole of Pakistan has been 'humiliated' by the Indian Premier League's (IPL) decision not to include any Pakistani cricketers in the T20 league's next edition.

Chaudhry pleaded that the government should ban Indian films unless the Indian government does not apologise for the disregard shown to the Pakistani players. (ANI)

India should not escalate arms race in the region: Zardari

ISTANBUL: President Asif Ali Zardari hopes India would not escalate the arms race in the region, adding that the government would keep open the option of dialogue without lowering its guard and would welcome the technology like drone predators.
           
In an interview with Turkish Radio & Television, President said India has already increased its defence budget by 30 per cent in the wake of the Mumbai attacks in 2008.
He said that the nations in the region should focus on eradicating poverty and on humanitarian issues like the environment rather than having larger armies.
Zardari was confident that the Indian government would be ultimately engaged in a constructive dialogue.
He lauded Turkey’s role in facilitating dialogue among Afghanistan and its neighbours, hoping that the summit would help achieve the goal of peace and stability in that conflict-ridden country.
He advised the world to beware of extremist mindset. But opined the door of dialogues couldn’t be shut down.
To a question, he termed it a wishful thinking that Taliban would take over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. -DawnNews

Outbursts and Ejections in Afghan Shooting Trial

From the beginning, disruptions have plagued the trial of Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani scientist accused of trying to shoot United States Army officers while detained in Afghanistan in 2008. And Monday was hardly an exception.

The defendant was ejected from a Lower Manhattan courtroom — not once, but twice — on Monday for loudly proclaiming her innocence. And, in a separate episode between the two ejections, a spectator who pointed his thumb and index finger like a gun at the jury while mouthing an expletive was taken into custody and later released.
The judge later dismissed two jurors who said they felt threatened. “They were visibly upset,” a court official said.
The trial, which is in its second week, is taking place under heavy security in United States District Court, with a metal detector and guards at the courtroom door. Still, there have been breaches. On Monday, Judge Richard M. Berman noted some of them in explaining his ruling against a defense motion for greater public access to the court.
So far, three people have sneaked recording devices into the courtroom, said Judge Berman, adding that one audience member had even passed a cellphone, which is also banned, to a member of the defense team.
“The court finds that the additional security measures are necessary,” the judge announced.
A day of drama also included emotional testimony from the soldier whose M4 rifle was used in the alleged murder attempt, which took place in a police headquarters building in Afghanistan on July 18, 2008. Judge Berman said the soldier’s name was withheld at the prosecution’s request.
That soldier, whose name was entered into the record only as “chief warrant officer,” explained how he had laid his gun on the floor of a room in a show of respect for the Afghans inside, as is customary in that country.
“You don’t talk to somebody with an assault rifle around your neck,” said the witness, who wore a green uniform and walked with a cane because of an unrelated roadside bombing in Afghanistan. At one point, he broke into tears describing that bombing.
The warrant officer testified that Ms. Siddiqui, who had been out of sight and behind a curtain when he had entered the room, grabbed the rifle and hoisted it to her shoulder while aiming it at the Army soldiers and F.B.I. agents in the room.
The warrant officer said he then fired two rounds from his 9-millimeter pistol, hitting Ms. Siddiqui in the abdomen before she was tackled.
On Monday, the warrant officer recreated the scene with the gun from a chair in front of the jury box.
A few minutes later, Ms. Siddiqui — who was twice removed from the court during the first week for outbursts stating she was innocent — launched into her second outburst of the day.
“I never shot it!” she yelled from the table where she sat among her lawyers, before marshals whisked her away. She was kept out of court for the rest of the day.