Lord Goldsmith admits Iraq legal shift

L

ord Goldsmith changed his mind over whether a second UN resolution was needed for the 2003 war to be lawful, he has told the UK’s Iraq inquiry.

Until a month before the 2003 invasion, the ex-attorney general believed it was “safer” to get a fresh UN agreement.

But he gave the “green light” after deciding force was justified by existing agreements on Iraq dating back to the end of the 1991 Gulf War.

With hindsight, he said his earlier position had been “too cautious”.

Unequivocal judgment

The military deserved an “unequivocal” judgment on the legality of its action before troops went into battle and that is what he provided in the middle of March, he told the inquiry.

Lord Goldsmith is facing six hours of questions as the legal debate over the war takes centre stage ahead of Tony Blair’s appearance on Friday.

Critics of the war have suggested that Lord Goldsmith changed his mind about the issue in the days before the conflict, first issuing draft advice urging the need for a second resolution but a week later concluding that action was justified on the basis of existing resolutions.

But he denied this, saying he told ministers in person in the middle of February that military force would be lawful.

He said he gave “consistent” advice that UN approval would be needed to approve military action and no other reasons were acceptable.

Pressed about whether UN resolution 1441, approved in November 2002 and giving Saddam a “final opportunity” to comply with UN demands, was sufficient to justify war, he said it was never “clear cut” as there were ambiguities in how it could be interpreted.

He said his initial view, held until February 2002, was that getting a further resolution would be “safer” as it would put the “matter beyond doubt and nobody could have challenged the legality”.

But after discussions with US and UK diplomats, Lord Goldsmith said the “true meaning” of resolution 1441 became clear and that he was confident that Iraqi non-compliance with this agreement would “revive” the authority to use force inherent in existing UN agreements.

In particular, he said it reactivated UN resolution 678 agreed at the end of the Gulf War which authorised the international community to use “all necessary means to restore international peace and security” in the region after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

As early as the summer of 2002, he told No 10 that other justifications for military action – including self-defence, prevention of a humanitarian disaster or regime change – would not be valid in law.

Tony Blair did not appear to welcome advice that UN authority was the only way for war to be justified, he added.

Consistent advice

However, he insisted he was not put under any pressure to reach a decision on whether the war was lawful, saying that at a meeting in Feburary 2002: “The prime minister made it clear that he accepted that it was for me to reach a judgment and he had to accept it.”

Lord Goldsmith denied that he had ignored the concerns of senior Foreign Office lawyers Sir Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst who believed that the invasion amounted to a “crime of aggression” without explicit UN approval.

“I paid great attention to what their views were,” he told the inquiry. “Ultimately I disagreed with the views they took.”

But Lord Goldsmith criticised Jack Straw’s response to Sir Michael Wood’s concerns about the legality of the war in a January 2003 letter in which he said he did not accept his advice.

Although ministers were entitled to “challenge” legal advice, he was “unhappy” that the tone of the letter “appeared to be rebuking a senior legal adviser for expressing his own legal view”.

Throughout the process, Lord Goldsmith said his job was to provide “accurate legal advice” whatever his “private views” on the policy.

Lord Goldsmith denied he was brought late into the process, saying he was first approached by ministers to provide provisional advice in December 2002 and the timing of this was “not uncommon”.

In his 13 March opinion, Lord Goldsmith concluded the use of force was lawful but critics of the war say that ministers were not aware of the caveats contained in his 6 March assessment when he said “the safest legal course” would be to get a further UN resolution.

Although in this he stressed a “reasonable case” could be made for using existing UN resolutions to justify the use of force, he said he would not be “confident” this would be upheld in a court of law.

Earlier during Wednesday’s hearing, chairman Sir John Chilcot said he shared ex-Attorney General Lord Goldsmith’s “frustration” at key documents not being declassified.

Lord Goldsmith said he did not agree with the decision not to allow publication of some documents which are understood to relate to the legal basis for the war.

Sir John added: “Can I just say that the frustration is shared.”

It is thought they were referring to a number of documents – which the inquiry panel can see but not make public – relating to the legal basis of the war.

in: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8481759.stm

Shimon Peres addresses Bundestag in Berlin

The Israeli President Shimon Peres has given an emotional address to the German parliament, the Bundestag.

He had gone to the special session in Berlin to commemorate the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, on the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp.

Peres recited a Jewish prayer for those who had lost members of their families, and remembered waving his grandfather goodbye for ever from the platform of a railway station.

“Never again,” he said, “never again, xenophobic teachings. Never again, the feeling of superiority. Never again, a divine right to murder and ignore the law. We must never again ignore bloodthirsty dictatorships that hide behind popularity.”

The Israeli President said he looked forward to a world without war and without anti-semitism.

He spoke of the special friendship and support that existed between Israel and Germany, and he said Israel is prepared to give up territory in the pursuit of peace with the Palestinians.

in: http://www.euronews.net/2010/01/27/peres-addresses-bundestag-in-berlin/

UK hostage tells of ‘executions’

Former British hostage Peter Moore has told for the first time how he was regularly beaten and subjected to mock executions after being seized in Iraq.

The 36-year-old computer expert from Lincoln returned to the UK in January after a two-and-a-half year ordeal.

There were “many, many times” he thought he would be killed, he said.

He recalled how on one occasion, his guards blindfolded him, put a pistol to his head and pulled the trigger while another gun was fired behind his back.

“I just thought I was dead. And then I realised I could still hear laughing, I was still handcuffed and that wasn’t the case.”

Candle tribute

Mr Moore was seized in Baghdad in May 2007 along with his four bodyguards.

The bodies of three of the guards were released to UK authorities last year, and the fourth guard is also believed to have been killed.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said that “from the very beginning, [Mr Moore's] captors viewed him as a civilian and the bodyguards, essentially, as disposable.

“They saw them as a nuisance, they were trained to protect him by force if necessary so they presented a potential threat to the captors.”

The bodies of Alec MacLachlan, 30, from Llanelli, South Wales, Jason Swindlehurst, 38, from Skelmersdale, Lancashire, and Jason Creswell, 39, originally from Glasgow, were handed over last year.

A fourth bodyguard, Alan McMenemy, 34, from Glasgow, is also thought to have been killed.

Having lit four candles at Lincoln Cathedral for his fellow hostages on Tuesday, Mr Moore paid tribute to them and called for the immediate return of Mr McMenemy’s body.

‘Walking the dog’

“As far as I can see there’s no reason to keep that,” Mr Moore said.

“I’m very grateful to Jason, Jason, Alec and Alan, for the help and advice and the medical treatment I received following my abduction.

“Certainly without that help and advice I definitely wouldn’t be stood here today.”

He described his treatment at the hands of his captors in 2007 as “pretty harsh”.

“We were in chains, shackled, blindfolded, handcuffed, periodically beaten, water poured over us.

“In 2008 things got better. I was separated off from the others. In 2009 things were actually pretty good. Things improved a lot. I was out of the chains.

“I had a PlayStation and satellite TV, a laptop computer, en suite shower, toilet facilities.

“And ultimately I got released, so that was excellent.”

Describing how he coped with his time in captivity, Mr Moore said he had pretended he “wasn’t there”.

“I used to close my eyes and think I was walking the dog for some reason and I used to think I was riding a motorcycle and hiking over the hills and things like that,” he recalled.

“I also used to count dots on the wall and work out mathematical formulas.”

Police debriefing

He also said he had not believed his captors in December when they told him he was to be released.

“I thought I was really going to go and be executed,” Mr Moore said.

“The first time I really believed I was being released was when I stepped out of the vehicle and somebody from the Foreign Office walked up to me and said they were from the Foreign Office and they were there to take me home.”

Our security correspondent said Mr Moore had spent the three weeks since his return to the UK being debriefed by the Metropolitan Police.

But as Mr Moore was separated from the other hostages in 2008, he is unable to provide much information about what happened to them, our correspondent added.

He said Mr Moore had been unaware in his final months as a hostage that his fellow captives had been killed, and it was his civilian status which meant he was ultimately to survive his period of captivity.

There has been speculation since his release that Mr Moore was held in Iran during part of his captivity, but this has never been verified and the Foreign Office has said it has “no evidence to substantiate claims of [Iran's] direct involvement in this case”.

Mr Moore said he believed he was held in Iraq’s Baghdad and Basra and moved from house to house every three months.

in: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8481927.stm

France MPs’ report backs Muslim face veil ban

A French parliamentary committee has recommended a partial ban on women wearing Islamic face veils.

The committee’s near 200-page report has proposed a ban in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport.

It also recommends that anyone showing visible signs of “radical religious practice” should be refused residence cards and citizenship.

The interior ministry says just 1,900 women in France wear the full veils.

In its report, the committee said requiring women to cover their faces was against the French republican principles of secularism and equality.

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

The commission called on parliament to adopt a formal resolution stating that the face veil was “contrary to the values of the republic” and proclaiming that “all of France is saying ‘no’ to the full veil”.

Presenting the report to the French National Assembly, speaker Bernard Accoyer said the face veil had too many negative connotations.

“It is the symbol of the repression of women, and… of extremist fundamentalism.

“This divisive approach is a denial of the equality between men and women and a rejection of co-existence side-by-side, without which our republic is nothing.”

The report is expected to be followed by the drafting of a bill and a parliamentary debate on the issue.

The BBC’s Hugh Schofield, in Paris, says the reasoning behind the report is to make it as impractical as possible for women in face veils to go about their daily business.

There is also a fear that an outright ban would not only be difficult to implement but would be distasteful and could make France a target for terrorism, our correspondent says.

France has an estimated five million Muslims – the largest such population in Western Europe.

Months of debate

The report follows months of public debate, including President Nicolas Sarkozy’s intervention, saying all-encompassing veils were “not welcome in France”.

However, he did not explicitly call for a ban, saying “no-one should feel stigmatised” by any eventual law.

Opinion polls suggest a majority of French people support a full ban.

However, the parliamentary deputies have recommended that – for now – restrictions should be limited.

The committee suggests a ban inside public buildings, with those who defy the ban denied whatever services are on offer there – for example state benefits.

There are several types of headscarves and veils for Muslim women – those that cover the face being the niqab and the burka. In France, the niqab is the version most commonly worn.

The niqab usually leaves the eyes clear. It is worn with an accompanying headscarf and sometimes a separate eye veil.

The burka covers the entire face and body with just a mesh screen to see through.

The issue has divided France’s political parties.

The Socialist opposition has come out officially against a ban, saying it would be difficult to enforce. It says it is opposed to full veils in principle, but some members have expressed fears about any ruling that could stigmatise Muslim women.

Meanwhile, the head of Mr Sarkozy’s right-wing UMP party has already presented a bill in parliament supporting a full ban on grounds of security.

in: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8480161.stm

Mother cleared of ME daughter’s attempted murder

A mother has been found not guilty of the attempted murder of her severely ill daughter who had ME.

Bridget Kathleen Gilderdale, 55, of Stonegate, East Sussex, was cleared of attempting to murder Lynn Gilderdale by jurors at Lewes Crown Court.

Gilderdale had previously admitted aiding and abetting the suicide of her 31-year-old daughter and was given a 12-month conditional discharge.

Miss Gilderdale was found dead at their home on 4 December.

The court heard how she had battled with ME, which causes long-term, and in some cases debilitating, tiredness, for 17 years.

‘Caring mother’

After the jury had delivered its verdict, Mr Justice Bean said: “I do not normally comment on the verdicts of juries but in this case their decision, if I may say so, shows common sense, decency and humanity which makes jury trials so important in a case of this kind.

“There is no dispute that you were a caring and loving mother and that you considered that you were acting in the best interests of your daughter.”

Earlier prosecutor Sally Howes was asked by Mr Justice Bean “why it was considered to be in the public interest” to pursue Gilderdale on the attempted murder charge when she had pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting suicide.

Ms Howes said the prosecution decided at “the highest level” to try Gilderdale after she told her GP and police she had given her daughter an air embolism with the intent to end her life.

Because a post-mortem examination found that Miss Gilderdale had died of a morphine overdose, her mother was not charged with murder but with attempted murder.

Following the trial Gilderdale’s son, Steve, read out a statement on the steps of the court flanked by his mother and father, which praised the verdict.

He said: “We believe this not guilty verdict properly reflects the selfless actions my mother took on finding that Lynn had decided to take her own life, to make her daughter’s final moments as peaceful and painless as possible.

“These actions exhibit the same qualities of dedication, love and care that mum demonstrated throughout the 17 years of Lynn’s illness.

“I’m very proud of her and I hope she will be afforded the peace that she deserves to rebuild her life and finally grieve for the death of her daughter.”

Jurors were told that after Miss Gilderdale made a failed suicide bid her mother crushed up pills with a pestle and mortar and fed them to her through her nasal tube, handed her morphine and injected three syringes of air into her vein.

The court was told the 55-year-old tried to stop her daughter ending her life but backed down after she told her: “I want the pain to go.”

Jurors heard she was a loving and devoted mother who gave round-the-clock care during Miss Gilderdale’s battle with ME.

After developing the illness at the age of 14, Miss Gilderdale became paralysed and unable to swallow so she had to be fed through a tube and communicated with her parents through a form of sign language.

The court was told she had attempted suicide in the past, placed a Do Not Resuscitate note on her medical records and had thought about ending her life at Swiss-based assisted suicide clinic Dignitas.

Mr Justice Bean asked prosecutor Sally Howes “why it was considered to be in the public interest” to pursue Gilderdale on the attempted murder charge when she had pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting suicide.

Sarah Wootton, chief executive of charity Dignity in Dying, said the law made little distinction between the act of murder, euthanasia, assisted dying and assisted suicide.

She added: “Given that Lynn Gilderdale was mentally competent, made persistent requests to die and had an Advance Decision stating that she did not want to be kept alive, it seems that [Bridget] Kay Gilderdale’s actions should have been investigated under the Suicide Act, rather than under murder law.

“Ultimately, the government needs to review the law in this area, as this case highlights at present the law is a mess.”

Sussex Police Det Supt Andy Griffiths said: “This has been a tragic and desperately sad case for all concerned and our thoughts are with Lynn’s family and friends at this time.”

He added: “The moral issues surrounding the tragic circumstances of Lynn’s death are not for us to comment on. Sussex Police has a duty to uphold the law and investigate offences reported to us.

“There is no sense of success or failure in this case, but we are satisfied that our role in the justice process has been fulfilled.”

in: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/sussex/8479211.stm

‘Chemical Ali’ executed in Iraq after Halabja ruling

Ali Hassan al-Majid, a former Iraqi official known as “Chemical Ali”, has been executed by hanging, a government spokesman has announced.

Majid, an enforcer in Saddam Hussein’s regime and his cousin, had earlier been sentenced to death four times for genocide and crimes against humanity.

Earlier this month, he was sentenced to death for ordering the gas attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988.

It is believed that about 5,000 people died in the attack.

Iraqi jets swooped over Halabja and for five hours sprayed it with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas and the nerve agents Tabun, Sarin and VX.

Brutality

Majid was “executed by hanging until death”, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement

“The execution happened without any violations, shouting or cries of joy,” he added, in sharp contrast to Saddam’s death on the gallows in 2006.

Iraqi state television, al-Iraqiya, broadcast pictures of what it said was the execution of Majid, although the BBC has not yet confirmed the authenticity of the images.

News of the hanging came shortly after three suicide car bombs struck in central Baghdad. It was not immediately clear whether the attacks were linked to his execution.

Majid was first sentenced to hang in June 2007 for his role in a military campaign against ethnic Kurds, codenamed Anfal, that lasted from February to August of 1988.

In December 2008 he also received a death sentence for his role in crushing a Shia revolt after the 1991 Gulf War.

In March 2009 he was sentenced to death, along with others, for the 1999 killings of Shia Muslims in the Sadr City district of Baghdad.

The BBC’s Jim Muir in Baghdad says Majid could have been hanged earlier – after his first death sentence for the Anfal campaign.

But it was important to Iraqi Kurds to see him convicted of the Halabja attack, seen as one of the worst atrocities of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

No remorse

Our correspondent says there will be great rejoicing or, at the very least, quiet relief among both Iraq’s Shia and Kurdish communities, which have suffered greatly at his hands.

There was a mixed reaction from ordinary Iraqis to news of the execution.

“I give my condolences to the Iraqi people on the death of Ali Hassan al-Majid, who was killed by traitors and hooligans,” said a resident of Majid’s home town, Tikrit.

But Baghdad resident Ali Suhail said the execution was just: ”He had executed so many people. So he deserves to be executed.”

A resident of Halabja also said he was pleased: ”We, the families of those killed in the attack on Halabja, are very pleased to hear that Ali Hassan al-Majid was executed.

“Once again we call upon the Iraqi people and government to be united and serve the Iraqi people and families of those killed in poison gas attack.”

Majid – the King of Spades in the US military’s pack of cards of most-wanted Iraqis – was arrested in August 2003.

He has refused to express remorse at any of his trials, insisting that he was acting in the interests of Iraqi security.

The Iraqi High Tribunal was set up to try former members of Saddam Hussein’s mainly Sunni government and was the same one that sentenced the former president to death.

Footage of Saddam’s execution in December 2006 was posted on the internet.

It showed the dictator being confronted by opponents who jeered and clapped as he was being hanged.

in: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8479115.stm

Jack Straw says 45-minute Iraq claim has ‘haunted us’

The claim Saddam Hussein could use chemical weapons within 45 minutes has “haunted us ever since”, ex-foreign secretary Jack Straw has said.

He said the decision to go to war was not based just on intelligence but it was an “error” not to be more precise about the claim in the 2002 dossier.

Mr Straw told the Iraq inquiry that supporting the March 2003 war was “the most difficult decision” he had taken.

He said that if he had opposed it the UK would not have taken part.

Mr Straw, who is currently the justice secretary, said the decision had been a “profoundly difficult moral and political dilemma”.

Mr Straw said he regarded the US policy of regime change as the objective of military action in Iraq as “improper and unlawful” but insisted Saddam was a “serious threat” that must be addressed.

‘Critical decision’

Mr Straw is the most senior figure yet, and the first serving cabinet minister, to give evidence to the inquiry – which is examining the background to UK involvement in the March 2003 war and its aftermath.

In a written statement published as he began to be questioned, Mr Straw said he was “fully aware” that, as foreign secretary, his support for military action would be “critical” if the UK was to commit troops.

“If I had refused that, the UK’s participation in the military action would not have been possible,” he said.

“There would almost certainly have been no majority in cabinet or in the Commons.”

Mr Straw pointed out that US had backed the principle of regime change in Iraq since 1998 but this was never British policy.

“It was not our policy in 2002 nor in 2003,” he said. “There would have been no legal basis for it ever being our policy.”

He said he would never have “been a party” to such a policy: “I regarded it [the policy of regime change] as improper and self-evidently unlawful.”

During the spring of 2002, when Mr Blair had a crucial meeting with President George W Bush in Texas, Mr Straw said there was a “debate” taking place in government about the best way to deal with Iraq.

Before that meeting Mr Straw wrote to Mr Blair – in a letter subsequently leaked – that “regime change per se is no justification for military action: it could form part of the method of any strategy, but not a goal”.

Asked whether No 10 had “pre-empted” the Foreign Office over Iraqi policy, Mr Straw said Mr Blair was “aware” that regime change could not be a basis for acting against Iraq nor could it be “disguised” as such.

However, asked to what extent his views differed from the prime minister, Mr Straw said the panel must ask Mr Blair that.

Mr Straw was asked about private correspondence between Mr Blair and President Bush at the time in which Mr Blair indicated the UK “would be” with the US if diplomatic efforts failed and it came to military action.

“Would I have written them in the same way? Probably not. I am not the same person.”

But he said the letters were part of a trust-building exercise between the two leaders which ultimately led to the US agreeing to seek UN approval for further action on disarming Iraq.

‘Dossier error’

Mr Straw said the case for action against Iraq was “in no sense based on intelligence alone” and also took into account other factors such as Saddam Hussein’s history of using weapons of mass destruction and his track record of “open defiance” of the United Nations.

But he admitted the claim in the government’s September 2002 dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that chemical weapons could be used within 45 minutes of an order being given should have been “much more precise” about what this referred to.

“That was an error, an error that has haunted us ever since.”

Mr Straw said the UK insisted throughout on a series of pre-conditions for its backing for military action against Iraq including its approval by the UN, that it must be a last resort and such a move must be lawful.

Mr Straw helped negotiate a UN resolution in November 2002 giving Saddam Hussein a “final opportunity” to meet its disarmament obligations but failed in efforts to get a second resolution which critics say was needed to explicitly authorise military action.

Nevertheless, Mr Straw said Saddam Hussein had clearly failed to comply with the initial resolution in terms of co-operating with inspectors and providing full disclosure of his weapons capability.

“He was given an ultimatum and did not take it,” he said.

Ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair will appear on 29 January at the inquiry, which is looking into the run-up, conduct of and aftermath of the war.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he had written to the inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot, to say he was “happy” to appear before the panel at any time of its choosing.

He is due to give evidence after the general election but opposition parties say he should appear beforehand as he played a crucial role, then as chancellor, in spending decisions.

in: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8471511.stm

Obama pushes new bank regulation

US President Barack Obama has proposed limits to the size of banks to try to prevent future financial crises.

“Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by banks that are too big to fail,” Mr Obama said.

He recently announced a $117bn (£72bn) levy on banks to recoup money US taxpayers spent bailing out the banks.

US stocks – especially banks such as JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America – fell sharply as Mr Obama announced the sweeping new rules.

His proposals also include limits on the amount of risk banks can take, and banning retail banks from using their own money into risky financial transactions.

That prevents commercial banks from investing in hedge funds, private equity funds or engaging in so-called proprietary trading.

The benchmark US Dow Jones industrial average dropped 1.7%. JPMorgan fell 6.6% and Bank of America was down 4%.

The US dollar also turned lower against the euro and UK pound.

“While the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it is still operating under the exact same rules that led to its near collapse,” Mr Obama said.

The move is Mr Obama’s first proposal since Republican Scott Brown’s shock victory in Massachusetts to win a Senate seat.

Tough new rules

Mr Obama has proposed a raft of new regulation but it has been held up in political wrangling in both the Senate and House of Representatives.

Mr Brown’s victory may make it harder to pass the rules Mr Obama has proposed.

“If these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have,” he vowed.

The president dubbed his proposals on limiting bank risk the Volcker rule – after Paul Volcker, one of his economic advisors and a former chairman of the Federal Reserve central bank.

Banks have also been lobbying against more stringent regulation.

The moves follow popular anger at financial institutions, who have been paying large bonuses to staff even as they accepted government bail-outs to keep them going.

The tax will claw back some of the losses from a $700bn taxpayer bail-out of US banks known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (Tarp).

It was drawn up in the midst of the financial crisis in 2008, following the collapse of US investment bank Lehman Brothers and rescue of insurance giant American International Group (AIG).

Mr Obama’ s proposals appear to be a return to the principles underlying the Glass-Steagall Act.

That law – from the 1930s in the aftermath of the Great Depression – separated commercial and investment banking and was eventually abolished in 1999 under President Bill Clinton.

Mr Clinton’s financial secretary at the time, Robert Rubin, previously worked at Goldman Sachs and went on to be an advisor to Citigroup until last year.

in: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8473294.stm

Frustration grows over Haiti aid

In Haiti frustration at the slow pace of vital aid supplies has been causing tension at the airport in Port-au-Prince. It’s one of the few places where it’s still possible to find work in the capital and each day hundreds of Haitians gather from dawn looking for a job. The vast majority don’t get far. Some locals are angry that despite the hive of activity at the airport, aid is desperately slow to reach those in need.

A woman at the airport gates told reporters: “What do they come here for? Do they come here to help us? We don’t find any help. Nobody finds any help. There are a lot of kids on the street, people are dying all over the streets. We still have people under the debris. I mean, what did they come here to do – to help us or to look around or to make fun of us or what?”

But a man nearby was thankful for the Americans’ presence:
“I am really glad that the Americans are here because the Haitians are irresponsible. Because if the Haitians want to get out of this situation, Americans have to take control of this country. We need the Americans to stay here and take the country in hand. Then the Haitians can live normally.”

More US marines have been arriving from warships anchored offshore. Some brought with them bulldozers, diggers and trucks; others food rations and temporary shelters for the homeless.

The UN has praised the Dominican Republic for setting up a humanitarian aid corridor to Haiti, and for sending 150 troops to join UN peacekeepers.

The US is sending another four thousand troops to Haiti, bringing its total number to 16,000. In Latin America, Bolivia and Venezuela have again condemned the American military presence.

in: http://www.euronews.net/2010/01/21/frustration-grows-over-haiti-aid/

Strong aftershock rocks Haiti

A strong aftershock has struck Haiti, one week after a devastating earthquake tore through the capital Port-au-Prince, killing an estimated 200,000 people.

The tremor, measuring 6.1 on the Richter scale, struck near the costal city of Jacmel on the Caribbean island.

There was no immediate information on the extent of the damage or the number of casualties but the tremor could further hamper relief efforts.

It comes eight days after an earthquake measuring 7.1 on the Richter scale razed through Port au Prince, leaving more than one million people homeless.

Medical and food supplies have so far been slow to reach survivors, who have been camping out on the streets of the Haitian capital.

Deliveries were held up last week by widespread looting but now US troops have been deployed to boost security.

Meanwhile, rescue teams are continuing their search for signs of life among the rubble.

in: http://www.euronews.net/2010/01/20/earthquake-in-haiti-strong-aftershock-rocks-haiti/