Douglas Caddy

About a week ago I watched a video interview of a stakeholder in the wiretapping scandal who said that he was resigned to the fact that the wrongdoers had been given four years to get their stories right and destroy the evidence. For these reasons he thought that the chances of successful prosecutions had been greatly reduced. However, one never really knows in a situation like this what may suddenly emerge and change the outcome. [Two examples: Whittaker Chambers hid his evidence in the Alger Hiss case in a hollowed out pumpkin in a field on his Maryland farm. Robert Merritt placed his evidence of government agents' wrongdoing in COINTELPRO in his mother's casket just before it was lowered into the ground in April 1972.]

Landlady 1, Sky Sports 0 – the legal victory that has Murdoch worried By Ian Burrell, Media Editor The Independent Friday, 4 February 2011 A determined landlady has won a significant breakthrough in a legal battle that could transform the British pub trade by allowing premises to show Premier League games that are being broadcast by foreign networks. Karen Murphy, who runs the Red, White and Blue pub in Portsmouth, is fighting a criminal and civil action brought against her after she began screening matches from the Greek broadcaster Nova, using a much cheaper decoder. Yesterday, in a landmark case called "Murphy's Law", Julie Kokott, Advocate General at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, found that she had the right to show the matches, advising the EU's highest court to rule in favour of renegade landlords. The advice could cause a revolution in the way media sports rights are sold across the continent, and is sure to be the target of furious lobbying by the Premier League and by Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB ahead of a final decision this year. Ms Murphy is in a bitter legal dispute with the Premier League which has lucrative exclusive deals, primarily with BSkyB but also with ESPN. For four years she has been fighting to overturn a criminal conviction for breach of the Premier League's copyright. She was fined £8,000 but has taken the case to the High Court on appeal. Legal experts said the finding could create serious problems for BSkyB, which Mr Murdoch's News Corp is seeking to buy outright, and the funding of Premier League clubs. Robert Vidal, head of EU, competition and trade at lawyers Taylor Wessing LLP, said: "[Mr] Murdoch has always been a cheerleader for the free market; however, on this occasion I doubt he will welcome the introduction of cross-border competition and the resulting drop in turnover and margins as Sky customers migrate to cheaper providers." The investment bank Jefferies believes that BSkyB makes about £200m a year from selling subscriptions to British pubs and other commercial premises. Paul Charity, editor of the Morning Advertiser, the magazine for the pub trade, said: "Anything that would mean licencees pay less would be welcome. The opinion has come as a bit of a shock to the pub trade because they thought that the copyright case was clearly in favour of Sky." Ms Murphy's lawyer, Paul Dixon, said: "For the independent [pub] trade this gives them freedom to go out and buy television systems from broadcasters from any EU member state." The publican must now wait three months for a formal judgment from the court made by a panel of 13 judges. Mr Dixon said he was confident of success after the Advocate General's finding. "It's an opinion that matters because more often than not the court will follow the Advocate General's opinion." The Advocate-General's "opinion" is not legally binding, but the full panel of EU judges follows such advice in about 80 per cent of cases. That ruling will then be passed to the High Court in London. The case was referred to Luxembourg by the High Court because of a perceived lack of clarity in the European law. It was heard at the European Court of Justice on 5 October and the Spanish and Italian governments were among those who made representations in support of the Premier League's position. The UK government argues that the Premier League's right to license its broadcast rights for a fee in each member state is "part of the essential function of its copyright". Ms Murphy's stance is being backed by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, which monitors compliance within the European Economic Area. The authority argues that a licensing agreement that prevents decoder cards being used outside a licensed territory "has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition". The Tory MEP Emma McClarkin said that if the Premier League lost the case it would have "significant and detrimental" effects on the funding of grassroots sport in the UK. "This opinion is far more complicated than a simple David versus Goliath battle: money generated from television rights to sports are funnelled back into grass roots development, particularly in cricket and rugby. These are national football leagues that are being broadcast, and they should be subjected to national territorial rights agreements." In the red, white and blue corner... Karen Murphy This owner of a street-corner Victorian pub a short walk from Portsmouth's Fratton Park ground has been compared to Jean-Marc Bosman, the Belgian player whose legal challenge changed the way the football transfer market operates across Europe. The publican at the Red, White & Blue doesn't see herself as a revolutionary, so much as a traditionalist. "Supporters don't want a match on a Tuesday night – which suits the broadcaster – they want a match on a Saturday afternoon," she has said. "The whole thing has got way out of control. It's pure greed." Outraged that pubs were being charged £1,000 a month to show matches, Ms Murphy followed advice from her brewery and cut a deal to take matches with the Greek broadcaster Nova. Found guilty of breaching copyright in January 2007, she has refused to accept she has done anything wrong and is convinced she will win her case. Ms Murphy, 46, compares the right to take games from different broadcasters to the right to buy a car from a selection of dealers. She has been a publican for nearly seven years and is known for visiting her regulars in hospital and staging fund-raising events to help people in the surrounding area of Southsea. Sky in numbers £1.6bn The amount the Premier League will make from its current three-year Sky deal. £1bn Value of the Premier League's TV rights deals outside the UK over the same period. £70m Sky revenues at risk should commercial subscribers switch to cheaper foreign deals. £200m Amount BSkyB makes each year from selling subscriptions to pubs and other commercial organisations. 44,000 Number of commercial subscribers who have signed up to BSkyB packages.

'Al-Qaida on brink of using nuclear bomb' BY HEIDI BLAKE AND CHRISTOPHER HOPE THE DAILY TELEGRAPH FEBRUARY 1, 2011 5:58 PM http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Qaida+brink+using+nuclear+bomb/4205104/story.html Al-Qaida is on the verge of producing radioactive weapons after sourcing nuclear material and recruiting rogue scientists to build "dirty" bombs, according to leaked diplomatic documents. A leading atomic regulator has privately warned that the world stands on the brink of a "nuclear 9/11". Security briefings suggest that jihadi groups are also close to producing "workable and efficient" biological and chemical weapons that could kill thousands if unleashed in attacks on the West. Thousands of classified American cables obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph detail the international struggle to stop the spread of weapons-grade nuclear, chemical and biological material around the globe. At a Nato meeting in January 2009, security chiefs briefed member states that al-Qaida was plotting a program of "dirty radioactive IEDs", makeshift nuclear roadside bombs that could be used against British troops in Afghanistan. As well as causing a large explosion, a "dirty bomb" attack would contaminate the area for many years. The briefings also state that al-Qaida documents found in Afghanistan in 2007 revealed that "greater advances" had been made in bioterrorism than was previously realized. An Indian national security adviser told American security personnel in June 2008 that terrorists had made a "manifest attempt to get fissile material" and "have the technical competence to manufacture an explosive device beyond a mere dirty bomb". Alerts about the smuggling of nuclear material, sent to Washington from foreign U.S. embassies, document how criminal and terrorist gangs were trafficking large amounts of highly radioactive material across Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The alerts explain how customs guards at remote border crossings used radiation alarms to identify and seize cargoes of uranium and plutonium. Freight trains were found to be carrying weapons-grade nuclear material across the Kazakhstan-Russia border, highly enriched uranium was transported across Uganda by bus, and a "small time hustler" in Lisbon offered to sell radioactive plates stolen from Chernobyl. In one incident in September 2009, two employees at the Rossing Uranium Mine in Namibia smuggled almost half a ton of uranium concentrate powder - yellowcake - out of the compound in plastic bags. "Acute safety and security concerns" were even raised in 2008 about the uranium and plutonium laboratory of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear safety watchdog. Tomihiro Taniguchi, the deputy director general of the IAEA, has privately warned America that the world faces the threat of a "nuclear 9/11" if stores of uranium and plutonium were not secured against terrorists. But diplomats visiting the IAEA's Austrian headquarters in April 2008 said that there was "no way to provide perimeter security" to its own laboratory because it has windows that leave it vulnerable to break-ins. Senior British defence officials have raised "deep concerns" that a rogue scientist in the Pakistani nuclear program "could gradually smuggle enough material out to make a weapon", according to a document detailing official talks in London in February 2009. Agricultural stores of deadly biological pathogens in Pakistan are also vulnerable to "extremists" who could use supplies of anthrax, foot and mouth disease and avian flu to develop lethal biological weapons. Anthrax and other biological agents including smallpox, and avian flu could be sprayed from a shop-bought aerosol can in a crowded area, leaked security briefings warn. The security of the world's only two declared smallpox stores in Atlanta, America, and Novosibirsk, Russia, has repeatedly been called into doubt by "a growing chorus of voices" at meetings of the World Health Assembly documented in the leaked cables. The alarming disclosures come after Barack Obama, the U.S. president, last year declared nuclear terrorism "the single biggest threat" to international security with the potential to cause "extraordinary loss of life".

FT editor: press risks political retribution over phone-hacking scandal Lionel Barber says most publishers failed to 'take the issue seriously' because their titles may also have been implicated Read the full text of Lionel Barber's Hugh Cudlipp lecture By Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk, Monday 31 January 2011 20.04 GMT Lionel Barber said the press's stance on phone hacking amounted to a 'conspiracy of silence'. Photograph: Linda Nylind for the Guardian Lionel Barber, the editor of the Financial Times, tonight warned that the Britain's newspapers were now at risk of facing political "retribution" in the form of statutory regulation in the wake of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal, as he gave the Hugh Cudlipp memorial lecture. He accused Rupert Murdoch's News International – publisher of the tabloid – of failing to pursue a policy of "own up rather than cover up" to hacking, while criticising the bulk of the industry of failing to "take the issue seriously" because their titles may also have been implicated in the illegal practice. In a trenchant speech, Barber went on to warn that worries about the scale of phone hacking meant that News Corporation's £8bn bid for BSkyB was "troublesome" because "promises about editorial independence for Sky should be judged in the light of repeated assurances that the phone hacking was the work of a lone actor at the News of the World". He described the phone-hacking scandal as a "watershed – not just for News International but also for tabloid journalism", arguing that a 2006 report by the Information Commissioner suggested that 305 journalists from a range of titles used the services of a private investigator. Other newspapers, Barber said, "aside from the lead taken by the Guardian, which was followed by the FT, BBC and Independent", had taken "a pass on the News of the World phone-hacking story – almost certainly because they too were involved in similar practices". It amounted to, he said, a "conspiracy of silence [that] ruled Fleet Street". The result – he warned – of a "failure to clean house at all news organisations" would be that the "mainstream media in Britain" would be "at risk of retribution in the form of statutory regulation", not least because many MPs are "itching to retaliate" in the wake of the expenses scandal. Turning to Murdoch's News International in particular, Barber said that its management failed to follow the sort of advice their newspapers would have given in similar circumstances, namely to "own up rather than cover up, come clean rather than surreptitiously paying off aggrieved celebrities such as the publicist Max Clifford". He added: "The suspicion must remain that News Corporation [the parent company of News International] assumed that it enjoyed enough power and influence in Britain to make the phone hacking controversy go away." Barber also accused the Press Complaints Commission of being "supine at best" in its reaction to the hacking controversy, and said that the Metropolitan police faced "many questions" as to why it did not prosecute its original investigation into the News of the World with "sufficient rigour". He also warned that politicians had become "a tad too respectful" towards broadcast and print media, highlighting the number of senior politicians who had previously worked in the industry, including David Cameron, a former director of communications with now defunct ITV company Carlton, through to former FT leader writer turned shadow chancellor, Ed Balls. He added: "We have in recent years witnessed if not exactly a merger of the media and political class, certainly an increasingly intertwined relationship which, I suspect, does not necessarily serve the interest of either." Criticism in the 5,000-word lecture was also briefly reserved for the Daily Telegraph for its decision to send two journalists posing as constituents to covertly record comments made by business secretary Vince Cable. Barber said that the story did not meet "the public interest test", adding that it amounted to "nothing more than entrapment journalism". There were also passages discussing the FT's online charging strategy, which has seen the newspaper win over 200,000 paid subscribers, although he conceded that the paper's approach "does not necessarily lend itself to being adopted by others" because the financial title was a "high-end niche product". At one point Barber also conceded that the FT does not "always hit the ball out of the park", saying that the title, like many other news organisations, was slow to highlight the risk of the bursting of the credit bubble. He said that his own career had progressed well, all be it in a "circumspect" fashion, after a bumpy start when "a young man called Mark Thompson turned down an article I proposed for Isis magazine" when the two were at Oxford. Thompson is now the BBC director general

It has been claimed that one of the reasons that Andy Gray was sacked by Murdoch was that he was taking legal action against the News of the World because his phone was hacked. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/10/phone-hacking-victims-list

Leading article: Sky should be limited for Murdoch The Independent Sunday, 30 January 2011 These have been a fraught few days in the office for Rupert Murdoch, who visited the London branch of his media empire last week. His television company, Sky, was humiliated by the sexist goonishness of Andy Gray and Richard Keys, the presenters of its Premiership football, its biggest generator of cash. Mr Gray was sacked on Tuesday and Mr Keys followed voluntarily on Wednesday after their off-air derogatory remarks about a female match official were leaked – although it was evidence of sexual harassment in the Sky office that emerged subsequently which prompted Mr Gray's dismissal. This coincided awkwardly with a crisis in the long-running embarrassment at Mr Murdoch's biggest-selling Sunday newspaper, the News of the World. After the departure of Andy Coulson, the newspaper's former editor, from 10 Downing Street as the Prime Minister's head of communications, it must have been hoped, by Mr Murdoch and David Cameron, that the story would start to go away. Indeed, one of the purposes of Mr Murdoch's visit seems to have been to deliver in person the message that he wants the stables cleaned out properly this time – as opposed to the cosmetic exercises carried out earlier. Mr Murdoch's intentions may be sincere, but they are not unrelated to the third story concerning his interests to have occupied the rest of the British media last week. He wants to buy out the outside shareholders in Sky. That means that he has to persuade the regulators that he and his son James take seriously the concerns about media pluralism, or free and fair competition. Mr Murdoch senior has been here before. He made promises of editorial independence when he took over The Times and The Sunday Times in 1981, which were not honoured. Hence the scepticism about the undertakings that he is prepared to offer in order to secure total ownership of Sky. That is why the refusal of the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World to die down is damaging to him. While not directly relevant to competition issues, his failure to enforce standards of journalistic integrity weakens promises about how his executives will behave in future. The departure of Mr Coulson may have been part of an attempt agreed between Mr Cameron and the Government to try to close down the story, but the reopening of the police investigation puts more pressure on Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State for Culture. Mr Hunt has to decide whether to refer the Sky takeover to the Competition Commission, a decision removed from Vince Cable, the Secretary of State for Business, after he revealed his prejudice against Mr Murdoch to undercover Daily Telegraph reporters. One response to Mr Murdoch's bid for Sky has been to wonder what the fuss is about. After all, Mr Murdoch already controls Sky by virtue of his 39 per cent shareholding. What practical difference would it make for him to own Sky outright? The technical answer is that he would not have to worry about the legally protected interests of other shareholders, which would allow him to cross-subsidise between his wholly owned companies. But all that anyone really needs to know is that Mr Murdoch and his son are desperate for the takeover to go ahead. They think that it is in their commercial interest, and there is no guarantee – indeed, if anything the opposite – that such an interest is in the national interest. Last week Mr Hunt said he "intends to refer" the bid to the Competition Commission, but gave Mr Murdoch unspecified further time to satisfy Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, and the Office of Fair Trading. Possibly because it was unexpected, Mr Hunt's decision has been commended as "astute", although it is hard to see why. None of the assurances that Mr Murdoch might give – that Sky News would be independent, for instance – could be relied on. The big question, therefore, is whether four newspapers plus such a large presence in non-public-service broadcasting is so dominant that it inhibits the vigour and pluralism of our free media. The Independent on Sunday has little faith in the safeguards offered by Mr Murdoch, and believes that giving him more power over Sky's editorial direction – and Sky News in particular – crosses a line that must be held in the public interest. But it is the Competition Commission that should decide, and there is no purpose served by further delay.

Phone-hacking scandal hits Murdoch business as investors grow restless Storm surrounding News of the World threatens to engulf global empire, with investors worrying row is threat to BSkyB deal By Jamie Doward and Paul Harris in New York guardian.co.uk, Saturday 29 January 2011 20.31 GMT Rupert Murdoch has extended his stay in London to deal with the phone-hacking crisis. Many people in the UK will not have heard of Prince al-Waleed bin Talal. But perhaps they should have done. The prince has a lot of money invested in the UK and wields considerable, albeit discreet, influence. The 55-year-old nephew of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah is a multibillionaire who, through his investment company, Kingdom Holdings, has taken large chunks of companies as diverse as the Savoy Hotel Group and London's Canary Wharf. Bin Talal's power stems from his unique position. He is one of the few people who can tap the giant Saudi sovereign funds for money, so his every word is analysed forensically by the markets. Last week, though, it is likely that the prince, described by Time magazine as "the Arabian Warren Buffett", was devoting more than a passing interest to his almost 7% share in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, quietly accumulated over several years. The prince cannot have liked what he saw. What had started out as a very British row over phone hacking by reporters working on Murdoch's News of the World had become infectious and was in danger of going global. As scores of new victims emerged to allege they had been hacked by the newspaper, MPs voiced fresh concerns at the police handling of the affair and the role played by senior executives at News International, News Corp's UK subsidiary and the ultimate parent company of the News of the World, the Sun, the Times and the Sunday Times. Meanwhile, back across the Atlantic, it emerged that News Corp was facing another problem. Last week 400 rabbis from all the main branches of Judaism in the US bought a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal, calling on Murdoch to take sanctions against News Corp's Fox News subsidiary. The rabbis were incensed at the way that Fox commentators regularly referred to those with whom they disagreed as "Nazis". "You diminish the memory and meaning of the Holocaust when you use it to discredit any individual or organisation you disagree with. That is what Fox News has done in recent weeks," the ad read. The placement of the ad was even more poignant and shocking as it was published on Holocaust Remembrance Day. It came partly in response to comments by Murdoch's brash Fox News leader, Roger Ailes, who had compared executives at National Public Radio to Nazis after they sacked a commentator who made ill-advised remarks about being scared of flying with Muslims. But it also focused on the most controversial figure in the pantheon of Fox News personalities: Glenn Beck. Fox's biggest star repeatedly uses Nazi and Hitler references to describe figures he does not like. Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, has been especially vocal in attacking Beck's tactics. "I haven't heard anything like this on television or radio – and I've been following this kind of stuff. I've been in the sewers of antisemitism and Holocaust denial more often than I've wanted," she said. Those familiar with bin Talal, who has given tens of millions of dollars to charities seeking to bridge gaps between western and Islamic communities, say he will have been dismayed by any whiff of controversy threatening his business interests. "He is an incredibly intelligent man and deeply honourable; you can only speculate about what he must be thinking now," said an acquaintance. Coming at a time when News Corp wants regulatory approval to take over British satellite broadcaster BSkyB, both the phone-hacking scandal and the row with the rabbis are damaging not only to the company's reputation but its bottom line. Liberal commentators have used both to question whether Murdoch should be allowed to own more of the British media landscape. Murdoch must have hoped the BSkyB deal would have been waved through by now, but the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has postponed making a decision to see if remedies can be found to avoid a long Competition Commission inquiry. Hunt is in an invidious position, having previously expressed a view that the deal would not make a substantial difference to the plurality of the British media. An approval is likely to see Labour scream blue murder but, even before a decision has been reached, it is having political consequences. Andy Coulson, the News of the World's former editor, resigned this month as the prime minister's director of communications, saying that persistent allegations of mobile-phone hacking occurring on his watch made it impossible for him to do his job. His resignation was interpreted in some quarters as an attempt to take the heat off Murdoch at a crucial time in News Corp's bid for BSkyB. Further revelations that Cameron and James Murdoch, the Europe and Asia chief of News Corp, had been dinner guests at the Cotswolds home of News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks over Christmas provided ammunition to those who claim No 10 is too close to the media empire. That relationship looked set to become more apparent last week when Murdoch flew into the UK to hold urgent meetings with senior executives at News International. There were rumours that Cameron and Murdoch were due to hold a brief, informal meeting later in the week in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, home to the World Economic Forum, but that this was called off when the News Corp boss decided to stay in London to deal with the phone-hacking scandal. "He will be thinking all of this should have been sorted out long ago," said someone familiar with the thinking of the News Corp board. "He'll want to know why Rebekah has not closed this down." Why News Corp is so eager to bag BSkyB was plain to see last week, when the broadcaster reported pre-tax profits of £467m, up a stunning 26% on the previous year. But for Murdoch, BSkyB's profits came with a sting attached. As analysts at City brokers Charles Stanley Research note: "Our best guess is that clearance [for the News Corp takeover of BSkyB] will be granted, although perhaps only after a lengthy further investigation by the Competition Commission and/or the implementation of certain 'remedies'. "We would expect a formal offer to subsequently be forthcoming from News Corp, although the continued strong financial performance of the business means the board of BSkyB may feel obliged to demand a price well in excess of its previously stated minimum acceptable level of 800p." This demand is inevitable unless Crispin Odey, the powerful hedge fund manager who owns 3% of BSkyB and is often referred to as the "David Beckham of the City" because of his winning investments strategies, has dramatically changed his mind. Odey, whose views will be listened to closely by members of the BSkyB board, told analysts last June that "even at 800p [the price BSkyB has been demanding] this company is undervalued. We should hold out against this bid. This is a company I want to own." He added: "I've loved the Sky story for five years and now, just as the cash-flow and growth is coming through, we shouldn't sell it. If shareholders sell at this level, in two years' time we are going to look back and say 'Rupert got this for a steal'." Just to add piquancy to Odey's comments, it should be remembered that he was once married to Murdoch's daughter, Prudence. As Murdoch waits in regulatory purgatory and hedge fund managers push BSkyB's share price north – a move that could see News Corp having to stump up as much as £1bn more than it expected – the media giant's investors are said to be growing restless. A full News Corporation board meeting is believed to have been scheduled for Wednesday. The phone-hacking scandal and the BSkyB deal are expected to be high on the agenda. Bin Talal, who simply "does not lose money" according to someone who knows him well, is likely to pay very close attention to what is discussed. Worryingly for Murdoch, who is used to his investors taking a back seat, the prince is a far from passive backer. As a sizable investor in bombed-out banking giant Citigroup, bin Talal has been vocal in calling for its management to improve the firm's fortunes, warning its chief executive last year that the "honeymoon was over". Murdoch may soon find himself receiving similar encouragement if the BSkyB bid falters. It is an unpalatable prospect for an autocrat.

This new information was provided as a result of a fresh News of the World investigation. It includes the recovery of emails of Ian Edmondson. This raises the question why these emails were not found during the first investigation by the newspaper. Why was Ian Edmondson not interviewed by the police during their investigation (his name appeared on documents recovered from the private detective hacking the phones on behalf of Murdoch)? This case reveals corruption at the very top of the Metropolitan Police. The man who oversaw the original investigation and carried out the phoney review of the case, was John Yates, assistant commissioner. He also was in charge of the bungled Tony Blair, cash-for-honours investigation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TevfYqbFHS4&feature=player_embedded

I wish forum members will read the last line of Mr. Jim DiEugenio’s posting above wherein he writes, “Geez, Doug didn’t you know any of this…..” All I did was post an article from Atlantic Monthly titled, “Shame on the Kennedys.” I did not comment on the article but Mr. DiEugenio appears to think that I wrote the article. He then goes on the attack mode citing totally unrelated topics and snidely ends up with the line, “reading good books doesn’t hurt you know.” I am not acquainted with Mr. DiEugenio but have read with interest his past postings in the forum, which I have usually found to be worthwhile and valuable contributions. Thus, I am puzzled by his personal attack on me for merely posting an article from the Atlantic Monthly that I thought might be of interest to forum members. I readily admit there are a lot of good books that I would like to read. However, right now my time is consumed with work connected my own new book, “Watergate Exposed: How the President of the United States and the Watergate Burglars Were Set-Up.” On Monday I signed off on the final galley proofs and the book is being printed at this moment by TrineDay. This will be my sixth published book, my first being “The Hundred Million Dollar Payoff,” which was widely reviewed and earned me an interview on the Today Show. Three of my books were published by the Texas A&M University Press. I have also had articles published in Barron’s Financial Weekly, National Review and The Wall Street Journal. My bio appears in Who'sWho in America and Who'sWho in the World. I hadn’t meant to blow my own horn but Mr. DiEugenio’s unpleasant and unprovoked attack merited a response should some forum members get the impression from Mr. DiEugenio comments that I just fell off the turnip truck. I hope that Mr. DiEugenio will revert to good form and again make postings that bring new light to the circumstances surrounding the JFK assassination as he has done in the past.

Oliver Wright: New light is shed on the timing of Coulson's exit It is one thing to find more hacking at the NOTW, but quite another to find it at The Sun. And that worries Murdoch The Independent Thursday, 27 January 2011 When Andy Coulson announced he was stepping down as David Cameron's director of communications, the rest of the Downing Street spin operation went into overdrive. Senior advisers patrolled the lobbies of the House of Commons briefing journalists that it was wrong to suggest there were new allegations that had led to his departure. He had simply had enough of the pressure, they said. Last night the dam burst. Only two working days have passed between Mr Coulson's departure and News International's "discovery" of "significant new evidence" on the phone hacking at the News of the World which it has now passed to police. Related articles •Phone hacking: the next turn of the screw •Ian Burrell: So much for the theory of a 'rogue reporter' This is despite News International being aware of the phone-hacking allegations for more than five years. Mr Coulson and Rebekah Brooks, News International's chief executive, are not just former colleagues but they are still extremely close friends. Mr Coulson owes David Cameron his comeback from disgrace, and it would be strange for him to intentionally keep information from him. Rebekah Brooks herself is close to Cameron – as their Christmas-dinner soirée in Oxfordshire (with James Murdoch also at the table) illustrated. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to join up the dots. So what will be next? It is clear News International's strategy has changed. Previously it attempted to put up a firewall between itself and Clive Goodman – the only News International journalist to have been convicted of phone hacking – claiming he was one "rogue reporter". It now appears to be admitting that hacking was more widespread. But don't assume this is a Damascene conversion to openness; it may simply be another firewall. Ian Edmondson has been thrown to the wolves and at some point the company may start admitting guilt in the hacking cases queueing up to be heard at the High Court. And that, it will hope, will be that. But what worries executives at the company is that the hacking allegations may spread to The Sun, where Ms Brooks was editor at the same time Andy Coulson was at the News of the World. Talk to any journalist working for a tabloid newspaper at that time and they will tell you quietly that "everybody was doing it" and editors knew about the technique even if they did not know the specifics. Now the police – themselves under fire for their previous lacklustre inquiries – are about to start a fresh investigation under a new boss. And that's what is worrying Rupert Murdoch. It is one thing to find more phone hacking at the News of the World – quite another to find evidence of phone hacking at The Sun. Especially at a time when he is asking the Government to allow him to buy out BSkyB. Finally, for the political classes – who themselves suffered the ignominy of the coppers' "knock on the door" over expenses and cash for honours – these latest revelations have resulted in more than a touch of Schadenfreude. Apart from Mr Cameron that is.

This is the statement from Scotland Yard: The Met has today received significant new information relating to allegations of phone hacking at the News of the World in 2005/06. As a result, the Met is launching a new investigation to consider this material. This work will be carried out by the specialist crime directorate which has been investigating a related phone hacking allegation since September 2010. Discussions have taken place with the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the recently announced role of Alison Levitt QC. It has been agreed that her task will continue and she will evaluate any new evidence and advise as to the progress of the investigation. The original phone hacking investigation was undertaken by the counter terrorism command in specialist operations. However, in view of their current workload and the continuing 'severe' threat level, it has been agreed that it is no longer appropriate to divert them or Acting Deputy Commissioner John Yates from their main duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, this new investigation will be led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers from the specialist crime directorate. We will not be making any further comments at this stage.

Shame on the Kennedys http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/shame-on-the-kennedys/70050/ by John Tierney Atlantic Monthly Magazine January 24,2011 In yesterday's Boston Sunday Globe, Bryan Bender reported on the Kennedy family's tight-fisted and iron-willed efforts to keep the official papers of Robert F. Kennedy secret. Those papers, spanning Kennedy's public career, are housed under close guard at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston. The papers of greatest interest to historians and researchers are those from Kennedy's years of service as Attorney General in the Administration of his brother, John F. Kennedy. In particular, historians say the records presumably contain valuable archival resources -- perhaps diaries, notes, messages and memos, phone logs and recordings, and other documents -- that would reveal details, and answer questions, about Robert Kennedy's role in the early 1960s as the coordinator of Operation Mongoose, a covert effort to assassinate Cuba's Fidel Castro or to destabilize his regime. But so far, nobody has been able to see this trove of documentary resources about the foreign-policy intrigues and governmental activities of a half-century ago. Why not? Because Robert Kennedy's family controls access to them. The person in control is Max Kennedy, Robert and Ethel Kennedy's ninth son, and he won't let anyone see them. His explanation, in a written response to questions from Bender of the Globe, is classic stonewalling -- some blather about scholars with "poorly conceived projects" who fail to follow "correct procedures" to seek permission to consult the papers. (What? They didn't genuflect as they approached Max's office?) Nice legal-speak from Mr. Kennedy. It's also hogwash. This is the sort of nonsense that now flows from a family that once was considered, at least in some circles, synonymous with the highest aspirational values of American politics and government -- principles such as a respect for transparency, openness, and the free flow of information. Why is this important? For historians and others who care about the Cold War and events of that period, the stakes are high. Bender reports that some historians believe the documents may contain evidence that Robert Kennedy's ruthless anticommunism led him to break laws and engage in other abuses of power. Bender quotes Lamar Waldron, author of two books about the Kennedys and Cuba, as saying, "The main acts of the Kennedy presidency involved Cuba and we still don't have the most important records." Noting speculation about the peculiarity of John Kennedy's having "handed his attorney general the anti-Cuba portfolio in the first place," Bender quotes Philip Brenner, a professor at American University, who has written extensively about US-Cuba relations: "It is very unusual for an attorney general to be in charge of an international covert operation. ...[Perhaps] It involved the violation of so many domestic laws you needed the top law enforcement officer to oversee it." Maybe the documents show wrongdoing; maybe they don't. The point is we should know. Let's find out. For the Kennedy family, the stakes are also high. Maybe the documents show that in addition to being the good guy of mythology (the supporter of civil rights and social programs, and, later, ardent opponent of the Vietnam War), Robert Kennedy was also a thuggish lawbreaker. Okay. So be it. The Kennedy family will not be able to forestall truthful revelations forever. And by slavishly trying to protect and perpetuate the myth, the family runs the risk of fueling an opposite view -- that the mythology is bunk, or, at least, only partially true. Yet, the Kennedys continue to stand athwart the door to this secret depository of public records. The papers of other Attorneys General are publicly available. And Bender reports that "the JFK Library itself would like to make the documents available, but that "current law stipulates that it must first get a signed deed from RFK's heirs before the documents can be made widely available." I don't know anything about the law governing this matter, and I don't have time right now to delve further into it. But there is something deeply wrong about a policy that lets one person, Max Kennedy, decide whether the public will have access to this important information after the passage of five decades. There are at least two problems here, it seems to me: (1) a public official's family should not have control over public documents; and (2) allowing one person to decide such matters is deeply flawed as a matter of process and policy. A bedrock principle of American government is the idea of countervailing power or "checks and balances." In this context, this should mean that, at the very least, there are several people, from different political and institutional contexts and perspectives, who have final authority over the dissemination of this information. Letting Max Kennedy -- any Kennedy family member -- decide this alone is unconscionable. If, as noted above, some "current law stipulates" the details of this whole matter, then let's revisit that law. I am not someone who is generally happy that Republicans now have control over the House of Representatives, but I would be happy to see them use their power to try to change whatever law now governs this. I suspect such a change would make it through the House. And wouldn't John Boehner and Mitch McConnell enjoy putting Senate Democrats in the uncomfortable position of having to defend the continued protection of these dark secrets from long ago? It would sure be fun trying. In any case, the Kennedy family's desire to protect the myth should not be determinant here. I know I sound like some anti-Kennedy zealot. I am not. In fact, I've long been an admirer of John and Robert Kennedy. Here, perhaps, is why Bender's report on the Kennedy family's position on this issue strikes me as so particularly galling right now. We are just coming off one of our periodic paroxysms of hagiographic hype about the Kennedy family. (I may have more to say about this in a future post.) Some of what we've seen in recent weeks is perfectly legitimate -- observance of the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's inauguration as president and the passing of Kennedy in-law Sargent Shriver. But in the past month we've also been treated to widespread news reports about the death of Teddy Kennedy's 13-year-old dog, Splash; weepy commentary about how this month marks the first time in sixty years that there hasn't been a Kennedy in Congress; and Camelot-coated ceremonies commemorating the 50th anniversary of Robert Kennedy's swearing-in as Attorney General. (Really? The 50th anniverary of a cabinet officer's swearing-in? Please.) This sort of thing is orchestrated by the Kennedy family and their legion of acolytes and media flacks. Here's what seems increasingly wrong about all this. The Kennedys don't deserve this attention and adulation if they're not willing to be open with the truth, if they remain intent on having the public see only the attractive side of Robert Kennedy's legacy. They don't deserve the unstinting praise and the undying devotion if they're not willing to come clean. If they were to do so, they might deserve the attention that comes their way now by constant management and manipulation of the family image. Enough. Shame on the Kennedys. Their position on Robert Kennedy's records is inexcusable and indefensible. The documents should be made public, even at the risk of bringing more shame on the Kennedys. This article available online at: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/shame-on-the-kennedys/70050/

Rupert Murdoch cancels Davos visit to negotiate over Sky buyout Murdoch's News Corporation has offered 'undertakings' of independence for Sky News which the culture secretary is considering by Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 25 January 2011 21.50 GMT Rupert Murdoch today chose to cancel his visit to the Davos global economic summit in order to personally lead negotiations with the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, in an effort to get News Corporation's £8bn buyout of Sky approved by offering guarantees to safeguard Sky News's independence. Yesterday morning Hunt said he considered that News Corporation's buyout of the 61% of BSkyB it did not already own might "operate against the public interest in media plurality"; for that reason he intended to refer the matter to the Competition Commission. But in a surprise move, the culture secretary said he would consider an undertaking from News Corp that the company "could sufficiently alleviate the concerns" he had, allowing him to accept its undertakings rather than make a reference to the commission. It is understood that any promises made by News Corp would concern an offering of editorial guarantees on the independence of Sky News, although the former refuses to contemplate a sale of the 24-hour channel. The move sets the stage for several weeks of direct negotiation between Hunt, who will be advised by the Office of Fair Trading, and News Corporation at a time when Murdoch is in London. Hunt's team said that its decision was motivated by a desire to be seen to be fair to all parties, and avoid a legal challenge by News Corp or the alliance of newspapers, including the Guardian, that has opposed the bid. But critics argued that it made it easier for Hunt to reach an agreement with Murdoch. Claiming that Hunt should simply heed the advice of Ofcom, Ivan Lewis, the shadow culture, media and sport secretary, said: "The right thing to do is to refer the bid to the Competition Commission … instead [he] has chosen an unprecedented course of action, which raises further doubts about the integrity of the process." But Don Foster, the senior Liberal Democrat MP who was the party's frontbench culture spokesman in the last parliament, praised Hunt's handling of the matter. Foster said: "I genuinely believe that Jeremy Hunt has adhered strictly to the rules that are laid down in the enterprise act to deal with these matters and that we must now await the comments from Ofcom to the mitigation proposals from News Corp. That is the correct procedure and it would be wrong to suggest otherwise." "Ofcom can come to two conclusions. They can say that News Corp have come up with good ideas that may solve the plurality problem. There would then have to be widespread consultation on these. If Ofcom says it does not think News Corp's ideas would have a major benefit then I would expect the secretary of state to refer the matter to the Competition Commission." Ofcom concluded a combination, with Sky, of News Corporation's newspapers, the Sun and Times, would give the company a 22% share of news consumption in the UK. That would put it second only to the BBC, which accounts for 37%, and well in excess of the 10% held by ITN, which supplies news to ITV and Channel 4. News Corp hit back at Ofcom's analysis, saying, in a 216-page rebuttal, that it believed Ofcom had failed to consider the Murdoch bid "with an open mind". The company also said it believed the entire regulatory process was "seriously flawed" because the decision to refer the bid to Ofcom was made by Vince Cable, the business secretary, who was stripped of his role in overseeing it when he told Telegraph journalists before Christmas that he had "declared war on Murdoch". News Corp, it emerged, had also demanded that Ofcom release all the correspondence it had with Cable and his department, in what was widely seen as an evidence-gathering exercise in advance of any judicial review should the company fail to get what it wanted. Ofcom published the letters, although regulatory sources insisted they "showed nothing interesting". An Ofcom spokesman hit back at News Corp, saying the regulator stood by its report, "a rigorous, thorough and independent assessment of the issues". The spokesman added: "News Corporation's response makes … assertions of purported errors by Ofcom in its report. Ofcom entirely rejects this analysis and we refer to our report for a clear, accurate and independent assessment of the public interest issues." News Corp, however, said it had won on two points. Ofcom concluded, insiders said, that media plurality amounted only to the choice and provision of news; and the regulator set aside worries about whether News Corp newspapers could enjoy an unfair advantage if they were "bundled" in with a Sky subscription, whether in print or online. The regulator also admitted that it was unable to consider how News Corp and the fast-growing Sky would behave in the future, saying that there was "no mechanism" for the regulator to consider what might occur in the future. In a joint statement, BT and the companies behind the Guardian, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and Daily Telegraph said it was a matter of regret that the secretary of state had "not followed the advice of the independent regulator". The group added: "The process outlined today is unprecedented. We are particularly concerned that parties other than News Corporation will not have the opportunity to put forward their case until after the secretary of state has come to a decision on proposed remedies

The New York Times January 25, 2011 Financial Crisis Was ‘Avoidable,’ Inquiry Concludes By SEWELL CHAN WASHINGTON — The 2008 financial crisis was an “avoidable” disaster caused by widespread failures in government regulation, corporate mismanagement and heedless risk-taking by Wall Street, according to the conclusions of a Congressional inquiry. The government commission that investigated the financial crisis casts a wide net of blame, faulting two administrations, the Federal Reserve and other regulators for permitting a calamitous concoction: shoddy mortgage lending, the excessive packaging and sale of loans to investors, and risky bets on securities backed by the loans. “The greatest tragedy would be to accept the refrain that no one could have seen this coming and thus nothing could have been done,” the panel wrote in the report’s conclusions, which were examined by The New York Times. “If we accept this notion, it will happen again.” While the panel, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, accuses several financial institutions of greed, ineptitude, or both, some of its most grave conclusions concern government failings, with embarrassing implications for both political parties. Many of the findings have been widely described, but its synthesis of interviews, documents and testimony, along with its government imprimatur, give it a sweep and authority that the commission hopes will shape the public consciousness. The full report is expected to be released as a 576-page book on Thursday. When the bipartisan commission was set up in May of 2009, the intent of Congress and the president was to produce a comprehensive examination of the causes of the crisis. The report, aimed at a broad audience, was based on 19 days of hearings as well as interviews with more than 700 witnesses; the commission has pledged to release a trove of transcripts and other raw material online. The document is intended to be the definitive account of the crisis’s causes, but its authors may already have failed in achieving that aim. Of the 10 commission members, only the 6 appointed by Democrats endorsed the final report. Three Republican members have prepared a dissent; a fourth Republican, Peter J. Wallison, a former Treasury official and White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan, has written a dissent, calling government policies to promote homeownership the primary culprit for the crisis. The report itself finds fault with two Fed chairmen: Alan Greenspan, a skeptic of regulation who led the central bank as the housing bubble expanded, and his successor, Ben S. Bernanke, who did not foresee the crisis but then played a crucial role in the response. It criticizes Mr. Greenspan for advocating financial deregulation and cites a “pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages” under his leadership as “the prime example” of government negligence. It also criticizes the Bush administration’s “inconsistent response” to the crisis — allowing Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt in September 2008, for example, after earlier bailing out another bank, Bear Stearns, with help from the Fed — “added to the uncertainty and panic in the financial markets.” Like Mr. Bernanke, Mr. Bush’s Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., predicted in 2007 — wrongly it turned out — that the subprime meltdown would be contained, as the report notes. Democrats also come under fire. The 2000 decision to shield over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton’s term is called “a key turning point in the march toward the financial crisis.” Timothy F. Geithner, who was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York during the crisis and is now President Obama’s Treasury secretary, also comes under criticism; the report finds that the New York Fed “could have clamped down” on excesses by Citigroup in the lead-up to the crisis and, just a month before Lehman’s collapse, was “still seeking information” on the vulnerabilities from Lehman’s exposure to more than 900,000 derivatives contracts. Former and current officials named in the report, as well as financial institutions, declined on Tuesday to comment on the report before it was released , or did not respond to requests for comment. The report will probably reignite debate over the outsize influence of Wall Street; it says that regulators “lacked the political will” to scrutinize and hold accountable the institutions they were supposed to oversee. The financial sector spent $2.7 billion on lobbying from 1999 to 2008, while individuals and committees affiliated with the industry made more than $1 billion in campaign contributions. The report does knock down — at least partly — several early theories for the financial crisis. It says the low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession “created increased risks” but were not chiefly to blame. It says that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants, “contributed to the crisis but were not a primary cause.” And in a finding likely to upset conservatives, it says that “aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part of a “philosophy of opportunity” were not major culprits. On the other hand, the report is unsparing in its treatment of regulators. It finds that the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to require big banks to hold more capital to cushion losses and halt risky practices, and that the Fed “neglected its mission” to protect the public. It says that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates national banks, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, which oversees savings-and-loans, blocked state regulators from reining in lending abuses because they were “caught up in turf wars.” “The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire,” the report states. “The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public. Theirs was a big miss, not a stumble.” Portions of the dissents are also included in the report, which is being published as a paperback book (with a cover price of $14.99) by PublicAffairs, along with an official version by the Government Printing Office. The commission’s chairman, Phil Angelides, a Democrat and former California state treasurer, has tried to keep the book under wraps, even directing the publisher to prevent bookstores from getting it before the eve of the Thursday release. He declined to comment. The report’s immediate implications may be felt more in the political realm than in public policy. The Dodd-Frank law overhauling the regulation of Wall Street, signed in July, takes as its premise the same regulatory deficiencies cited by the commission. But the report is sure to factor in the debate over the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have been government-run since 2008. Though the report documents questionable practices by mortgage lenders and careless betting by banks, one striking finding is its portrayal of bumbling incompetence, among corporate chieftains. It quotes Citigroup executives admitting that they paid little attention to the risks associated with mortgage securities. Executives at the American International Group, another bailout recipient, were found to be blind to its $79 billion exposure to credit default swaps, a kind of insurance that was sold to investors seeking protection against a drop in the value of securities backed by risky home loans. At Merrill Lynch, top managers were caught unaware when seemingly secure mortgage investments suddenly resulted in billions of dollars in losses. By one measure, the nation’s five largest investment banks had only $1 in capital to cover losses for about every $40 in assets, meaning that a 3 percent drop in asset values could wipe out the firm. The banks hid their excessive leverage using derivatives, off-balance-sheet entities and other devices, the report found. The speculative binge was abetted by a giant “shadow banking system” in which the banks relied heavily on short-term debt. “When the housing and mortgage markets cratered, the lack of transparency, the extraordinary debt loads, the short-term loans and the risky assets all came home to roost,” the report found. “What resulted was panic. We had reaped what we had sown.” The report is dotted with literary flourishes. It calls credit-rating agencies “cogs in the wheel of financial destruction.” Paraphrasing Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, it states, “The fault lies not in the stars, but in us.” Of the banks that bought created, packaged and sold trillions of dollars in mortgage-related securities, it says: “Like Icarus, they never feared flying ever closer to the sun.”

The New York Times January 25, 2011 Thomas Cites Failure to Disclose Wife’s Job By ERIC LICHTBLAU WASHINGTON — Under pressure from liberal critics, Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court acknowledged in filings released on Monday that he erred by not disclosing his wife’s past employment as required by federal law. Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” To rectify that situation, Justice Thomas filed seven pages of amended disclosures listing Mrs. Thomas’s employment in that time with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group, and Hillsdale College in Michigan, for which she ran a constitutional law center in Washington. The justice came under criticism last week from Common Cause, a liberal advocacy group, for failing to disclose Mrs. Thomas’s employment as required under the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. While justices are not required to say how much a spouse earns, Common Cause said its review of Internal Revenue Service filings showed that the Heritage Foundation paid Mrs. Thomas $686,589 from 2003 to 2007. The group also asserted that Justice Thomas should have withdrawn from deciding last year’s landmark Citizens United case on campaign finance because of both Mrs. Thomas’s founding of another conservative political group in 2009 and Justice Thomas’s own appearance at a private political retreat organized by Charles Koch, a prominent conservative financier. Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia said in a statement released by the court on Thursday that they had each spoken at dinners at the Koch retreat and that their expenses were paid by the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. The additional filings released by the court on Monday regarding Mrs. Thomas’s employment put Justice Thomas in the odd position of issuing two formal statements in five days about his personal dealings. Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be “implausible.” As a Supreme Court justice who regularly hears complex legal cases, “it is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.” Deborah L. Rhode, a law professor at Stanford University who specializes in judicial ethics, said the recent episodes could do some harm to Justice Thomas’s reputation. But she added that it was unlikely to have any lasting impact on him or on the disclosure requirements that give justices wide leeway to decide whether they have a financial conflict in hearing a case. Professor Rhode noted, for instance, that it was still unknown who contributed a total of $550,000 to Liberty Central, the conservative legal group that Mrs. Thomas founded in 2009 in opposition to President Obama’s policies. The amended disclosures filed by Justice Thomas, which do not include income in 2010, do not mention Liberty Central, and no regulation requires the group or the Thomases to disclose the source of the group’s financial support. Mrs. Thomas left the group in the fall. “There’s no formal mechanism for review of conflicts among Supreme Court justices,” Professor Rhode said. “Personally, I think issues like this are somewhat scandalous for the court, but from what we’ve seen when these issues have come up before, I don’t see that changing.”

Palestine papers reveal MI6 drew up plan for crackdown on Hamas• Internment and replacement of imams among measures • Document proposed 'direct lines' to Israeli intelligence • New files reveal Israel requested assassination of militant by Ian Black and Seumas Milne guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 25 January 2011 20.00 GMT British intelligence helped draw up a secret plan for a wide-ranging crackdown on the Islamist movement Hamas which became a security blueprint for the Palestinian Authority, leaked documents reveal. The plan asked for the internment of leaders and activists, the closure of radio stations and the replacement of imams in mosques. The disclosure of the British plan, drawn up by the intelligence service in conjunction with Whitehall officials in 2004, and passed by a Jerusalem-based MI6 officer to the senior PA security official at the time, Jibril Rajoub, is contained in the cache of confidential documents obtained by al-Jazeera TV and shared with the Guardian. The documents also highlight the intimate level of military and security cooperation between Palestinian and Israeli forces. The bulk of the British plan has since been carried out by the West Bank-based PA security apparatus which is increasingly criticised for authoritarian rule and human rights abuses, including detention without trial and torture. The British documents, which have been independently authenticated by the Guardian, included detailed proposals for a security taskforce based on the UK's "trusted" Palestinian Authority contacts, outside the control of "traditional security chiefs", with "direct lines" to Israel intelligence. It lists suicide bombers and rockets as issues that need urgent attention. Under the heading "Degrading the capabilities of the rejectionists", the MI6 Palestinian Security Plan recommends "the detention of key middle-ranking officers" of Hamas and other armed groups, adding: "We could also explore the temporary internment of leading Hamas and PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad] figures, making sure they are well-treated, with EU funding." The latest leaks come as US state department spokesman Philip Crowley said they would "at least for a time, make the situation more difficult", while the senior Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath acknowledged that the documents were genuine and Palestinian groups in Latin America reacted with shock to the revelation that former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice had privately suggested Palestinian refugees be settled in Chile or Argentina. Among the newly released confidential PA documents is an extraordinary account of a 2005 meeting between Israel's then defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, and the PA's interior minister, Nasser Youssef. Referring to Hassan al-Madhoun, a commander in the armed Fatah-linked al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades who was held responsible by Israel for a suicide attack the previous year, Mofaz asked Yousef: "We know his address ... Why don't you kill him?" Yousef replied: "The environment is not easy, our capabilities are limited." Israel killed Madhoun a few months later in a drone missile attack on his car. The PLO's chief spokesman, Saeb Erekat, is recorded as telling senior US official David Hale in 2009: "We have had to kill Palestinians to establish one authority, one gun and the rule of law … We have even killed our own people to maintain order and the rule of law." Erekat also complained to US envoy George Mitchell in 2009 that not enough was being done to seal off tunnels from Egypt into the Gaza Strip, the documents reveal, undermining the siege of the Hamas-controlled territory, and urged that more be done by Israel and Egypt to prevent the smuggling of goods and weapons. In an echo of the proposals in the British documents, Erekat told Hale: "We are not a country yet but we are the only ones in the Arab world who control the zakat [religious charitable donations] and the sermons in the mosque." The intelligence papers highlight the far-reaching official British involvement in building up the Palestinian Authority's security apparatus in the West Bank, which was led from the late 1990s by the CIA and recently has focused on the build-up of forces under General Keith Dayton, who was US security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian territories until last October. Alistair Crooke, a former MI6 officer who also worked for the EU in Israel and the Palestinian territories, said that the British documents reflected a 2003 decision by Tony Blair to tie UK and EU security policy in the West Bank and Gaza to a US-led "counter-insurgency surge" against Hamas – which backfired when the Islamists won the Palestinian elections in 2006. The PA's security control of the West Bank has become harsher and more extensive since the takeover of Gaza by Hamas in the summer of 2007. Hundreds of Hamas and other activists have been routinely detained without trial in recent years, and subjected to widely documented human rights abuses. In a meeting with Palestinian officials in 2009, Dayton is recorded praising the PA's security: "The intelligence guys are good. The Israelis like them. But they are causing some problems for international donors because they are torturing people. "I've only started working on this very recently. I don't need to tell you who was working with them before," – in an apparent reference to the CIA

Did Cameron's dinner with Murdoch break ministers' code? By Andrew Grice and Nigel Morris Tuesday, 25 January 2011 The Independent David Cameron was challenged last night to explain why he held a secret dinner with James Murdoch as the Government prepared to take a crucial decision on the Murdoch media empire. The Labour Opposition questioned whether Mr Cameron had broken the ministerial code of conduct by meeting the chairman of News Corporation in Europe and Asia only a few days after stripping Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Business Secretary, of the power to decide whether News Corp should be allowed to buy the 61 per cent of BSkyB it does not already own. The move came as the Government faced all-party pressure over its links with Rupert Murdoch despite last week's resignation of Andy Coulson, the Downing Street director of communications, over the continuing controversy about telephone hacking at Mr Murdoch's News of the World, which cost Mr Coulson his job as the paper's editor in 2007. Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrats' deputy leader, is expected to pursue legal action against News International over his phone being hacked rather than accept an out-of-court settlement. He is due to meet his lawyers to make a final decision shortly. He told the Commons last September that while he defended freedom of the press, "this [phone hacking] is abuse and illegality. It has to end, and we must be robust about it." Friends of Mr Hughes said he had little interest in an out-of-court settlement and was likely to press ahead with court action. They said the MP dealt with many highly sensitive constituency cases and was appalled by the prospect that information concerning them could have been compromised. Today the all-party Commons Home Affairs Select Committee may decide to hold a new round of public hearings into allegations that phone tapping was rife. Amid protests that Scotland Yard failed properly to investigate allegations about the News of the World, it is also considering whether the police take hacking seriously enough. If the committee decides to hold hearings, it would be likely to summon members of the paper's former staff, including Mr Coulson, to give evidence. The Independent revealed yesterday that Mr Cameron met James Murdoch at the Oxfordshire home of Rebekah Brooks, the chief executive of News International. The private dinner she hosted took place shortly before Christmas. In a letter to the Prime Minister last night, Ivan Lewis, the shadow Culture Secretary, asked him five questions, including: "Can you clarify whether you discussed News Corp's bid for BSkyB with Mr [James] Murdoch?" Mr Lewis said: "David Cameron's decision to attend this dinner with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks in the middle of a quasi-judicial process raises serious questions about his judgment. The integrity of our media is central to our democracy. That is why his answers are of significant public interest." Tory sources dismissed Labour's challenge, insisting that the social event would not be covered by the ministerial code. They said the BSkyB takeover would not have been discussed and that the meeting was not improper in any way because all prime ministers met newspaper proprietors. Mr Cameron and Rupert Murdoch are both due to attend the Davos World Economic Forum this weekend. Downing Street refused to be drawn on whether their paths would cross, although Tory sources said no meeting between the two men was scheduled. Newscorp's bid for Sky James Murdoch, the European chairman of News Corporation, is desperate to avoid a Competition Commission inquiry into his company's bid for the 61 per cent of Sky it does not already own. He fears any delay to the deal could see NewsCorp end up having to pay much more than the £7.5bn it has offered. However, Ofcom, the media regulator, has already said it thinks the Commission should investigate. The decision now rests solely in the hands of Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, given the role by David Cameron when the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, was caught making partial remarks about the Murdochs. Mr Hunt says he is acting independently and that he will make his decision purely on legal grounds. He has the power to refer the deal to the Commission if he accepts Ofcom's view that a NewsCorp takeover of Sky might damage the plurality of Britain's media, a more subjective test than the competition hurdles the deal has already cleared with European Union regulators. If he does not do so, or comes to an arrangement with NewsCorp that sees it make concessions in return for avoiding an inquiry, there will be a storm of protest about the neutrality of Conservative ministers – and almost certainly a legal challenge.

News of the World phone hacking: 12 questions from the Guardian Rupert Murdoch is in London – and we're curious to know who at News International signed off more than £1m in settlements Guardian January 24, 2011 Today, Rupert Murdoch is over at News International's Wapping headquarters, where he was seen having lunch with Rebekah Brooks and senior editors in the sixth-floor canteen. No doubt the conversation was pretty amicable, but on the off chance that the media mogul wants to ask some questions about phone hacking at the News of the World, here's some we had in mind. The Guardian has already asked News International the same questions, and we will publish any answers we receive. Essentially, though, there are two key questions. First, who at News International (or indeed at parent company News Corporation) agreed to make settlement payments to Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford to end phone-hacking cases? More to the point, when they did so, what legal advice did they receive? After all, it would be an incurious board member who agreed to write out a six-figure settlement cheque, but who did not ask why. Was the person authorising the payment told that there were references to the potential involvement of other News of the World reporters in alleged phone hacking? Or is there another reason why six-figure settlements are appropriate? So here we go. 1. Which directors of News International signed off the reported £700,000 settlement with Gordon Taylor? 2. Which directors of NI signed off the reported £1m settlement with Max Clifford? 3. Who wrote the advice to directors that formed the basis of the two settlements agreed? Was it (head of legal) Tom Crone? 4. Were board members advised when settlements were proposed that there was no new evidence to link any reporter other than Clive Goodman to phone hacking? 5. Was the director or directors of NI who signed off the Gordon Taylor settlement made aware that Taylor's lawyers had evidence that two News of the World journalists were involved in hacking? 6. Have settlements been proposed in any of the other outstanding legal cases and, if so, by which board members? 7. When did the News of the World and News International first realise that there was evidence to suggest that reporters other than Clive Goodman may have been involved in phone hacking? 8. Was the News Corporation board advised as to why settlements in London (Taylor, Clifford) were agreed? 9. Why did James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks meet David Cameron over the holiday period? Was Andy Coulson's departure discussed? 10 Was News Corp's bid for Sky discussed at that meeting? Were concessions offered to the prime minister at that dinner, such as 'hiving off' Sky News? 11. Will Rupert Murdoch review the phone-hacking evidence that has been revealed by the outstanding civil actions when he is London? 12. When precisely did Rebekah Brooks meet the prime minister? Was it before, or after, News Corp had received Ofcom's conclusions of its 'public interest' inquiry into the News Corp/Sky takeover?

Rupert Murdoch flies in to UK as News Corp stays silent on phone hackin gCompany not divulging what tycoon's son James was told when he signed off £700,000 payment to football chief Gordon Taylor by Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk, Monday 24 January 2011 20.36 GMT News Corporation refused to say today what Rupert Murdoch's son James was told about evidence of phone hacking by News of the World journalists when he signed off a £700,000 settlement with the football chief Gordon Taylor. The company declined to comment on any of a set of questions asked by the Guardian about which board members were made aware of the fact that the practice of phone hacking extended beyond the former royal editor Clive Goodman, and the reasons for payouts to Taylor and the public relations specialist Max Clifford. News Corp also refused to reply to further questions about what was discussed at a social meeting between David Cameron, James Murdoch and its UK chief executive, Rebekah Brooks, over the Christmas period. Rupert Murdoch today spent the day at News International's Wapping offices in east London, where he had lunch in the company canteen with his son, Brooks, Dominic Mohan, the editor of the Sun, and James Harding, the editor of the Times. There has so far been no explanation as to why James Murdoch, the chief executive of News Corp's operations in Europe and Asia, decided to sign off the payment to Taylor. One friend of Rupert Murdoch's younger son said he had failed to appreciate the significance of the hacking allegations until recently. The source said: "He had been slow to get on top of the issue until recently, because he's been so focused on getting News Corp's bid for Sky through. He's now done so, but the problem is that it's a bit late." Back in 2009 Colin Myler, then editor of the News of the World, told MPs on the culture, media and sport select committee that it was James Murdoch who had agreed to settle in the Taylor case, on the advice of himself, the newspaper's chief lawyer, Tom Crone, and their legal team. At that time Myler said: "Mr Crone advised me, as the editor, what the legal advice was and it was to settle. Myself and Mr Crone then went to see James Murdoch and told him where we were with the situation. Mr Crone then continued with our outside lawyers the negotiation with Mr Taylor. Eventually a settlement was agreed. That was it." But there has been internal criticism of James Murdoch's handling of the row, with a second source close to the company asking why he thought it wise to attend the Cameron dinner at a time when his presence would invite controversy, given that News Corp is trying to win political approval for its £8bn bid for Sky in the teeth of opposition from rival newspapers including the owners of the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror and the Guardian.

Phone-hacking scandal: Scotland Yard accused over investigations Chris Huhne has criticised handling of allegations as Gordon Brown asks police to establish whether he was a victim by Polly Curtis and James Robinson guardian.co.uk, Sunday 23 January 2011 19.48 GMT Criticisms of the police handling of the phone-hacking scandal intensified tonight after a senior minister accused Scotland Yard of failing to properly investigate the allegations, while it emerged that Gordon Brown has asked police to establish whether he had been a victim. Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat energy secretary, cast doubt on News International's claims that hacking was the work of a "rogue reporter". He criticised the initial handling of the allegations by the police and accused them of reacting to his calls for a full inquiry last year by "scurrying back to Scotland Yard" and dismissing the idea in an afternoon. "It seemed to me clear that the number of people that were being hacked clearly was not consistent with it being one rogue reporter who happened to be the royal correspondent. Why would the royal correspondent be interested in hacking the voicemails of Simon Hughes, my colleague who is a Liberal Democrat MP, for example?" he told the BBC's Daily Politics. "We know the police were not keen on the subject because when I called for a very clear review of this, the police scurried back into Scotland Yard, spent less than a day reviewing it and popped out again in time for the six o'clock news to say they had discovered no further evidence." Asked whether he thought the police had been deterred from carrying out a full investigation after their failure to make charges in Labour's "cash for honours" scandal, he said: "I certainly think that may well have played a part of it because obviously they had been through a very thorough investigation there and they got nowhere, so they may have decided that messing with the political process was something that they didn't want to bother doing." He quickly added: "I really don't know, I mean you'll have to ask a police officer that." Huhne's intervention is a guarantee that the row over phone hacking won't disappear with Andy Coulson's resignation as director of communications from Downing Street last week. The former editor of the News of the World stepped down claiming that the continued controversy over phone hacking was making it difficult for him to do his job. MPs will this week begin gathering evidence for a parliamentary inquiry into the row, while CPS lawyers are expected to meet senior Met officers to discuss the evidence around phone hacking shortly. The Metropolitan Police Authority is also expected to grill senior Met officers on the case during a routine meeting this week. Sources confirmed that Brown wrote to the police this summer asking for an investigation into whether he was a victim of hacking while he was chancellor. It is understood he is concerned about messages he received and those he left for other people. The Met has replied asking for clarification about his claims. Today, Brown's aides refused to comment. But Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of the Labour party, called for a new investigation. "Hacking into people's phones is illegal. Obviously the criminal law has got to be complied with and if it is broken then it should be investigated by the police and it should be enforced," she told Sky News's Murnaghan programme. "Nobody is above the law, no newspaper editor, no journalist … For all of David Cameron's talk of trust in politics it's fundamental that people obey the law and that's what's at risk here. He should never have appointed him." Nick Clegg today suggested that as deputy prime minister he would have a role in choosing Coulson's successor. He said it was "primarily" David Cameron's job to find a replacement, adding "of course I will play a role as well". He said the scandal had not altered the coalition's path. "I don't think this government will miss a beat in terms of just pressing ahead with the plan that we've set out for the next four-and-a-half years to try and restore sense to our economy, create a sound economy, create a fairer society, and to reform our politics as well so that people trust in politics once again." News Corporation's chairman, Rupert Murdoch, will fly into London this week en route to the Davos World Economic Forum with the UK arm of his media empire facing the biggest crisis since the Wapping strikes 25 years ago, and at a time when the £8bn bid for BSkyB hangs in the balance. Murdoch is likely to discuss the hacking scandal with News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks and other executives during the visit, and will have access to the legal files relating to several cases currently going through the civil courts. An aide to the prime minister tonight said that she had no knowledge of any meetings planned between Murdoch and Cameron, or any other minister. The company is seeking to draw a line under an affair which now threatens to engulf other titles. Mark Lewis, the solicitor who represents Nicola Phillips, a publicist who is suing the News of the World for breach of privacy, revealed this weekend that he is representing several other potential claimants whose mobile phones have allegedly been hacked by journalists on other papers. They are understood to include former Labour MP Paul Marsden. Labour MP and former minister Tom Watson said: "Rupert Murdoch has to deal with the unaccountable senior executives that have let this saga go on for too long. We need a statement from him this week." The culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, is expected to decide early next month whether to refer News Corp's bid to buy the 61% of BSkyB it does not already own to the Competition Commission. Executives have been anxious to meet Hunt to make representations to him. Tories inner circle David Cameron's inner circle has been left with no one with experience of life for ordinary people in Britain and is now exclusively made up of people from "well-off backgrounds", according to senior Tory backbencher David Davis. "There are exceptions – there's Eric Pickles and Sayeeda Warsi in her younger days," he told the BBC yesterday, "but nevertheless in the inner circle ... there won't be anyone now that brings what Coulson brought to it. There he was, an Essex boy, council-house lad, made his own way in the world and frankly never minced words. He was somebody who brought that gritty, slightly tough but necessary mindset to the Conservative leadership's thinking."

The Andy Coulson affair raises the question – who runs Britain? The deafening silence from political leaders reveals the grip Murdoch's empire has over the establishment by Jackie Ashley guardian.co.uk, Sunday 23 January 2011 20.30 GMT Westminster stories have a simple arc – the scandal; the uncovering; the refusal to resign; the resignation; and closure. Sometimes the period from the first intimation of scandal to the resignation can be a matter of hours. Sometimes it drags on for months. But it usually ends in resignation, which is a form of cleansing, and then the caravan moves on. So the Andy Coulson story seems on the surface to have a typical shape. The former tabloid editor and Cameron spin doctor denies any involvement in phone-hacking. David Cameron insists he is staying. But the story won't die. So Coulson goes, to a chorus of remarkably benign political obituaries. And we have closure. This newspaper, above all, can warmly congratulate itself; job done. Yet this is a mistaken way of seeing what has happened, and still is happening. There should be no closure, no business as usual, no letting up. Because the practice of often illegal surveillance by hacking into phones, using eavesdropping technologies and stealing documents continues. This isn't just about Coulson, or the News of the World, or even News International. Many other newspapers have been doing the same. It is not just a historical problem. One of the earlier targets, currently engaged in legal action, told me: "If you think all this stopped some time ago, you have to be bloody joking." She was told only last month that there had been yet another attempt to hack into her voice messages. The practice is endemic. Shrewd editors have passed the really dirty stuff "offshore" – to self-employed dirt diggers – but they are happy to buy and publish the results. The list of targets is apparently much wider than the investigations so far have shown, and is unlikely to be kept under wraps for much longer. So what, you might ask. The hackers' targets have been politicians, members of the royal family, the agents of the rich and famous, sports stars and anyone vaguely famous. Why should they be shown the slightest sympathy? Aren't they all in the celebrity game anyway? Why should the privacy of their conversations be respected? It is a reasonable objection, except that the circle of possible targets constantly expands as the celebrity business sucks in more raw material. Basically, anyone who has ever been known for anything, whose name might sell another half a dozen copies, is a potential target. This goes way beyond a few sleazy texts or phone messages, too. It's about pinpointing people's whereabouts, their financial and health secrets and their friendships. There is a network of peeping all around us that is becoming dangerous, even if it is so far little noticed or understood. If you know the right people, it seems to be easy to find out all sorts of private information. A few years ago, I met someone with good police contacts who casually remarked that he could get me the bank records of someone I was curious about. I wouldn't touch that kind of journalism with a barge pole, but I got the impression he thought me unnecessarily fastidious. To believe that Coulson's resignation stops this, or even much affects it, is like thinking a snow shower disproves global warming. The net may be tightening round one paper, and its owner, Rupert Murdoch; but that's not the half of it. Here's the problem. Normally, when something goes wrong we would expect it to be uncovered by the media, or MPs or the police. In this case, so many newspapers are implicated that it's naive to expect proper investigation of the story, still less demands for a change in the law. Much of the focus on Coulson was driven by editors who simply wanted the phone-hacking scandal to disappear, and hoped that his scalp would end any further scrutiny. That now seems unlikely. What about MPs? Where is the chorus of outrage from Westminster, where so many members have been targeted? You might expect this to be a huge issue in the Commons, not least because it might be seen as just retribution and revenge for journalists' exposure of MPs' expenses. There are MPs campaigning on this. But the silence from the party leaderships, where the power lies, has been deafening. And the reason is bleakly clear. Look at the reports and see the photos from any of Murdoch's summer parties, where the political class and the News International elite schmooze. There is no crude political favouritism here. At the Orangery in Kensington or the Oxo tower, you find Cameron, Lord Mandelson, Alastair Campbell, both Miliband brothers, Ken Livingstone, Nick Clegg, George Osborne – etc, etc – mingling with the News International chief, his family and his courtiers. That is only one example of the close ties woven between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, when they were prime ministers, and Cameron now, and the Murdoch camp – the private meetings and dinners, the calls (no hacking there) and the mutual interest. We once used to think of the establishment as being cabinet ministers, archbishops, BBC panjandrums, leaders of industry and royalty. No longer. It's the links between the government and the Murdoch empire that count today – a shadowy influence-mart. We need a thorough-going clean up of the rules by which individuals can be spied on and harassed. But who can we turn to? There have been dark mutterings of police collusion and apathy. They have certainly not rushed to inform those who have been targeted. Many politicians feel intimidated, fearful of what the press might do to them if they do raise concerns. I have spoken to several MPs who are suspicious about the way cameras appeared as if by chance – but they will only talk off the record. The answer is that MPs of all parties have to understand this is just as much a question of authority, of "who runs Britain?", as Europe or the dominance of the bankers. We get steamed up about CCTV cameras and the big state, and rightly so. But what about privately sponsored snooping and the Big Hack? If the legislature is intimidated by newspapers, it is not worthy of respect and cannot be relied on to protect anyone else. We seem to be living through a digital age of exposure, much of it driven by the press. Now, perhaps, it's time to shine the light on the one profession that has too often been able to work quietly, in the shadows, without full disclosure or scrutiny – journalism.

latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122,0,2413407.story Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income, watchdog says Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation over 5 years, a group says. But the Supreme Court justice did not include it on financial disclosure forms. By Kim Geiger, Washington Bureau Los Angeles Times January 22, 2011 Reporting from Washington Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday. Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be disclosed. A Supreme Court spokesperson could not be reached for comment late Friday. But Virginia Thomas' employment by the Heritage Foundation was well known at the time. Virginia Thomas also has been active in the group Liberty Central, an organization she founded to restore the "founding principles" of limited government and individual liberty. In his 2009 disclosure, Justice Thomas also reported spousal income as "none." Common Cause contends that Liberty Central paid Virginia Thomas an unknown salary that year. Federal judges are bound by law to disclose the source of spousal income, according to Stephen Gillers, a professor at NYU School of Law. Thomas' omission — which could be interpreted as a violation of that law — could lead to some form of penalty, Gillers said. "It wasn't a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife's source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission," Gillers said. "It could not have been an oversight." But Steven Lubet, an expert on judicial ethics at Northwestern University School of Law, said such an infraction was unlikely to result in a penalty. Although unfamiliar with the complaint about Thomas' forms, Lubet said failure to disclose spousal income "is not a crime of any sort, but there is a potential civil penalty" for failing to follow the rules. He added: "I am not aware of a single case of a judge being penalized simply for this." The Supreme Court is "the only judicial body in the country that is not governed by a set of judicial ethical rules," Gillers said. A spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which oversees the financial disclosures, could not be reached Friday night to comment on what actions could be taken. In most cases, judges simply amend their forms when an error is discovered. "Without disclosure, the public and litigants appearing before the court do not have adequate information to assess potential conflicts of interest, and disclosure is needed to promote the public's interest in open, honest and accountable government," Common Cause President Bob Edgar wrote in a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States. The allegation comes days after Common Cause filed a letter requesting that the Justice Department investigate whether Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia should have disqualified themselves from hearing a campaign finance case after they reportedly attended a private meeting sponsored by Charles and David Koch, billionaire philanthropists who fund conservative causes. In the case, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the court ruled that corporate and union funds could be spent directly on election advertising. The Koch brothers have been key supporters of the group Americans for Prosperity, which spent heavily in the 2010 midterm election and claims a nonprofit tax status that allows it to avoid disclosing its donors. Clarence Thomas has been the lone justice to argue that laws requiring public disclosure of large political contributions are unconstitutional. A Supreme Court spokesperson later said that Thomas dropped by the private event, but that Scalia did not attend. kim.geiger@latimes.com Tom Hamburger in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.

Exclusive: Brown asks Scotland Yard to investigate if he was hacked Murdoch flies in for high-level meetings as Yard faces new questions about its conduct By James Hanning and Matt Chorley The Independent Sunday, 23 January 2011 Gordon Brown has asked the police to investigate whether he was the victim of phone hacking, The Independent on Sunday has learnt. Mr Brown has written at least one letter to the Metropolitan Police over concerns that his phone was targeted when he was Chancellor, during the latter stages of Andy Coulson's reign as editor of the News of the World. Mr Brown's aides last night declined to comment. It is understood that Scotland Yard sought clarification from the former prime minister after his request. Sources have told The IoS that Tony Blair, his predecessor as prime minister, had also asked police some months ago to investigate whether messages left by him had been the subject of hacking (he did not have his own mobile phone until after he left No 10). Mr Blair and his wife, Cherie Booth, were notably keen to preserve their privacy during their time in Downing Street. Blair's solicitor, Graham Atkins, of Atkins Thomson, declined to comment yesterday, but late last night the former PM's official spokesman denied the story. The news comes as growing criticism of the Met's investigation into widespread mobile phone message interception by the News of the World is mounting. This week, senior Scotland Yard officers are expected to come under fire when they are questioned about the hacking row by London's police authority. MPs will separately take evidence for a parliamentary inquiry into the scandal and the DPP is to meet top Met officers to discuss existing and new evidence. Two days ago, Mr Coulson said he was quitting as David Cameron's director of communications after allegations about his time as NoW editor threatened to overshadow the Government's work. He denies having any knowledge of illegal practices during his time in charge, but said continued coverage made it "difficult for me to give the 110 per cent needed in this role". Downing Street strenuously denies claims that his resignation was demanded by Rupert Murdoch, who owns the NoW. Mr Murdoch's arrival in London is expected imminently. Mr Brown and Mr Blair are the most senior political figures to be linked to the phone-hacking scandal. In September, The IoS revealed that Lord Mandelson's mobile-phone details and an invoice for research on him were among files seized by police investigating illegal activity by NoW reporters when Mr Coulson was editor. Other Labour figures understood to have been targeted include Lord Prescott, David Blunkett, Tessa Jowell and Chris Bryant. Alastair Campbell, the former Labour spin-doctor, told the BBC the controversy had now gone beyond the issue of Mr Coulson's future and "the role of the police in this is now going to become centre stage". The lawyer Mark Lewis yesterday revealed he was acting for four people who believe they were targeted by newspapers other than the NoW, which has been under intense scrutiny since its royal editor, Clive Goodman, was jailed in 2007 for plotting to intercept messages left for aides to Prince William. Mr Lewis successfully represented Gordon Taylor, head of the Professional Footballers' Association, in a damages claim against the NoW. There are at least five other lawyers bringing similar cases. Scotland Yard today faces serious criticism from Chris Huhne for its handling of the case – and its "astonishing" use of undercover officers to target eco-activists. Mr Huhne, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, told The IoS that the recent suspension of the NoW executive Ian Edmondson had "dramatically changed the situation, and clearly the police and the Met in particular need to get to the bottom of this". Mr Huhne also said he and Vince Cable, the Secretary of State for Business, will write to the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, after being told they were added to a secret police database of criminal suspects after speaking at a green protest. He also suggested that the police have "invented" the threat posed by green campaigners to justify ongoing resources. Scotland Yard is also still trying to contain the fallout from the revelation that Mr Johnson's surprise resignation from the Labour front bench was triggered by his wife's alleged affair with his former police bodyguard. Labour targets Tony Blair The most senior political figure named in the scandal so far, involved in headline-grabbing controversies including the Iraq war and "cash-for-honours". Gordon Brown Suspicions that he was targeted while he was chancellor, at a time when his fraught relationship with Blair was a major political issue. John Prescott Acting against Scotland Yard over failure to tell him Glenn Mulcaire had listed his name. Demanded judicial review into the Met's "incompetence". Tessa Jowell Former minister in running Olympics, whose husband was involved in a high-profile Berlusconi case, was told her phone had been hacked. Lord Mandelson The IoS revealed his details were among lists of data seized by police investigating phone hacking during Andy Coulson's time as editor. Peter Kilfoyle Ex-Liverpool MP said he had been given confirmation his name was on a list of numbers uncovered by police investigating phone hacking. Chris Bryant Former Foreign Office minister who learnt police had found his details when they raided Mulcaire's office. Bringing his own case against the News of the World. David Blunkett The former home secretary feared his phone had been hacked after reports of his affair with Kimberly Quinn appeared in the News of the World.

Phone-hacking scandal could dog the government for months Andy Coulson's resignation is just the start as phone-hacking scandal threatens to create 'greater stench' for Cameron by David Batty guardian.co.uk, Saturday 22 January 2011 17.01 GMT David Cameron has been warned that the phone-hacking scandal that prompted the resignation of his director of communications has just begun to unravel and could dog the government for months. Political, media and legal experts said despite Andy Coulson's departure the illegal phone hacking by News of the World journalists could still create a "greater stench" for Cameron, Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp and the Metropolitan Police. Coulson announced his resignation yesterday, following a steady drip of allegations that he was involved in illegal phone hacking when editor of the News of the World, and the likelihood that they would continue through civil court cases and possible police inquiries. Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's former chief spin doctor, said the hacking scandal would create a "greater stench" the longer it went on. "I believe the unravelling of this issue is going to continue apace," he told Sky News. He also questioned Coulson's decision to quit, suggesting the matter was not so widely discussed as to be a resignation matter. "I don't accept that this has become so virulent, so dominant that he couldn't do his job," said Campbell. Tim Montgomerie, editor of the conservativehome blog, said on Twitter that Murdoch, Coulson's former boss, had pushed him to resign amid concern the hacking scandal risked damaging the media mogul's aim to complete a £8.3bn takeover of BSkyB. He tweeted: "Twas Murdoch who ordered Coulson to go. In Ldn this week the NewsCorp boss knew Coulson at PM's side was driving focus on his papers." Media analyst Claire Enders told the BBC that questions about News International's handling of the phone hacking scandal were particularly relevant given the takeover bid. She said that in the circumstances it would be "unprecedented and extraordinary" if NewsCorp avoided a Competition Commission investigation of the bid. "The NewsCorp share price has risen by 7% in the last week because of a view that it would be able to avoid a competition commission investigation," she told Radio 4. "Therefore, there is lots of scuttlebutt that negotiations are going on between the minister responsible, Jeremy Hunt, and NewsCorps." Suspicion has grown that News International was losing the will to fend off, or pay off, civil litigants such as the actor Sienna Miller, demanding to know the identity of News of the World executives responsible for authorising hacking of their phones. Coulson resigned from the paper in January 2007, the day royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, were jailed for hacking into the phones of members of the royal household. He insisted the hacking was done by one rogue reporter. Coulson was appointed Cameron's communications director in April 2007 and a subsequent police investigation led to no further action. The Guardian then published claims that hacking was widespread, and the clouds darkened around Coulson before Christmas when Ian Edmondson, the assistant editor (news) and close to Coulson, was suspended pending an investigation that he had been involved in hacking. Downing Street has insisted Coulson's departure was not precipitated by any fresh piece of damning evidence that would undercut his claim he was unaware that phone hacking was prevalent at the News of the World under his editorship. However, if subsequent court cases reveal Coulson did know that phone hacking was being used to secure stories, Cameron will have to assert he had been misled by his close ally, or admit that he failed to ask pertinent questions of the man who had represented his views to the country for nearly four years. Chris Bryant, the former Labour minister who is seeking to sue the police over allegations that his phone was illegally hacked for the News of the World, said Coulson's resignation raised further questions about the judgment of Cameron and the chancellor, Goerge Osborne, who jointly appointed him. "I'd like to know if Cameron or Osborne asked the Met [Metropolitan police] whether their phones had been intercepted," he told Sky News. The Metropolitan Police said the Crown Prosecution Service was re-examining the evidence from the original phone-hacking investigation and would not comment further. Paul Farrelly MP, a member of the parliamentary culture, media and sport select committee that conducted an investigation into the allegations, called for another police force to examine the Met's handling of the investigation. "There's a real issue here of credibility in the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and it is really important that there is an independent investigation into the handling of this. This happened previously when outside [police] forces were brought in to review the actions of a force such as the Metropolitan police." Tasmin Allen, a lawyer pursuing a judicial review of the hacking investigation on behalf of the former deputy prime minister, John Prescott, Chris Bryant and others, said the Met's handling of the case lacked transparency. "If there was no conspiracy, the police handling of the case so far has made it look like there is one," she told the Today programme. "There's been a huge reluctance from the start to provide any information. It's been like getting blood out of a stone." In a sign that the phone-hacking scandal is set to gather pace, media lawyer Mark Lewis, who acted for Gordon Taylor of the Professional Footballers' Association in a damages claim against the Notw, said he was representing four people who believe their voicemails had been intercepted by other newspaper groups. "This was almost kids' play time. It was such a widespread practice," said Lewis

Rupert Murdoch set to arrive in UK with News Corp mired in crisis News Corp chief's London visit next week is timely because no significant decision can be taken at company without him by Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 January 2011 19.04 GMT Photo: Rupert Murdoch in church with Les Hinton, Andy Coulson and Rebekah Wade. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/Getty Images Rupert Murdoch is due in London next week, just as his company's attempts to close down the phone hacking crisis are in tatters. Murdoch tried to keep phone hacking cases out of the courts and out of the public eye through confidential settlements with the likes of football boss Gordon Taylor and PR guru Max Clifford. When that failed, the publisher of the News of the World insisted that phone hacking was the action of a single "rogue reporter" – jailed former royal editor Clive Goodman – and its executives chose to lash out. Rebekah Brooks – the former editor of the News of the World, the Sun and now chief executive of News International, News Corp's UK arm – blamed this newspaper. When the Guardian reported there were potentially thousands of victims of phone hacking, her message was clear: "The Guardian coverage, we believe, has substantially and likely deliberately misled the British public." Now, after Andy Coulson's departure from David Cameron's side, it is clear both strategies have failed, just as News Corp tries to win approval for his £8bn takeover of BSkyB. With News Corp mired in crisis, Murdoch's arrival is timely – because in the end no decision of significance can be taken without him at the company he has built over half a century. News Corp officials say they knew nothing of Coulson's announcement, but even with his departure, senior executives in London know it would be naive to hope his resignation will draw a line under the phone hacking affair. The company well appreciates that the drip-drip of revelation will only continue as lawsuits brought against the newspaper by actor Sienna Miller, football agent Sky Andrew and publicist Nicola Phillips, and many others, develop. Each case moves slowly, an inching forward of witness statements and court hearings that will last months if not years. Brooks had been trying, behind the scenes, to settle at least some of the civil claims – involved, lawyers say, in proposing six figure payouts. Recently that strategy has been abandoned in favour of allowing claimants to put evidence into the public domain, and if that amounts to material implicating one of its journalists, taking action against staff. Allegations loom against reporters, questions remain for former editors like Coulson, while Les Hinton, executive chairman for 12 years until 2007, seemed to be confident hacking was not widespread. Hinton told MPs last year: "There was never any evidence delivered to me that suggested that the conduct of Clive Goodman spread beyond him." Critical evidence is being extracted from the Metropolitan police. The Met is sitting on notebooks, call records and other information seized from Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator employed by the News of the World in 2006, as part of the inquiry into phone hacking at Buckingham Palace. Each of the celebrities who sue base their claims on their names, or numbers, appearing in Mulcaire's notes. It was Miller's case, with a high court filing in December, that triggered the suspension of Ian Edmondson, the News of the World's assistant editor (news). Her lawyers noted that Mulcaire had a habit of writing the first name of the person who instructed him in the top left corner of his notes. On Miller's notes it was Ian. It is an example of the kind of revelations that are likely still to come. Each time evidence from the Mulcaire files becomes available, it is sent not just to the celebrity litigant, but to News Corp's legal team. If Murdoch wishes to view the files, he can do so. What conclusion he will draw is what will drive how his company reacts to the controversy.