Guardian USA

Eric Holder acknowledges previously classified details and says US deliberately targeted Anwar al-Awlaki, who died in Yemen in 2011

The White House has launched a new effort to draw a line under its controversial drone strike policy by admitting for the first time that four American citizens were among those killed by its covert attacks in Yemen and Pakistan since 2009.

In a letter to congressional leaders sent on Wednesday, attorney general Eric Holder acknowledged previously classified details of the drone attacks and promised to brief them on a new US doctrine for sanctioning such targeted killings in future.

Holder claimed one of the US citizens killed, Anwar al-Awlaki, was chief of external operations for al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (Aqap) and had been involved in plots to blow up airplanes over US soil. However, Holder said three others killed by drones – Samir Khan, Abdul Rahman Anwar al-Awlaki and Jude Kenan – were not "specifically targeted". The second of these victims, Anwar al-Awlaki's son, is said by campaigners to have been 16 when he died in Yemen in 2011.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that between 240 and 347 people have been killed in total by confirmed US drone strikes in Yemen since 2002, with a further 2,541 to 3,533 killed by CIA drones in Pakistan.

Amid mounting concern that the policy has harmed US interests overseas, President Obama is expected to give a major speech on his counter-terrorism strategy at the National Defense University in Washington on Thursday, marking the start of a concerted effort to better justify and explain the killings.

"The president will soon be speaking publicly in greater detail about our counterterrorism operations and the legal and policy framework," Holder told 22 senior members of Congress in Wednesday's letter.

"This week the president approved a document that institutionalises the administration's exacting standards and processes for reviewing and approving operations to capture or use lethal force against terrorist targets outside the United States and areas of active hostilities."

The attorney general said this document would remain classified, but relevant congressional committees would be briefed on its contents. No further details were given of other killings in the five-page letter.

Earlier, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama would also outline his renewed attempt to shut the Guantánamo Bay detention centre in the speech and seek to explain why previous efforts had failed.

After a week in which Obama has been accused of failing to deal openly with crises such as the the targeting of Tea Party activists by the Internal Revenue Service, the White House hope it can defuse concern over drones and Guantánamo by being more transparent about its objectives.

"These are matters that … he believes are subject to legitimate questions, and that these are issue areas he believes we need to be as transparent as possible about." said Carney. "And I think you'll see that reflected in his remarks tomorrow."

The White House says Thursday's speech will cover "broad counter-terrorism policy, including military, diplomatic, intelligence, and legal efforts".

"[Obama] will review the state of the threats that we face, particularly as the al-Qaida core has weakened but new dangers have emerged," it added. "He will discuss the policy and legal framework under which we take action against terrorist threats, including the use of drones.

"He will review our detention policy and efforts to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. And he will frame the future of our efforts against al Qaeda, its affiliates and its adherents."

Greater transparency is unlikely to satisfy critics of the drone strikes alone, but the White House has also been keen to stress in recent days that the number of attacks has fallen significantly since Obama's first term and Thursday's speech may mark a turning point in the use of such tactics by the US.

• Drones
• United States
• US foreign policy
• Yemen
• Pakistan

Dan Roberts
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Firm built to connect far-flung reaches of British empire to relocate from London to Florida

Cable & Wireless Communications, the last remnant of a telecoms empire that once employed 54,000 people around the world, is to leave the UK.

After 140 years as a British company, CWC is relocating its headquarters from Holborn in central London to southern Florida, transferring about 100 jobs to the United States.

CWC will keep its London listing, but the remaining UK ties of a company that was built to connect the far-flung regions of the British empire have been gradually severed.

In 2010 the firm was demerged from its UK network, which was placed in a separately listed company, Cable & Wireless Worldwide. That business was bought by Vodafone last year.

More recently CWC has sold its networks in the Channel Islands, the Falklands and the Isle of Man so that it can focus on operations in Panama and its Caribbean stronghold.

The Bahraini national carrier Batelco has bought the British isles operations, as well as those in the Maldives and Seychelles, and is in talks to acquire CWC's Monaco business.

As part of its retrenchment to the pan-American region, CWC has also disposed of its Macau network, selling it to Citic Telecom for $750m (£490m).

Chief executive Tony Rice, who has overseen the transformation, will make the move to Florida, where the preferred locations are currently Miami or Fort Lauderdale.

"The group is now focused on a single region with low penetration for data services and strong growth potential where we have scale and market leadership," said Rice. "This focus will create a more unified, effective and cost-efficient group."

Assembled from a number of British telegraph companies founded in the 1860s, Cable & Wireless was merged with the Marconi operations in the 1930s and nationalised shortly after the second world war as the government sought to exercise closer control of key strategic assets.

In 1981 it became the first company to be privatised under Margaret Thatcher, and was later the first UK operator to offer an alternative telephone service to British Telecom, via its subsidiary Mercury Communications.

Poor investments slowly whittled away the group's scale. During the dotcom boom chunks of the family silver were sold, including the One2One mobile phone business (now T-Mobile).

Some £5bn of the proceeds were put into creating a web-traffic carrier by buying internet companies, mainly in the US.

The idea was ahead of its time. Without traffic to fill the brand new fibre networks, price-cutting became ferocious.

In 2003 the firm rang up a loss of £6.4bn, from revenues of £4.4bn. The Caribbean, where Cable & Wireless was on many islands a monopoly provider, was the only part of the business still making a significant profit.

CWC now makes $586m in revenues in Panama and $1.12bn a year from the Caribbean. Its Monaco business generates $236m a year in revenues.

Announcing full-year results on Wednesday, Rice said further job cuts over the coming two years would help create $100m a year of savings.

• Cable & Wireless Communications
• Cable & Wireless Worldwide
• Telecommunications industry
• Florida
• United States

Juliette Garside
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The right to avoid questions from Congress has a long and contentious history. Just ask gangsters, Ken Lay … and Einstein

When IRS executive Lois Lerner asserted her right, under the fifth amendment, to avoid taking questions from the House oversight committee on Wednesday, she joined a long line of would-be witnesses to tell Congress to kiss off.

The tactic came into vogue in the early 1950s, when legislators developed a habit of dragging private citizens to Washington, accusing them of being commies and demanding they name other commies. The poor witnesses often found sweet refuge in the Bill of Rights.

Not every witness who has sought such refuge, however, has done so quite as innocently. In 1950-51, organized crime figures took the fifth to avoid testifying in the Kefauver hearings. The tactic has been used by felonious CEOs (Enron's Ken Lay), disgraced athletes (slugger Mark McGwire) and, yes, mid-level bureaucrats caught up in serious back-room dealing.

Legal scholars have debated, hotly, whether the fifth amendment even provides the protection Lerner and so many others have claimed. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling professor of law at Yale University, has long argued against sweeping fifth-amendment protections in cases of congressional testimony. Amar has pointed out that while witnesses have a right to justice, society has a right to the truth. Writing about Lay's successful use of the fifth in 2002, to avoid disclosing details of how Enron cooked its books, Amar asked: "By what right do Enron bigwigs stonewall Congress?"

The Fifth Amendment prohibits a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself in any 'criminal case', but a Congressional hearing is hardly a criminal case … sometimes a truth-seeking society needs to be able to compel a person to speak outside his trial – in grand jury rooms, civil cases and legislative hearings, for example.

Amar proposes a "a narrow type of testimonial immunity" for congressional witnesses. The difficulty of threading that needle was illustrated at the Lerner hearing by an argument among oversight committee members as to whether she had forfeited her fifth-amendment protections by delivering a statement. As Lerner rose to leave, Representative Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina), objected.

"She waived her right to testify by issuing an opening statement," said Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor. (He apparently meant that Lerner had waived her right not to testify.) "She ought to stay and answer questions."

Ranking member Elijah Cummings, (D-Maryland), also a lawyer, intervened.

"Unfortunately this is not a federal court and she does have a right," Cummings said. "And we have to adhere to that." Committee chair Darrell Issa excused Lerner, with the provision that she could be called back if it had been found that she had indeed, as Gowdy claimed, waived her fifth-amendment right.

Issa's staff will have to sort through a truly daunting overhang of case law if they are to answer that question. The argument wends through a bramble patch of supreme court precedent and heavy-hitting entries in the Journal of the American Bar Association.

A Harvard law school dean, Erwin Griswold, mounted the seminal defense of the practice in a 1954 essay titled The Fifth Amendment: An Old and Good Friend. Revolted by the personal destructiveness of the McCarthy era, Griswold drew a comparison between criminal courts and congressional hearings:

In our criminal courts, we would never think of requiring an accused person to answer questions. He doesn't have to take the stand at all, and if he does do so, he has the protection of an impartial judge, and the right to have his counsel speak in court on his behalf. Why should it be so different in a legislative inquiry, when the information that is sought relates to the witness' own conduct? … The more I think about this, the more it seems to me to be an unsound practice.

To those on the political right outraged today at Lerner's refusal to testify, there may be some consolation in the knowledge that the politics cuts both ways. In 2007 Monica Goodling, an underling in President George W Bush's justice department, took the fifth to avoid telling Congress about the Bush administration's sudden dismissal a year earlier of six US attorneys. A justice department investigation later concluded that the firings were inappropriately political; one of the dismissed attorneys seemed to have been fired for not aggressively prosecuting supposed voter fraud by Democrats. Goodling was implicated because she was one of the few to have been clumsy enough to explicitly describe the administration's plan in writing. She took the fifth, was never charged with a crime, and today she works in PR.

No less a figure than Albert Einstein argued against taking the fifth before Congress. In 1953 Rose Russell, a member of the New York City teachers union, was called to testify before a committee led by Senator Joseph McCarthy, the most famous circus barker in the American Red Scare. Russell wrote to Einstein, to ask him whether she should take the fifth. He replied that she should not, and supplied a bit of amateur jurisprudence:

The 5th Amendment was adopted in order to make it impossible for the judicial authorities to bring the accused to confess through means of extortion.

In the present cases, it is not a matter of violent extortion of the accused but a matter of using people as tools for the prosecution of others that one wants to label as "unorthodox" and pursue through an economic campaign of destruction. It is a misuse of Parliament's immunity, carrying out practices that should fall into the machinery of the judicial fury (police). This procedure absolutely contradicts the nature of the arrest, if not also its exterior form.

The individual is offered no legal middle ground for him to defend his actual rights. That is why I argued that there is no way other than revolutionary non-cooperation, like Gandhi used with great success against the legal powers of the British Authorities.

When in doubt, go Gandhi.

• US constitution and civil liberties
• US Congress
• United States
• US politics
• Republicans
• Democrats
• Albert Einstein

Tom McCarthy
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

John Kerry seeks support for British-led move as means of pressuring Bashar al-Assad to enter into peace negotiations

The United States is lobbying European governments to back a British-led call to amend the EU arms embargo on Syria to put pressure on President Bashar al-Assad to enter into talks with the opposition.

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, has been urging the EU to reach consensus on a change that would allow weapons to be delivered to the rebels – though without any decision to do so at this stage.

Diplomatic sources said on Wednesday that Britain now has the support of France, Italy and Spain, while Germany is neutral. But Austria, Finland, Sweden and the Czech Republic are still opposed. Ambassadors of all 27 EU members have been called into the state department in Washington to be told of the latest US position ahead of a crucial foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels next Monday.

Speaking in Jordan on Wednesday, Kerry pledged publicly that the US and its EU allies would step up support for Syrian opposition forces to help them "fight for the freedom of their country" if Assad does not engage in talks with the rebels in good faith. Efforts are under way, with Russian backing, to convene a peace conference in Geneva some time in June.

In Britain, however, plans to amend the EU embargo are being complicated by disagreements between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and a row in Whitehall about the risks of supplying weapons to rebels fighting Assad's regime.

William Hague, the foreign secretary, who is with Kerry in Amman to discuss Syria, made clear the UK wants to alter the embargo to put pressure on Assad, but without yet deciding to send any weapons. Options include an amendment to allow weapons to be supplied to the opposition Syrian National Coalition or removal of the word "non-lethal" from the text. Another possibility is a short rollover of the embargo, which expires on 1 June, to see if the Geneva talks have any prospect of success – or deadlock. If there is no agreement the ban will lapse. That leaves open the possibility of unilateral decisions to supply arms, though in the UK that could clearly trigger a coalition crisis.

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader and deputy prime minister, faces strong differences inside his own party. "There is a fallacy in the government position," Menzies Campbell, the senior Lib Dem foreign affairs expert, told the Guardian. "It is said that the purpose of giving more sophisticated weapons to the rebels is to send a message to Assad but his regime is so heavily supported by the Russians that if there was any imbalance Moscow would be bound to redress it."

Douglas Alexander, Labour's shadow foreign secretary, said that David Cameron had allowed speculation to build about the government's willingness to veto the EU embargo. "But how would the government prevent British-supplied weapons falling into the wrong hands?" he asked. "How does supplying weapons help to secure a lasting peace?"

The rebels and their supporters say the embargo must be lifted to help the anti-Assad camp resist overwhemingly superior Syrian government forces, which are equipped with tanks, aircraft and missiles and are supplied by Russia and Iran.

Labour says that regardless of the status of the embargo, any weapons deliveries would breach other EU and UN agreements that are binding on the UK.

Whitehall sources say the national security council, which is chaired by the prime minister, has "grave concerns" about the risk that weapons could fall into "the wrong hands", amid concern about the growing strength and prominence of jihadi-type groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida.

Alistair Burt, the foreign office minister for the Middle East, told MPs on Tuesday night: "There are no guarantees, but over time we have established a series of links with moderate groups who would have no vested interest in allowing equipment that might be used against them to fall into the wrong hands." Hague said on Monday that the UK could supply arms "only in carefully controlled circumstances, and with very clear commitments from the opposition side". Some arrangements would "necessarily be confidential."

Fighters with the Free Syrian Army, the mainstream rebel group, are being vetted in Jordan, where UK special forces and MI6 officers are believed to be involved. The CIA has reportedly been involved in training and coordinating arms deliveries from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar.

Information about the vetting process is shrouded in secrecy, but Hague said in a written parliamentary answer last week: "We are in close contact with the leadership of the Syrian National Coalition and Supreme Military Command Council in order to identify training beneficiaries that meet our criteria for the Law of Armed Conflict training. To ensure that the recipients of the training are legitimate members of the opposition all beneficiaries are carefully screened before they are invited to attend the training."

The fragmentation of rebel groups, the lack of a centralised command structure, the kidnapping of UN peacekeepers and human rights abuses are all sources of concern. The recent incident in which a rebel commander in Homs was filmed eating the heart or lung of a dead government soldier caused widespread revulsion.

The Syrian National Coalition released a video yesterday entitled "Fighter not a Killer" — a YouTube and TV advert about the norms of international humanitarian law and human rights law. "In light of the recent events that have occurred within the Free Syrian Army, we felt that it is imperative to outline and educate what is acceptable and what is not," said a spokesman, Khaled Saleh.

Oxfam also issued a warning against lifting the embargo: "Sending arms to the Syrian opposition won't create a level playing field," it said in a statement. "Instead, it risks further fuelling an arms free-for-all where the victims are the civilians of Syria. Our experience from other conflict zones tells us that this crisis will only drag on for far longer if more and more arms are poured into the country."An estimated 80,000 people have been killed in Syria since the uprising began in March 2011. Millions have fled their homes inside Syria or become refugees abroad.

• Syria
• Bashar al-Assad
• John Kerry
• Conservatives
• Liberal Democrats
• Middle East and North Africa
• Europe
• United States

Ian Black
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Officials say closures are necessary to improve standards but teachers union president calls it 'a day of mourning'

The Chicago board of education voted Wednesday to close 50 schools and programs, an ambitious plan that has sparked protests and lawsuits and could help define — for better or worse — Mayor Rahm Emanuel's term in office.

City officials say the closings are necessary because of falling school enrolment and as part of their efforts to improve the city's struggling education system.

"The only consideration for us today is to do exactly what is right for the children," schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett said before the board's vote.

Critics have blasted Emanuel, the former White House chief of staff, and Byrd-Bennett, saying the closings disproportionately affect minority neighborhoods and will endanger children who may have to cross gang boundaries to get to a new school.

They protested during the board's meeting Wednesday and sent busloads of parents, teachers and students to Springfield to lobby lawmakers to approve a moratorium on the closings. Chicago Teachers Union president Karen Lewis called it "a day of mourning" for the children of Chicago.

She also pledged to start a voter registration drive in an attempt to register 200,000 new voters before the 2015 municipal elections — when Emanuel will be up for re-election — and to raise funds to support candidates for mayor, city council and statewide office.

"We know that we may not win every seat we intend to target but with research, polling, money and people power we can win some of them," Lewis said.

The board — which is appointed by Emanuel — voted to spare some schools that were targeted for closure in March. Many experts say it is the largest number of closings at any one time by any school district in recent memory.

The mayor said Tuesday he believes closing the schools is the right thing to do, and that possible blowback from voters wasn't a factor in his decisions.

"I will absorb the political consequence so our children have a better future," Emanuel said. "If I was to shrink from something the city has discussed for over a decade about what it needed to do … because it was politically too tough, but then watch another generation of children drop out or fail in their reading and math, I don't want to hold this job."

Chicago is among several major US cities, including Philadelphia, Washington and Detroit to use mass school closures to reduce costs and offset declining enrolment. Detroit has closed more than 130 schools since 2005, including more than 40 in 2010 alone.

The school closings are the second major issue pitting Emanuel against the Chicago Teachers Union. The group's 26,000 members went on strike early in the school year, partly over the school district's demand for longer school days, idling students for a week.

Emanuel and Byrd-Bennett say the district's financial and educational struggles call for drastic action. They say the nation's third-largest school district is facing a deficit of about $1bn and that too many Chicago Public Schools buildings are half-empty because of a population drop in some city neighborhoods. They've also pledged students will be moved to schools that are performing better academically.

CPS says it has 403,000 students in a system that has seats for more than 500,000. The closures include one high school program; the rest are elementary schools, serving students up to eighth grade.

Alderman Jason Ervin, whose West Side ward includes several schools slated for closure, fears the closings could further destabilize the area. He said many area residents have grown frustrated because they feel the decision about which schools to close was made months ago, despite weeks of additional hearings and community meetings.

But he was less certain what impact, if any, it could have on Emanuel's political future.

"He's the mayor. I'm the alderman. We still have to work together," Ervin said. "People will make those decisions when the time comes."

• Chicago
• US education
• US unions
• United States
• Protest
• US politics

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Attention shifts to clearing the rubble and debris as officials say they are no longer searching for any more missing people

Rescue workers were scaling back the search for victims or survivors of the deadly Oklahoma tornado, as stories emerged of the many people who escaped with their lives.

Though the twister levelled entire blocks, flattened two schools and killed 24 people, it was becoming clear amid the rubble that the disaster could have been far worse.

As residents of Moore returned to survey their ruined homes, the White House announced that Barack Obama would visit the area on Sunday.

Officials said on Wednesday that six people remained unaccounted for. "They're not sure if they've walked off or if they are in the rubble," Albert Ashwood, director of Oklahoma's department of emergency management, told a news conference.

Experts explaining the low death toll cited a relatively long advance warning of 16 minutes for the tornado and high awareness of the dangers in a region known as Tornado Alley.

Tonya Williams, 38, said she still felt in shock after surviving the tornado by taking shelter in a closet. She put bicycle helmets on her eight-year-old daughter and six-year-old son, collected her three dogs and pushed them all into a hall closet. "We prayed. I could feel pressure, and being sucked. I put my body over them to try to protect them," Williams told the Associated Press.

Neighbours dug them out. The roof and upper story of the house had collapsed into and around the closet. Williams and her children suffered only minor injuries.

The clean-up – let alone the recovery – will be an enormous job. The tornado left a trail of destruction 17 miles long from the spot where it touched down outside of Oklahoma City and then along the path that it tracked as it headed into Moore. At its height it was 1.3 miles wide and packed winds that raged at more than 200mph. The National Weather Service declared it a rare EF-5 tornado – the top level of the Enhanced Fujita Scale used to measure their power and destructive potential.

The tornado was the worst to hit the United States since a storm ploughed Joplin, Missouri, exactly two years ago and killed 158 people. The Moore storm, though far less lethal, has nonetheless left 2,400 homes damaged or destroyed and affected an estimated 10,000 people. Insurance experts believe the eventual cost of the storm will actually exceed the Joplin disaster, which ended up causing $3bn of damage.

But, despite that, Moore clearly had a relatively lucky escape. Experts explained the relatively low death toll in Moore to an effective early warning system and a prevalence of storm shelters in homes in the area, many of which had been built after a similar storm struck Moore in 1999. "There would have been a lot more people killed, we believe, if they had not had that warning 14 years ago," Oklahoma senator James Inhofe told CNN.

Already the Oklahoma state legislature is drafting a law to allow the local government to tap into the states "rainy day" fund for $45bn in cash to help finance the rebuilding effort in the city of 55,000 people. Meanwhile President Obama has also pledged that the federal government will do everything it can to help in the rebuilding effort.

In a speech to the nation on Tuesday, Obama vowed to the people of Moore: "You will not travel that path (to recovery) alone. Your country will travel it with you, fuelled by our faith in the Almighty and our faith in one another."

But there is already a political row brewing over the extent and cost of federal aid in the wake of the disaster. Inhofe and his fellow Republican senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, have a long record of opposing federal funding for disaster relief. Both politicians opposed last year's $60.4bn aid bill for victims of Hurricane Sandy and are now in a political bind as they face the prospect of reversing that opinion for Moore or having to oppose aid to their own voters.

Inhofe has been telling reporters that the situation in Moore is different from Sandy because the legislation to help storm-struck east coast last year was laden with unnecessary funding for other projects. Meanwhile, Coburn has stated that he supports aid to help Moore as long as the costs of that help are cut from elsewhere in the federal budget.

• Oklahoma City tornado
• Oklahoma
• United States
• Natural disasters and extreme weather

Paul Harris
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Stock markets rise after Federal Reserve head tells Congress quantitive easing to continue and criticises government cuts

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke denied his $85bn-a-month stimulus programme was creating new financial bubbles as he updated Congress on his views on the US economic recovery on Wednesday.

The Federal Reserve's quantitative easing programme has helped drive US stock markets to record highs even as the wider economy continues to suffer from high levels of unemployment. Asked whether the stimulus programme was creating bubbles similar to the one experienced by the housing market ahead of the recession, Bernanke said "major asset classes, including the stock markets, were "not inconsistent with the fundamentals".

US stock markets rallied Wednesday morning as the Fed chairman made clear he had no intention of cutting short the quantitative easing programme in the near future. The US economy is improving, but "headwinds" including government budget cuts are dragging on the recovery, Bernanke told Congress.

Investors, however, became more cautious on Wednesday afternoon and the markets fell after the release of the minutes from the Fed's last meeting showed some committee members were prepared to start cutting back the size of the programme as early as June if the recovery continues.

Bernanke warned Washington's deep spending cuts were holding back the recovery. "Conditions in the job market have shown some improvement recently," he said. "Despite this improvement, the job market remains weak overall: The unemployment rate is still well above its longer-run normal level, rates of long-term unemployment are historically high, and the labor force participation rate has continued to move down. Moreover, nearly 8 million people are working part time even though they would prefer full-time work."

Bernanke acknowledging that historically low interest rates and the Fed's huge government bond buying programme had costs but he said "a premature tightening of monetary policy could lead interest rates to rise temporarily but also would carry a substantial risk of slowing or ending the economic recovery."

Republican congressman Kevin Brady questioned Bernanke about his exit strategy from quantitative easing. "My worry is the Fed doesn't have the prescription for what ails our economy," he said.

Bernanke acknowledged the recovery had been slow but said it had faced "significant headwinds" including deep government spending cuts. He said it was "not responsible to focus all of the restraint on the very near term" and urged Congress to replace some of its fiscal tightening with measures to restrain long-term healthcare and social security costs.

The Fed chairman was asked whether monetary policy might create new bubbles. Senator Pat Toomey said he was concerned about recent spikes in the housing market, farm land prices and junk bonds. "I don't disagree that this is not easy," said Bernanke. "There is no risk free strategy here."

Bernanke said he was particularly concerned about the recession's continuing impact on the long-term unemployed. In April, there were 4.4m long-term unemployed people in the US – those jobless for 27 weeks or more – according to the Labor Department. Their share of the unemployed declined by 2.2 percentage points to 37.4%.

The levels remained a "significant concern", said Bernanke. "We are seeing evidence that employers are reluctant to look at people if they have been out of work for a long time," he said. But he said he believed it was not an "irreversible problem".

Speculation has been rising that the Fed might be preparing to taper off its bond purchases and some Fed members have called for the policy to be reassessed.

Bernanke said the Fed would consider to monitor the situation and would taper off the programme "as the economic outlook improves". But he said a wind-down would not be an "automatic, mechanistic process".

"All things considered, we still think that the Fed will begin to curb its asset purchases before the end of the year, with a complete halt sometime in the first half of next year," said Paul Ashworth, chief US economist at Capital Economics.

• US economy
• United States
• Federal Reserve
• Ben Bernanke
• The sequester
• Stock markets
• US housing and sub-prime crisis
• US Congress
• US politics
• Quantitative easing

Dominic Rushe
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Unsealed search warrants show suspect in shooting that killed 12 used iPhone to take pictures of movie-theater door

James Holmes received six shipments of ammunition from an online retailer, carried a platinum MasterCard and photographed the door to the movie theater where he allegedly killed 12 people and injured 70, according to court records released Wednesday.

The information comes from search warrants unsealed at the direction of the judge overseeing the case against Holmes, who could be executed if convicted of the 20 July 2012 shooting in Aurora, Colorado.

The warrants show that in the hours after the attack, investigators wanted to search Holmes' bank records and an iPod Touch. They found that Holmes had received ammunition from the website BulkAmmo.com at his apartment in Aurora. Authorities wanted to determine whether he had received other material at the nearby University of Colorado, Denver, where he had been a neuroscience graduate student, or at his parents' home near San Diego. Detectives also wrote that on 9 July, Holmes downloaded a US Postal Service form to track shipments. That was around the time Holmes shipped a notebook and burnt $20 bills to his former psychiatrist at the university. That package was not found until after the shooting. The notebook's contents have not yet been disclosed.

The documents released on Wednesday did not show what investigators found. They did say that Holmes carried an iPhone that contained pictures of the theater where the massacre occurred. Included in those pictures were images of the door jamb at the theater. Prosecutors have said Holmes entered the theater that night apparently unarmed, slipped out the external exit door then returned with his weapons and body armor.

Holmes is attempting to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. He is due to appear in court on Thursday, for a routine hearing.

Wednesday's release is an addition to a wider April disclosure of documents that were sealed in the days after the shooting. Media organizations successfully sued to unseal those search warrants and affidavits. But a handful of records were omitted from the April disclosure and were released instead on Wednesday.

• Aurora shooting
• Colorado
• United States
• US crime
• Gun crime

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Governor Hickenlooper cited doubts about death penalty as one of several causes for granting indefinite reprieve

The governor of Colorado on Wednesday indefinitely delayed the execution of a man convicted of killing four people, citing doubts about the death penalty.

Governor John Hickenlooper said he was granting Nathan Dunlap a reprieve, not clemency. Clemency would have changed Dunlap's sentence to life without parole.

Under a reprieve, Dunlap could conceivably be executed one day. The reprieve will stay in force until Hickenlooper or another governor lifts it.

Hickenlooper said Colorado's capital punishment system is flawed, citing a study that showed the death penalty was sought and imposed inconsistently.

He also said the state doesn't have the drugs in place to carry out an execution by lethal injection, and that many states and nations are repealing the death penalty.

Hickenlooper said he granted a reprieve instead of clemency because he saw the question before him as being about the use of the death penalty, not about Dunlap.

Dunlap was convicted in 1996 of ambushing and killing four employees at a Denver-area Chuck E Cheese restaurant. The jury sentenced him to die. His last guaranteed appeal was rejected this year.

His execution was scheduled for the week of August 18.

Prosecutors have said Dunlap should be executed because he had shown no remorse and had bragged about the killings.

Dunlap's attorneys said that he was remorseful, and they released a video and written statement in which Dunlap apologized.

They also said he had undiagnosed bipolar disorder at the time of the shootings.

• Capital punishment
• Colorado
• US constitution and civil liberties
• Democrats
• United States
• US politics

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

A slip of the tongue by Google's executive chairman speaks volumes about his perception of the company's tax obligations

A week or so ago, Google's chief executive, Larry Page, caused ripples when he suggested at a public event that laws older than 50 years or so shouldn't apply to internet companies, and that it might be fun to have an island where Google could dabble in new ideas without all the silly meddling of governments. (That's only a slight paraphrase.) The only way he could have seemed more like a Bond villain would be if he had been stroking a cat while speaking.

While not an island, Google created its own patch of turf in Hertfordshire on Wednesday with its Big Tent event, which really is held in a big tent – a gigantic one with perfect Wi-Fi, and tables, chairs, coffee machines and a big stage in the grounds of the Grove hotel. Think of it as the most glamorous camping imaginable, Google's little island in the UK.

Sadly, there were no self-driving cars (buses were laid on), nor people sporting Google Glass . About 250 people turned up for a day out of London to hear deep thinking about the future, whether we'll all turn into robots, and perhaps a bit of fisticuffs about tax.

For that, we looked to Eric Schmidt, formerly the company's chief executive but now its executive chairman – in effect, its roving representative on earth. Especially on tax, he is a master at not really answering questions. He's like the un-Google. So he turned up in the afternoon to un-answer lots of questions about tax.

For someone so brainy, he has a remarkable capacity not to know things. How much money does Google ship to Bermuda under its complex tax system? He doesn't know. Couldn't Google live by the spirit as well as the letter of the law? He doesn't know enough law. How should international tax law be reformed? He's really not sure. When will Google Now (a Google program that suggests bus journeys and hotel rooms based on your travels) seem as smart as a human being? Well, that's hard to say.

If he were a search engine, you'd type your question and get a blank page back. Getting direct answers out of Schmidt would tax a saint – at a low rate, of course.

He also has a surprising capacity for going missing at opportune times. Despite having been at the Grove on the Monday and Tuesday for the private Google Zeitgeist, he somehow missed Wednesday morning's session.

There, Ed Miliband cruelly (and cleverly) used Google's original "letter from the founders" to argue that its tax structure – "close" sales in Ireland, ship money to the Netherlands, and then ship even more money to Bermuda, where it must form a sort of digital sand dune – was short-term thinking, something that Larry Page and Sergey Brin had said they wouldn't do.

Yet when Miliband looked around to say this to Google's man – like the guest at a housewarming who slags off the owner – Schmidt, like Macavity the cat, wasn't there. Not until the afternoon, when he un-answered like a pro.

Certainly he must tut and sigh when he hears Page talk about ignoring laws and creating fiefdoms but, when he was asked about capitalism, he replied: "Of course, Google is a capitalist country …" Laughter. "Company," he said, uncomfortably. A slip of the tongue? Perhaps the truth is out. Perhaps Larry Page's island isn't so far off after all. One has to wonder – how soon can one move there, and what will the tax rate be?

• Google
• Tax avoidance
• Eric Schmidt
• Larry Page
• Corporate governance
• United States

Charles Arthur
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

John Roach Jr says Carolyn Compton and Page Price cannot co-habitate because of 'morality clause' in Compton's divorce

A Texas judge has banned a lesbian couple from living together under a "morality clause" in one of the women's divorce rulings.

District judge John Roach Jr, of Collin County, in north Texas, added the permanent ruling to Carolyn Compton's divorce papers. The clause stipulates that Compton cannot have a romantic partner spend the night while her children are at home.

Roach has ordered Compton's partner, Page Price, to move out of the home the pair share with Compton's two children, stating that she has 30 days to leave the property.

The clause, which has no expiration date, states that if the couple were to marry, they would be allowed to co-habitate, but same-sex marriages are not recognised in Texas. Roach's decision leaves Compton and Price facing a lengthy legal battle which could end up in the US supreme court.

The Dallas Morning News reported that Roach enforced the morality clause in the divorce hearing for Carolyn and Joshua Compton.

The pair were married for 11 years before separating. Carolyn Compton filed for divorce in September 2010.

The morality clause is common in Texas and other states, and applies to every divorce case filed in Collin County, the Associated Press reported.

It usually applies while a divorce is pending and restricts either party from having a partner stay overnight while children are present.

In Compton's case, the clause was added to the final divorce decree, meaning Page must leave the home they have shared for three years.

Paul Key, representing Joshua Compton, said his client wanted the clause enforced for the benefit of his and Carolyn Compton's children, aged 10 and 13.

"The fact that they can't get married in Texas is a legislative issue," Key said. "It's not really our issue."

Making the ruling, Roach said the clause does not target same-sex couples and that the language in the law is gender neutral.

"It's a general provision for the benefit of the children," said Roach, a Republican whose website describes him as a "Proven judge. Proven conservative." But with same sex couples unable to marry in Texas, Compton and Price say they believe the clause is unconstitutional.

The couple said they would comply with the order "even though it will be disruptive to their family and has the potential of being harmful to the children."

"[The clause] is a burden on parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, that takes away and unreasonably limits their ability to make parental decisions of whom their children may be around and unreasonably limits what the United State supreme court has identified as the liberty of thought, belief and expression," Compton and Price said in a statement. They said they are considering whether to file an appeal.

• Gay rights
• Texas
• United States

Adam Gabbatt
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Jewish liberal, 42, who plays jazz piano in his spare time, beats Wendy Greuel to become youngest LA mayor in a century

Los Angeles has elected a Jewish liberal Democrat who writes musicals in his spare time to be its next mayor, delivering a blow to public sector unions who backed his rival.

Eric Garcetti, a city council member, won 54% of the vote after an expensive, acrimonious and yet uninspiring election which left most voters apathetic.

Only 19% of registered voters cast a ballot on Tuesday, one of the lowest turnouts on record, despite a two-year, $30m battle to lead the city.

Wendy Greuel, a fellow Democrat, conceded defeat early on Wednesday after taking 46% in preliminary results, a setback to her union champions, notably employees of the LA Department of Water and Power.

"We have sent a message tonight and that message is that LA is ready to put the recession in the rear-view mirror and to become the city of opportunity that I grew up in once again," Garcetti, 42, told supporters at the Hollywood Palladium after his lead became unassailable.

Garcetti campaigned on his record of cleaning up the Hollywood district, where sleaze and grime are now less visible, and will take over on July 1 from Antonio Villaraigosa, a two-term mayor and a rising figure in the Democratic party.

A reserve navy lieutenant who speaks Spanish, plays jazz piano, publishes academic texts and has sat on the California board of Human Rights Watch, Garcetti lacked big-name Democratic endorsements but did well among whites, Latinos and conservatives. He will be the city's first elected Jewish mayor and its youngest in a century.

Greuel, who hoped to become the first female mayor, had Bill Clinton's support as well as heavy financial backing from unions, enabling her to outspend Garcetti. That backfired however because many voters said unions were overpowerful and greedy.

"Labor gambled and lost. Wendy Greuel drove away much of her own base," noted the Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez.

Another columnist grumbled that the election between two ideologically similar candidates failed to inspire or illuminate. "There was no message of hope, no call for change, at least not change of any substance. Neither Wendy Greuel nor Eric Garcetti laid out where they want to take Los Angeles. We know no more today than we did six months ago how close city government is to insolvency, whether City Hall is providing the right services, whether the public workforce is the right size to give residents what they demand."

Garcetti, who has been mocked for playing up his Italian, Spanish, indigenous and Russian Jewish ancestry, studied in England as a Rhodes scholar and lived in Africa and south-east Asia. He was an early advocate of electric cars and Barack Obama.

Married with a young daughter, the mayor-elect has composed musicals with Brian Yorkey, who went on to win a Tony, and earlier this year played piano to back up Moby at a fundraiser.

• Los Angeles
• US politics
• United States

Rory Carroll
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Members of national council will vote on single-sentence adjustment to rules which could grant membership to gay youth

The Boy Scouts of America will vote on Thursday on whether to accept gay youth members, partially overturning a long-running ban on allowing gay people to join the organisation.

The roughly 1,400 members of the BSA's national council will vote in Dallas on the proposal, which would in part overturn the scouts' 1978 ban on homosexual members.

The council will vote for or against a single-sentence adjustment to their membership rules: "No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone."

The decision will be announced at 6pm ET on Thursday after two days of meetings. A yes vote could signal a victory of sorts for gay rights groups and others who have campaigned for the scouts to accept gay members. The proposal would allow gay youth members into the scouts, but the ban on gay adult leaders will remain.

In a statement the BSA said it had "embarked on the most comprehensive listening exercise in its history" to consider the impact of changing its policy.

"While perspectives and opinions vary significantly, parents, adults in the Scouting community, and teens alike tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting," it said.

"This month, the National Executive Committee is asking its approximately 1,400 voting members to consider a proposed resolution that would remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone and would maintain the current membership policy for all adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America."

Barack Obama and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney are among the public figures who have spoken out against the ban on gay members, as pressure has mounted for the scouts to update their policy.

The BSA said in January it was considering letting local scout groups decide whether to admit gay people as youth members or leaders, but it decided against delegating the decision-making after a survey of 1 million members showed respondents supported retaining the ban on gay members by 61% to 34%.

The ban, and the furore over it, has been costly to the BSA. Intel, UPS and Merck are among the corporations that withdrew funding to the organisation after gay-rights groups began campaigning for equal scouting rights.

But the BSA said religious organisations, who donate money and contribute to the running of local scouting groups, had expressed concern over gay members and lobbied against lifting the ban. When the BSA announced the vote in April it said some religious organisations were less concerned about youth gay members than having adult leaders, leading to the "compromise".

The BSA was founded in 1910 and has 2.7 million youth members and over 1 million adult volunteers. If approved, the organisation would join the Girl Scouts of America in allowing gay members.

The ban on gay members was introduced in 1978 and reaffirmed in 2002, two years after the US Supreme Court ruled the BSA could continue to legally exclude gays.

• Gay rights
• Scouts and scouting
• United States

Adam Gabbatt
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

In exchange for giving up our personal data, we get to watch each other's cat videos, while Google becomes the new state

Of course Google doesn't want to pay its taxes to the British crown, like a loyal corporate subject. In Google's mind it secretly thinks that it is now something like a state, and we are all its subjects. It is we who should pay tribute to it – and we do.

We pay it a sort of information tax. Google is the Ministry of Information Retrieval. If you want some data, you have to give up some, about who you are, what you do, what your movements are. Like most other states, Google will then sell access to you to other interested parties.

Just like any state, Google has its spies. Its Street View cars snoop the world's high-value streets. All the better to help us citizens of Google-land do what we are supposed to do there – which is shop.

If Google succeeds in selling us its Google Glass, then we all become its agents. We would be a sensory apparatus for a vast computer database whose mission is to take our perceptions, thoughts, feelings or discoveries and turn them into money.

Some might be quite happy residing in Google-land. Google Books might be better than your local library. Google Maps makes up for all the missing street signs your council can't maintain. It is entirely possible that Google has better intelligence on world affairs than MI5 or the CIA, and its designs on what to do with it might be a bit less evil.

As with any state, there's another side. The British government at least notionally acts in the interests of its citizens. There is at least some transparency, some checks and balances. But in Google-land none of this applies. It acts in the interests only of its shareholders, and that perhaps only notionally. We are not really its citizens but its peons. We always owe a debt of information to Google, no matter how much of it we have already given up.

There used to be all sorts of criticisms of the old "culture industries" like Hollywood and the top 40, which entertained us with stories or songs that always ended on an upbeat note, no matter how false. But at least the culture industries went to the bother of entertaining us. Their replacements don't even bother. They expect us to entertain each other, and pay a tax for it. Facebook or Google's YouTube are not the culture industries so much as the vulture industries, taking an information surcharge from us while we amuse each other, and selling us to advertisers. Like do-it-yourself commercial TV.

These are all elements of what I call the "spectacle of disintegration". The old spectacle of television and radio papered the world with images of what the lovely soul of the commodity was supposed to look like. We were at least still free to daydream while we sat idly watching.

But in the spectacle of disintegration, all that breaks apart. The big screen decays into so many little screens. Our leisure time is now to be spent producing information for the vulture industries of Google and co, in an unequal exchange of information. In exchange for the poll tax of personal data, we get to watch each other's cat videos, while Google becomes some new version of the state, presiding over all our bitty lives, master of all our data, in aggregate.

Like any state, Google has its patriots. But there are also those who think this latest version of the spectacle offers some quirky avenues for having fun at its expense. Its time for a certain opacity, a certain glamour of obscurity. Not all the information we offer up has to be even remotely true.

It's 45 years since the failure of May '68, that last attempt to rock the old kind of state. Afterwards the Situationists, who gave us the concept of the spectacle, disbanded. But they did not go silent. They pioneered ways of discreetly carving out spaces where other codes apply, protected by cryptic passwords. Perhaps some of their subtle arts might work within the belly of this new digital beast, so that we might live within it, but not give it our undivided attention.

• Google
• Privacy
• YouTube
• Social media
• Tax avoidance
• Corporate governance
• Advertising
• United States

McKenzie Wark
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Reports link Ibragim Todashev, thought to be friend of Boston suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, to 2011 Massachusetts murder

An FBI agent shot dead a man believed to be a friend of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects Tamerlan and Djokhar Tsarnaev, during a "violent confrontation" in a Florida apartment early on Wednesday.

Sources said that Ibragim Todashev, 27, "flipped out" under questioning by the federal agent and two Massachusetts police officers about his connection to the brothers who are accused of carrying out the 15 April attack that killed three people and injured more than 260. The FBI did not immediately confirm a report that Todashev, a Chechen national, was also being interrogated about a possible role in a triple murder in Massachusetts in 2011, in which a friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a victim.

Dave Couvertier, an FBI spokesman, said that Wednesday's shooting, at a private apartment close to Orlando's Universal Studios theme park, was under review by a team of agents sent to Florida from Washington.

"Based on preliminary information … the agent along with two Massachusetts state police troopers and other law enforcement personnel were interviewing an individual in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing investigation when a violent confrontation was initiated by the individual," Couvertier said in a statement. "During the confrontation, the individual was killed and the agent sustained non-life threatening injuries."

He did not confirm the suspect's name or why he was being questioned at a private residence, but Khusen Taramov, a friend of the dead man, told reporters that Todashev had been interviewed several times in recent weeks and had recently cancelled a trip to his homeland to see his parents. Taramov said Todashev, a former Boston resident, had last spoken to Tsarnaev about a month ago but that they only knew each other through their shared interest in Mixed Martial Arts and he had no connection with the attack.

"They met a few times because he was a fighter and [Tsarnaev] was a boxer. They just knew each other. That's it," Mr Taramov told an Orlando news channel, WESH TV. "Me and him and my friends, we knew this was going to happen. That's why he wanted to leave the country. But he cancelled the tickets. The FBI's been pushing him, 'Don't leave, don't leave.' So he decided to stay," he said.

According to WESH TV, Todashev was initially co-operative during the interview, which took place in the early hours of Wednesday at the apartment. But the channel quoted unidentified investigators who said Todashev became violent just as he was about to sign a confession to admit a role in a September 2011 murder. In that incident, three men were found at an apartment in Waltham, Massachusetts, with their throats cut and with large quantities of banknotes and marijuana strewn around. One of the victims, Brendan Mess, 25, was a close friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed by police in Boston four days after the Marathon bombing.

A spokesman for the Middlesex County state attorney's office said it was "an open investigation" and would not comment further.

Records from Florida's Orange County Sheriffs Department show that Todashev was arrested on 4 May on a charge of aggravated battery causing great bodily harm, after a fight with two men over a parking spot at an Orlando shopping mall. According to the arrest warrant, a 35-year-old man was admitted to hospital with several teeth missing and a split upper lip, but he declined to press charges and Todashev was released. The warrant said: "By his own admission Todashev was recently a former mixed martial arts fighter. This skill puts his fighting ability way above that of a normal person."

Taramov said he and Todashev were questioned for about three hours on Tuesday, about the Boston attack and about how they knew the Tsarnaev brothers. "They took me and my friend, the suspect that got killed," he said. "They were talking to us, both of us, right? And they said they need him for a little more, for a couple more hours, and I left, and they told me they're going to bring him back. They never brought him back."

He added that his friend had "felt inside he was going to get shot" by the FBI.

John Miller, a former assistant director of the FBI, now a CBS news analyst, said agents went to the apartment after midnight to question Todashev further about the cancelled Chechnya trip. "He had been interviewed along with a number of other people in the apartment complex, but the interest in him was higher because of a couple of factors: he was in contact with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, he had been to Boston to visit him, and he was planning a trip to Chechnya," Miller said.

Tsarnaev, whose father was from Chechnya, was killed in a shootout with police in Boston on 18 April, soon after the shooting death of Sean Collier, a police officer attached to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tsarnaev's younger brother Dzhokhar, 19, was captured 24 hours later after a day-long operation that brought the city to a standstill. He could face the death penalty, on federal murder charges.

• Florida
• US crime
• United States
• FBI
• Boston Marathon bombing
• Tamerlan Tsarnaev
• Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
• Boston
• Massachusetts
• Chechnya

Richard Luscombe
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

In his new ad, Weiner stresses his work championing middle class causes and has plenty of scenes with his wife

WHO

Is it really comeback season in America? After the stunning political rebirth of disgraced South Carolina ex-governor Mark Sanford, Anthony Weiner is certainly hopeful of his chances. The one-time liberal favourite New York congressman – whose last name combined with a Twitter habit of posting crotch shots on the internet have been the punch line of a million late-night jokes – is desperate to relaunch his career. Now he has officially chosen his route back to the top: become the next mayor of New York city.

WHAT

Weiner trialed the idea of a bid to beat out an established but uninspiring Democrat field in the race to replace Michael Bloomberg in a recent New York Times magazine article. That was a trial balloon designed to test the waters and Weiner must think the temperature of the mayoral swimming pool is just fine: this morning he launched a video announcing he is diving right in.

WHEN

It went up in the early hours of Wednesday morning, which is odd and perhaps even an accident. It was likely no one would notice, and Weiner would want maximum impact. Also, it looks a little furtive and furtive is one word Weiner does not want to be associated with anymore.

WHERE

Weiner's video went up on his website, but is rapidly being played on a variety of news channels. That's a lot cheaper than paid for ads. Not that Weiner lacks money: he is sitting on a war chest of up to $5.8m.

HOW

Weiner faced a tricky task with this ad. He knows that all anyone will think of is his previous fall from grace. So he has to address that and yet, at the same time, pose as a serious candidate with real ideas about how to govern one of the biggest and most complex cities in the world. Sanford, in his victorious win in South Carolina, overcame similar issues by portraying his whole bid around the idea of redemption: framing his comeback in language comforting to religious conservatives.

Weiner, however, does not do that. Indeed it is only at the 1:38 mark through the 2 minute 15 second video that Weiner addresses the real issue anyone will be thinking about.

"Look, I made some big mistakes and I know a let a lot of people down. But I've also learned some tough lessons," he says, while standing on a leafy New York street.

And that is it. There is no apology or hand-wringing confession. The rest of the video then switches quickly to Weiner sitting with his wife, Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, on a stoop. Weiner directs people to go to his website to check out his policy ideas (all 64 of them). Then Abedin – playing the role of dutiful spouse – chimes in. "We love this city and no one will work harder to make it better than Anthony," she says.

Rhe rest of the video runs like a typical campaign ad. It introduces the biography of the candidate, striking the usual boilerplate themes of a middle class yet aspirational childhood, a love of baseball and a close knit neighbourhood where Weiner's parents worked hard and raised their kids. That sprinkled with other equally standard themes of Weiner's previous work as a congressman on issues like healthcare and his concerns over New York's emergence as a city of stark contrasts between the haves and have-nots.

Some of it is good stuff, especially his point about sky rocketing rents, house prices out of reach for anyone but the mega-rich and the disappearance of middle class jobs. But is that enough? Overall the ad feels like it is trying to slip under the radar. Unlike Sanford, who essentially embraced the corner-lurking pachyderm in his campaign, Weiner wants to brush by it. He thinks opening with shots of Abedin and himself having a family breakfast and closing with the pair of them perched on a doorstep, might be enough to erase the political memory of those Twitter images.

But that is going to be a tough one to pull off. Weiner is breaking the first rule of dealing with bad press: you have to tackle it head on and right away. You cannot try and dance around it. If Weiner is hoping this ad will persuade New Yorkers to move on and talk about the issues, I suspect he is in for a rude awakening.

• Anthony Weiner
• New York
• US politics
• Democrats
• Advertising
• Twitter
• United States

Paul Harris
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Judging by the lukewarm reception for Xbox One, the techlust that keeps capitalism's wheels turning could be grinding to a halt

There's a certain sort of person that gets excited about the announcements of new high-tech products. I'm one of them. You may well be one too. We do seem to be quite a substantial demographic. Or at least noisy enough to seem substantial. We are the vocal claque of high-tech evangelists that keeps capitalism alive.

We can often be found on social networks and messageboards extolling the virtues of our chosen gadget or brand. It's a bit like being a football supporter I suppose. We get all gingered up about the launch of a new Android tablet or Apple laptop the way an Arsenal supporter speculates about a hot new signing.

But for these irrational enthusiasms to continue, the unrealistic balloon of gadget lust needs to be constantly reinflated with – if not the oxygen of publicity – the nitrous oxide of promise.

And this summer's promises have been a bit … well… meh.

It has been a while since the big three games console manufacturers refreshed their offering. The Playstation 3s and Nintendo Wiis underneath the nation's televisions are getting on for six years old. Our Xbox 360s are about half a year older.

That's a very long time in technology. One might reasonably expect that the successor products being launched this summer would be unimaginably more potent, ineffably cooler, almost unbearably desirable.

But somehow they aren't.

The response to Nintendo's Wii U, the first of the next-generation consoles to reach the marketplace, has been distinctly lukewarm. Support from the games manufacturers dwindled after initial sales figures proved disappointing. Without a strong and growing catalogue of big-name games a console can't survive: retailers are already discounting Nintendo's console/tablet hybrid to an extent that must make dispiriting reading back in Kyoto.

From a consumer's point of view it's hard to say with any certainty whether the Playstation 4 has launched or not. We've seen its controller, and there are some tech specs online for those that understand them, but what the console looks like and precisely what it might give us that our existing kit won't remains a mystery.

There's less mystery about the third Xbox, unhelpfully christened the Xbox One. Its bland appearance is a reminder that games consoles have made the leap from the teenager's bedroom to the family's lounge. It looks a lot more like a set-top box than a games console.

And that's because, to a degree, that's what it is. Microsoft has packed in some more graphics-processing grunt and crafted a slightly more ergonomic controller but much of the launch announcement was taken up with talk of video-on-demand and Skype calls.

The dedicated gamers that constitute the core of any launch announcement audience didn't appear to be overwhelmed with delight. There were resentful grumbles about Microsoft's plan to cripple the trade in secondhand games by tying purchases to one specific Xbox Live account. That's going to complicate the rental market too. With its always-on Kinect motion tracking device watching users' every move for a signal to change the TV channel or raise the volume, Xbox One is already being called "the world's most expensive TV remote". Or "the fulfilment of George Orwell's chilling prophecy"

It's not that these devices are dreadful. They aren't. I'll probably end up buying at least one of them before the year is out. It's that they no longer engender that sense of visceral, passionate technolust that their forebears did.

And it isn't just games consoles. Like any true Apple-brand victim I upgraded my main computer every couple of years as more potent Macs were released. But I bought the MacPro on which I'm typing this in 2008. Apple has released a few nice computers since but there haven't been any ground-breaking developments in desktop computing in at least five years.

Similarly, it's hard to justify upgrading from an iPhone 4 to an iPhone 5. Or (if you are outside the residual Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field) to justify going from an HTC One to a Nexus 4. There are no new technological worlds left to conquer.

This plateau in the world of gadget is more than just an inconvenience to computer nerds. Gaming is now the most profitable wing of the entertainment industry. Recent figures put the value of the global videogame industry at around $65bn.

Sales of games consoles and mobile phones support thousands of jobs. If we decide that we're happy with what we have and stop upgrading the financial ramifications could be significant.

Which is why I'll end these thoughts with something positive. Apple's wristwatch is expected before Christmas, and I bet it's lovely. The new Valve gaming machine looks quite appealing, too, for those of you who feel the big three consoles have nothing new to offer.

So if capitalism collapses because there aren't enough geeks getting excited about new product launches, don't blame me.

• Xbox
• Gadgets
• Games
• Microsoft
• Apple
• Computing
• United States

Michael Moran
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Democrat, 48, who was forced to resign congressional seat over sexting scandal ends weeks of speculation over candidacy

Anthony Weiner, the former congressman who was forced quit after a sexting scandal, has launched his campaign to become New York's mayor, but a poll on Wednesday predicted he would face an uphill struggle to achieve his desired political comeback.

Weiner ended weeks of speculation about whether he would run when he announced in a video late Tuesday night that he will seek the Democratic nomination in the election to replace Michael Bloomberg.

In a Quinnipiac University poll published Wednesday, Weiner came in second with 15%, trailing city council speaker Christine Quinn's 25%. Bill de Blasio and Bill Thompson tied at 10%, John Liu on 6%, and Sal Albanese 2%.

The poll, taken before Weiner officially launched his campaign, found 49% urging him not to run, up from 44% in April, when rumours of his comeback plan began to spread. But 27% of registered Democrats were undecided, reflecting the fact that most of the names, other than Weiner's, are little known.

It is only two years since Weiner was forced to resign after lying about sending sexually explicit photographs of himself to women, and the poll findings show there is little sign that the electorate has forgiven him. More women than men opposed his candidacy in the Quinnipiac poll.

"Look, I've made some big mistakes and I know I've let a lot of people down," Weiner said in the video. "But I've also learned some tough lessons. I'm running for mayor because I've been fighting for the middle class and those struggling to make it for my entire life. And I hope I get a second chance to work for you."

His wife, Huma Abedin, who worked with Hillary Clinton at the State Department, also appeared on the video beside him, saying: "We love this city and no-one will work harder to make it better than Anthony."

University of Virginia politics professor Larry Sabato said: "He will have a tough time expanding that 15%. I do think it is unlikely he can make a comeback. He has a Mount Everest to climb. But it is New York?"

Although the 15% puts Weiner in second place, Sabato said the field was largely unimpressive. People being polled often do not like to admit that they do not recognise the names, and Weiner would have benefited from name recognition.

Sabato said Weiner will have been inspired by the comeback of former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, also involved in a sex scandal, who won a congressional seat in South Carolina earlier this month. Weiner has used the same campaign playbook as Sanford, asking for a second chance.

But Sabato said Weiner may have misread the South Carolina result as forgiveness rather than just Republicans being unable to stomach voting for the Democratic alternative. He said Weiner may have moved on personally but the electorate had not. "What Weiner did was tawdry, nothing to be proud of. It was so juvenile for someone in his position," Sabato said.

Weiner has an estimated $5m to spend on the campaign and the prospect of another $1.5m in matching public funding. His campaign filings for March show he spent $100,000 that month on polling and research. In spite of the cash, has found it difficult to recruit experienced political staff, suggesting he is still viewed as toxic, with little chance of victory.

Weiner resigned in 2011 after sending a picture of himself in his underwear to a 21-year-old woman in Seattle that subsequently ended up on the internet. He later admitted it was not the first time he had sent similar photographs to other women too.

In his video statement, he said he would campaign to make New York affordable, so that working-class residents would not be priced out, a line attractive to lots of voters.

His problem is that, as he has admitted, there are other pictures of him out there that have not yet emerged, and publication of these could derail his campaign.

• Anthony Weiner
• New York
• US politics
• United States

Ewen MacAskill
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Rightwing organizations with a history of illegal discrimination or crime under 'religious' pretences give the IRS reason to question

At last week's ways and means committee hearing on the Internal Revenue Service's treatment of tax-exempt organizations, Representative Aaron Schock (an Illinois Republican) helped propel a new firestorm across conservative media: in addition to tea party groups, Schock maintained, anti-abortion organizations were also being subjected to "horrible instances of IRS abuse of power, political and religious bias, and repression of their constitutional rights".

In one of the hearing's most charged moments, Schock interrogated the outgoing acting IRS Commissioner, Steven Miller, about how IRS personnel asked one of the groups to describe its public prayers. Senator Charles Grassley (an Iowa Republican) joined the fray during the Senate's finance committee hearings Tuesday.

For anyone who knows the history of the religious right, the possible revocation of tax-exempt status for claimed religious belief is a potent flashpoint. In his book, Thy Kingdom Come: An Evangelical's Lament, religion historian Randall Balmer argues that contrary to conventional wisdom, which Balmar calls the "abortion myth", evangelical voters were not propelled to political activism by the supreme court's 1973 decision in Roe v Wade.

Instead, the issue that mobilized these voters was the IRS's 1975 revocation of the tax-exempt status of the segregationist Bob Jones University. Rightwing religious architect Paul Weyrich told Balmer that it was "the federal government's moves against Christian schools" that actually "enraged the Christian community".

Bob Jones University claimed its ban on interracial dating and admission of students in interracial marriages was rooted in the Bible. It did not end its ban on interracial dating until 2000. The IRS's decision – which went through protracted litigation that ultimately ended when the supreme court let the revocation stand – was in response to new IRS regulations and a 1972 Supreme Court case holding that educational institutions with racially discriminatory policies were not entitled to tax exemption.

Balmar concluded:

"The Religious Right arose as a political movement for the purpose, effectively, of defending racial discrimination at Bob Jones University and at other segregated schools."

Denying tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory schools – regardless of whether they claim their religion commands it – is not the only issue which the IRS can lawfully examine an applicant's or organization's activities. Under IRS regulations, tax-exempt organizations "may not have purposes or activities that are illegal or violate fundamental public policy". The Bob Jones University case is just one example of the IRS applying this test. Its treatment of anti-abortion groups may be another.

Questioning anti-abortion groups – even the content of their prayers – could very likely have been aimed at determining whether these groups engaged in activities outside abortion clinics that ran afoul of the law. Because of the history of abortion clinic violence by those claiming a religious imperative, the IRS could have been attempting to determine whether the groups' activities were in violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (Face), a 1994 law which prohibits the use of force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate or interfere with someone's access to or provision of reproductive health services.

At last week's hearing, Schock entered a 150-page exhibit into the congressional record, a compilation of correspondence about tax-exempt status of three anti-abortion organizations. Two of them, Christian Voices for Life and Coalition for Life of Iowa, claim they were subjected to "unwarranted" questioning during the application process. A third, Small Victories, which already had tax-exempt status, claims to have been "harassed" and exposed to an "intrusive investigation". Christian Voices for Life and Coalition for Life of Iowa eventually obtained their tax-exempt status, and Small Victories' remained intact.

The exhibit was assembled by the groups' attorneys at the Thomas More Society, a rightwing law firm that defended anti-choice activists in National Organization for Women v Scheidler. The National Organization for Women (Now) brought that lawsuit aiming to put an end to clinic violence that had included: "invasions, violent blockades, arson, chemical attacks and bombings of women's health care clinics, assaults on patients, death threats and shootings of health care workers and administrators, including the murder of eight abortion providers."

Although Now's efforts to sue these protestors under federal racketeering laws was ultimately unsuccessful at the supreme court, the Thomas More Society still calls the litigation "a transparent attempt to gag pro-life activism at abortion clinics nationally".

The Face statute was enacted while this litigation was ongoing. It would not be unprecedented, for example, for an anti-choice activist to pray that an abortion provider die. While we still do not know what the IRS's thinking on this matter was, it is not entirely irrelevant or intrusive for the IRS to make such inquiries, including the nature of prayer.

Despite the hype and outrage about the Thomas More Society's clients' treatment by the IRS, the IRS ultimately did not penalize any of these organizations. But a religious right grudge against the IRS runs deep – back to its defense of Bob Jones University. It was just waiting to surface again.

• US taxation
• United States
• Obama administration
• Tea Party movement
• US politics
• Republicans
• Race issues
• Religion
• Abortion

Sarah Posner
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The writer-director uses Cannes press conference to say that the US has lost its way since the second world war, and that rampant development must be controlled

Robert Redford today accused the US of losing its way in the years since the second world war. Speaking at the press conference for his new film All Is Lost at the Cannes film festival.

"Certain things have got lost," said Redford. "Our belief system had holes punched in it by scandals that occurred, whether it was Watergate, the quiz show scandal, or Iran-Contra; it's still going on…Beneath all the propaganda is a big grey area, another America that doesn't get any attention; I decided to make that the subject of my films."

Redford, now 76, also had critical words for the US's never-ending drive for economic and technological development, which he considers has been a damaging force.

"We are in a dire situation; the planet is speaking with a very loud voice. In the US we call it Manifest Destiny, where we keep pushing and developing, never mind what you destroy in your wake, whether its Native American culture or the natural environment.

"I've also seen the relentless pace of technological increase. It's getting faster and faster; and it fascinates me to ask: how long will it go on before it burns out."

Redford suggested this All Is Lost, which concentrates on a single man's struggle to survive at sea after his boat is damaged and loses all power, could be seen as a counterweight. "This film is about having none of that: all you have is a man, a boat and the weather, nothing but the elements. That's it."

Redford also said that he enjoyed working purely as an actor, "give myself over completely to another director." Redford's work for JC Chandor was his first lead role for anther film-maker since 2005's An Unfinished Life. His decision to step back from day-to-day involvement in the Sundance film festival would appear to have given him more scope for acting.

The pair met when Chandor's debut film, Margin Call, was selected for the Sundance in 2011. Chandor had already completed the script for his follow-up, and shortly after the festival offered the role to Redford.

Redford joked that none of his Sundance directors had ever approached him as an actor – "Gee, it was nice!" – but was fulsome in his praise of the younger man. "He was relentless in his vision, but also very respectful, and it encouraged me to give it more and more."

• Robert Redford
• Cannes 2013
• Cannes film festival
• Sundance film festival
• Festivals
• United States

Andrew Pulver
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds