DebateGate

Child Rape Suspect Considered 'Free Man,' Local Authorities Say
Tuesday , July 24, 2007

ROCKVILLE, Md. ?

A Liberian native once facing child rape and abuse charges in Maryland now is considered a "free man" by local police, a week after a judge dismissed his case.

Mahamu Kanneh, 23, was indicted in December 2004 on nine counts of rape, sex abuse and child abuse related to allegations involving Kanneh's two nieces ? one 7 at the time, and the other 18 months old.

Last week, a Montgomery County, Md., judge dismissed the case on grounds that Kanneh's rights to a speedy trial were violated. The local prosecutor is appealing the decision.

The case was complicated further because Kanneh spoke a Liberian dialect, Vai. He also spoke English, but the court ruled he needed an interpreter. However, interpreters were hard to come by forcing delays at points in the court proceedings.

Montgomery County Police told FOX News on Tuesday that Kanneh is a considered a "free man" under the current ruling ? and jail officials say he was not required to surrender his passport.

The county prosecutor's office, however, said Monday that it still considers the case a pending criminal matter. A spokesman for the Montgomery County State's Attorney did not have an immediate response when asked for comment about Kanneh's travel status.

That Kanneh is free to roam might make a difference in a case that is now going into a possibly lengthy appeals process.

The Maryland Attorney General's Office handles all criminal appeals in the state, but spokeswoman Raquel Guillory warned that the case is not going to be resolved overnight.

"It's not going to be something that happens in the next two weeks or anything like that," Guillory said. She said it could even be two to three months before the case goes before the panel of judges on the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the state's second-highest court. And there's no telling how long it would be before the court issued a ruling in the matter.

She noted that a felony rape case appealed by the defense was argued in March before the Court of Special appeals, but a ruling has yet to be issued.

Should the state fail to overturn Savage's ruling at this stage, state lawyers likely would have up to two more chances. The state could then file for certiorari ? basically a request to be heard before the state's highest court. If certiorari is denied, then Savage's ruling is upheld. If the court grants certiorari, the state could then argue before the state high court. But because there are no federal charges involved, the case cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On July 17, Montgomery County Circuit Judge Katherine Savage dismissed Kanneh's case only days before it was set to go to trial. Noting several continuances, including ones that were because of problems finding translators, she said, "What we come back to when too much time has passed is that it's the defendant who holds speedy trial rights."

Yet on July 17 an interpreter was in the court translating the proceedings for Kanneh.

In connection with the toddler, Kanneh was charged with one count of sexual abuse of a minor, and one count of third-degree sexual offense. The other seven counts of the case ? which included second-degree rape, sexual abuse of a minor and second- and third-degree sex offense ? related to the 7-year-old. Both girls were nieces, according to court documents.

Monday, Montgomery County State's Attorney John McCarthy that the delays were the court's fault because it was unable to make sure interpreters were present, not any fault of his office. He added that interpreters were able to appear on four other occasions throughout the case. He vowed to fight the ruling in the state's appellate system, reinstate the charges and take the case to trial.

A spokesman for McCarthy's office on Tuesday said he was confident the courts would rule in the prosecutors' favor but declined to say what would happen if they lost the appeal.

"We are confident we are going to prevail, and we're not going to deal in hypotheticals of defeat," spokesman Seth Zucker said.

But a Maryland attorney in private practice who handles criminal cases in the appellate courts said it's not clear yet who has the upper hand in the case.

"Far more cases get affirmed than get reversed," said Andrew Levy, who also is a law professor.

But on the other hand, appeals by prosecutors succeed "far more often than do defense appeals," tipping the balance toward prosecutors.

He said that judges generally do not take speedy trial decisions lightly, and said Savage "must have thought it was not a close call if she dismissed a case. ... It does not happen very often to get a case dismissed on these grounds."

"She must have felt that the prosecution had nine lives, and this was the tenth," Levy said.

MySpace deletes 29,000 sex offenders
Tue Jul 24, 2007 6:14PM EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Popular Internet social network MySpace said on Tuesday it detected and deleted 29,000 convicted sex offenders on its service, more than four times the figure it had initially reported.

The company, owned by media conglomerate News Corp, said in May it had deleted about 7,000 user profiles that belonged to convicted offenders. MySpace attracts about 60 million unique visitors monthly in the United States.

The new information was first revealed by U.S. state authorities after MySpace turned over information on convicted sex offenders it had removed from the service.

"The exploding epidemic of sex offender profiles on MySpace -- 29,000 and counting -- screams for action," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in a statement.

Blumenthal, who led a coalition of state authorities to lobby MySpace for more stringent safeguards for minors, and other state AGs have demanded the service begin verifying a user's age and require parental permission for minors.

The minimum age to register on MySpace is 14.

"We're pleased that we've successfully identified and removed registered sex offenders from our site and hope that other social networking sites follow our lead," MySpace Chief Security Officer Hemanshu Nigam said in a statement.

The service has come under attack over the past year after some of its young members fell prey to adult predators posing as minors. The families of several teenage girls sexually assaulted by MySpace members sued the service in January for failing to safeguard its young members.

Late last year, it struck a partnership with background verification company Sentinel Tech Holdings Corp. to co-develop the first U.S. national database of convicted sex offenders to make it easier to track offenders on the Internet.

Convicted sex offenders are required by law to register their contact information with local authorities. But the information has only been available on regional databases, making nationwide searches difficult.

As of May, there were about 600,000 registered sex offenders in the United States.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2424879820070724?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true

Man must pay alimony to wife despite her domestic partnership
Story Highlights
Judge: Domestic partnership doesn't stop wife's alimony
Man ordered to continue alimony even if wife uses other woman's name
Ex-husband plans to appeal

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A judge has ordered a man to continue paying alimony to his ex-wife -- even though she's in a registered domestic partnership with another woman and even uses the other woman's last name.

California marriage laws say alimony ends when a former spouse remarries, and Ron Garber thought that meant he was off the hook when he learned his ex-wife had registered her new relationship under the state's domestic partnership law.

An Orange County judge didn't see it that way.

The judge ruled that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood. Garber plans to appeal.

The case highlights questions about the legal status of domestic partnerships, an issue the California Supreme Court is weighing as it considers whether same-sex marriage is legal. An appeals court upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriage last year, citing the state's domestic partners law and ruling that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether gays could wed.

Lawyers arguing in favor of same-sex marriage say they will cite the June ruling in the Orange County case as a reason to unite gay and heterosexual couples under one system: marriage.

In legal briefs due in August to the California Supreme Court, Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, intends to argue that same sex couples should have access to marriage and that domestic partnership doesn't provide the same reverence and respect as marriage.

The alimony ruling shows "the irrationality of having a separate, unequal scheme" for same-sex partners, Stewart said.

Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman when he agreed to the alimony, but he said he didn't know the two women had registered with the state as domestic partners under a law that was intended to mirror marriage.

"This is not about gay or lesbian," Garber said. "This is about the law being fair."

Kirkwood's attorney, Edwin Fahlen, said the agreement was binding regardless of whether his client was registered as a domestic partner or even married. He said both sides agreed the pact could not be modified and Garber waived his right to investigate the nature of Kirkwood's relationship.

Garber's attorney, William M. Hulsy, disagreed.

"If he had signed that agreement under the same factual scenario except marriage, not domestic partnership, his agreement to pay spousal support would be null and void," Hulsy said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/23/alimony.partnerships.ap/index.html

Baghdad residents: Anxious, weary over U.S. withdrawal

U.S. troop withdrawal is a hot topic of discussion on Baghdad streets

Civilian says his brother was killed by insurgents and that U.S. troops are needed

Iraq PM says security forces ready to fill void whenever Americans leave

Iraqi civilian on U.S.-led war: "They destroyed Iraq"
From Hala Gorani
CNN

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The streets of Baghdad are filled with anxiety and war-weariness -- much of it hinging on whether U.S. troops should go. Some say the sooner they get out, the better. Others say the Americans are needed to prevent a sectarian bloodbath.

"If they leave today, the militias will take control of the country. Neither the American soldiers or the Iraqi Army or the police can protect us," Monjed al-Naieb told CNN from his modest apartment in central Baghdad.

Al-Naieb represents a unique perspective here. He is Sunni and his wife is Shiite. Both blame the United States for creating chaos in Iraq and say the U.S. military should stick around to fix the nation.

They said they do not feel comfortable letting their three sons walk in Shiite neighborhoods anymore. One son changed his typically Sunni first name to the less distinctive "Ahmed" so that his ID card would not give him away to militias.

With debate raging in Washington and across America about an exit strategy for U.S. troops, it remains a hot topic of discussion on the streets of Iraq, where the effects of a pullout would be most acutely felt.

Most Iraqis who spoke to CNN said they follow U.S. political news closely. They said what happens in America and what is decided about the war in their country will have a direct impact on their lives. Watch Iraqis debate whether U.S. troops should stay or go ?

There is no shortage of people who say the American troops should leave, and leave now.

"They came and destroyed the country, nothing less nothing more. It was them who started this sectarianism in the country," said a man who would not give his name in a majority Shiite neighborhood.

Many others agreed that continued American troop presence is hurting their country.

"It is true when they first came, they got rid of the former regime, the Baathists. They got rid of them, but they didn't provide us with security and stability in Iraq. They destroyed the Iraqi economy, they destroyed Iraq," another man said.

A poll conducted in late April of 4,992 Iraqis over the age of 18 found that one in every two polled believe the U.S. military's increased troop presence is making the situation in Baghdad "a great deal worse."

That belief was even higher among Baghdad residents. Seventy-three percent of those polled in Baghdad believed the troops are making the situation worse, compared to 11 percent who claimed the Americans are making things better.

At the same time, 51 percent said they prefer the current system over Saddam Hussein's reign compared to 23 percent who said they prefer the old regime, according to the poll, conducted by the British-based Opinion Research Business.

Iraq's leaders are feeling the heat -- both domestically and from abroad. Facing increasing pressure from the United States to do more internally, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Saturday shot back at his critics, defending his government and the progress made by Iraqi security forces.

"We will be able to, God willing, completely take the full responsibility of the security situation when the international forces pull out -- anytime they want," he said.

The White House last Thursday reported mixed progress for al-Maliki's government on 18 U.S.-set benchmarks. The U.S. House later voted to require a troop withdrawal from Iraq by April 2008. Another progress report is due in September from Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq.

Hussein al-Fallouji, a Sunni member of the Iraqi parliament, told CNN the idea that the Iraqi government can meet the benchmarks in three months "is a mere illusion." He also blasted al-Maliki.

"Maliki cares so much about pleasing Bush, but he doesn't care one bit about his own parliament," he said.

Munthar Nader, a Shiite, lives at the same apartment complex as al-Naieb in central Baghdad. A former cab driver, Nader says he was shot while driving on the dangerous road between Baghdad and Mosul. His car was stolen after the attack and he said he is now unemployed.

Nader's brother was murdered last year in a sectarian killing. He disappeared on his way to work and Nader identified his body at the city morgue the next day.

Despite the violence his family has suffered, he says the Americans should stay in Iraq.

"If I do not see U.S. forces in front of me, I feel scared. Honestly, I feel scared," he said. "The terrorists [are] afraid of U.S. forces along with Iraqi forces, so I prefer for them to stay."

Nader now takes care of his brother's two children. His mother, who also lives with him, seemed too stricken with grief to care whether U.S. troops remain.

"The dearest person to me was killed and he was my son. Now I do not care about anything. His children became orphans," she said, crying.

Above the television set in the Nader household is a picture of a dead son and brother -- and the hopeless realization that no political benchmark or military strategy will ever bring him back.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/16/iraq.civilians/index.html 

Why Bush Will Be A Winner

By William Kristol
Sunday, July 15, 2007; B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301709_pf.html


I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.

Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy -- also something that wasn't inevitable.

And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where -- despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week -- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.

The economy first: After the bursting of the dot-com bubble, followed by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we've had more than five years of steady growth, low unemployment and a stock market recovery. Did this just happen? No. Bush pushed through the tax cuts of 2001 and especially 2003 by arguing that they would produce growth. His opponents predicted dire consequences. But the president was overwhelmingly right. Even the budget deficit, the most universally criticized consequence of the tax cuts, is coming down and is lower than it was when the 2003 supply-side tax cuts were passed.

Bush has also (on the whole) resisted domestic protectionist pressures (remember the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 complaining about outsourcing?), thereby helping sustain global economic growth.

The year 2003 also featured a close congressional vote on Bush's other major first-term initiative, the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Liberals denounced it as doing nothing for the elderly; conservatives worried that it would bust the budget. Experts of all stripes foresaw great challenges in its implementation. In fact, it has all gone surprisingly smoothly, providing broad and welcome coverage for seniors and coming in under projected costs.

So on the two biggest pieces of domestic legislation the president has gotten passed, he has been vindicated. And with respect to the two second-term proposals that failed -- private Social Security accounts and immigration -- I suspect that something similar to what Bush proposed will end up as law over the next several years.

Meanwhile, 2005-06 saw the confirmation of two Supreme Court nominees, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Your judgment of these two appointments will depend on your general view of the courts and the Constitution. But even if you're a judicial progressive, you have to admit that Roberts and Alito are impressive judges (well, you don't have to admit it -- but deep down, you know it). And if you're a conservative constitutionalist, putting Roberts and Alito on the court constitutes a huge accomplishment.

What about terrorism? Apart from Iraq, there has been less of it, here and abroad, than many experts predicted on Sept. 12, 2001. So Bush and Vice President Cheney probably are doing some important things right. The war in Afghanistan has gone reasonably well.

Western Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf's deals with the Taliban are apparently creating something like havens for terrorists, is an increasing problem. That's why our intelligence agencies are worried about a resurgent al-Qaeda -- because al-Qaeda may once again have a place where it can plan, organize and train. These Waziristan havens may well have to be dealt with in the near future. I assume Bush will deal with them, using some combination of air strikes and special operations.

As for foreign policy in general, it has mostly been the usual mixed bag. We've deepened our friendships with Japan and India; we've had better outcomes than expected in the two largest Latin American countries, Mexico and Brazil; and we've gotten friendlier governments than expected in France and Germany. China is stable. There has been slippage in Russia. The situation with North Korea is bad but containable.

But wait, wait, wait: What about Iraq? It's Iraq, stupid -- you (and 65 percent of your fellow Americans) say -- that makes Bush an unsuccessful president.

Not necessarily. First of all, we would have to compare the situation in Iraq now, with all its difficulties and all the administration's mistakes, with what it would be if we hadn't gone in. Saddam Hussein would be alive and in power and, I dare say, victorious, with the United States (and the United Nations) by now having backed off sanctions and the no-fly zone. He might well have restarted his nuclear program, and his connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups would be intact or revived and even strengthened.

Still, that's speculative, and the losses and costs of the war are real. Bush is a war president, and war presidents are judged by whether they win or lose their war. So to be a successful president, Bush has to win in Iraq.

Which I now think we can. Indeed, I think we will. In late 2006, I didn't think we would win, as Bush stuck with the failed Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey strategy of "standing down" as the Iraqis were able to "stand up," based on the mistaken theory that if we had a "small footprint" in Iraq, we'd be more successful. With the new counterinsurgency strategy announced on Jan. 10, backed up by the troop "surge," I think the odds are finally better than 50-50 that we will prevail. We are routing al-Qaeda in Iraq, we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population.

If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008. The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow. Iran is a problem, and we will have to do more to curb Tehran's meddling -- but we can. So if we keep our nerve here at home, we have a good shot at achieving a real, though messy, victory in Iraq.

But can Bush maintain adequate support at home? Yes. It would help if the administration would make its case more effectively and less apologetically. It would help if Bush had more aides who believed in his policy, who understood that the war is winnable and who didn't desperately want to get back in (or stay in) the good graces of the foreign policy establishment.

But Bush has the good fortune of having finally found his Ulysses S. Grant, or his Creighton Abrams, in Gen. David H. Petraeus. If the president stands with Petraeus and progress continues on the ground, Bush will be able to prevent a sellout in Washington. And then he could leave office with the nation on course to a successful (though painful and difficult) outcome in Iraq. With that, the rest of the Middle East, where so much hangs in the balance, could start to tip in the direction of our friends and away from the jihadists, the mullahs and the dictators.

Following through to secure the victory in Iraq and to extend its benefits to neighboring countries will be the task of the next president. And that brings us to Bush's final test.

The truly successful American presidents tend to find vindication in, and guarantee an extension of their policies through, the election of a successor from their own party. Can Bush hand the presidency off to a Republican who will (broadly) continue along the path of his post-9/11 foreign policy, nominate judges who solidify a Roberts-Alito court, make his tax cuts permanent and the like?

Sure. Even at Bush's current low point in popularity, the leading GOP presidential candidates are competitive in the polls with Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Furthermore, one great advantage of the current partisan squabbling in Washington is that while it hurts Bush, it also damages the popularity of the Democratic Congress-- where both Clinton and Obama serve. A little mutual assured destruction between the Bush administration and Congress could leave the Republican nominee, who will most likely have no affiliation with either, in decent shape.

And what happens when voters realize in November 2008 that, if they choose a Democrat for president, they'll also get a Democratic Congress and therefore liberal Supreme Court justices? Many Americans will recoil from the prospect of being governed by an unchecked triumvirate of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So the chances of a Republican winning the presidency in 2008 aren't bad.

What it comes down to is this: If Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Bush will be viewed as a successful president.

I like the odds.

Paris Hilton Released From LA Jail Early 
 
Jun 7 12:04 PM US/Eastern
By ROBERT JABLON
Associated Press Writer
 
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Paris Hilton was released from a Los Angeles County jail early Thursday because of an unspecified medical problem and will fulfill the remainder of her sentence for probation violation in home confinement, a sheriff's spokesman said.
The 26-year-old hotel heiress was sent home shortly after 2 a.m. wearing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet, sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said.

Hilton was sentenced to 45 days for violating her probation in a reckless driving case, but had been expected to serve 23 days in jail because of state rules allowing shorter sentences for good behavior.

She ended up spending three full days at the all-women's facility in Lynwood, but because she checked in late Sunday and left early Thursday, authorities credited her with five days of time served. She'll be confined to her Hollywood Hills home for 40 days.

"I can't specifically talk about the medical situation other than to say that yes, it played a part in this," Whitmore said.

Hutton didn't immediately return calls seeking comment Thursday. Nor did her publicist, Elliot Mintz.

Whitmore refused to answer questions from reporters when asked if the medical condition was physical or psychological. He said it was not a staph infection. The jail provided Hilton with a pamphlet on the skin infection when she checked in.

The conditions of Hilton's home confinement were not immediately disclosed. Whitmore referred all questions to the L.A. County Probation Department. Messages left for the person handling media calls weren't immediately returned.

Hilton had surrendered to authorities with little fanfare late Sunday after a surprise appearance at the MTV Movie Awards, where she worked the red carpet in a strapless designer gown.

"I am trying to be strong right now," she told reporters at the time. "I'm ready to face my sentence. Even though this is a really hard time, I have my family, my friends and my fans to support me, and that's really helpful."

Hilton was housed in the "special needs" unit of the 13-year-old jail, separate from most of its 2,200 inmates. The unit contains 12 two- person cells reserved for police officers, public officials, celebrities and other high-profile inmates. She didn't have a cellmate.

Hilton's lawyer, Richard A. Hutton, said Monday after his client's first night in jail that she was doing well under the circumstances.

"She's using this time to reflect on her life, to see what she can do to make the world better and hopefully, in my opinion, to change the attitudes that exist about her among many people," Hutton said after visiting Hilton.

When Hilton was sentenced May 4, Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer ruled she would not be allowed any work release, furloughs or use of an alternative jail or electronic monitoring in lieu of jail.

Whitmore said Thursday that Sauer "was consulted and he was advised."

Officers arrested Hilton in Hollywood on Sept. 7. In January, she pleaded no contest to the reckless-driving charge and was sentenced to 36 months' probation, alcohol education and $1,500 in fines.

She was pulled over by California Highway Patrol on Jan. 15. Officers informed Hilton she was driving on a suspended license and she signed a document acknowledging she was not to drive. She then was pulled over by sheriff's deputies on Feb. 27, at which time she was charged with violating probation.




 

Europe pays for China to cut gases
By Michael Bristow
BBC News, Beijing 



Europeans are paying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in China as part of the continent's efforts to tackle global warming.
Power generators and other polluting firms are buying "carbon credits" from countries such as China to offset their own emissions.

But where the Chinese gain by cleaning up their factories and selling the resulting credits, European consumers lose as the costs are often passed on in the form of higher energy bills.

Last year alone, European companies spent around $2.5bn (£1.25bn) on carbon credits from China.

Although action to tackle global warming is generally welcomed, consumer groups worry that poor people are finding it increasingly difficult to pay this energy "tax".


 The concerns that China had, that [introducing emissions targets] was just a way to shackle its growth, have been largely overcome
Neeraj Prasad, World Bank 

"Action is needed to ensure a clean environment does not come at the cost of vulnerable consumers," said Allan Asher, chief executive of UK consumer protection body Energywatch.
Energywatch estimates that carbon trading has added 7% to electricity bills in the UK over the past two years.

During roughly the same timespan, the number of people suffering from fuel poverty - those spending 10% or more of their income on heating and lighting - has risen from one to three million in Britain.

Jonathan Smith, a spokesman for the international power company E.ON, admitted the purchase of carbon credits had contributed to a rise in utility bills in Europe, and warned that the cost of buying carbon credits was likely to rise over the coming years.

Trade in credits

The carbon market - the name given to the trade in greenhouse gases - has developed quickly over the past few years.


It emerged as the world's developed countries searched for ways to meet obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of the Kyoto Protocol - an agreement between 38 industrialised countries to reduce emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012.
European countries are at the forefront of this campaign, setting emission targets that their companies then have to meet.

Firms can do this by cleaning up their own polluting factories, or by buying carbon credits from developing countries that count towards these goals.

Developing nations can provide these credits because under the Kyoto Protocol they are not obliged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Chinese firms have been particularly quick to realise that by minimising pollution they can create carbon credits that can then be sold.

It costs them money to install new technology, but they can often make large profits.

China now dominates the sales side of the trade, with a 61% market share.

Although prices fluctuate, emissions sell in units worth around $10 each. One unit is equal to one ton of CO2 or the equivalent in another greenhouse gas.

Neeraj Prasad, a carbon finance expert at the World Bank, said that buying credits from developing countries was a cheap way for Western firms to meet their emission targets.

And he said the Chinese government has become convinced it was a good way to reduce emissions without limiting its economic growth.

"The concerns that China had, that this is just a way to shackle its growth, have been largely overcome,'' added Mr Prasad, who is based in Washington.

On Monday, Ma Kai, China's minister at the National Development and Reform Commission, seemed to confirm this.

He said China would continue to develop technologies initially introduced to create carbon credits in a bid to cut its own emissions.

Exploiting the system?

But there are concerns - and not just ones related to the cost for European consumers.


Critics say the system is not monitored properly and often does not lead to any actual emission reductions.
Yang Ailun, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace in China, said there have been cases in China where low-emission factories have been built solely to earn money from carbon credit sales.

"The firms involved were not originally planning to build these factories, they were just exploiting the system," she said.

The result is that the world gets more, not less greenhouse gas emissions.

But despite these problems, even the Greenpeace spokeswoman admitted that carbon trading is a valuable tool in reducing emissions.

"It's using a business model to solve an environmental problem," she said.

"But the fact that people make money from these projects does not undermine the validity of the system."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/6723127.stm

I'm the world's only true democrat, says Putin
Mon Jun 4, 2007 8:56AM EDT

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's President Vladimir Putin has described himself as the world's only "pure" democrat and attacked the United States and Europe, which have criticized him, for falling short of their own ideals.

In an interview with Western media released on Monday, he rejected Western criticism that he has centralized power in the Kremlin, marginalized the opposition and increased state control over the media.

Asked whether he agreed with former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's description of him as an "impeccable democrat", Putin replied laughing:

"Of course I am an absolute, pure democrat. But you know the problem? It's not even a problem, it's a real tragedy. The thing is that I am the only one, there just aren't any others in the world."

Putin said the West's record on democracy was less than perfect.

"Let's look what happens in North America -- sheer horror: torture, the homeless, Guantanamo, keeping people in custody without trial or investigation," Putin said in the interview ahead of this week's summit of the Group of Eight (G-8) industrial nations.

"Look what's going on in Europe: the harsh treatment of demonstrators, the use of rubber bullets, tear gas in one capital or another, the killing of demonstrators in the streets."

He also attacked post-Soviet Ukraine for "completely violating the constitution and all its laws" and heading for "complete tyranny" -- an apparent reference to the political deadlock between rival factions over the calling of fresh elections.

"After the death of Mahatma Gandhi there's nobody to talk to," he concluded, referring to the Indian leader who championed civil rights and non-violent resistance to tyranny.

Asked whether there was any move in Russia towards a return to totalitarian rule, Putin simply said: "That is complete rubbish, don't believe that."