Japan Spends Heavily to Keep Whaling Industry Afloat, Report Says

TOKYO — A wildlife conservation group said in a report on Wednesday that Japan has been propping up its whaling industry with nearly $400 million in tax money in recent years, stepping up subsidies even as consumption of whale meat here has slumped.

The report, compiled by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, in Yarmouth Port, Mass., challenges assertions by the Japanese government that whaling is a tradition with wide support among Japanese consumers.

Instead, government figures tallied in the report paint a picture of a struggling industry employing fewer than 1,000 people and dependent on public handouts, including money meant for reconstruction after the devastating earthquake and tsunami of March 2011.

Most Japanese consumers have turned away from whale meat. The industry shipped just 5,000 tons in 2011, compared with 233,000 tons at the peak in 1962, according to data from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Demand this year is so low that the industry has cut its planned shipments by half, to 2,400 tons.

“Whaling is unprofitable, and survives only with substantial subsidies, something cultural and nationalist arguments for whaling obscure,” said Patrick Ramage, the director of the animal welfare fund’s whale program. He said the country would be better off economically and ecologically if it promoted whale-watching tourism instead of hunting whales.

Japan’s Fisheries Agency declined to comment on the report, saying it had not yet studied its contents.

But an official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said there was “nothing wrong with these subsidies, which fund an important program,” though it was “not the government’s responsibility to make whaling economically viable.”

A world moratorium on commercial whaling took effect in 1986, but Japan has taken advantage of an exception allowing whaling for research purposes to continue hunting, though environmental activists who chase whaling boats have made those hunts increasingly difficult. Japan has captured and killed more than 14,000 whales since the moratorium began.

The meat from the whales is sold off as “byproducts” of research, and it makes its way to supermarkets, restaurants and even school lunches. A government Web site says the most popular whale dishes are fried whale, whale sashimi and medium-rare whale steak.

According to figures from the Institute of Cetacean Research, the nonprofit organization set up to run the whaling program, income from whale meat has failed to cover the costs of whaling for the past five years. So subsidies have been increased, and some disaster aid has been diverted to the industry, prompting a public outcry.

The dire financial picture prompted the government to announce a plan last year to cut costs by reducing the annual catch and to sell more whale meat directly to schools for lunches. But experts doubt that those measures will make the whaling industry self-sufficient again. 

“The Japanese government has desperately defended whaling for years, but the question has increasingly become: for what?” said Yusuke Saskata, a professor of environmental economics at Kinki University in Osaka. “Supporting whaling culture is one thing, but maintaining whaling at this scale makes no sense.”

Hisako Ueno contributed research.

Read More..

Tsunami Fear After Quake Off Solomons

AUCKLAND, New Zealand — Residents of islands from the South Pacific to Australia were alerted to the possibility of a damaging tsunami on Wednesday after an 8.0-magnitude earthquake off the Solomon Islands, according to scientists and news reports from the area, but the warnings were called off a few hours later.

Edmal Palmer, the chief reporter of the Solomon Star newspaper in Honiara, the capital of the Solomon Islands, said in a telephone interview that reports from Lata, the capital of the Temotu province, were sketchy but indicated that the wave apparently had struck three villages.

“We have heard that a wave 103 centimeters high” — nearly three and a half feet — “has hit Lata, swamping the town, and five people are still missing at the moment,” Mr. Palmer said.

Lata, where the quake struck, is in Temotu Province, where the population is around 30,000. It is a three-hour flight from the Solomons’ capital, Honiara, which was not damaged by the earthquake or tsunami.

Mr. Palmer said Honiara residents were not concerned by the tsunami: “Most of us are getting ready for tonight’s UB40 concert.”

“Sea level readings indicate a tsunami was generated,” the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center said on its Web site. The earthquake struck around 11 a.m. local time in the Santa Cruz Islands, part of the Solomon chain. There were conflicting reports as to the depth of the quake.

The center said the tsunami warning was limited to the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, New Caledonia, Kosrae, Fiji, Kiribati, Wallis and Futuna.

A lesser alert, a tsunami watch, was declared for American Samoa, Australia, Guam, the Northern Marianas, New Zealand and eastern Indonesia.

The earthquake was not only powerful but also “shallow,” giving it significant potential to do damage, said Barry Hirshorn, a geophysicist with the National Weather Service in Hawaii. Moreover, it was a thrust earthquake, he said, meaning that the sea floor moved up or down, not sideways, contributing to the potential for a dangerous tsunami.

But after the earthquake, as scientists watched to see how far a tsunami might spread, there were few early indications of a major threat beyond the immediate area, Mr. Hirshorn said. A water rise of about three feet had been observed close to the quake, he said, still high enough to be potentially damaging but probably not big enough to threaten distant shores.

In New Zealand, thousands of people were at the beach, swimming in the sea on a glorious summer afternoon on Waitangi Day, a national holiday — quite oblivious to the potential for a tsunami. Tsunami sirens were set off late in the afternoon there, and people in coastal areas were being told to stay off beaches and out of the sea, rivers and estuaries.

The New Zealand Herald reported Wednesday afternoon on its Web site that tsunami sirens in Suva, the capital of Fiji, had been warning people to stay inside or go to higher ground.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on its Web site Wednesday that the Solomon Islands’ National Disaster Management Office had advised those living in low-lying areas, especially on Makira and Malaita, to move to higher ground.

Read More..

Gas Buildup and Spark Blamed in Pemex Blast

MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s attorney general said Monday that a buildup of gas ignited by a spark from a faulty electrical system had caused the explosion at the headquarters of Mexico’s state-owned oil company, which killed at least 37 people last week.

Jesús Murillo Karam, the attorney general, said a team of investigators from Mexico, Spain, the United States and Britain had found no evidence of explosives. He noted that there were no burn marks like those usually produced by explosives, nor were there signs of a crater, nor did investigators find any bomb-making materials in the office building where the blast occurred Thursday, just behind the company’s Pemex tower.

“We found no residue of any kind of explosive device,” Mr. Murillo said. He added that it had been a “diffuse” explosion, causing damage consistent with an accumulation of gas. The pressure pushed several floors of the building up, he said, and then they fell, collapsing on dozens of workers, including two more found dead this weekend buried in the rubble.

His explanation, delivered at a news conference late Monday, brought to a close several days of speculation. The government had been heavily criticized for not sharing enough information about the cause even as experts warned that investigations of this kind often take several days to figure out.

There are still some unanswered questions. Mr. Murillo said officials had yet to discover the source of the gas, which had built up in the basement of the building. Investigators believe it was methane that leaked from several ducts and tunnels underneath or connected to the building, he said. Why they leaked, who failed to notice (Pemex is responsible for inspecting its own buildings) and what exactly caused the gas to explode have not been clearly determined.

Mr. Murillo said that while there appeared to be no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, criminal charges were still a possibility.

When the blast occurred in the basement of an administrative building next to the 52-story tower, about 4 p.m. Thursday, windows shattered, the ground shook and thousands of panicked employees fled.

At the time, company officials said there was significant damage to the first floor and mezzanine of the building, and witnesses said they saw rescue workers helping trapped employees who had been pinned under falling debris, while others dragged out the injured and the dead.

The future of Pemex is a subject of debate. The national institution has been plagued by declining production, theft and an abysmal safety record that includes a major pipeline explosion almost every year. A pipeline blast in September killed 30 workers.

Read More..

Study Belies Israeli Claim of ‘Hate’ in Palestinian Texts

JERUSALEM — An academic study of the contents of Israeli and Palestinian Authority textbooks, to be published Monday, finds that each side generally presents the other as the enemy, but it undermines recent assertions by the Israeli government that Palestinian children are educated “to hate.”

Though unusually comprehensive, the report is unlikely to resolve more than a decade of fierce wrangling about the textbooks — part of a broader debate about Palestinian incitement against Israelis — having set off a political furor even before its publication date.

Israel’s Ministry of Education issued a statement in late January dismissing the new research as “biased, unprofessional and significantly lacking in objectivity.” Referring to “bodies that wish to slander the Israeli education system and the state of Israel,” it said the findings were “predetermined” and did not “reliably reflect reality.”

An Israeli member of a scientific advisory panel of experts that oversaw the research, Daniel Sperber, a professor of Talmudic research at Bar-Ilan University, refused to comment on the report, saying its release was “premature.”

Arnon Groiss, another Israeli member of the advisory panel, an Arabist, and the researcher and author of many previous reports critical of the Palestinian Authority textbooks, also refused to endorse the report, saying last week that he had not seen a final version. But he insisted that the authority’s textbooks “prepare the pupils for a future armed struggle for the elimination of the state of Israel.”

A Palestinian member of the advisory panel, Mohammed Dajani, a professor at Al Quds University in the West Bank, countered that the new study was “a strategic vision rather than looking through narrow eyes at one side or another.”

“People who are critical of the report are not appreciative of the work that went into it,” Mr. Dajani added.

Fourteen of the 19 advisory panel members expressed support for the study in a statement on Sunday.

The report was commissioned by the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land, a group of Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders who advocate for mutual respect and understanding. It was financed by a grant from the United States State Department.

The research was led by two prominent academics with long experience in textbook studies, Daniel Bar-Tal, an Israeli professor of research in child development and education at Tel Aviv University, and Sami Adwan, a Palestinian associate professor of education at Bethlehem University.

The project was originated by Dr. Bruce E. Wexler, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine, who co-founded an organization to promote Israeli-Palestinian cooperation.

In a response to the Israeli Ministry of Education, the three professors cited the rigorous research methods employed and wrote of their hopes that the ministries on both sides would “be moved to prepare a plan of action” to help “advance the peace building process.”

Dr. Wexler added that all the advisory panel members were familiar with the report’s main findings.

Unimpressed with the quality of previous, more subjective studies, Dr. Wexler said that he had insisted on applying scientific research methods for this one, so as “to provide real facts about a controversial issue.”

This included employing research assistants from both sides who were fluent in Hebrew and Arabic and data entered remotely into a database at Yale, similar to a blind study.

The study examined books from Israel’s state secular and religious systems as well as those used in independent ultra-Orthodox schools, books issued by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education and used in the West Bank and Gaza, and a small number used in the few independent Islamic Trust schools. It did not include religious scriptures.

Previous studies of Palestinian textbooks by monitoring groups like the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education and Palestinian Media Watch suggested that they promoted the widespread dehumanization of Jews and Israel and a rejection of Israel’s right to exist.

The new study avoids harsh language and couches the bad news in a kind of symmetry.

Read More..

Lady Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton Dies at 103; Aided Britain in War

Wide World Photos

Lady Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton, then Natalie Latham, in 1941. She started Bundles for Britain.

In 1939, Lady Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton, who died on Jan. 14 at 103, had neither that title nor that name. She was Natalie Latham, a fixture of Manhattan society whose beauty drew notice in Vogue magazine. She had achieved a dollop of fame when she and her two young daughters, nicknamed Mimi and Bubbles, appeared together in matching swimwear in a Life magazine photo spread, having captivated a photographer at a beach club one day.

Mrs. Latham, deft with a needle and thread, had made the outfits herself.

At the time, England had declared war on Germany, whose navy was attacking British ships. It was then, already twice divorced at 30, that Mrs. Latham paused to take stock of her life. A former debutante, she had family wealth, a Revolutionary War pedigree and an Upper East Side address. She was busy enough, organizing charity balls, herding two rambunctious children about town and making her own clothes. Like most Americans, she did not want the United States to join the war, but she felt private citizens ought to help somehow.

“I had never had time to think before,” she said in an interview with The New Yorker in 1941. “I began to think of Britain.”

It was a turning point in a life of privilege that led to one of the 20th century’s most inspired relief efforts. Nearly two years before the United States entered World War II, Mrs. Latham started Bundles for Britain, an organization that initially consisted of a few New York women knitting socks and caps for British sailors. It would grow to embrace 1.5 million volunteers in 1,900 branches in every state in the union and begin shipping to Britain not only hundreds of thousands of knitted items but also ambulances, X-ray machines and children’s cots — all labeled “From your American friends.”

Manhattan society matrons pitched in, along with sheepherders in Oregon, apple growers in Michigan and Indian blanket makers in Oklahoma. South Carolinians raised money with a watermelon-eating contest. Women everywhere baked cakes and took in laundry to buy yarn.

Letters of thanks poured in (“Dear Bundles,” most said), so Mrs. Latham sought help in replying to them, recruiting eight women, all former debutantes, at the Stork Club, one of her favorite haunts. For help on the English end, she enlisted Janet Murrow, wife of the legendary CBS reporter Edward R. Murrow, whose live radio broadcasts from London brought the war home to Americans; Louise Carnegie, wife of the industrialist Andrew Carnegie; and Clementine Churchill, wife of the prime minister. (Mrs. Churchill sent wish lists back to New York.)

Joan Crawford asked her fans to forgo giving her holiday presents and contribute instead to Bundles. For a raffle, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, mother of the current queen, donated a bejeweled cigarette case in red (rubies), white (diamonds) and blue (sapphires), as well as a piece of shrapnel from the bomb that had hit Buckingham Palace.

“It’s like a fairy tale,” Mrs. Latham told The New Yorker. “I just go around pinching myself, it’s so thrilling.”

It was also exhausting: she sometimes collapsed at her desk with fatigue. King George VI made her an honorary Commander of the British Empire, the first non-British woman to be so honored.

She died at a nursing home in Andover, N.J., her family said. After living for many years on the Upper East Side, she had retired to Stillwater, N.J.

Bundles for Britain, which continued through the war, was but one milestone in the life of Lady Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton. At the request of the White House, she created a spinoff group, Bundles for America, to aid Americans in need during the war; one project involved scavenging junkyards for upholstery to make into clothing.

In 1947 she founded and became president of Common Cause (not to be confused with the liberal government watchdog group started in 1970), a moderate anti-Communist organization whose leaders included the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. She formed a group to aid Haiti; another to stem erosion of the nation’s morals; and still another to encourage good taste. (That group built the House of Good Taste at the 1964 World’s Fair in New York.)

In the mid-1940s she worked for The New York Times Company as a liaison to women’s groups.

Read More..

Fireworks Explosion on Chinese Highway Kills 26

BEIJING (AP) — A truck carrying fireworks ahead of Chinese New Year celebrations exploded and destroyed part of an elevated highway Friday in central China, killing at least 26 people as it sent vehicles plummeting 30 meters (about 100 feet) to the ground, state media said.

The huge blast destroyed an 80-meter (80-yard) stretch of highway outside the city of Sanmenxia in Henan province, and was powerful enough to shatter windows of a nearby truck stop.

Emergency crews closed the highway at the accident site, said China National Radio, which reported the death toll of 26. The Xinhua News Agency reported four deaths but said search and rescue efforts were continuing. At least 15 people were injured and sent to nearby hospitals, the Henan Commercial Newspaper reported.

Photos posted on the popular news site Sina.com by Chinese netizens showed a stretch of elevated highway gone, with a truck perched precariously at the broken edge. Other photos showed wrecked trucks below and blackened chunks of scattered debris, including collapsed sections of highway, wrecked trucks and cargo containers.

Read More..

World Briefing | Asia: Factory Owners Arrested in Bangladesh

The Bangladeshi police have arrested two owners of a factory that caught fire last week, resulting in the deaths of seven workers, in the latest blaze to strike the country’s garment export industry. Late Tuesday night, the police arrested Sharif Ahmed, chairman of Smart Export Garments, and his colleague, M. D. Zakir Ahmed. The Smart Export factory was manufacturing clothing for several European clothing brands.

Read More..

Lens Blog: Lynsey Addario's Photographs of Women in Combat

Lynsey Addario, a  photographer for The New York Times, has extensively covered the war in Afghanistan, often focusing on female soldiers. She spoke with James Estrin about the Pentagon’s recent lifting of the ban on women in combat. The conversation, which took place via Skype from her home in London has been edited.

---

When I heard about the lifting of the ban on women in combat, I thought about your coverage of female soldiers for The Times, and also about the interview we did about women covering conflict after you were freed from captivity in Libya. What was your reaction to the announcement?

Profile

Lynsey Addario

Lynsey Addario, who freelances for The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine and others, has previously appeared on Lens Blog.

It is a huge step historically, of course, but it’s actually just stating publicly what has been happening little by little over the past decade. Women have been fighting this war more and more, whether we acknowledge it or not.

They’re at bases all across Afghanistan, and they’re playing different roles – from black ops pilots to doing triage in forward-operating medical centers. They’re engaging women in villages of Helmand that are covered with landmines. They are getting shot at. They are dying, and they are getting injured.

Everyone can fight about whether women should be on the front lines, but the fact is that they are out there. So, at some point, you have to acknowledge it and compensate them for it or at least give them the dignity of saying “O.K., you’re out there, and thank you for it.” Instead of saying, “No, they’re not allowed,” but really, they are.

You’ve often focused on female soldiers.

Mostly in 2009 and 2010. Most of the work I shot on assignment for The New York Times when I was doing a series with Elisabeth Bumiller. And then when I was doing the big National Geographic story on women in Afghanistan, I did a few embeds focusing on female soldiers who would meet Afghan women. That work is so dear to me, and I loved shooting it.

Who are these women joining the military and wanting to be in combat?

They’re women who don’t feel inhibited by their sex, by their gender. I mean, they’re women who don’t feel limited by the fact that they were born women. They believe in fighting for their country. They want to be doing something to help fight the wars that we’ve been fighting for over a decade. And they want to be out there.

They’re no different than any of us. They have a goal, and they want to accomplish it. And they don’t want to be told they can’t do it because they’re women.

A lot of them are extremely ambitious, very dedicated. They work out all the time, very intelligent.

What made you want to do this story to pursue it so deeply?

One of the biggest challenges as a photographer is to take a subject that’s been covered for decades and to try to bring something new to it. I’ve been going on these embeds for years, and it’s very hard to make a compelling picture or something new that the reader hasn’t seen before.

When I started seeing women on the front line, I was intrigued.  It felt so strange to me, and I immediately got pulled in. I also had access to them because I was often put in the same tent or made to sleep in the room with all the women. I was always sort of pushed off with the women because on military bases, there’s a real separation. You know, you have to have separate sleeping quarters for women.

What is that you learned as you pursued this story?

I think the longer these wars go on, and the more women are inserted in these nontraditional roles in the military, the more we have to accept the fact that there are actually women on the front lines.

I myself am a woman, and I’ve been embedding for years with the military. And granted, I’m not carrying thousands of rounds of ammunition and the packs that they carry. But I do go on the same patrols that the men go on and I am able to keep up.

There are great differences between men and women in terms of strength and what we can carry and what we can keep up with, but I don’t think it’s necessary for men and women to be equal. I think that women can play a role on the front line without having to hold up the same amount of weight as men.

You said that you don’t have to look at men and women as being equal for women to contribute on the front line. What exactly did you mean?

Well, I think one of the arguments a lot of people have is that women can’t hold their own the way men can. For example, if you have a fellow soldier who’s been shot, can you carry his body alone back to a safe place? And one of the arguments is that a woman couldn’t do that. So therefore, she shouldn’t be out there.

I don’t know how you work around that. I’m not really sure what the answer is. The fact is that women are not as strong as a lot of men. There are some women who are, but I think, over all, it’s going to be a challenge to find women who can keep up with the physical endurance tests that men can. That said, I’m not sure how important that is anymore because the war is changing. The war we fight now is not the same war that was fought 40 years ago.

This is a war on terror, this is a war where the front lines are nebulous.

When we talked about your being on the front lines shortly after you were freed from Libya, you pointed to specific things you thought a woman could bring to the table. A woman may not have the same access to men, but they’re going to have much stronger access to women. And different perspectives. Is there a similar situation for female soldiers on the front line?

This gets back into the discussion about what is the front line. The female engagement teams were created to engage with Afghan women — 50 percent of the population — that we didn’t have access to before. That’s part of the whole counterinsurgency project. So, if you’re trying to win over a population and you don’t have access to 50 percent of the people, it’s going to be very hard.

You can’t do that with men because, traditionally in Afghanistan, men cannot go into a house and sit down with Afghan women. The female engagement teams went in, and they were able to sit down, drink tea and talk to Afghan women.

How much was accomplished is obviously up for discussion. Some people say not that much was accomplished and that they just went and drank tea. Some people say, “Well, they were able to gain trust of families that didn’t before believe that Americans were good people.”

If your doctrine is counterinsurgency, if you’re trying to win over the population, it’s probably worth the effort to go out and try to engage in a country that’s very segregated by the sexes.

I’m older than you, and I remember when there weren’t many women in the military. And there were heated discussions about how women can’t be in the military, how women can’t be captured, how it would harm the other soldiers and it would hurt morale.

Well, I remember when Elizabeth Rubin and I went to the Korengal Valley to embed with the 173rd Airborne. This was for The New York Times Magazine. And Elizabeth wanted to do a story about why, with all the firepower that we had, we weren’t winning the war? And how come there was so much collateral damage? And so basically, we lived on the side of a mountain for two months of the Korengal Outpost.

But when we first asked the press guys with the military to go to that base, they said, “It is not a place fit for women. You cannot go.” And Elizabeth and I said that’s exactly where we want to go. Now we really want to go.

And so finally, we fought so much that they sent us to the Korengal, and we were the only two women there for months. This was before the female engagement teams, and that particular outpost saw heavy fighting all the time. I mean, we were basically shot at or mortared almost on a daily basis.

We kept up with all the patrols. We went on six, seven hour a day patrols. We carried our own stuff. We were out there getting shot at as well. Now, were we carrying guns and ammunition? No. So it’s a very different thing. But we were able to keep up and we were able to live out there.

I think when you start challenging the norms and when you start pushing the boundaries a little, you realize that the boundaries can really be pushed.

Is there anything that you can think of that is a realistic boundary between male and female soldiers?

Yes. I mean, there are times where you need someone who can carry the soldier if he gets shot. Or you need someone who physically can carry a certain amount of rounds of ammunition. I’m not a commander in the military, so there’s a lot I don’t understand.

There are situations where women aren’t really fit to be in certain roles. Special Forces, for example. Do I think women can be in Special Forces? I’m not sure. The demand on the body and spending extended periods of time in the middle of nowhere, I don’t know if that’s O.K. for women.

But I do think there is space for women on the front lines, but it is always going to be defined by what exactly is that front line. Because it’s not Vietnam, we’re in a very different war.  It’s different from 30 years ago, or 20 years ago.

Is the situation of a female foreign correspondent or photojournalist on the front lines similar to that of female soldiers?

It’s different, because the military has layers and layers and layers of command. And so they take decisions as a group.

You know, when you’re dealing with the military, those are decisions that are made at a very high level and passed down. Me, I’m in charge of my own destiny. So I can decide, to a certain extent, how much I want to be in the middle of combat.

One time, we were shot at as I was walking around with one of the female engagement teams. Just because legally, they weren’t allowed to be on the front lines, they were still being shot at on the front lines.

---

Follow @lynseyaddario, @JamesEstrin and @nytimesphoto on Twitter. Lens is also on Facebook.

Read More..

Hiroshi Nakajima, Leader of World Health Organization, Dies at 84

Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima, a Japanese physician who as leader of the World Health Organization started campaigns to fight malaria and other infectious diseases but whose tenure, from 1988 to 1998, was marred by repeated accusations of mismanagement, died on Saturday in Poitiers, France. He was 84.

He died after a short illness, the organization said.

Besides his efforts to fight infectious diseases, including AIDS, tuberculosis and dengue fever, Dr. Nakajima enlarged the organization’s focus on preventive medicine and vaccinations for children, and tried to rally international support to end ritual female genital mutilation. In a statement on Monday, Dr. Margaret Chan, the current W.H.O. director general, praised his efforts to defeat polio.

But he came under frequent criticism. The United States and other Western nations twice opposed his election as director general of the agency, which is part of the United Nations. They argued that he had not infused the agency with a clear sense of direction and had let its budget and bureaucracy balloon.

In 1992, when Washington was fighting Dr. Nakajima’s re-election, Louis W. Sullivan, the secretary of health and human services, wrote, “It appears that W.H.O. is losing its reputation as the world’s leader in health matters at a time when serious global health problems present daunting challenges to us all.”

Dr. Nakajima was again cast in a harsh light when Dr. Jonathan Mann, the widely respected commander of the United Nations’s fight against AIDS, resigned in 1990. In an interview with The New York Times, Dr. Mann said he resigned over “issues of principle” and “major disagreements” with Dr. Nakajima, who wanted to de-emphasize AIDS prevention and put more effort into other diseases, like malaria.

Dr. June Osborn, chairwoman of the National Commission on AIDS, called the resignation of Dr. Mann, who died in 1998, “a world tragedy.”

In the 1992 director general election, the United States accused Japan of overly aggressive tactics in promoting Dr. Nakajima’s candidacy. The State Department said Japan had threatened to cut off fish imports from the Maldives and coffee imports from Jamaica if those countries did not support Dr. Nakajima. A spokesman for Japan’s Foreign Ministry denied the accusations.

There were also allegations that Japan had awarded research contracts to 23 of the 31 W.H.O executive board members who recommended Dr. Nakajima’s re-election. A W.H.O. audit found that the contracts — the largest of which was $150,000 — were technically legal but presented “a problem of ethics,” in the words of the board chairman, Jean-François Girard of France.

Dr. Nakajima defeated Dr. Mohammed Abdelmoumene of Algeria, who had been his deputy, in a 93-58 vote. It was the first time in the organization’s history that an incumbent director had been challenged by another W.H.O. official.

In 1997, Dr. Nakajima announced that he would not seek a third term, in part because he had lost support from African nations after he had explained the relative scarcity of Africans in executive positions at the agency by suggesting that Africans had difficulty conceptualizing and writing reports.

The Economist magazine said the remark “was particularly odd coming from Dr. Nakajima, who has himself been accused of quasi-incomprehensibility, even when he speaks Japanese.”

Dr. Nakajima was born in Chiba-shi, Japan, on May 16, 1928. He graduated from Tokyo Medical University in 1955, representing the 10th generation of his family to produce a doctor. After studying psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Paris, he returned to Tokyo Medical University to earn a Ph.D. in medical sciences. He then became research director for Nippon Roche, the Japanese subsidiary of Hoffmann-LaRoche.

Dr. Nakajima joined the W.H.O. in 1974, and worked to improve getting medical supplies to the third world. He helped develop the concept of “essential medicines,” drugs that satisfy the health care needs of most of a population. In 1979, the Western Pacific nations elected him regional director, and he served two terms.

Dr. Nakajima is survived by his wife, the former Martha Ann DeWitt, and two sons.

Read More..

Pentagon to Beef Up Cybersecurity Force to Counter Attacks

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is moving toward a major expansion of its cybersecurity force to counter increasing attacks on the nation’s computer networks, as well as to expand offensive computer operations on foreign adversaries, defense officials said Sunday.

The expansion would increase the Defense Department’s Cyber Command by more than 4,000 people, up from the current 900, an American official said. Defense officials acknowledged that a formidable challenge in the growth of the command would be finding, training and holding onto such a large number of qualified people.

The Pentagon “is constantly looking to recruit, train and retain world class cyberpersonnel,” a defense official said Sunday.

“The threat is real and we need to react to it,” said William J. Lynn III, a former deputy defense secretary who worked on the Pentagon’s cybersecurity strategy.

As part of the expansion, officials said the Pentagon was planning three different forces under Cyber Command: “national mission forces” to protect computer systems that support the nation’s power grid and critical infrastructure; “combat mission forces” to plan and execute attacks on adversaries; and “cyber protection forces” to secure the Pentagon’s computer systems.

The move, part of a push by Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta to bolster the Pentagon’s cyberoperations, was first reported on The Washington Post’s Web site.

In October, Mr. Panetta warned in dire terms that the United States was facing the possibility of a “cyber-Pearl Harbor” and was increasingly vulnerable to foreign computer hackers who could dismantle the nation’s power grid, transportation system, financial network and government. He said that “an aggressor nation” or extremist group could cause a national catastrophe, and that he was reacting to increasing assertiveness and technological advances by the nation’s adversaries, which officials identified as China, Russia, Iran and militant groups.

Defense officials said that Mr. Panetta was particularly concerned about a computer attack last August on the state oil company Saudi Aramco, which infected and made useless more than 30,000 computers. In October, American intelligence officials said they were increasingly convinced that the Saudi attacks originated in Iran. They described an emerging shadow war of attacks and counterattacks already under way between the United States and Iran in cyberspace.

Among American officials, suspicion has focused on the “cybercorps” created in 2011 by Iran’s military, partly in response to American and Israeli cyberattacks on the Iranian nuclear enrichment plan at Natanz. There is no hard evidence, however, that the attacks were sanctioned by the Iranian government.

The attacks emanating from Iran have inflicted only modest damage. Iran’s cyberwarfare capabilities are weaker than those of China and Russia, which intelligence officials believe are the sources of a significant number of attacks on American companies and government agencies.

The expansion of Cyber Command comes as the Pentagon is making cuts elsewhere, including in the size of its conventional armed forces.

Read More..

The Lede Blog: Egypt's Soccer Riots, a View From the Ground

Video posted online appears to show fans of Cairo’s Al Ahly soccer team celebrating a court verdict.

It was one of the world’s deadliest episodes of soccer violence — a clash between fans of the Egyptian team Al Masry, of Port Said, and players and fans from Al Ahly, of Cairo, a year ago that killed 74 and wounded over 1,000.

On Saturday, a court in Cairo handed down death sentences for 21 of those involved in the riots. The violence that the verdict prompted, involving hard-core “ultra” supporters of both teams, killed at least 28 and wounded at least 300, my colleagues David Kirkpatrick and Mayy El Sheikh reported.

Pictures and video from Port Said and Cairo were markedly different. In Cairo, as the video at the top of this post shows, there were widespread celebrations. In Port Said, a city of about 600,000.

Rioters looted and burned a police barracks and set fire to a police station. They attacked members of the news media, damaging television cameras that sought to film the violence and ending their broadcasts. They closed off all roads into Port Said as well as the railroad station, and the Ministry of Electricity and Energy said rioters had attacked a power facility as well.

Video posted online appears to show protesters in Port Said.

In Cairo, Mr. Kirkpatrick and Ms. El Sheikh reported, the families of those killed in the clash last year “held pictures of the victims in the air. Some danced and chanted. A few fainted. And the Cairo ultras celebrated for hours outside their team’s headquarters.”

Video posted online appears to show celebrations in Cairo.

Tara Todras-Whitehill, a photographer in Cairo, posted further pictures of the celebrations on her Twitter account.

Ultras chanting ‘Min of Interior it’s ur turn next’ and calling for execution of Tantawi. Can’t win in #Egypt #PortSaid http://t.co/Up8vK9hv

— T Todras-Whitehill (@taratw) 26 Jan 13

Ultras celebrate in their Zamalek stadium the verdict of 21 in #PortSaid massacre. #Egypt #Cairo http://t.co/bR5BtvHB

— T Todras-Whitehill (@taratw) 26 Jan 13

It was not immediately clear where the following picture also posted on Twitter, by Tom Gara of The Wall Street Journal, came from. But it apparently shows a man playing an accordion in the midst of one riot.

The craziest photo to come out of Egypt for a long time: http://t.co/PmVRM4K3

— Tom Gara (@tomgara) 26 Jan 13

Read More..

The Lede Blog: A 'Black Bloc' Emerges in Egypt

While using Twitter to narrate events in Tahrir Square on Friday, people in Egypt described tires burning in the street, protesters blocking traffic and hurling rocks, and police officers launching tear gas in an effort to break up crowds that had gathered to protest against the Muslim Brotherhood and the country’s new Islamist president.

Many of the actions described on Friday appeared to hew to a script that has become familiar over the past two years, but some in the crowds of protesters appeared to be using new tactics, dressing from head to toe in black, covering their faces with bandannas or kerchiefs and brandishing black flags as they skirmished with security forces.

“Asked one of them who they are they said we don’t talk to media but we are black bloc,” wrote ‏the British-Egyptian journalist Sarah Carr, adding that a member of the group had “mentioned anarchism.”

Shubra march is full of young men wearing wrestling masks.

— أبو كار (@Sarahcarr) 25 Jan 13

Saw a winning ski mask and spectacles combination. We’re banned from photographing them.

— أبو كار (@Sarahcarr) 25 Jan 13

Asked one of them who they are they said we dont talk to media but we are black bloc. Mentioned anarchism.

— أبو كار (@Sarahcarr) 25 Jan 13

An article filed on Thursday by The Associated Press reported the presence of a “previously unknown group calling itself the black block.” The article continued, “Wearing black masks and waving black banners, it warned the Muslim Brotherhood of using its ‘military wing’ to put down protests.”

Although largely new in Cairo, the term “black bloc” has been used for years in the United States and Europe to describe a tactic commonly used by anarchists and anticapitalists during large-scale political demonstrations that occasionally devolve into street fights with the authorities.

Participants in the bloc typically dress in black to foster a sense of unity and to make it difficult for witnesses to differentiate between individuals. Members of the bloc often blend in with larger groups of protesters, then break away, linking arms as they rush down streets.

In the United States, at least, black bloc members usually eschew violence against people but have few compunctions about damaging property.

The tactic received attention during the 1999 protests in Seattle against the World Trade Organization, when youths dressed in black broke windows and spray-painted graffiti on buildings.

In St. Paul, during the 2008 Republican National Convention, black bloc members roamed through the city smashing bank windows and using hammers to batter a police car.

It is unclear whether there are any connections between American and Egyptian black bloc participants, but the site anarchistnews.org posted a message about occurrences in Cairo, quoting the blog Even If Your Voice Shakes.

Last night, anarchism left the graffitied walls, small conversations, and online forums of Egypt, and came to life in Cairo, declaring itself a new force in the ongoing social revolution sparked two years ago with multiple firebombings against Muslim Brotherhood offices. Later, the government shutdown the “Black Blocairo” and “Egyptian Black Bloc” Facebook pages, but they were soon re-launched.

The site went on to say that Egyptian anarchists had firebombed the Shura Council.

As my colleague Robert Mackey reports, an Egyptian journalist, Sarah El Sirgany, wrote on Twitter, “Vendors tell me it was the Black Block group that attempted to storm the Ikhwan Online building sparking the fight.”

Later, she added, “Now those who had continued the fight are heading to Tahrir, flag of Black Block flying high.”

Opinion on the black bloc in Egypt was not united. In a place where sexual assaults and gropings have become common, one Twitter user, Ghazala Irshad ‏@ghazalairshad, seemed to sound an admiring note: “Egypt’s new Black Bloc (self-proclaimed anti-MB militia) has female members too — just saw one running wearing niqab & angle-length skirt.”

Egypt’s new Black Bloc (self-proclaimed anti-MB militia) has female members too–just saw one running wearing niqab & angle-length skirt.

— Ghazala Irshad (@ghazalairshad) 25 Jan 13

But the activist bloggers Gigi Ibrahim ‏and Adel Abdel Ghafar were more skeptical.

This black bloc is just trouble even if they have good revolutionary intentions but it definitely will be used against the revolution

— Gigi Ibrahim (@Gsquare86) 25 Jan 13

Black Bloc: anarchist revolutionaries or 18 year olds who live with their moms & wear black masks thinking life is a video game ? #egypt

— Adel Abdel Ghafar (@dooolism) 25 Jan 13

This week a man named Ahmed Ibrahim, who has previously posted YouTube videos that appear to be from Egypt, posted a video titled “Black Bloc Egypt.”

Accompanied by driving music the video shows masked people marching while holding aloft black banners, a black flag with an anarchy symbol and an Egyptian flag.

Read More..

The Lede Blog: Tear Gas in Tahrir Two Years After Revolution's Start

Last Updated, 11:28 p.m. Bloggers in Cairo reported that tear gas was fired into Tahrir Square by the police Thursday night, as Egypt braced for a day of protests to mark the second anniversary of the revolution that began on Jan. 25, 2011.

In #tahrir square, nasty tear gas. Really potent.

— Wael Eskandar (@weskandar) 24 Jan 13

Just came from behind CSF lines on Qasr al-Aini where the troops seemed to be thrilled the battle is on again. Teargas everywhere.. #Egypt

— Dirk Wanrooij (@dirkwanrooij) 24 Jan 13

As the Cairene blogger who writes as The Big Pharaoh explained, officers from the Central Security Forces fired the gas at protesters after the crowd started to pull down a wall blocking an entrance to the square on Qasr al-Aini Street.

Clashes erupted after Tahrir protesters tried to remove the concrete blocks at Kasr Ainy St. Useless clashes are the last thing we need now.

— The Big Pharaoh (@TheBigPharaoh) 24 Jan 13

The activist Sherief Gaber, who writes as @cairocitylimits, pointed to video of cheers erupting from the crowd as the wall was torn down on Thursday.

The cheer at this point in this video is heartening to anyone who has ever been enraged by a barrier wall: http://t.co/xCidhbHP

— sherief gaber (@cairocitylimits) 24 Jan 13

Hours after the fighting began, The Big Pharaoh called the clashes “useless,” coming on the eve of planned demonstrations in the same area to note continuing dissatisfaction with Egypt’s postrevolutionary government.

Clashes continue in Kasr Ainy st. Police firing loads of tear gas into Tahrir. Useless clashes in the wrong timing.

— The Big Pharaoh (@TheBigPharaoh) 24 Jan 13

After the wall was destroyed, the Cairo daily Al-Masry Al-Youm reported that soldiers had been deployed to build a new one on the same street.

@Adamtawny they’re building another one as this goes down http://t.co/PRVB498c

— Amani Massoud (@amassouda) 24 Jan 13

At about 6 a.m. on Friday morning, The Big Pharaoh posted an image of clouds of tear gas in Tahrir Square and expressed his amazement that the police had apparently continued firing canisters throughout the night.

Police still firing tear gas in #tahrir. It is unbelievably intense. I thought they built their concrete wall, why are they still firing?!

— The Big Pharaoh (@TheBigPharaoh) 25 Jan 13

They’re firing tear gas like crazy even though they’ve built their wall. Why?? #tahrir http://t.co/n2nS320E

— The Big Pharaoh (@TheBigPharaoh) 25 Jan 13

Read More..

Clinton Cites New Security Steps After Libya Attack

Christopher Gregory/The New York Times

The secretary of state faced tough questions over the attack on an American mission. Page A11.

WASHINGTON — In one of her final appearances as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday vigorously defended her handling of last September’s attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans and prompted a scathing review of State Department procedures.

“As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right,” she said, reading a statement during a day of testimony before Senate and House committees. “I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger and more secure.”

But Mrs. Clinton, whose appearance before Congress had been postponed since December because of illness, quickly departed from the script. She jousted with Republican lawmakers over who deserved blame for the security problems at the compound, and choked up as she described being at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington when the bodies of the Americans killed in the assault arrived from Libya.

“I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews,” she said. “I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters.”

The continuing controversy over the attack, which resulted in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, has cast a cloud over Mrs. Clinton’s final months at the State Department. It also has enormous political implications for Mrs. Clinton, the former New York senator who is already regarded as the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination if she chooses to run. It was the first time she had faced extensive questioning about her role in the episode.

In essence, Mrs. Clinton’s approach was to accept the responsibility for security lapses in Benghazi but not the blame.

“I feel responsible for the nearly 70,000 people who work for the State Department,” Mrs. Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the morning. “But the specific security requests pertaining to Benghazi, you know, were handled by the security professionals in the department. I didn’t see those requests. They didn’t come to me. I didn’t approve them. I didn’t deny them.”

When the question of her role was taken up again in the afternoon hearing by Representative Ed Royce, the California Republican who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that she had been briefed on a series of events that indicated that security in Benghazi was deteriorating in the months before the attack. They included the placement of a bomb at the outer wall of the compound in June and an ambush that month on the British ambassador.

But she said she had gone along with a recommendation from subordinates that the Benghazi post be kept open and assumed that they would take the necessary steps to protect it.

Mrs. Clinton first publicly took responsibility for the Sept. 11 attack in an Oct. 15 interview with television reporters. Since then, she has committed herself to putting in place all of the recommendations of an independent review that was led by Thomas R. Pickering, a former American ambassador, and Mike Mullen, the retired admiral who served as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

For all of the hours of testimony, the hearings did little to clarify the role of the White House in overseeing the American presence in Libya before the attack or explain why the Pentagon had few forces available on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to respond quickly to any assault on diplomatic outposts in the region.

One of the sharpest exchanges of the day came when Mrs. Clinton responded to questions from Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, by saying there was too much focus on how the Benghazi attack had been characterized in its early hours and not enough on how to prevent a recurrence. Republicans have repeatedly charged that Obama administration officials deliberately played down the attack, focusing much of their criticism on Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations and once Mr. Obama’s choice to succeed Mrs. Clinton.

Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.

Read More..

IHT Rendezvous: The Brewing Terror Threat in Thailand

BEIJING — Islamic terrorism never went away, though it seemed perhaps to have quieted down after the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011. But is it back now, stronger, as the crisis in Mali shows? And is southern Thailand a next crisis zone?

According to the Global Terrorism Index issued by the Institute for Economics and Peace, the countries suffering the most from the impact of terrorism include familiar places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. But here’s a surprise, perhaps: Thailand ranked No. 8, even though many people associate it with holiday-making in the sun and not the carnage of war.

According to the index, issued last December by the institute, a nonprofit group that works for world peace, in 2011 Thailand had 173 terrorist incidents that resulted in 142 fatalities (Iraq topped the index with 1,228 incidents and 1,798 fatalities.)

In the excellent interactive graphic, Mali ranked 43d out of the 158 countries studied, something which will presumably change following the jihadist thrust there that has led to the military intervention of France and African nations, supported by the United States. As this Reuters article explains, “The aim of the intervention is to prevent northern Mali from becoming a launchpad for international attacks by al Qaeda and its local allies in North and West Africa.”

In Thailand, the decades-old Muslim insurgency is growing and changing in character – and foreigners, as well as Thais, should beware, reports Asia Sentinel, an online platform for Asian issues

The conflict is already very bloody. More than 5,000 people have been killed since 2001 and about 11,000 severely injured, according to statistics kept by Deep South Watch, a monitoring organization in southern Thailand. The Council on Foreign Relations Web said this makes Thailand “the deadliest war zone in East Asia.”

Last year, the insurgency in Thailand’s south began taking on “a worrying new direction,” the article in Asia Sentinel said.

“Buddhist monks and teachers have been regularly singled out as targets. More than 300 schools closed recently as teachers went on strike over the worsening security situation. In September 2012, militants threatened to kill anyone not respecting Friday as the Muslim Sabbath, which forced many businesses to close and many people to remain indoors for the day,” the article said. “Creeping Islamization is changing the nature of this previously low-level conflict.”

“Further complicating the nature of the rebellion are deep links to local criminal gangs, especially those centered on drug and people trafficking. Conflict in the Deep South is an extremely profitable business,” it said.

As the article on the Council’s Web site reported, an attack on Sept. 21 killed six in Pattani province in Thailand’s south, just a few hundred kilometers from the tourist beaches of Phuket and Thailand’s west coast.

“These types of brutal attacks have become routine in this province,” it said. “On a daily basis, groups of heavily armed men attack local officials, police, soldiers, teachers and any Muslim they believe is not adhering strictly enough to Islamic values. The insurgents explode homemade bombs, climb onto school buses and strafe children with gunfire. Those believed to sympathize with the national government are sometimes decapitated, their headless bodies left in public places, along with warnings to obey a strict form of Islam.”

Thailand’s deputy prime minister, Chalerm Yoobamrung, who is also the country’s “security boss,” as the Bangkok newspaper, The Nation, described him, has said that the institute’s high ranking on the list was actually a misunderstanding.

Chalerm’s response was pilloried early this month by the newspaper, which accused him of sweeping the problem under the carpet and hoping nobody would notice.

Just as the Islamist push in North Africa appears to have taken a new turn with the killing of local and foreign hostages in Algeria, some are worried the same will happen in Thailand, unless the problem is dealt with.

“Current travel warnings for Thailand continue to understate the risk,” said the Asia Sentinel.

“Remarkably, the Thai insurgency has never veered near the coastal enclaves that are packed both with wealthy tourists and westerners who own beach properties in Phuket and other areas.”

But, “There is precedent for caution,” the Sentinel said. “In 2001, an Abu Sayyaf raid kidnapped about 20 people from Dos Palmas, an expensive resort north of Puerto Princesa City on the island of Palawan in the Philippines, which had been considered completely safe.” A Peruvian-American tourist was beheaded by the kidnappers and an American missionary was killed in a shootout between them and security forces.

Read More..

As Jordan Elections Near, Protesters Focus on King

Bryan Denton for The New York Times

Local tribal leaders in southern Jordan waited for a campaign event to begin on Saturday. Parliamentary elections are being held on Wednesday.

AMMAN, Jordan — For two years, protests demanding reform here have seethed, fueled by complaints about corruption, incompetent governing and the slow pace of change. In November, deadly demonstrations against a cut in fuel subsidies spread throughout the country.

Bryan Denton for The New York Times

Young supporters of the Islamic Action Front who are boycotting elections follow their party’s demonstration online.

The widening anger has brought together longtime political opposition figures with those who were once a part of the monarchy’s loyal base. The focus of the protests has also started to broaden, from anger at corrupt officials to bolder expressions of dissatisfaction with King Abdullah II.

To quiet his critics, the king is relying on a new round of parliamentary elections scheduled for Wednesday, a contest that he has promised “will breathe life into our democracy.”

The vote comes as Jordan copes with a number of domestic challenges, including a crushing deficit and a flood of more than 200,000 Syrian refugees — the kinds of crises that have often derailed movements for reform.

However, while the opposition has often seemed more conservative in Jordan than elsewhere in the region — calling for reform rather than the overthrow of the government — it is has shown no sign of easing pressure on the king.

The disillusionment that has fueled the protests is concentrated in the southern city of Ma’an, known for uprisings and phosphate mines.

In the center of town this week, a group of men who had occupied a traffic circle to protest the region’s lack of jobs ate lunch in a tent. Some said they had worked as smugglers, but even that trade had dried up.

“We want to live,” proclaimed graffiti on a sculpture. Beyond it the charred remains of the governor’s residence was visible, set on fire during a recent protest.

The parliamentary campaign in Ma’an has focused on local issues — like winning the region its share of the spoils from the mines — and on the corruption that has become a rallying cry for dissent across the country.

“They don’t see anything from the precious mines,” said Abdul-Karim al-Bahri al-Muhameed, a former civil servant who is running with the support of his tribe. “The king is not serious about getting the money stolen by corruption,” he said.

He sat in the salon of a tribal leader, Sheik Adel al-Muhameed, a supporter of his candidacy who was boycotting the vote. “I don’t trust the Parliament,” he said.

During the last two years, the government had approached tribal leaders like him to try and stop the street protests, Mr. Muhameed said. “The government cannot handle it,” he said. The election, he added, “is a play.”

Citing a history of rigged elections in Jordan that have produced toothless legislatures, many government critics have dismissed Wednesday’s polling as a cosmetic and desperate effort by an absolute monarch to avoid handing over power. A few opposition groups, including the largest, the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood, and the protest network known as Hirak are boycotting the vote.

“He doesn’t carry out of any of his promises,” said Nimer al-Assaf, the deputy general secretary of the Islamic Action Front, the Brotherhood’s political party. Mr. Assaf predicted that no more than 25 percent of registered voters would turn up at the polls. “People are rejecting the whole idea,” he said.

But other opposition groups are participating in the election, stirring new divides.

Other candidates, to be sure, have put aside their misgivings in the hope that freedom will gradually emerge.

“Democracy happens in degrees,” said Mohamed al-Hajouj, a Palestinian refugee who is running for Parliament, undeterred by gerrymandered districts that continue to underrepresent the country’s citizens of Palestinian origin, a majority.

Something had to be done, Mr. Hajouj reckoned, likening Jordan to a grenade ready to explode. The elections, he said, would keep it from blowing up.

Jordanian officials say they have added a number of election safeguards to prevent what was seen as a process manipulated by the country’s powerful intelligence services and marred by vote-buying and other fraud.

Read More..

Iran Publicly Hangs 2 Men Convicted in Stabbing

Ebrahim Noroozi/Fars, via Associated Press

Iranians reacted in Tehran on Sunday at the execution of two men, whose stabbing of a man, caught on a video camera and posted online, caused an uproar.

TEHRAN — An eerie silence filled the air as a crowd of around 300 gathered Sunday just before sunrise in a Tehran park. They awaited the arrival of two young men who were about to die.

Amir Pourmand/Iranian Students News Agency, via Associated Press

Just before nooses were put on their necks, Alireza Mafiha, 23, laid his head on an executioner’s shoulder. Mohammad Ali Sarvari, 20, is at center.

The condemned stood shoulder to shoulder, motionless, in front of two police trucks with two nooses hanging from extendable cranes, about 15 feet high. Black-clad executioners were inspecting the remote controls they would use to hang the men, both in their early 20s, who were convicted of stabbing a man in November and stealing his bag and the equivalent of $20.

From behind a makeshift barrier of scaffolding, the crowd jostled for position. “Let’s move to the other side,” one spectator whispered to his wife, pointing to the spot where Iranian state television cameras had been set up. “I think we will have a better view from there.”

Although every year hundreds of convicts are hanged in Iran, a public hanging in a central park in Tehran is a rare event. Most hangings take place inside prisons, according to Iranian judicial officials and international human rights organizations.

Sunday’s execution in Park-e Honarmandan (Artists Park), near the crime scene, was part of a heavy-handed offensive by Iranian authorities, who say they are trying to prevent rising crime rates from getting out of hand by setting harsh examples. In recent weeks, public executions have been stepped up, and in several large cities the police have been rounding up what they call thugs and hooligans.

Police commanders and other officials blame government mismanagement of the economy — which they say has caused a rise in unemployment and inflation — for the increase in crime. International economic sanctions have aggravated problems, many here say, leading to a record gap between rich and poor in Iran.

While no official statistics are publicly available, officials report a rise in violent crimes, mostly perpetrated by young men attacking their victims with knives to get money and other valuables. Local news media report only a fraction of the episodes, but at social gatherings of middle-class Iranians — the usual targets — horrific stories of theft, kidnapping, rape and home burglaries abound.

“Two young men entered my house two weeks ago and beat me senseless,” said Manijeh, 54, a homemaker from north Tehran, a more affluent section of the city. The intruders bound her arms and legs and beat her, asking for the location of the safe, she said. “But we don’t have a safe,” said Manijeh, who declined to reveal her surname out of fear that the burglars would return. They stole her car, ransacked her home and took nearly everything inside, she said.

“Our city has become completely unsafe,” said Manijeh, speaking after her recent release from a hospital. “These things would never happen until some years ago. We need the harshest measures to stop these criminals.”

Armin, 30, an engineer, said his father was recently robbed and beaten by a gang of thieves on motorcycles. “They hit him hard, but afterwards he received an anonymous call telling him where to find his bag,” he said. “They took all his money but returned his documents.”

On Sunday, the two condemned men, Alireza Mafiha, 23, and Mohammad Ali Sarvari, 20, stood before the onlookers, many of whom said they were family members and friends.

“They have shaved his hair,” said one young man pointing at Mr. Mafiha who said he knew both men. Mr. Sarvari, baby-faced, stared wide-eyed into the crowd.

The two men, both unemployed and from poor families, had been caught two months ago on a security camera robbing a man and stabbing him, helped by two accomplices. Video from the crime spread on the Internet and caused a widespread uproar, prompting politicians and clerics to call for harsh measures.

Two weeks later, all four men were arrested. The head of Iran’s judiciary, Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani, made it clear in comments on the crime that even though their victim had not died, a death sentence for the two main defendants, Mr. Mafiha and Mr. Sarvari, was likely. “We need to act assertively and increase the costs for those committing street crimes,” he said, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency.

Ramtin Rastin contributed reporting.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 20, 2013

An earlier version of this story and a picture caption misstated the ages of the two men who were executed. Alireza Mafiha was 23 and Mohammad Ali Savari was 20.

Read More..

Priest Is Planning to Defy Vatican’s Orders to Stay Quiet

Jekaterina Saveljeva for The New York Times

The Rev. Tony Flannery, an Irish priest, was suspended by the Vatican last year. “I refuse to be terrified into submission,” he said.

DUBLIN — A well-known Irish Catholic priest plans to defy Vatican authorities on Sunday by breaking his silence about what he says is a campaign against him by the church over his advocacy of more open discussion on church teachings.

The Rev. Tony Flannery, 66, who was suspended by the Vatican last year, said he was told by the Vatican that he would be allowed to return to ministry only if he agreed to write, sign and publish a statement agreeing, among other things, that women should never be ordained as priests and that he would adhere to church orthodoxy on matters like contraception and homosexuality.

“How can I put my name to such a document when it goes against everything I believe in,” he said in an interview on Wednesday. “If I signed this, it would be a betrayal not only of myself but of my fellow priests and lay Catholics who want change. I refuse to be terrified into submission.”

Father Flannery, a regular contributor to religious publications, said he planned to make his case public at a news conference here on Sunday.

The Vatican’s doctrinal office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to Father Flannery’s religious superior, the Rev. Michael Brehl, last year instructing him to remove Father Flannery from his ministry in County Galway, to ensure he did not publish any more articles in religious or other publications, and to tell him not to give interviews to the news media.

In the letter, the Vatican objected in particular to an article published in 2010 in Reality, an Irish religious magazine. In the article, Father Flannery, a Redemptorist priest, wrote that he no longer believed that “the priesthood as we currently have it in the church originated with Jesus” or that he designated “a special group of his followers as priests.”

Instead, he wrote, “It is more likely that some time after Jesus, a select and privileged group within the community who had abrogated power and authority to themselves, interpreted the occasion of the Last Supper in a manner that suited their own agenda.”

Father Flannery said the Vatican wanted him specifically to recant the statement, and affirm that Christ instituted the church with a permanent hierarchical structure and that bishops are divinely established successors to the apostles.

He believes the church’s treatment of him, which he described as a “Spanish Inquisition-style campaign,” is symptomatic of a definite conservative shift under Pope Benedict XVI.

“I have been writing thought-provoking articles and books for decades without hindrance,” he said. “This campaign is being orchestrated by a secretive body that refuses to meet me. Surely I should at least be allowed to explain my views to my accusers.”

His superior was also told to order Father Flannery to withdraw from his leadership role in the Association of Catholic Priests, a group formed in 2009 to articulate the views of rank-and-file members of the clergy.

In reply to an association statement expressing solidarity with Father Flannery, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith denied it was acting in a secretive manner, pointed out that Father Flannery’s views could be construed as “heresy” under church law, and threatened “canonical penalties,” including excommunication, if he did not change his views.

This month, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote to an American priest, Roy Bourgeois, notifying him of his laicization, following his excommunication in 2008 over his support for the ordination of women.

Read More..

The Lede Blog: Analysis of Armstrong’s Confession

As the second part of Lance Armstrong’s televised confession that he doped and lied his way to seven Tour de France titles is broadcast on the Oprah Winfrey Network Friday night, The Lede will have real-time fact-checking and analysis from New York Times reporters, including Juliet Macur and Naila-Jean Meyers. We will also round up reactions from fans, bloggers, journalists and fellow riders once the broadcast and live stream gets underway, at 9 p.m. Eastern Time.

10:20 P.M. |Video Highlights of Armstrong’s Confession

Now that the broadcast is over, the Oprah Winfrey Network has posted highlights on its YouTube channel.

Lance Armstrong on his “most humbling moment.”

Lance Armstrong on what he was thinking when he attacked his critics for telling the truth.

“If you’re asking me if I want to compete again? The answer’s, Hell yes.”

Lance Armstrong argued that his punishment was “a death penalty.”

Lance Armstrong on talking to his children about his cheating.

That concludes our live-blog coverage of Lance Armstrong’s confession. Thanks for joining us and thanks to all of the bloggers and journalists whose Twitter commentary we quoted.

— Robert Mackey

10:09 P.M. |A More Emotional Interview

More than Part 1, the second part of the interview felt like the old Oprah Winfrey show. Among the questions Winfrey asked Armstrong in the final 10 minutes of the interview:

“Will you rise again? Are you a better human being? What is the moral of the story?”

The answers: “I don’t know.” “Without a doubt. “I don’t have a great answer.”

O.K., Armstrong said more than that:

“I do not know the outcome here and I’m getting comfortable with that. That would have driven me crazy in the past.”

“I am deeply sorry for what I did. I can say that thousands of times and it may never be enough.”

“When I was diagnosed, I was a better human being after that. And I was a smarter human being after that. And then I lost my way. Here’s the second time. And it’s easy to sit here and say I feel different, I feel smarter, I feel like a better man today, but I can’t lose my way again. And only I can control that.”

“The ultimate crime is the betrayal of these people that supported me and believed in me and they got lied to.”

Winfrey even ended the interview by repeating what Kristin Armstrong told her ex-husband in 2009: “The truth will set you free.” That’s the Oprah many people expected when the interview was announced.

— Naila-Jean Meyers

10:04 P.M. |The Financial Implications of the Truth

Clarification was needed when Oprah asked him the financial toll of his demise.

“Have you lost everything?” she asked.

He would say only that he lost $75 million in future income.

”Gone,” he said, “and probably never coming back.”

But it would be wrong to imply that he is without money. The bigger question is not about lost earnings but what he believes he will lose.

What has he paid lawyers? What does he estimate that will pay in potential civil liability or settlements? What does he have to give back to sponsors? Oprah let Armstrong control the narrative.

One more point: did it seem to everyone that Armstrong never uncrossed his legs for the entire two and a half hours he talked to Oprah?

— Richard Sandomir

10:02 P.M. |A Shifting Account of the Impact on Cancer

Tonight Armstrong is saying that following his cancer diagnoses “I was a better human being after that, I was a smarter human being after that.” Last night, however, he said that his recovery from cancer turned him into a no-holds-barred, win-at-all-costs hyper-competitor. Given that he’s now comparing his current situation to the cancer diagnoses, what does this all mean?

— Ian Austen and Juliet Macur

9:52 P.M. |How Editing Changes Impressions

The previous segment saw Lance Armstrong talking at length, and breaking down in tears, talking about his children. After the commercial break, a seemingly composed Armstrong was asked whether anyone on his team had paid off the United States Anti-Doping Agency. He said no.

But the change in tone of the interview was abrupt and odd. It makes me wonder about how the interview was edited.

— Naila-Jean Meyers

9:48 P.M. |Armstrong Chokes Up

Armstrong, in many ways, seems to be dictating this part of the interview. He’s asking a lot of questions of himself, and Winfrey is, again, not asking critical follow-ups.

When she asked, was there anybody who knew the whole truth? Armstrong said, “Yeah.” But Winfrey didn’t ask who.

Armstrong has been allowed to go on long narratives about his family, his children, his “process,” and change subjects without Winfrey asserting herself into the conversation.

Her silence, though, helped create what has so far been the most emotional part of the interview, Armstrong’s description of what he told his 13-year-old son, Luke, over the holidays about the case against him. “I told him not to defend me anymore,” Armstrong said after a long pause during which became choked up.

— Naila-Jean Meyers

Oprah opened up a significant door with Armstrong that Armstrong danced around and then shut: did people tell him to stop doping, stop the lying and, one assumes, stop steamrolling people who disagreed with him?

“Could they have done anything?” she asked.

“Probably not,” he said. But then, he detoured, with Oprah’s help, into discussing a conversation with his ex-wife, Kristin, about whether he should return to cycling from his retirement. She told him if he did it without doping and not to cross the line again.

He said that Kristin was “not curious,” and perhaps “did not want to know.”

Still, did Kristin, or anyone else, plead with him, intervene with him, tell him he’s a jerk? Right now, we don’t know. “I said, `You’ve got a deal,’ ” he said. Of course, others disagree that he did not use performance-enhancing drugs during his comeback in 2009 and ’10.

Oprah opened yet another area of inquiry when she asked Armstrong if he is in therapy; he said that he was and that he had been in therapy sporadically throughout his life but now needed to do more. But just like that, the door closed before any questions about whether therapy enabled him to confess his doping sins, even if his admissions have not satisfied everyone.

— Richard Sandomir

9:44 P.M. |On Losing the 2009 Edition of the Tour

Armstrong said he expected to win the 2009 Tour in his first year back from a several-year break. Finishing third was hard for him. He eventually rationalized that finish by saying he “just got beat” by two guys who were better than him. I would beg to disagree. Armstrong did everything he could to sabotage Alberto Contador’s victory that year, Contador has said. He left Contador stranded at the team hotel without a ride to the individual time trial. He also harassed Contador at team dinners, knowing full well that Contador, a Spaniard, could understand English. He also criticized Contador for attacking at the end of one mountaintop finish, but Contador later said he attacked because he thought his team was plotting against him.

I did everything I could in training, I hid Alberto’s shoes, and I just got beat.
— nyvelocity (@nyvelocity) 19 Jan 13

— Juliet Macur

9:38 P.M. |On the Yellow Jersey Twitter Picture

Oprah asked about the picture Armstrong posted on Twitter of him lying on his couch surrounded by framed yellow jerseys.

“That was another mistake,” he said.

Then Oprah basically laughed at him for showing such hubris, essentially saying, “What were you thinking?!??!”

“That was just more defiance,” he said.

— Naila-Jean Meyers

9:33 P.M. |A More Contrite Armstrong, but Questions Linger

Armstrong is sounding much, much more contrite than he was in Oprah Part 1 on Thursday. He said his lowest moment was cutting all ties with his charity and that he was in therapy now. He called it “sick” that he told a lawyer in sworn testimony in 2005 that he would never dope because it would disappoint the millions of cancer survivors who looked up to him. Yet he still said he deserved a six-month suspension, which is the punishment his teammates received when they came clean to the United States Anti-Doping Agency. The difference, though, is that those teammates came forward to tell the truth about their doping, while he kept his secrets for months and months more. (And most likely would have kept them forever if he had never been caught.)

Armstrong said his former wife, Kristin, believed in honesty and the truth. But at least one rider who testified in the United States Anti-Doping Agency case said Kristin was complicit in Armstrong’s doping. She allegedly handed out cortisone pills to riders at the 1998 world championships, prompting another rider to say, “Lance’s wife is handing out joints.” Armstrong said Kristin was only on a “need to know” basis regarding the drugs, but some of Armstrong’s teammates would disagree.

— Juliet Macur

9:31 P.M. |Armstrong Admits He Wants to Compete Again

Lance to sports: “I can’t quit you”
— Race Radio (@TheRaceRadio) 19 Jan 13

As my colleague Juliet Macur reported two weeks ago, close associates said that he was considering making a confession “because he wants to persuade antidoping officials to restore his eligibility so he can resume his athletic career.”

In response to questions from Winfrey, Armstrong said that he did want to compete again and that was part of the reason he finally admitted cheating.

Armstrong was given a lifetime ban against competition after first attempted to use the courts to block the United States Anti-Doping Agency’s investigation of him and then, when that failed, he refused to participate in the process. The World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA, has the power to amend that ban if he provides it with “substantial assistance.” But David Howman, its executive director, told me Friday that not only has Armstrong not done that yet, he hasn’t even contacted WADA.

Some observers of the interview who doubt Armstrong’s contention that he did not cheat during his comeback in 2009, when he continued to work with the infamous doping doctor Michele Ferrari, have suggested that he might be thinking of the statute of limitations, or presenting a case that his ban should be shorter and back-dated to 2005.

I know close followers of the tale know this already, but USADA’s reasoned decision details LA contact w.Ferrari through 2009-10 & further.
— Bonnie D. Ford (@Bonnie_D_Ford) 19 Jan 13

Armstrong continues to assert that he didn’t dope during his post retirement Tours de France. Here’s the conclusion of the United States Anti-doping Agency: “Armstrong’s Blood Test Results During the 2009 and 2010 Tours de France are Consistent with His Continued Use of Blood Doping.”

After Thursday’s broadcast, antidoping officials were clear. “If Mr. Armstrong truly wants to make amends for his doping past, then he needs to make a full confession under oath to the relevant anti-doping authorities,” the World Anti-Doping Agency said.

Short statement from WADA on Lance Armstrong interview. http://t.co/LZ7kGHAW
— WADA-AMA (@wada_ama) 18 Jan 13

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency added: “His admission that he doped throughout his career is a small step in the right direction. But if he is sincere in his desire to correct his past mistakes, he will testify under oath about the full extent of his doping activities.”

— Robert Mackey and Ian Austen

9:22 P.M. |Oprah Presses for an Emotional Reaction

Oprah’s first question was: What was the humbling moment that brought you face to face with yourself?

Armstrong began talking about when his sponsors, starting with Nike, bailed out. He knew then that he was losing control of the story. But the most humbling moment came later:

“The one person I didn’t think would leave was the foundation,” Armstrong said. “And that was the most humbling moment.”

Calling the foundation his “sixth child,” he said that stepping aside from the foundation was “the lowest point.”

Armstrong said that he wasn’t forced out but was aware of the pressure and that it was the best thing for the organization that he leave.

After watching the clip of his 2005 deposition, Armstrong said, “I don’t like that guy.”

Winfrey followed up by asking, “Who is that guy?”

“That is a guy who felt invincible, was told he was invincible, truly believed he was invincible,” Armstrong said.

He conceded: “That guy’s still there. I’m not going to lie to you.”

He also talked more about apologies, and when Winfrey asked what he would say to the millions of people who supported him, Armstrong said: “I understand your anger, your sense of betrayal. You supported me forever through all of this, you believed, and I lied to you. And I’m sorry. I will spend — and I’m committed to spend — as long as I have to make amends.”

(And “process” continues to be Armstrong’s favorite word in this interview.)

— Naila-Jean Meyers

9:19 P.M. |Did Armstrong’s Doping Cause His Cancer?

Winfrey finally asked Armstrong the question that many people have been wondering: If he thought his doping had caused his testicular cancer. She asked if he thought it did. He said no. And that was it! Winfrey, obviously, should have pushed him on that and asked why he doped even after cancer nearly killed him.

— Juliet Macur

9:16 P.M. |Armstrong’s Lowest Point: Leaving Livestrong

Armstrong told Winfrey his lowest moment of his doping scandal: leaving his charity, Livestrong, behind. He said Livestrong had asked him to step down as chairman last fall, then weeks later asked him to cut all ties. He said he wasn’t forced out or told to leave. But that walking away from it “hurt the most.” The charity needed to distance itself from him because it was losing support, two people with knowledge of the situation said. Corporate sponsors were pulling their support or cutting their support in the aftermath of Armstrong’s scandal.

last year @billgifford wrote a great article on @livestrong. @alexheard on Livestrong’s attempts to silence them http://t.co/d1imcLna
— Race Radio (@TheRaceRadio) 19 Jan 13

During the interview, Winfrey asked Armstrong to watch video of his own sworn testimony in 2005, when he said that the reason he would never dope was that he would lose “the faith of all of the cancer survivors around the world.” He added: “It’s not about the money for me — everything — it’s also about the faith that people have put in me over the years. So all of that would be erased. So I don’t need it to say in a contract, ‘You’re fired if you test positive.’ That’s not as important as losing the support of hundreds of millions of people.”

Part of Lance Armstrong’s deposition in a 2005 suit against SCA Promotions, a firm that had promised to pay him a huge bonus for winning the Tour de France five straight times.

— Juliet Macur and Robert Mackey

9:06 P.M. |What Did Armstrong Tell His Children?

Oprah Winfrey did ask several of the questions that my colleague Juliet Macur suggested the other day, but based on the promos for Part 2, Winfrey will be asking about Armstrong’s children.

To refresh your memory, here is what Juliet suggested Oprah ask about Lance’s children:

When you briefly retired from cycling after winning the 2005 Tour, you said you did so to spend time with your children and be a better father. Do your five children, ages 2 to 13, know about your doping past? If so, when and how did you tell them?

— Naila-Jean Meyers

9:03 P.M. |LeMond Gets In a Dig

Greg LeMond, the only American winner of the Tour de France not to be later stripped of the title for cheating, was at odds with Lance Armstrong for more than a decade over suspicions that the Texan had doped.

On Thursday, he reminded readers of his Twitter feed of one of Armstrong’s most adamant declarations that he never doped: a Nike commercial in which he declared that all he was “on” was his bike, six hours a day.

Writing on Twitter, LeMond made a puckish referee to that ad in a message drawing attention to his own latest product, a LeMond Revolution cycling trainer.

Everybody wants to know what I’m on. What am I on? I’m on my REVOLUTION, bustin’ my ass-6 hours a day. What are you on? http://t.co/Cx2mUkBa
— LeMond (@LeMondHQ) 17 Jan 13

— Robert Mackey

8:55 P.M. |Annals of Great Televised Confessions

While we are waiting for Lance Armstrong to complete the confession of all confessions, let us revisit some memorable occasions from the past when public figures went on television to express remorse (or not) for things they did.

Who could forget Bill Clinton’s humiliating declaration that oops, he had in fact had an inappropriate relationship with “that woman … Miss Lewinsky” after all?

Or Mark Sanford’s ragged, rambling confession that “hiking the Appalachian Trail” had nothing to do with hiking, or even with Appalachia, and everything to do with his South American mistress?

Or the excruciating spectacle of a squirming Tiger Woods owning up to “irresponsible and selfish behavior” after being exposed as a serial philanderer and sender of unsavory hook-up texts?

Then there was Anthony Weiner’s teary confession that he had for some horrifying reason posted on Twitter a photograph of his underpants (with him inside them) and then lied about it.

There are many more, obviously: this is a great American ritual, the televised confession and plea for forgiveness. But the most interesting one in recent years, to my mind, was David Letterman’s extraordinary admission, in a long, often ruefully funny, monologue in 2009 that seemed to be a brilliant shaggy-dog story until it wasn’t, that he had slept with women on his staff. (He revisited the issue the following week, when he apologized to his staff and to his wife, Regina).

— Sarah Lyall

8:51 P.M. |What About the Ratings?

The question on the minds of media types Friday night is: how well will Part 2 of Winfrey’s interview fare?

Part 1 of her sit-down with Armstrong attracted about 3.2 million viewers to OWN. Another 1.1 million watched a repeat of the interview, for a total of 4.3 million for the night. While great for OWN, many executives and producers at other networks thought Armstrong’s confession would draw a bigger total audience.

Maybe the public knew enough from the leaks ahead of time (namely, that Armstrong was certain to confess) or maybe he wasn’t an appealing enough figure to spend 90 minutes with (he didn’t show all that much remorse to Winfrey, some said). Maybe they just wanted to watch “American Idol” instead. Regardless, Armstrong’s messages were seen and heard by a much bigger audience than the one that tuned into OWN — his story blanketed television newscasts on Thursday night and Friday morning.

Typically Friday nights are much lower-rated than Thursday nights across the American TV universe. But OWN is hoping to draw in millions of people for Part 2. The early ratings will be available as early as Saturday.

— Brian Stelter

8:34 P.M. |Color Victims of Armstrong’s Bullying Unimpressed

As my colleague Ian Austen reported, among the viewers of Thursday’s broadcast who came away less than impressed by Lance Armstrong’s limited confession were several members of the professional cycling community he attacked after they testified to his doping over the years.

One was the Italian cyclist Filippo Simeoni, who angered Armstrong by testifying against the doping doctor both had been clients of, Michele Ferrari. Armstrong took his revenge by using his position as leader of the 2004 Tour de France to intimidate other riders into agreeing to block Simeoni from competing for a stage win.

Filippo Simeoni: ‘I was on the end of every kind of insult and recrimination. His words change nothing. They’re no payback for me.’
— Daniel Friebe (@friebos) 18 Jan 13

Two women who were once part of Armstrong’s inner circle, Emma O’Reilly, his former masseuse, and Betsy Andreu, the wife of a former teammate, both told the Irish journalist David Walsh that the American champion had cheated. In part of his sworn testimony in a 2005 lawsuit, Armstrong denied the allegations made by both women and attacked their characters.

Part of Lance Armstrong’s deposition in a 2005 suit against SCA Promotions, a firm that tried not to pay him a huge bonus for winning the Tour de France because of allegations that he had cheated to win.

In the part of the interview broadcast on Thursday night, Armstrong said that he had tried to apologize to both women. He confirmed that he had lied under oath in denying O’Reilly’s account of how he managed to get out of a failed drug test after the very first stage of his first Tour win in 1999, but he refused to address Andreu’s contention that he had acknowledged using drugs in 1996 to doctors treating him for cancer.

Lance Armstrong admitting to Oprah Winfrey that he attacked critics who told the truth about his doping.

On Friday, O’Reilly responded by saying that it was too late for apologies and called him a “little runt” on British television.

Emma O’Reilly, Lance Armstrong’s former masseuse, on British television on Friday.

As my colleague Juliet Macur reported, Andreu reacted with anger on CNN minutes after the conclusion of Thursday’s night’s broadcast of Armstrong’s interview with Oprah Winfrey.

Armstrong’s almost casual admission that he had, in fact, attempted to assassinate the characters of O’Reilly and Betsy Andreu were one of Thursday’s low points for some of his critics.

I was pleased Oprah reminded him he had called Emma O’Reilly a whore. And pleased he confirmed Emma’s account of cover-up of 1999 positive.
— David Walsh (@DavidWalshST) 18 Jan 13

Armstrong might have got away with that, were it not for the empathy bypass regarding @Emma_OReilly and betsy andreu
— SuzeCY (@festinagirl) 18 Jan 13

Two cyclists who admitted to doping during their careers but are leading a movement to reform the sport through better testing and a team committed to clean riding, Jonathan Vaughters and David Miller, responded to Armstrong’s confession in different ways. Vaughters called the admissions a good start, albeit one that Armstrong needed to back up by coming clean in real detail to the proper authorities.

So, what I started to say last night: good start. However, if this is to improve the future of cycling, full disclosure to USADA/WADA needed
— Jonathan Vaughters (@Vaughters) 18 Jan 13

Millar, who was in Spain working with antidoping authorities, pointed readers of his Twitter feed to a fierce destruction of Armstrong’s character by the ESPN writer Bonnie Ford.

This is good writing, by @Bonnie_D_Ford http://t.co/hn9AJDVw
— David Millar (@millarmind) 18 Jan 13

The South African sports physiologists who run the Science of Sports blog drew attention to what they said was evidence that Armstrong lied to Winfrey about not doping during his aborted comeback to the sport in 2009.

.@veloclinic looks at Armstrong’s blood profiles in ’09 – not “no doping post come-back” as claimed. A lie persists: http://t.co/Na703EBa
— The Science of Sport (@Scienceofsport) 18 Jan 13

— Robert Mackey

Read More..