Weighing Federal Labeling for Genetically Engineered Foods

Weighing Federal Labeling for Gene-Engineered Foods
New York Times ‎-
With Washington State on the verge of a ballot initiative that would require labeling of some foods containing genetically engineered ..


Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Demonstrators from Safe Food Activists and Concerned Consumers at a protest in Washington, D.C., earlier this month.
With Washington State on the verge of a ballot initiative that would require labeling of some foods containing genetically engineered ingredients and other states considering similar measures, some of the major food companies and Wal-Mart, the country’s largest grocery store operator, have been discussing lobbying for a national labeling program.
Executives from PepsiCo, ConAgra and about 20 other major food companies, as well as Wal-Mart and advocacy groups that favor labeling, attended a meeting in January in Washington convened by the Meridian Institute, which organizes discussions of major issues. The inclusion of Wal-Mart has buoyed hopes among labeling advocates that the big food companies will shift away from tactics like those used to defeat Proposition 37 in California last fall, when corporations spent more than $40 million to oppose the labeling of genetically modified foods.
“They spent an awful lot of money in California — talk about a lack of return on investment,” said Gary Hirshberg, co-chairman of the Just Label It campaign, which advocates national labeling, and chairman of Stonyfield, an organic dairy company.
Instead of quelling the demand for labeling, the defeat of the California measure has spawned a ballot initiative in Washington State and legislative proposals in Connecticut, Vermont, New Mexico and Missouri, and a swelling consumer boycott of some organic or “natural” brands owned by major food companies.
Mr. Hirshberg, who attended the January meeting, said he knew of roughly 20 states considering labeling requirements.
“The big food companies found themselves in an uncomfortable position after Prop. 37, and they’re talking among themselves about alternatives to merely replaying that fight over and over again,” said Charles Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University who attended the meeting.
“They spent a lot of money, got a lot of bad press that propelled the issue into the national debate and alienated some of their customer base, as well as raising issues with some trading partners,” said Mr. Benbrook who does work on sustainable agriculture.
For more than a decade, almost all processed foods in the United States — like cereals, snacks and salad dressings — have contained ingredients from plants with DNA that has been manipulated in a laboratory. The Food and Drug Administration, other regulators and many scientists say these foods pose no danger. But as Americans ask more pointed questions about what they are eating, popular suspicions about the health and environmental effects of biotechnology are fueling a movement to require that food from genetically modified crops be labeled, if not eliminated.
Impending F.D.A. approval of a genetically modified salmon and the Agriculture Department’s consideration of genetically engineered apples have further intensified the debate.
“We’re at a point where, this summer, families could be sitting at their tables and wondering whether the salmon and sweet corn they’re about to eat has been genetically modified,” said Trudy Bialic, director of public affairs at PCC Natural Markets in Seattle. “The fish has really accelerated concerns.”
Mr. Hirshberg said some company representatives wanted to find ways to persuade the Food and Drug Administration to proceed with federal government labeling.
“The F.D.A. is not only employing 20-year-old, and we think obsolete, standards for materiality, but there is a general tendency on the part of the F.D.A. to be resistant to change,” he said. “With an issue as polarized and politicized as this one, it’s going to take a broad-based coalition to crack through that barrier.”
Neither Mr. Hirshberg nor Mr. Benbrook would identify other companies that participated in the discussion, but others confirmed some of the companies represented. Caroline Starke, who represents the Meridian Institute, said she could not comment on a specific meeting or its participants.
Proponents of labeling in Washington State have taken a somewhat different tack from those in California, arguing that the failure to label will hurt the state’s fisheries and apple and wheat farms. “It’s a bigger issue than just the right to know,” Ms. Bialic said. “It reaches deep into our state’s economy because of the impact this is going to have on international trade.”
A third of the apples grown in Washington State are exported, many of them to markets for high-value products around the Pacific Rim, where many countries require labeling. Apple, fish and wheat farmers in Washington State worry that those countries and others among the 62 nations that require some labeling of genetically modified foods will be much more wary of whole foods than they are of processed goods.
The Washington measure would not apply to meat or dairy products from animals fed genetically engineered feed, and it sharply limits the ability to collect damages for mislabeling.
Mr. Benbrook and consumer advocates say that the federal agencies responsible for things like labeling have relied on research financed by companies that produce genetically modified seeds.
“If there is a documented issue with this overseas, it could have a devastating impact on the U.S. food system and agriculture,” Mr. Benbrook said. “The F.D.A. isn’t going to get very far with international governments by saying Monsanto and Syngenta told us these foods are safe and we believed them.”
Advocacy groups also have denounced the appointment of Michael R. Taylor, a former executive at Monsanto, as the F.D.A.’s deputy commissioner for food and veterinary medicine. Morgan Liscinsky, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, said Mr. Taylor was recused from issues involving biotechnology.
What has excited proponents of labeling most is Wal-Mart’s participation in the meeting. The retailer came under fire from consumer advocates last summer for its decision to sell a variety of genetically engineered sweet corn created by Monsanto.
Because Wal-Mart is the largest grocery retailer, a move by the company to require suppliers to label products could be influential in developing a national labeling program.
“I can remember when the British retail federation got behind labeling there, that was when things really started to happen there,” said Ronnie Cummins, founder and national director of the Organic Consumers Association. “If Wal-Mart is at the table, that’s a big deal.”
Brands like Honest Tea, which is owned by Coca-Cola, have written to the association, which estimates that 75 percent of products on grocery shelves contain a genetically modified ingredient, to protest its “Traitors Boycott,” which urges consumers not to buy products made by subsidiaries of companies that fought Proposition 37. Consumers have peppered the Web sites, Facebook pages and Twitter streams of those companies with angry remarks.
Ben & Jerry’s, the ice cream company, announced recently that it would remove all genetically modified ingredients from its products by the end of this year. Consumers had expressed outrage over the money its parent, Unilever, contributed to defeat the California measure.
The state Legislature in Vermont, where Ben & Jerry’s is based, is considering a law that would require labeling, as is the General Assembly in Connecticut. Legislators in New Mexico have proposed an amendment to the state’s food law that would require companies to label genetically modified products.
And this month, a senator in Missouri, home of Monsanto, one of the biggest producers of genetically modified seeds, proposed legislation that would require the labeling of genetically engineered meat and fish.
“I don’t want to hinder any producer of genetically modified goods,” the senator, Jamilah Nasheed, who represents St. Louis, said in a news release. “However, I strongly feel that people have the right to know what they are putting into their bodies.”  COPY http://www.nytimes.com

Small Town in Alabama Confronts Boy’s Kidnapping

An Alabama Town Confronts a Kidnapping‎‏


Montgomery Advertiser, via Associated Press
Law enforcement officers on Thursday stationed themselves around a property in Midland City, Ala., where a man held a young boy hostage in a bunker.

MIDLAND CITY, Ala. — Many things hold little Southern towns together. There is a common love of the region, the peace that comes with a rural life and, often, prayer.

In this town of 2,300 in the heart of peanut country, people drew on all of those as they endured what by Thursday night had stretched into an unimaginable situation.
A relative newcomer to town — a man who had fought in Vietnam and appeared to harbor a deep distrust of government and a grudge against every neighbor — shot and killed a bus driver, grabbed a 5-year-old boy named Ethan and then disappeared with the boy into a well-equipped bunker he had spent several months digging in his yard.
By all accounts, the man neighbors and a sheriff’s office official identified as Jimmy Lee Dykes, 65, had no connection to the boy.
“As far as we know, there is no relation at all,” said Michael Senn, a pastor at the Midway Assembly of God Church, who had comforted some of the children who escaped from the bus and ran to his church. “He just wanted a child for a hostage situation.” Like so many clerics in this Bible-reading community, Mr. Senn has been leading prayer services as the hours have stretched into days.
By late Thursday, no end was in sight. The F.B.I. stayed in contact with Mr. Dykes by day and let him sleep at night, said Police Chief James Arrington of Pinckard, a nearby city.
“They’re taking time and trying to wear him out,” he said. “He may do harm if they try to rush him. We don’t know how much ammunition or bombs he has.”
Mr. Dykes, neighbors said, has been known to stay in his bunker for up to eight days. Some said they watched him build it, carrying cinder blocks and digging for hours.
No one is sure exactly why he took the boy. “He don’t care too much for the government,” Chief Arrington said. “That’s all we know.”
The boy, whom his mother calls “love bug,” is reportedly doing well in the bunker, said an Alabama state senator, Harri Anne Smith, in a television interview early Thursday. She and state Representative Steve Clouse have met with Ethan’s mother, and said food and medication her son needed for autism was delivered to the bunker through a 60-foot plastic pipe that was about four inches in diameter.
Still, Mr. Clouse said, the family is “just holding on by a thread.”
As it became clear that the standoff would continue — the bunker was well supplied with food and, apparently, a television and lights — the national news media began arriving.
Through Wednesday and into Thursday, residents watched as their tiny town, where the National Peanut Festival in nearby Dothan is usually the biggest event of the year, became a near-constant presence on national television.
The killing of the bus driver and the resulting standoff soon became one more point of discussion in the national debate about guns. Most people here own guns and hunt. And many are steadfast in their belief that guns are not the problem, mental health is.
Around town and along the entrance to the dirt road where the bunker was sunk into Mr. Dykes’s land, people began arguing in favor of allowing bus drivers to carry guns.
“I follow the old Boy Scout’s motto, ‘Be prepared,’ ” said James Alexander, 72, who said he sleeps with a gun by his pillow. “I cannot foresee a way to prevent this without shooting the guy.”
Although reporters were held across the highway from a red dirt road that leads into the little neighborhood of about 13 houses, and there were no major developments to report on Thursday, on television the story was regularly spliced between coverage of state and national hearings on gun violence and mental health prompted by the shootings in Newtown, Conn., in December. 


“It’s crazy,” said Tyler Cobb, a high school junior who was one of more than 90 students who met to pray for Ethan on Wednesday. “It happened in Connecticut. But it really hits home when it happens here. Our little town on CNN. It’s just weird.”
National Twitter Logo.
Prayer vigils sprung up like farm stands in the summer here. Five were held Wednesday, and on Thursday members of a church youth group gathered to pray across the highway from the road that leads to bunker.
Prayer took hold on social media sites, too. A Twitter call to pray for Ethan gained steam.
The bus driver, Charles Albert Poland Jr., 66, encountered Mr. Dykes as he drove children home from school on Tuesday. The bus stopped and Mr. Dykes jumped on, according to police reports based on interviews with children on the bus, and then he demanded two boys between the ages of 6 and 8.
Mr. Poland held Mr. Dykes at the front of the bus while children escaped out the back. He was hit with as many as four bullets from a 9-millimeter pistol. The well-liked driver was quickly called a hero by residents.
With the driver down, Mr. Dykes grabbed two children, the police said. One escaped. Ethan may have frozen or fainted, allowing Mr. Dykes to take him swiftly from the bus.
Tim Byrd, chief investigator with the Dale County Sheriff’s Office, told the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch blog that Mr. Dykes was a Vietnam veteran with post-traumatic stress who “did not trust the government.”
He was also scheduled to face charges of menacing in court on Wednesday after neighbors asserted that he shot a gun at them in a dispute over someone driving on his property.
Meanwhile, the community here did what small communities do. It did not take long for churchgoers to start cooking, joining the Salvation Army and the Red Cross in efforts to feed more than 50 F.B.I. negotiators and law enforcement officers from at least eight agencies.
“Everybody wants to help, everybody is talking about the boy,” said Lisa Boatwright, a secretary at a nearby church. “But there’s only one thing we can do: pray this ends safely.” 

COPY  www.nytimes.com/

Syria’s Confirmation of Strike May Add to Tension With Israel

 Syria's Confirmation of Strike May Add to Tension With Israel‎‏ -


Oren Ziv/Getty Images
A post office worker showed an Israeli child how to wear a gas mask on Thursday at a mall in the Pisgat Ze’ev area of East Jerusalem. More Photos »
JERUSALEM — Israeli officials remained silent on Thursday about their airstrike in Syrian territory the day before, a tactic that experts said was part of a longstanding strategy to give targeted countries face-saving opportunities to avoid conflict escalation. But Syria’s own confirmation of the attack, followed by harsh condemnation not only by Israel’s enemies Iran and Hezbollah but also by Russia, may have undercut that effort, analysts said, increasing the likelihood of a cycle of retaliation.
Multimedia
“From the moment they chose to say Israel did something, it means someone has to do something after that,” said Giora Eiland, a former head of Israel’s National Security Council and a longtime military leader. “Contrary to what I could hope and believe yesterday, that this round of events would end soon, now I am much less confident.”
The Iranian deputy foreign minister warned Thursday that Israel’s strike would lead to “grave consequences for Tel Aviv,” while the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that the strike “blatantly violates the United Nations Charter and is unacceptable and unjustified, whatever its motives.”
American officials said Israel hit a convoy before dawn on Wednesday that was ferrying sophisticated antiaircraft missiles called SA-17s to Lebanon. The Syrians and their allies said the target was actually a scientific research facility in the Damascus suburbs. It remained unclear Thursday whether there was one strike or two, and what involvement the research outpost might have had in weapons production or storage for Syria or Hezbollah, the militant Lebanese Shiite organization that has long battled with Israel.
Most experts agree that Syria, Hezbollah and Israel each have strong reasons to avoid a new active conflict right now: the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, is fighting for his survival in a violent and chaotic civil war; Hezbollah is struggling for political legitimacy at home and battling its label as a terrorist organization internationally; and Israel is trying to keep its head down in an increasingly volatile region.
But it is equally clear that Hezbollah — backed by Syria and Iran — wants desperately to upgrade its arsenal in hopes of changing the parameters for any future engagement with the powerful Israeli military, and that Israel is determined to stop it. And Hezbollah is perhaps even more anxious to gird itself for future challenges to its primacy in Lebanon, especially if a Sunni-led revolution triumphs next door in Syria.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and his deputies said loud and clear in the days leading up to the strike that they saw any transfer of Syria’s extensive cache of chemical weapons, or of sophisticated conventional weapons systems, as a “red line” that would prompt action. Now that Israel has followed through on that threat, even without admitting it, analysts expect the country — perhaps backed by its Western allies — to similarly target any future convoys attempting the same feat.
“Once this red line has been crossed, it’s definitely going to be crossed time and again from now on, especially as the situation of the Assad regime will deteriorate,” said Boaz Ganor, head of the International Institute for Counterterrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. “They will do the utmost to gain control of those weapons. In that case, I don’t see why Israel wouldn’t have the same type of calculation that Israel had two days ago into the future.”
Mr. Ganor said the United States and Europe should be as concerned as Israel, because Syria’s chemical weapons could end up in the hands not just of Hezbollah but of jihadist organizations like Al Qaeda or its proxies. “If one organization will put their hands on this arsenal, then it will change hands in no time and we’ll see it all over the world,” he said. “We, the international community, are marching into a new era of terrorism.”
Eyal Zisser, a historian at Tel Aviv University who specializes in Syria and Lebanon, said that if there was no retaliation to Wednesday’s airstrike, “Why not repeat it? For Israel it’s going to be the practice.” The question, Professor Zisser said, “is what they will try to do next, Syria and Hezbollah, if there is another Israeli attack, whether they will avoid any retaliation the next time as well.”
Israel’s steadfast silence on the airstrike was reminiscent of its posture after it destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007 — an attack it has never acknowledged, though many officials discuss it with winks and nods. But in that case, President Assad bought into the de-escalation strategy by saying the attack had hit an unused — and implicitly unimportant — military building, relieving the pressure for a response. 
  Syria and Israel are technically at war, though there has long been a wary calm along the decades-old armistice line. Though Wednesday’s strike was on Syrian soil, analysts said its actual goal was to send a strong signal to Hezbollah — something the Lebanese organization tried to deflect in its own statement after the attack, which expressed “solidarity with Syria’s leadership, army and people.”
Multimedia
“Israel has tried very hard not to take part in all of what happens in Syria, and I don’t think we will start to be involved now,” said Dan Harel, a former deputy chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces. “Israel is trying to stay within its own borders, look outside, not be involved — just trying not to let what happens in Syria change the equation vis-à-vis Lebanon.”
The use of either chemical weapons or complex conventional ones like the Russian-made SA-17s would be a game changer in what most here see as an inevitable next war with Hezbollah. Since Israel’s bloody war with Lebanon in 2006, Hezbollah is believed to have increased its missile stash to more than 50,000 from perhaps 15,000, including some long-range missiles that can hit any part of Israel. But Israel is well-prepared to defend against even an intense barrage of such rockets. On the other hand, if Hezbollah gained the ability to curtail Israel’s relatively free rein in Lebanese airspace, that would truly alter the landscape.
“If they manage to bring down an Israeli plane, it would have two pilots — for them it’s as if they won the war,” Yoram Schweitzer, a senior research fellow at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, said of Hezbollah. “They have the ability to blackmail Israel, to torture the Israeli public opinion. They won’t be able to cope with the Israeli Air Force, but just to be able to reduce the free-of-charge Israeli airstrikes, that’s the logic.”
As experts debated the likelihood of retaliation by Syria, Hezbollah or Iran on Israeli radio and television, residents in the north rushed to get gas masks as municipal workers checked bomb shelters’ electricity and security and reviewed emergency procedures. Mayor Nissim Malka of Kiryat Shmona, a town of about 23,000 near the Lebanon border that withstood more than 1,000 rocket attacks in 2006, said his office had been flooded with calls about whether children should go to school, businesses should close and weddings should proceed.
“Every door slamming made people jump,” said Mayor Malka, 60. “People are on edge and keep asking if we know anything about what may develop.”

COPY  www.nytimes.com/ 

Hagel’s Views Come Under Harsh Scrutiny by Republicans

Hagel’s Views Subjected to Harsh Scrutiny by Republicans

Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee to be secretary of defense, met with sharp and sometimes angry questions on a wide range of issues at his Senate confirmation hearing.
  • Video Hagel's Opening Remarks
  • Video McCain Spars With Hagel


    Tough Questions for Hagel at Hearing: Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee for secretary of defense, had some sharp exchanges with Senator John McCain.
    WASHINGTON — Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee to be secretary of defense, came under sharp and sometimes angry questioning Thursday on a wide range of issues from fellow Republicans at his Senate confirmation hearing, including from his old friend, Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who is still smoldering about their break over the Iraq war.
    Multimedia
    Related in Opinion
    Room for Debate

    Questions for Hagel's Confirmation Hearing

    What should senators ask President Obama's nominee for secretary of defense?
    Christopher Gregory/The New York Times
    Chuck Hagel during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

    Mr. Hagel, 66, a former senator from Nebraska and a decorated Vietnam veteran who would be the first former enlisted soldier to be secretary of defense, often seemed tentative in his responses to the barrage from fellow Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who showed him little deference and frequently cut him off.
    One of the most hostile questioners was Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who told Mr. Hagel to “give me an example of where we’ve been intimidated by the Israel-Jewish lobby to do something dumb.'’ Mr. Hagel, who in 2006 said the “Jewish lobby” intimidates Congress, could not.
    From Mr. Hagel's home state, Senator Deb Fischer told Mr. Hagel that he held "extreme views" that were "far to the left of this administration.'' Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, surprised the hearing with excerpts on a giant video screen from an interview Mr. Hagel gave to Al Jazeera in 2009. Although it was difficult to hear the short clips he provided, Mr. Cruz asserted that they showed Mr. Hagel agreeing with a caller who suggested that Israel had committed war crimes.
    “Do you think the nation of Israel has committed war crimes?'’ Mr. Cruz demanded.
    “No, I do not, Senator,'’ Mr. Hagel replied.
    But his exchange with Mr. McCain was the most notable, given that the two former Vietnam veterans were close friends when they served in the Senate until Mr. Hagel’s views on the Iraq War caused a split. In 2008, Mr. Hagel did not endorse Mr. McCain for president and traveled with Mr. Obama, then a senator from Illinois, to Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Mr. Hagel dodged a direct answer as Mr. McCain asked him repeatedly if history would judge whether Mr. Hagel was right or wrong in opposing the surge in American armed forces when he was in the Senate. The escalation, along with other major factors, is credited in helping to quell the violence in Iraq at the time. When Mr. Hagel said he wanted to explain, Mr. McCain bore in.
    “Are you going to answer the question, Senator Hagel — the question is whether you were right or wrong?” Mr. McCain said.
    “I’m not going to give you a yes or no answer,” Mr. Hagel replied.
    Mr. McCain did not let up.
    "I think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you’re on the wrong side of it,” Mr. McCain said, then seemed to threaten that he would not vote for Mr. Hagel if he did not answer the question.
    It took the next questioner, Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, to draw Mr. Hagel out on the subject. “I did question the surge,” Mr. Hagel said. “I always asked the question, is this going to be worth the sacrifice?” He said 1,200 American men and women lost their lives in the surge. “I’m not certain it was required,” Mr. Hagel said. “Now, it doesn’t mean I was right.”
    Despite the theatrics, it was unclear how the committee would vote on Mr. Hagel’s nomination. He needs a majority of the 26-member panel, which includes 14 Democrats, almost all of whom are likely to support his nomination. And there remained a possibility that perhaps one or two Republicans would join them. If Mr. Hagel advances out of the committee, he would have an easier time when the entire Senate votes on his confirmation.
    The onslaught by Republicans, however, began even before Mr. Hagel made his opening statement.
    The ranking Republican on the committee, Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, told Mr. Hagel that he would not vote for him because of his position of “appeasing” America’s adversaries. 



    “His record demonstrates what I view as a lack of steadfast opposition to policies that diminish U.S. power and influence throughout the world, as well as a recent trend of policy reversals that seem based on political expediency rather than on core beliefs,” Mr. Inhofe said.
    Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times
    Chuck Hagel arrived for his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.
    Multimedia
    Related in Opinion
    Room for Debate

    Questions for Hagel's Confirmation Hearing

    What should senators ask President Obama's nominee for secretary of defense?

    Even a reliable “yes” vote, Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who serves as the committee’s chairman, said in his opening statement that Mr. Hagel had made “troubling” statements about Israel and had expressed a willingness to negotiate on Iran on issues that Mr. Levin viewed as nonnegotiable. Mr. Levin said he expected Mr. Hagel to address those issues during the hearing.
    Under aggressive but at times disjointed questioning from Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Hagel was asked why he thought the Iranian Foreign Ministry so strongly supported his nomination as defense secretary. Mr. Hagel swiftly replied, “I have a difficult time enough with American politics.” He then said, “I have no idea.”
    Under more gentle but persistent questioning from Mr. Levin, Mr. Hagel said that he had voted against some unilateral American sanctions against Iran in 2001 and 2002 because it was a different era. “We were at a different place with Iran at that time,” he said.
    Mr. Hagel faltered at one point, saying shortly before noon that he strongly supported the president’s policy on “containment” of Iran. He was quickly handed a note, which he read and then corrected himself, “Obviously, we don’t have a position on containment.”
    At that point Mr. Levin interjected, “We do have a position on containment, which is we do not favor containment.” The Obama administration’s policy remains prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
    In his opening statement, Mr. Hagel said that he was fully committed to the president’s goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. He also said that the United States must lead other nations in confronting threats, use all tools of American power to protect its people and “maintain the strongest military in the world.”
    Mr. Hagel presented a broad, forceful endorsement of American military power aimed at answering critics who say he would weaken the United States. He offered strong support for Israel, and said he would keep up pressure — through Special Operations forces and drones — on terrorist groups in Yemen, Somalia and North Africa.
    “I believe, and always have, that America must engage — not retreat — in the world,” Mr. Hagel said.
    On Afghanistan, which Mr. Hagel called “the longest war, as we all know, in America’s history,” he said he agreed with the president that there would be only two functions for the small number of American forces left in Afghanistan after 2014: hunting down Al Qaeda and its affiliates, and training and advising Afghan security forces.
    Mr. Hagel’s statement frequently echoed the policies of the departing defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta, and at several points used identical phrasing. Like Mr. Panetta, Mr. Hagel said that the United States “always will be a Pacific power” and that the Defense Department was “rebalancing its resources toward the Asia-Pacific region.”
    But although he said he shared Mr. Panetta’s “serious concern” about impending defense budget cuts, called sequestration, he did not sound the same cataclysmic alarm that Mr. Panetta has at times.
    Mr. Hagel also said he would do “everything possible under current law” to provide equal benefits to gay service members and would work with the service chiefs to open combat positions to women, a decision he said he strongly supported.
    The hearing occurred in a packed room in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, where a protester shouted that Mr. Hagel had to provide equal military benefits to gay couples while the several veterans of America’s defense establishment, including former Senator Sam Nunn and James Jones, a former national security adviser, turned up to lend support. Mr. Nunn, who has been considered over the years for defense secretary, introduced Mr. Hagel to the committee.
    Mr. Hagel, who has gone through three “murder boards,” or mock hearings, in preparation for the real one, has met with nearly 60 members of the Senate. He has spent the past three weeks working out of a modest transition office down the hall from the office of Mr. Panetta, in the Pentagon E-ring, the corridor with sweeping views of the Potomac River and Washington.
    With the help of a transition staff led by Marcel J. Lettre, Mr. Panetta’s deputy chief of staff, Mr. Hagel has received voluminous Pentagon briefings, met with Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and spoken with the deputy defense secretary, Ashton B. Carter, who will remain in the job.
    Mr. Hagel has also worked closely with Mr. Obama’s aides on what has become a major White House offensive to counter criticism from Jewish and conservative groups and some Democrats that Mr. Hagel is too hard on Israel and too soft on Iran.
    Mr. Hagel has, like Mr. Obama, been wary of American military involvement overseas. Last year, recalling his service in Vietnam, where he and his brother Tom were serving in the same infantry squad when both were severely wounded, he said: “I’m not a pacifist — I believe in using force, but only after following a very careful decision-making process. The night Tom and I were medevaced out of that village in April 1968, I told myself: If I ever get out of this and I’m ever in a position to influence policy, I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war.” 
    COPY  http://www.nytimes.com/

We want to stand with you, David Cameron tells Libya

1 February 2013 Last updated at 00:27 GMT

We stand with you, PM tells LibyansDavid Cameron in Martyrs Square in Tripoli

David Cameron tells Libyans that the UK will help to bring them "greater security" as he visited the country on the second leg of his Africa trip.
  • Lockerbie police to visit Libya
  • Nick Robinson: Appealing to the people
  • MP seeks Commons Mali vote
  • Cameron in Algerian security talks


    David Cameron: "The road to a genuine, stable, secure democracy is a long and painful road."

    Related Stories

    David Cameron has told Libyans that "the British people want to stand with you" as he visited the country on the second stage of his African trip.
    The prime minister was greeted by the public in Martyrs' Square in the capital Tripoli, having spoken to recruits at a police training college.
    He has also met Prime Minister Ali Zidan and President Mohamed Magarief.
    At a press conference, he announced that police investigating the 1988 Lockerbie bombing are to visit Libya.
    Officers from the Dumfries and Galloway force had been granted permission to pursue their investigations in the country, he said.
    The BBC's political correspondent Tim Reid said discussions had been taking place about the issue since the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011 and while the Libyan authorities had always been supportive, it is only now that it has been approved.
    Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person ever convicted of the bombing, died last year after having been released from a Scottish jail in 2009.
    Downing Street had requested a news blackout ahead of the prime minister's arrival from Algeria for security reasons.
    'Good to be back' Mr Cameron, who is being accompanied by his national security adviser and the head of MI6 on the trip, told police recruits at the training centre, which is receiving support from the British government, that it was "very good to be back".
    In September 2011, Mr Cameron travelled to Libya with the then French President Nicolas Sarkozy to celebrate the liberation of this country from Colonel Gaddafi.
    "I will never forget the scenes I saw in Tripoli and Benghazi," he said.
    "The British people want to stand with you and help you deliver the greater security that Libya needs.
    "So we have offered training and support from our police and our military. We look forward to working together in the years ahead."
    'Hard road'
    David Cameron in Martyrs' Square in Tripoli David Cameron in Martyrs' Square in Tripoli
    Earlier this week, the Foreign Office warned of a "potential threat" to the British embassy in Tripoli.
    This came less than a week after UK citizens were urged to leave the second city, Benghazi, because of a "specific and imminent threat to westerners".
    The security situation has deteriorated since the PM's last visit. As he toured Martyrs' Square, a police helicopter hovered overhead and security forces were close at hand.
    Acknowledging Libya faces major security challenges, Mr Cameron told the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson the country was on a "long, painful, hard road to a genuine, secure and stable democracy".
    The UK, he added, would assist Libya to take the necessary steps to improve its security, such as help with disbanding militia, training the army and supporting a singe police force.
    He also defended the French intervention in neighbouring Mali and rejected suggestions that foreign involvement in Muslim countries was the best recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda.
    On the contrary, he said terrorist groups would be encouraged if the international community ignored "ungoverned spaces and chaotic countries" and allowed them to fester - adding that this "was the lesson from Afghanistan and Somalia".
    'Protect freedoms' The UK's former Ambassador to Libya, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that Libya faced many challenges, including agreeing a constitution, setting up new ministries, integrating the militias and diversifying an economy that has been heavily reliant on oil exports.
    "But Libya has got a lot going for it still because its people are determined to protect the new freedoms that they have," he added.
    Visiting Algeria on Wednesday in the first leg of his trip to Africa, the prime minister said the international community should use "everything at its disposal" to fight terrorism.
    The recent hostage crisis at the In Amenas gas plant, in which some 37 foreigners died, was "a reminder that what happens in other countries affects us at home", he said.
    He was the first British prime minister to visit Algeria since it became independent in 1962.
     COPY http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

Mexico City explosion at Pemex, state oil giant

Explosion at Mexico oil company

At least 22 people are injured after an explosion rocked the headquarters of state oil company Pemex in Mexico City, officials say.


Emergency services in Mexico City at the site of blast in the Pemex tower (31 Jan) Emergency services are digging for survivors and the injured

Related Stories

An explosion has rocked the headquarters of state oil company Pemex in Mexico City, leaving at least 22 people wounded, reports say.
"An explosion took place in the B2 building of the administrative centre," Pemex said in a message on Twitter.
"There are injuries and damage on the ground floor and mezzanine," it said. The cause of the blast is not known.
Last September, 30 people died in an explosion at a Pemex gas plant in northern Mexico.
Television pictures showed rubble from the blast spread out on to the street in front of the building, and Red Cross ambulances on the scene attending to the injured, the BBC's Will Grant reports from Mexico City.
File photo of the Pemex Executive Tower in Mexico City The 54-floor Pemex building is 214 metres (702 feet) tall
At this stage there is no official explanation for the explosion, our correspondent adds.
Earlier on Thursday, the company had reported problems with the electricity in the building.
Trapped At least 22 people were injured in the explosion at the 54-floor Pemex Executive Tower, a spokesman for the city's Civil Protection Agency said.
Some people were trapped in the basement after the blast, the official is quoted as saying.
Images of the blast posted on Twitter showed large clouds of smoke billowing from the building.
President Henrique Pena Nieto and Mexico City Mayor Miguel Angel Mancera headed to the scene of the accident, local media report.
Plaster had fallen from the ceiling of the basement and the situation was "delicate", another spokesman for local emergency services was quoted by the Reuters news agency.
Pemex has experienced a number of accidents in recent years.
Last September's deadly blast at a gas plant near the northern town of Reynosa is thought to have been caused by a build-up of gas.
Are you in Mexico City? Did you witness the explosion at the Pemex headquarters? Please use the form below to contact us.
Send your pictures and videos to yourpics@bbc.co.uk or text them to 61124 (UK) or +44 7624 800 100 (International). If you have a large file you can upload here.
COPY http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america

Alerta El secretario de Gobernación confirma 14 personas muertas y más de 70 heridos

 Alerta El secretario de Gobernación confirma 14 personas muertas y más de 70 heridos

 Pemex, una obra en situación delicada CNNExpansión

Pemex, una obra en situación delicada

El edificio desalojado esta tarde es el segundo más alto de la Ciudad de México; el inmueble construido en 1984, está ubicado sobre Marina Nacional.

Publicado: Jueves, 31 de enero de 2013 a las 17:52
Alrededor de la edificación hay zonas habitacionales, un centro comercial e instalaciones de la Comisión Federal de Electricidad. (Foto: Geraldine Valladolid) Alrededor de la edificación hay zonas habitacionales, un centro comercial e instalaciones de la Comisión Federal de Electricidad. (Foto: Geraldine Valladolid)
La torre corporativa de Pemex fue edificada en 1984. (Foto: Geraldine Valladolid) La torre corporativa de Pemex fue edificada en 1984. (Foto: Geraldine Valladolid)
ARTÍCULOS RELACIONADOS
CIUDAD DE MÉXICO (CNNExpansión) — La Torre de Pemex, desalojada esta tarde tras una explosión en uno de sus edificios aledaños, es el segundo rascacielos más alto de la Ciudad de México, sólo por debajo de la Torre Mayor que se ubica en la avenida Reforma. El edficio principal de la paraestatal, ubicado en la avenida Marina Nacional, cuenta con 211.31 metros de altura y su construcción estuvo a cargo del arquitecto Pedro Moctezuma.
El edificio principal tiene 50 niveles, un sótano y un helipuerto,y está rodeado de pequeños edificios de oficinas que también forman parte de la paraestatal.
La Torre de Petróleos Mexicanos fue construida en 1984 y tiene una alta tolerancia sísmica de 8.5 grados en la Escala de Richter.
Después del terremoto del 19 de septiembre de 1985, a la Torre de Pemex se le considera como uno de los rascacielos más resistentes y seguros del mundo.
La estructura del inmueble es de acero con entrepisos de concreto ligero. En la fachada tiene módulos de aluminio con cristales reflejantes diseñados para no romperse en caso de temblores.
En los 94,600 metros cuadrados de la Torre hay una capacidad de hasta 11,000 personas.
Alrededor de la edificación hay zonas habitacionales, un centro comercial e instalaciones de la Comisión Federal de Electricidad.
Pemex desalojó esta tarde al personal del edificio tras una explosión en el sótano, tras una falla en el suministro de energía.
Autoridades de seguridad realizan labores de rescate, por las personas que quedaron atrapadas tras el accidente.
Con información de Obras y difusioncultural.uam.mx

 La explosión causa varios lesionados video

Explosión en la Torre de Pemex del DF fotogaleria

Una explosión en la Torre de Pemex en el DF causa varios heridos y daños

Según los primeros reportes, una falla en una instalación eléctrica habría causado una fuerte explosión que dejó varios heridos
Jueves, 31 de enero de 2013 a las 17:37

















Varios heridos tras una explosión en PEMEX
Lo más importante
  • Un número aún no determinado de heridos dejó una explosión en las oficinas centrales de Petróleos Mexicanos
  • Cuerpos de emergencia acudieron para trasladar a los lesionados a hospitales cercanos mediante helicópteros
  • Una falla en una estación eléctrica podría haber sido la causante del accidente, según los primeros reportes de la compañía

Temas relacionados
Los heridos que dejó la explosión en la Torre Pemex fueron trasladados en helicópteros a los hospitales cercanos (Cuartoscuro). Los heridos que dejó la explosión en la Torre Pemex fueron trasladados en helicópteros a los hospitales cercanos (Cuartoscuro).
Explosión en la Torre de Pemex del DF
(CNNMéxico) — Una explosión en las oficinas centrales de la paraestatal Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) dejó varios lesionados y daños en la planta baja del edificio ubicado en el centro de la Ciudad de México, informó la compañía.
Autoridades aún no han confirmado el número concreto de lesionados ni si hay muertes.
El vocero de Pemex, Francisco Montaño, dijo a la agencia Notimex que hay “lesionados y daños importantes” por la explosión que presuntamente ocurrió en una subestación eléctrica y que habría causado un derrumbe en el sótano del inmueble, según la agencia estatal.
“Lo que ocurrió fue una explosión en el edificio B2 del centro administrativo. Hay lesionados”, dijo Pemex a través de su cuenta de Twitter, añadiendo que hubo daños en la planta baja y el mezannine del edificio, uno de los más altos de la capital mexicana.
Antes, otro mensaje indicó que “como medida de prevención” se había desalojado a los cientos de trabajadores “por una falla en el suministro de energía eléctrica”.
Eduardo Sánchez, subsecretario de Normatividad y Medios de Gobernación, señaló a Milenio TV que heridos ya fueron trasladados al hospital central de Pemex, ubicado al norte de la Ciudad de México.
Por su parte, el vocero de la Cruz Roja, Rafael González, dijo que el hospital de la institución en Polanco recibió al menos a 15 personas con diferentes lesiones. Explicó que unos 100 paramédicos y 25 ambulancias se movilizaron minutos después de que ocurrió la explosión.
El jefe de Gobierno del Distrito Federal, Miguel Ángel Mancera, dijo en Twitter que en las calles que rodean al edificio “están trabajando los cuerpos de seguridad pública, rescate y protección civil en apoyo” para atender la emergencia.
Bomberos, paramédicos de la Cruz Roja y personal de Protección Civil acudieron para atender la emergencia. También llegaron helicópteros de la Secretaría de Seguridad Pública y del gobierno del Estado de México para transportar a los lesionhttp://mexico.cnn.com/ados a hospitales del área.
Según reportes de socorristas, entre 10 y 15 personas podrían estar todavía atrapadas en el edificio, donde bomberos y paramédicos intentan acceder al área. Un socorrista dijo que un área de 100 metros cuadrados estaría dañada, y dos pisos se habrían colapsado, según un reporte de CNN en Español.
El secretario de Gobernación, Miguel Ángel Osorio Chong, dijo que las autoridades federales también están movilizándose por la emergencia: "Estamos atendiendo lo sucedido en la Torre de Pemex en el DF", dijo en su cuenta de Twitter.  COPY http://mexico.cnn.com/

Varios heridos tras una explosión en la Torre de Pemex en el DF - Trasladan al hospital a heridos de hospital de Pemex

31 enero 2013
06:00 PM ET

Varios heridos en una explosión en la Torre de Pemex en Ciudad de México

(CNNMéxico) – Una explosión en las oficinas centrales de la paraestatal Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) dejó varios lesionados y daños en la planta baja de su edificio conocido como Torre de Pemex, en Ciudad de México, informó este jueves la compañía.
“Lo que ocurrió fue una explosión en el edificio B2 del centro administrativo. Hay lesionados”, dijo Pemex a través de su cuenta de Twitter, añadiendo que hubo daños en la Planta Baja y el Mezannine del edificio que es uno de los más altos de la capital mexicana.

Publicado el  Jueves 31 de enero de 2013




















(17:40) El secretario de Gobernación, Miguel Ángel Osorio Chong, publicó este jueves en su cuenta de Twitter que “estamos atendiendo lo sucedido en la Torre de Pemex en el DF, en unos momentos daremos a conocer más información”.
La explosión ocurrió en el área de estacionamientos del edificio, dijo a Milenio Televisión el subsecretario de normatividad y medios dela Secretaríade Gobernación (Segob), Eduardo Sánchez.
Pemex informó este jueves que una explosión dejó varias personas lesionadas e importantes daños materiales en su edificio sede enla Ciudadde México.
FOTOGALERÍA: Una explosión en la Torre de Pemex deja varios heridos en el DF
(17:24) Según reportes de socorristas, entre 10 y 15 personas podrían estar todavía atrapadas en el edificio, donde bomberos y paramédicos intentan acceder al área siniestrada, reportó CNN en Español.
CNN en Español detalló que, según los primeros reportes de las autoridades, la explosión se debió a una acumulación de gas ocurrida alrededor de las 15:55 horas (local).
(17:00) La Secretaría de Seguridad Pública del Distrito Federal informó que los heridos por la explosión han sido transportados a hospitales en helicópteros del agrupamiento Cóndor.
(16:55) El vocero de Pemex, Francisco Montaño, dijo a la agencia Notimex que hay “lesionados y daños importantes” por la explosión que presuntamente ocurrió en una subestación eléctrica y que habría causado un derrumbe en el sótano del inmueble, según la agencia estatal.
Bomberos, paramédicos de la Cruz Roja y personal de Protección Civil se encuentran laborando en las instalaciones para atender la emergencia, reportó Notimex.
(16:47) Tras la explosión en Pemex, el jefe de Gobierno del Distrito Federal, Miguel Ángel Mancera, dijo este jueves en Twitter que en las calles que rodean al edificio “están trabajando los cuerpos de seguridad pública, rescate y protección civil en apoyo” para atender la emergencia.
La policía del Distrito Federal informó que la avenida Marina Nacional, al centro poniente de la Ciudad de México, se encuentra cerrada en sus dos sentidos debido al incidente.
(16:35) Una explosión en las oficinas centrales de la paraestatal Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) dejó varios lesionados y daños en la planta baja de su edificio conocido como Torre de Pemex, en la Ciudad de México, informó este jueves la compañía.
“Lo que ocurrió fue una explosión en el edificio B2 del centro administrativo. Hay lesionados”, dijo Pemex a través de su cuenta de Twitter, añadiendo que hubo daños en la Planta Bajay el Mezannine del edificio que es uno de los más altos de la capital mexicana.
Antes, otro mensaje indicó que “como medida de prevención” se había desalojado a los cientos de trabajadores “por una falla en el suministro de energía eléctrica”.
En unos momentos más información
COPY http://blogs.cnnmexico.com/ultimas-

Postagem em destaque

Ao Planalto, deputados criticam proposta de Guedes e veem drible no teto com mudança no Fundeb Governo quer que parte do aumento na participação da União no Fundeb seja destinada à transferência direta de renda para famílias pobres

Para ajudar a educação, Políticos e quem recebe salários altos irão doar 30% do soldo que recebem mensalmente, até o Governo Federal ter f...