Thursday, August 14, 2008
Musharraf Is Expected to Resign in Next Few Days
Faced with desertions by his political supporters and the unsettling neutrality of the Pakistani military, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan is expected to resign in the next few days rather than face impeachment, Pakistani politicians and Western diplomats said Thursday.
His departure from office seems likely to unleash new instability in the country as the two main parties in the civilian government jockey for his share of power. It would also remove from the political stage the man who has served as the Bush administration’s main ally here for the last eight years.
The details of how Mr. Musharraf would exit, and whether he would be able to stay in Pakistan or would seek residency abroad, are now under discussion between representatives of Mr. Musharraf and the governing coalition, the politicians said.
Mr. Musharraf would probably leave in the “next 72 hours,” Sheik Mansoor Ahmed, a senior official of the Pakistan Peoples Party, the major party in the coalition, said Thursday.
His departure from office seems likely to unleash new instability in the country as the two main parties in the civilian government jockey for his share of power. It would also remove from the political stage the man who has served as the Bush administration’s main ally here for the last eight years.
The details of how Mr. Musharraf would exit, and whether he would be able to stay in Pakistan or would seek residency abroad, are now under discussion between representatives of Mr. Musharraf and the governing coalition, the politicians said.
Mr. Musharraf would probably leave in the “next 72 hours,” Sheik Mansoor Ahmed, a senior official of the Pakistan Peoples Party, the major party in the coalition, said Thursday.
Does It Matter If You Vote for President?
When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they are actually voting for presidential electors, known collectively as the electoral college. It is these electors, chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of the state's Senate and House of Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from three to 54, for a total of 538. Aside from Members of Congress, and persons holding offices of "Trust or Profit" under the Constitution, anyone may serve as an elector.
In each presidential election year, a group of candidates for elector is nominated by political parties and other groupings in each state, usually at a state party convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the November election, which is held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In most states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system.
Electors assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December. They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the candidates they represent. Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President, after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral vote results are counted and certified by a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is required to win. If no candidate receives a majority, then the President is elected by the House of Representatives, and the Vice President is elected by the Senate, a process known as contingent election.
Notwithstanding the founders' efforts, the electoral college system almost never functioned as they intended, but, as with so many constitutional provisions, the document prescribed only the system's basic elements, leaving ample room for development. As the republic evolved, so did the electoral college system, and, by the late 19 century, the th following range of constitutional, federal and state legal, and political elements of the contemporary system were in place.
The Constitution gives each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate membership (two for each state) and House of Representatives delegation (currently ranging from one to 52, depending on population). The 23rd Amendment provides an additional three electors to the District of Columbia. The number of electoral votes per state thus currently ranges from three (for seven states and D.C.) to 54 for California, the most populous state.
The total number of electors each state gets are adjusted following each decennial census in a process called reapportionment, which reallocates the number of Members of the House of Representatives to reflect changing rates of population growth (or decline) among the states. Thus, a state may gain or lose electors following reapportionment, but it always retains its two "senatorial" electors, and at least one more reflecting its House delegation.
Nomination of elector-candidates is another of the many aspects of this system left to state and political party preferences. Most states prescribe one of two methods: 34 states require that candidates for the office of presidential elector be nominated by state party conventions, while a further ten mandate nomination by the state party's central committee. The remaining states use a variety of methods, including nomination by the governor (on recommendation of party committees), by primary election, and by the party's presidential nominee.
The 12th Amendment requires electors to meet "in their respective states ..." This provision was intended to deter manipulation of the election by having the state electoral colleges meet simultaneously, but keeping them separate. Congress sets the date on which the electors meet, currently the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The electors almost always meet in the state capital, usually in the capitol building or state house itself. They vote "by ballot" separately for President and Vice President (at least one of the candidates must be from another state). The results are then endorsed, and copies are sent to the Vice President (in his capacity as President of the Senate); the secretary of state of their state; the Archivist of the United States; and the judge of the federal district court of the district in which the electors met. Having performed their constitutional duty, the electors adjourn, and the electoral college ceases to exist until the next presidential election.
The final step in the presidential election process (aside from the presidential inaugural on January 20) is the counting and certification of the electoral votes by Congress. The House of Representatives and Senate meet in joint session in the House chamber on January 6 of the year following the presidential election, at 1:00 pm. The Vice President, who presides in his capacity as President of the Senate, opens the electoral vote certificates from each state, in alphabetical order. He then passes the certificates to four tellers (vote counters), two appointed by each house, who announce the results. The votes are then counted, and the results are announced by the Vice President. The candidates receiving a majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) are declared the winners by the Vice President, an action that constitutes "a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the States."
In each presidential election year, a group of candidates for elector is nominated by political parties and other groupings in each state, usually at a state party convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the November election, which is held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In most states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system.
Electors assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December. They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the candidates they represent. Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President, after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral vote results are counted and certified by a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is required to win. If no candidate receives a majority, then the President is elected by the House of Representatives, and the Vice President is elected by the Senate, a process known as contingent election.
Notwithstanding the founders' efforts, the electoral college system almost never functioned as they intended, but, as with so many constitutional provisions, the document prescribed only the system's basic elements, leaving ample room for development. As the republic evolved, so did the electoral college system, and, by the late 19 century, the th following range of constitutional, federal and state legal, and political elements of the contemporary system were in place.
The Constitution gives each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate membership (two for each state) and House of Representatives delegation (currently ranging from one to 52, depending on population). The 23rd Amendment provides an additional three electors to the District of Columbia. The number of electoral votes per state thus currently ranges from three (for seven states and D.C.) to 54 for California, the most populous state.
The total number of electors each state gets are adjusted following each decennial census in a process called reapportionment, which reallocates the number of Members of the House of Representatives to reflect changing rates of population growth (or decline) among the states. Thus, a state may gain or lose electors following reapportionment, but it always retains its two "senatorial" electors, and at least one more reflecting its House delegation.
Nomination of elector-candidates is another of the many aspects of this system left to state and political party preferences. Most states prescribe one of two methods: 34 states require that candidates for the office of presidential elector be nominated by state party conventions, while a further ten mandate nomination by the state party's central committee. The remaining states use a variety of methods, including nomination by the governor (on recommendation of party committees), by primary election, and by the party's presidential nominee.
The 12th Amendment requires electors to meet "in their respective states ..." This provision was intended to deter manipulation of the election by having the state electoral colleges meet simultaneously, but keeping them separate. Congress sets the date on which the electors meet, currently the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The electors almost always meet in the state capital, usually in the capitol building or state house itself. They vote "by ballot" separately for President and Vice President (at least one of the candidates must be from another state). The results are then endorsed, and copies are sent to the Vice President (in his capacity as President of the Senate); the secretary of state of their state; the Archivist of the United States; and the judge of the federal district court of the district in which the electors met. Having performed their constitutional duty, the electors adjourn, and the electoral college ceases to exist until the next presidential election.
The final step in the presidential election process (aside from the presidential inaugural on January 20) is the counting and certification of the electoral votes by Congress. The House of Representatives and Senate meet in joint session in the House chamber on January 6 of the year following the presidential election, at 1:00 pm. The Vice President, who presides in his capacity as President of the Senate, opens the electoral vote certificates from each state, in alphabetical order. He then passes the certificates to four tellers (vote counters), two appointed by each house, who announce the results. The votes are then counted, and the results are announced by the Vice President. The candidates receiving a majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) are declared the winners by the Vice President, an action that constitutes "a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the States."
US, Poland Agree to Missile Defense Deal
Poland and the United States reached an agreement Thursday that will see a battery of American missiles established inside Poland, the prime minister said, announcing a plan that has infuriated Russia and raised the specter of an escalation of tension with the region's communist-era master.
The deal, which Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said was to be signed later Thursday in Warsaw by Poland and the United States, includes what he called a "mutual commitment" between the two nations—beyond that of NATO—to come to each other's assistance in case of danger.
That was an obvious reference to the force and ferocity with which Russia rolled into Georgia in recent days, taking the key city of Gori and apparently burning and destroying Georgian military outposts and airfields.
Tusk said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be too slow in coming to Poland's defense if Poland were threatened and that the bloc would take "days, weeks to start that machinery."
"Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later—it is no good when assistance comes to dead people. Poland wants to be in alliances where assistance comes in the very first hours of—knock on wood—any possible conflict," Tusk said.
"This is a step toward real security for Poland in the future," he added.
A U.S. official in Washington said "it looks as if we're near agreement, and we hope to make a joint announcement today." The official spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of a formal announcement.
Tusk, speaking in a televised interview from the capital, said the United States agreed to Polish proposals that it help augment its defenses in exchange for placing 10 missile defense interceptors.
Tusk said that the U.S. met the key Polish demands "concerning the permanent presence of Patriots, missiles that will be able to effectively protect our territory."
"The Americans have accepted these postulates," he said on TVN24, an all-news channel.
The deal was reached after more than 18 months of back-and-forth, often terse, negotiations.
The deal, which Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said was to be signed later Thursday in Warsaw by Poland and the United States, includes what he called a "mutual commitment" between the two nations—beyond that of NATO—to come to each other's assistance in case of danger.
That was an obvious reference to the force and ferocity with which Russia rolled into Georgia in recent days, taking the key city of Gori and apparently burning and destroying Georgian military outposts and airfields.
Tusk said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be too slow in coming to Poland's defense if Poland were threatened and that the bloc would take "days, weeks to start that machinery."
"Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later—it is no good when assistance comes to dead people. Poland wants to be in alliances where assistance comes in the very first hours of—knock on wood—any possible conflict," Tusk said.
"This is a step toward real security for Poland in the future," he added.
A U.S. official in Washington said "it looks as if we're near agreement, and we hope to make a joint announcement today." The official spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of a formal announcement.
Tusk, speaking in a televised interview from the capital, said the United States agreed to Polish proposals that it help augment its defenses in exchange for placing 10 missile defense interceptors.
Tusk said that the U.S. met the key Polish demands "concerning the permanent presence of Patriots, missiles that will be able to effectively protect our territory."
"The Americans have accepted these postulates," he said on TVN24, an all-news channel.
The deal was reached after more than 18 months of back-and-forth, often terse, negotiations.
Future Wars 'to be Fought with Mind Drugs'
Landmines releasing brain-altering chemicals, scanners reading soldiers' minds and devices boosting eyesight and hearing could all one figure in arsenals, suggests the study.
Sophisticated drugs, designed for dementia patients but also allowing troops to stay awake and alert for several days are expected to be developed, according to the report. It is thought that some US soldiers are already taking drugs prescribed for narcolepsy in an attempt to combat fatigue.
As well as those physically and mentally boosting one's own troops, substances could also be developed to deplete an opponents' forces, it says.
"How can we disrupt the enemy's motivation to fight?" It asks. "Is there a way to make the enemy obey our commands?" Research shows that "drugs can be utilized to achieve abnormal, diseased, or disordered psychology" among one's enemy, it concludes.
Research is particularly encouraging in the area of functional neuroimaging, or understanding the relationships between brain activity and actions, the report says, raising hopes that scanners able to read the intentions or memories of soldiers could soon be developed.
Some military chiefs and law enforcement officials hope that a new generation of polygraphs, or lie detectors, which spot lie-telling by observing changes in brain activity, can be built.
"Pharmacological landmines," which release drugs to incapacitate soldiers upon their contact with them, could also be developed, according to the report's authors.
The report, which was commissioned by the Defense Intelligence Agency, contained the work of scientists asked to examine how better understanding of how the human mind works was likely to affect the development of technology.
It finds that "great progress has been made" in neuroscience over the last decade, and that continuing advances offered the prospect of a dramatic impact on military equipment and the way in which wars are fought.
It also explains that the concept of torture could be transformed in the future. "It is possible that some day there could be a technique developed to extract information from a prisoner that does not have any lasting side effects," it states. One technique being developed involves the delivery of electrical pulses into a suspect's brain and delay their ability to lie by interfering with its neurons.
Research into "distributed human-machine systems", including robots and military hardware controlled by an operator's mind, is another particular area for optimism among researchers, according to the report. It says significant progress has already been made and that prospects for use of the field are "limited only by the creative imagination."
Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist and the author of 'Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense', said "It's too early to know which, if any, of these technologies is going to be practical. But it's important for us to get ahead of the curve. Soldiers are always on the cutting edge of new technologies."
Sophisticated drugs, designed for dementia patients but also allowing troops to stay awake and alert for several days are expected to be developed, according to the report. It is thought that some US soldiers are already taking drugs prescribed for narcolepsy in an attempt to combat fatigue.
As well as those physically and mentally boosting one's own troops, substances could also be developed to deplete an opponents' forces, it says.
"How can we disrupt the enemy's motivation to fight?" It asks. "Is there a way to make the enemy obey our commands?" Research shows that "drugs can be utilized to achieve abnormal, diseased, or disordered psychology" among one's enemy, it concludes.
Research is particularly encouraging in the area of functional neuroimaging, or understanding the relationships between brain activity and actions, the report says, raising hopes that scanners able to read the intentions or memories of soldiers could soon be developed.
Some military chiefs and law enforcement officials hope that a new generation of polygraphs, or lie detectors, which spot lie-telling by observing changes in brain activity, can be built.
"Pharmacological landmines," which release drugs to incapacitate soldiers upon their contact with them, could also be developed, according to the report's authors.
The report, which was commissioned by the Defense Intelligence Agency, contained the work of scientists asked to examine how better understanding of how the human mind works was likely to affect the development of technology.
It finds that "great progress has been made" in neuroscience over the last decade, and that continuing advances offered the prospect of a dramatic impact on military equipment and the way in which wars are fought.
It also explains that the concept of torture could be transformed in the future. "It is possible that some day there could be a technique developed to extract information from a prisoner that does not have any lasting side effects," it states. One technique being developed involves the delivery of electrical pulses into a suspect's brain and delay their ability to lie by interfering with its neurons.
Research into "distributed human-machine systems", including robots and military hardware controlled by an operator's mind, is another particular area for optimism among researchers, according to the report. It says significant progress has already been made and that prospects for use of the field are "limited only by the creative imagination."
Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist and the author of 'Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense', said "It's too early to know which, if any, of these technologies is going to be practical. But it's important for us to get ahead of the curve. Soldiers are always on the cutting edge of new technologies."
BP's Russian Boss Goes Into Hiding
This article was published last month before the conflict began. Russia bombed the BP pipeline during it's invasion.
TNK-BP boss Bob Dudley has gone into hiding this weekend as the battle between BP and its Russian partners threatens to turn into a diplomatic incident.
Dudley, who left Russia last week, has set up a secret European command centre from which he will attempt to keep control over TNK-BP, a lucrative joint-venture between BP and Russian investors.
Dudley has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal his whereabouts, including extensive security measures to ensure his phone calls and e-mails are untraceable. His location is known only to a handful of BP executives and he has been joined by a small, hand-picked support team.
American and European governments have been drawn into the row. Gordon Brown, US Treasury secretary Hank Paulson and EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson are understood to have made representations to Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister, to resolve the issue. BP is America’s biggest oil producer and about a third of the company is owned by Americans.
Dudley’s departure comes against a backdrop of soured relations between Britain and Russia over the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning, and growing American anxiety over Russia’s policy of taking control of national energy assets at the expense of western investors.
Dudley fled to escape a campaign of “extreme harassment” by the authorities. BP chairman Peter Sutherland said: “He is not in a BP office or in our headquarters in London, as has been suggested. I’m not going to say where he is but I don’t think he is under any physical threat.”
TNK-BP is Russia’s third-largest oil and gas group. It accounts for a quarter of BP production and a fifth of its reserves.
BP sought to stamp out speculation that now Dudley is out of the country it is only a matter of time before it loses control of the Russian company. Chief executive Tony Hayward said: “We intend to hold our ground and are not going to be intimidated.” BP acknowledged, however, that Dudley’s reign-in-exile will only work as a temporary solution, perhaps for three to four months.
BP has hired the City law firm Linklaters and is preparing to begin arbitration proceedings in Sweden over alleged violations of TNK-BP’s legal framework by AAR, the consortium of Russian billionaires — Mikhail Fridman, Viktor Vekselberg, Leonard Blavatnik and German Khan — who own the other half of TNK-BP.
The Foreign Office said the conflict was “bad news” for Russia, where new president Dmitry Medvedev has made imposing greater “rule of law” one of his top priorities.
Paulson is understood to have brought up the matter with Medvedev when he became the first senior American official to visit the country’s new president this month.
Mark Pritchard, chairman of the all-party British-Russian Parliamentary Group, will also challenge the Kremlin on its role in the dispute on a forthcoming trip to Moscow with MPs. He said: “This is yet another example of the Kremlin interfering through the back door with foreign investment in Russia. In the long term, this will be damaging for the investment climate in Russia.”
The extraordinary lengths to which Dudley has gone to maintain control have come after months of what BP deemed “an orchestrated campaign of harassment” by Russian authorities. The company alleges that this has been carried out at the behest of AAR. TNK-BP offices have been raided repeatedly. Tax, labour and environmental authorities have launched investigations. In recent weeks, Dudley and other managers had begun switching mobile phones several times a week for fear that they were being bugged.
AAR denies “categorically” that the clashes with the Russian authorities are in any way related to its increasingly aggressive campaign for change at TNK-BP. The four billionaires want to oust Dudley and push through other structural and strategy changes at the group.
TNK-BP boss Bob Dudley has gone into hiding this weekend as the battle between BP and its Russian partners threatens to turn into a diplomatic incident.
Dudley, who left Russia last week, has set up a secret European command centre from which he will attempt to keep control over TNK-BP, a lucrative joint-venture between BP and Russian investors.
Dudley has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal his whereabouts, including extensive security measures to ensure his phone calls and e-mails are untraceable. His location is known only to a handful of BP executives and he has been joined by a small, hand-picked support team.
American and European governments have been drawn into the row. Gordon Brown, US Treasury secretary Hank Paulson and EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson are understood to have made representations to Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister, to resolve the issue. BP is America’s biggest oil producer and about a third of the company is owned by Americans.
Dudley’s departure comes against a backdrop of soured relations between Britain and Russia over the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning, and growing American anxiety over Russia’s policy of taking control of national energy assets at the expense of western investors.
Dudley fled to escape a campaign of “extreme harassment” by the authorities. BP chairman Peter Sutherland said: “He is not in a BP office or in our headquarters in London, as has been suggested. I’m not going to say where he is but I don’t think he is under any physical threat.”
TNK-BP is Russia’s third-largest oil and gas group. It accounts for a quarter of BP production and a fifth of its reserves.
BP sought to stamp out speculation that now Dudley is out of the country it is only a matter of time before it loses control of the Russian company. Chief executive Tony Hayward said: “We intend to hold our ground and are not going to be intimidated.” BP acknowledged, however, that Dudley’s reign-in-exile will only work as a temporary solution, perhaps for three to four months.
BP has hired the City law firm Linklaters and is preparing to begin arbitration proceedings in Sweden over alleged violations of TNK-BP’s legal framework by AAR, the consortium of Russian billionaires — Mikhail Fridman, Viktor Vekselberg, Leonard Blavatnik and German Khan — who own the other half of TNK-BP.
The Foreign Office said the conflict was “bad news” for Russia, where new president Dmitry Medvedev has made imposing greater “rule of law” one of his top priorities.
Paulson is understood to have brought up the matter with Medvedev when he became the first senior American official to visit the country’s new president this month.
Mark Pritchard, chairman of the all-party British-Russian Parliamentary Group, will also challenge the Kremlin on its role in the dispute on a forthcoming trip to Moscow with MPs. He said: “This is yet another example of the Kremlin interfering through the back door with foreign investment in Russia. In the long term, this will be damaging for the investment climate in Russia.”
The extraordinary lengths to which Dudley has gone to maintain control have come after months of what BP deemed “an orchestrated campaign of harassment” by Russian authorities. The company alleges that this has been carried out at the behest of AAR. TNK-BP offices have been raided repeatedly. Tax, labour and environmental authorities have launched investigations. In recent weeks, Dudley and other managers had begun switching mobile phones several times a week for fear that they were being bugged.
AAR denies “categorically” that the clashes with the Russian authorities are in any way related to its increasingly aggressive campaign for change at TNK-BP. The four billionaires want to oust Dudley and push through other structural and strategy changes at the group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)