Copenhagen closes with weak deal that poor threaten to reject Non-binding accord limits temperature rises but includes no emissions targets  Read Article

 Mossad's licence to kill The killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh bears the hallmarks of the ruthless Israeli intelligence service. One of the leading chroniclers of the agency gives a unique insight into its methods. By Gordon Thomas
Published: 7:15AM GMT 17 Feb 2010Hit squad: Mossad assassins escape after killing one of the terrorists involved in the massacre at the 1972 Olympics in a scene from Steven Spielberg's film 'Munich' Photo: KAREN BALLARD  The Mossad assassins could have felt only satisfaction when the news broke that they had succeeded in killing Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a top Hamas military commander, in Dubai last month.The Israeli government's refusal to comment on the death has once more gained worldwide publicity for Mossad, its feared intelligence service. Its ruthless assassinations were made famous by the film Munich, which detailed Mossad's attacks on the terrorists who killed Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. Long ago, the agency had established that silence is the most effective way to spread terror among its Arab enemies.In the past year, al-Mabhouh had moved to the top of Mossad's list of targets, each of which must be legally approved under guidelines laid down over half a century ago by Meir Amit, the most innovative and ruthless director-general of the service. Born in Tiberius, King Herod's favourite city, Amit had established the rules for assassination."There will be no killing of political leaders, however extreme they are. They must be dealt with politically. There will be no killing of a terrorist's family unless they are also directly implicated in terrorism. Each execution must be sanctioned by the incumbent prime minister. Any execution is therefore state-sponsored, the ultimate judicial sanction of the law. The executioner is no different from the state-appointed hangman or any other lawfully-appointed executioner."I first met Amit in 2001 and through him, I talked to the spies of Mossad, the katsas, and finally, to the assassins, the kidon, who take their name from the Hebrew word for bayonet. They helped me write the only book approved by Mossad, Gideon's Spies. Amit said the book "tells like it was – and like it is". Amit showed me a copy of those rules at our first meeting. After two years of training in the Mossad academy at Herzlia near Tel Aviv, each recruit to the kidon is given a copy.The killing in Dubai is a classic example of how Mossad goes about its work. Al-Mabhouh's 11 assassins had been chosen from the 48 current kidon, six of whom are women.It has yet to be established how al-Mabhouh was killed, but kidon's preference is strangling with wire, a well-placed car bomb, an electric shock or one of the poisons created by Mossad scientists at their headquarters in a Tel Aviv suburb.The plan to assassinate Mahmoud al-Mabhouh had been finalised in a small conference room next to the office of Meir Dagan, who has run Mossad for the past eight years. The 10th director-general, Dagan has a reputation as a man who would not hesitate to…

    Fox News relishes Obama administration scorn'This is tremendous fodder for us,' the cable channel's Brit Hume says of the White House's salvos.By Matea GoldOctober 26, 2009Reporting from New York It's been a long time since Fox News, which avidly cultivates its outsider status, got to play the underdog. But after White House aides recently labeled the top-rated cable news channel "a wing of the Republican Party" and argued that it is not a news network, Fox News found itself back in a spot it relishes: firing back at a more powerful adversary.

The salvos by administration officials have rallied liberals who complain that the channel has a conservative agenda. The activist group MoveOn instantly jumped in the fray, urging Democrats to stay off Fox News programs.

But the White House's stance also gave extra lift to the network at a time when it is on track to record its best ratings year ever. This year, Fox News has averaged nearly 1.2 million viewers across all its programming, a 16% increase over the same period last year, according to Nielsen. In the two weeks since aides to President Obama took after the coverage, the audience has been 8% larger than the previous two weeks.

If anything, the Obama administration has succeeded in reinforcing Fox News' identity as a thorn in the side of the establishment -- a role the network loves to play.

"We may be No. 1, but there is sort of an insurgent quality to Fox News," said senior political analyst Brit Hume. "And that's kind of our attitude: 'Hoist a Jolly Roger, pull out our daggers and look for more throats to slit.' This is tremendous fodder for us. My lord, we've been living on it."

Glenn Beck, the network's newest star, gleefully unveiled a red telephone on his set, saying it was a special line for the White House to use to correct any mistakes he makes. Sean Hannity proudly labeled his program "Not White House approved." And Bill O'Reilly repeatedly hammered the White House in his nightly editorial.

"There is something very disturbing about the Obama administration fighting harder against Fox News than against the Taliban," he said last week.

Administration officials said they anticipated that Fox would try to capitalize on their remarks but felt they had to push back against the network's torrent of criticism.

"They were misrepresenting our programs and policies," said White House Communications Director Anita Dunn. "They were attacking members of the administration. And they were organizing political opposition on their shows. We wanted to set the record straight."

Fox News executives said the administration is failing to distinguish between their commentators and news programs.

"They talk about the opinion shows and they say, 'See, you're not doing journalism,' " said Michael Clemente, the channel's senior vice president of news, calling the contention that Fox News is not a news organization a "smear."

"I think it reinforces the fact that…

Net-a-Porter founder sells stake for £50m

  Post-Souter politics? Prepare for high drama  David Souter's retirement may not alter the ideological balance of the high court, but it could push the GOP even closer to the edge
I'll leave the detailed assessments of David Souter's record as an associate justice to others. For now, let's get to post-Souter politics. That's the fun part.If history is a guide, it will probably be something like five or six weeks before President Obama puts forward his choice. And when he does, well, a supreme court nomination is often a moment of the highest drama in America. The constituencies on both sides, especially with regard to social issues, fight tooth and nail. The nominee's writings back to college are combed for signs of apostasy or dangerous radicalism, depending on who's doing the looking. Senators get to preen as they do on few other occasions.So it's a huge deal. But oddly, in this particular case, there might not be that much at stake. Why? Because Obama will be replacing a member of the court's liberal bloc with (presumably) another liberal. There are sometimes surprises. Souter of course is (was?) a Republican nominated by George Bush Sr, and he turned out to be a liberal. But that was pretty much a one-off as far as recent history goes.In other words, this is unlikely to alter the ideological balance of the high court. On Roe v Wade, a tenuous five-member majority supports the right to choose. We have to assume the new guy or gal will assume his or her role in that majority. Otherwise, on most other hot-button issues the court features a five-to-four conservative majority now, with George Bush's two appointments ending an old liberal advantage.So if Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas were to retire, and Obama got to replace one of them, that would be a very big deal. But that's a virtual impossibility while we have a Democratic president, because they wouldn't leave knowing they'd be replaced by a liberal.Souter is 69, so Obama can replace him with a 45- or 50-year-old (court appointments are for life, or as long as the person wants). So in that sense Obama can buy some long-term ideological insurance. But he can't change the balance.And he may never have the chance to, even if he's president for eight years. The older members of the court are the liberals – John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer.Okay, now, let's get to the Senate and the parties. Even with all I wrote above being true, this could still be a donnybrook. There are dozens or hundreds of people in Washington on both sides who live for this day. Millions of fund-raising dollars are brought in, on both sides, through court-related direct-mail campaigns designed to alarm constituents. A supreme court battle is a small industry.The most fascinating aspect of this is that, at a moment at which a lot of people are speculating about whether the GOP has gone crazy,…