2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Lifting of the proclamation
On 1 March, Ash Wednesday, Arroyo has stated that she will lift the "state of emergency" soon, perhaps by the end of the first week of March. The President gives a 24- to 72-hour time frame to the Secretary of Justice, Secretary of National Defense, and to the Chief of Philippine National Police to give reports to her before lifting the state of emergency.


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Lifting of the proclamation
On 3 March, by the virtue of Proclamation No. 1021, the Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo officially concluded state of emergency in the Philippines. The state of emergency (Proclamation No. 1017) lasted one week since February 24, 2006. According to her, the state of emergency protected major democratic institutions and even the media. This led to lowering of security alerts of the Philippine National Police and Armed Forces of the Philippines.


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Reactions, Anti-Arroyo
A number of observers have drawn parallels between the actions of President Arroyo and those of Ferdinand Marcos. Benito Lim, Professor of Political Science at the University of the Philippines, stated, "This is suppression of all freedom. It is in violation of the constitution and the bill of rights. This is the beginning of using stronger measures to quell dissent against the government. Their justification is reminiscent of Marcos when he proclaimed martial law."


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Reactions, Anti-Arroyo
On February 24, 2006, the Philippine National Police violently dispersed protesters from EDSA. The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines denounced the violence, and advised the President to be calm in handling the protests. Archbishop Oscar Cruz of Dagupan City, Pangasinan and other bishops were not happy of the proclamation from the President stating that the Philippines is under a state of emergency, however the CBCP wants the people to be vigilant of the situation.


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Reactions, Anti-Arroyo
Former President Ramos said that he was disappointed of the declaration of state of emergency to just prevent an uprising of a small faction of the military, saying it was overkill. The former President described his cold relationship to President Arroyo as "Waning, waning."


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Reactions, Anti-Arroyo
Former President Joseph Estrada appealed to Arroyo to remove the declaration of State of Emergency as it will not benefit most of the people in the country. He also condemns "baseless arrests" and the alleged dictatorship rule.


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Reactions, Anti-Arroyo
Fernando Poe, Jr.'s widow Susan Roces said that last week, President Arroyo said that she is the best President of the country, "Is this the best?" Roces is referring to the speech of Arroyo regarding a meeting with the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP) saying: "And let me also make clear: I believe I am the best person to lead this nation through this transition. I was elected to make difficult decisions, and I have made them. Not without mistakes on my part, and certainly not without significant criticism. But I have the experience of hindsight, and I aim to fulfill my term with a steady hand on the helm."


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Reactions, Anti-Arroyo
The Lasallian Brothers issued a letter about the current political crisis in the country. One of their main points is: "We wish to reaffirm that the most peaceful and expedient way to resolve the current crisis is for President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to make the supreme sacrifice and to resign voluntarily, an option fully in consonance with the Constitution, in order to pave the way for a smooth and peaceful transition of power." which calls for the resignation of President Arroyo.


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Reactions, Pro-Arroyo
In the statement of Presidential Spokesperson Sec. Ignacio Bunye, he said that "The actions of the government have been well calibrated and there is no overkill... Had the President not acted as she did, we would now be under a rightist-communist junta."


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Reactions, Pro-Arroyo
Vice President Noli de Castro affirmed President Arroyo's declaration. He said, "I respect the right of the President to declare a state of emergency in order to preserve the peace, maintain law and order, and ensure the protection of human rights and civil liberties of the people for as long as there is imminent threat to public safety."


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Reactions, Pro-Arroyo
However, on March 1, 2006, de Castro wants to remove the state of emergency since "there is no more emergency", according to him.


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Legalities
The President cited Article 7 Section 18 of the Constitution which states that: "The President…whenever necessary... may call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress... rebellion..." and Article 12 Section 17 of the Constitution which states that: "In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operations of privately owned public utilities or business affected with public interest." Sec. Gonzalez of the Department of Justice said that the government had not yet reached that point.


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Legalities
Lawyers question Proclamation No. 1017 stating that the whole nation is under State of Emergency and other actions of the government in the Supreme Court of the Philippines by issuing multiple petitions.


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Court Martial
Days after the lifting of the declaration of a state of emergency, several Scout Ranger officers, including Lamitan Hero, Army Captain Ruben Guinolbay, were ordered investigated and detained.


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Court Martial
Eventually, 25 Scout Rangers officers were arrested but were charged only on August 2, 2006, after several months in detention. Also charged were several Marine officers allegedly involved in the Fort Bonifacio incident.


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Court Martial
Those charged were Brigadier General Danilo Lim, Lieutenant Colonels Nestor Flordeliza and Edmundo Malabanjot; Majors Jason Aquino, and Jose Leomar Doctolero; Captains James Sababan, Montano Almodovar, Joey Fontiveros, Ruben Guinolbay, Isagani Criste, William Upano, Dante Langkit, Allan Aurino, and Frederick Sales; and First Lieutenants Ervin Divinagracia, Jacon Cordero, Homer Estolas, Sandro Sereno and Richiemel Caballes of the Philippine Army Scout Rangers. The indicted Marine officers are Major General Renato Miranda, Medal of Valor awardees Col. Ariel Querubin, Lt. Col. Custodio Parcon; Colonels Orlando de Leon, Januario Caringal and Armando Bañez; Lieutenant Colonels Valentin Hizon, Romulo Gualdrapa, and Achilles Segumalian; Maj. Francisco Domingo Fernandez; and 1Lt. Belinda Ferrer.


2006 state of emergency in the Philippines, Court Martial
The pretrial investigation panel formed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, conducted by the Judge Advocate General's Office and headed by Col. Al Pereras recommended the dismissal of the charge of mutiny but the retention of charges for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman for a few of the detained officers. All charges against Capt. Guinolbay were recommended dismissed. The same however, was  overturned by Chief of Staff Hermogenes Esperon, allegedly upon the recommendation of the Staff Judge Advocate, even as Marine Lt. Cols Valentin Hizon and Romulo Gualdrapa were dropped as accused by Gen. Esperon's exercise of discretion.


2006 storms in Vancouver
The 2006 storms in Vancouver were a series of storms beginning with the remnants of Typhoon Cimaron November 5 and then followed by another on November 15 that caused landslides into Vancouver's three main reservoirs. This led to the water system becoming contaminated far beyond the legal safety limit and forced the city to implement a boil water advisory for all of the city's two-million residents for more than a week—the largest such advisory in Canadian history.


2006 storms in Vancouver
The advisory affected the local food industry, forcing supermarkets and restaurants to stop selling produce which couldn't be safely washed, and causing the majority of the city's many coffee shops to close. Although no dangerous bacteria levels were observed, the water was still considered unclean and unsafe to drink, wash vegetables or brush teeth with,  without boiling it first for at least 1 minute. Bottled water was in high demand and became scarce in many areas. The storms were caused by an Aleutian Low's steering current, which allowed low pressure areas from the central subtropics of the North Pacific Ocean to track northeast and near areas of British Columbia, sometimes bringing more than 100 mm (4 in) of rain from each low.


2006 storms in Vancouver
As the low pressure systems were slowly replaced by an Arctic ridge, temperatures on November 25 dipped to −12 °C (10 °F) at Vancouver International Airport and the cities of Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley were hit with a series of heavy snowstorms. The highest recorded one-day snowfall from the event was the 44.1 cm (17.4 in) which occurred in Abbotsford. The short burst of heavy snow produced long traffic delays and widespread school closures.


2006 storms in Vancouver
Three weeks later on December 14 came the Hanukkah Eve windstorm, breaking and uprooting around 10,000 trees in Stanley Park next to downtown Vancouver. At its peak, BC Hydro reported that over 250,000 customers were without power.


2006 student protests in Chile
The 2006 student protests in Chile (also known as the Penguins' Revolution or The March of the Penguins, because of the students' uniform) were a series of ongoing student voice protests carried out by high school students across Chile from late April to early June 2006. The protests peaked on May 30 when 790,000 students adhered to strikes and marches throughout the country, becoming Chile's largest student demonstration of the past three decades and the first political crisis of president Michelle Bachelet's administration.


2006 student protests in Chile
Amongst the students' short-term demands were free travel passes on buses and the waiving of the university admissions test (PSU) fee, while the longer term demands included: the abolition of the Organic Constitutional Act of Teaching (LOCE), the end to municipalization of subsidized education, a reform to the Full-time School Day policy (JEC) and a quality education for all.


2006 student protests in Chile
On June 1, Bachelet addressed the nation by television, announcing several new measures for education that met most of the students' demands. On June 7 the president announced a 73-member presidential advisory committee – promised by Bachelet on her speech to discuss the students' long-term demands – which included six seats reserved for high school students. Initially hesitant to join the committee, on June 9 the student assembly finally accepted the invitation and called for an immediate end to strikes and school take-overs.


2006 student protests in Chile
On August 23, around 2,000 students were marching in Santiago and other cities in the country, in protest of the slow speed that the reforms were taking place. The rally eventually got violent when small groups turned away from the peaceful demonstrations and started throwing rocks at the police. The police responded with tear gas and water cannons. More than 200 of the demonstrators were arrested and over a dozen were injured.


2006 student protests in Chile, Background
The Organic Constitutional Act of Teaching or LOCE (Act Nº 18,962) was enacted on March 7, 1990, and came into force on March 10, the last day of Pinochet's 16½ year dictatorship. Despite being widely criticized by both students and teachers as well as the ruling coalition (Concertación), it has remained largely unmodified since the restoration of democracy.


2006 student protests in Chile, Background
Critics of LOCE point out that it reduces the state's participation in education to a solely regulatory and protective role, whilst the true responsibility of education has been transferred to private and public corporations (public schools being managed by local governments — Municipalidades), thus reducing the participation that students, parents, teachers and non-academic employees had previously enjoyed in their schools.


2006 student protests in Chile, Background
During the 1990s, one of the main objectives of the Concertación administration was a so-called Educational Reform. One of the main pillars of this reform, launched during the Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle administration, was the Jornada Escolar Completa, JEC (Full-time School Day policy) — a plan to increase the hours that high school students actually spend in classrooms (in many cases not increasing the number of additional classrooms and other infrastructure required). However, many consider that the quality of education has dropped to worrying levels despite the high level of government spending on public education. Studies have showed that the JEC still has not been correctly implemented nor has it achieved the desired results.


2006 student protests in Chile, Background
Since 2000 a new demand has emerged with respect to the transport system's school pass and the new University Selection Test, and although much progress was made in some areas, the core of the students' demands have remained unsolved as of 2006.


2006 student protests in Chile, Initial demonstrations
Following the announcement on April 24 of a new increase in fees for the PSU (up to $28,000 Chilean Pesos or around US$50) and the rumored introduction of a new restriction in the students' transport pass (Pase Escolar) that would limit reduced bus fares to only two travels per day, several public schools in Santiago organized demonstrations in the Alameda Avenue (Santiago's main street) demanding gratuity for transport passes, bus fares and university admissions tests. These demonstrations ended in some outbursts of violence — the Carabineros (the uniformed police) subsequently arrested 47 secondary students on April 26.


2006 student protests in Chile, Initial demonstrations
In the following days, new demonstrations took place without the permission of the regional authority. Despite the Ministry of Education acceding to minor demands, the students were left unsatisfied.


2006 student protests in Chile, Initial demonstrations
On May Day, secondary students of Santiago took part in a massive demonstration on Parque Almagro, near downtown Santiago. Violence again erupted and 1,024 students were arrested by the police in Santiago as well as in other cities throughout the country. The violence was consequently condemned by the Government.


2006 student protests in Chile, Initial demonstrations
Nothing justifies violence, violence is not the way and the government backs the actions of the police. The students have accomplished nothing


2006 student protests in Chile, Take-overs
Following three weeks of protests, little progress for the students' demands had been achieved. A turning point arose when students of the prestigious school Instituto Nacional and Liceo de Aplicación overran the school campuses during the night of May 19, 2006 demanding an improvement in the educational reform including: the ending of the system of schools being run by municipalities (present since 1982), the abolition of the LOCE, as well as a clear declaration by President Bachelet in her traditional May 21 speech to the National Congress. In her speech, the President only indirectly referred to the students' demands and instead focused in condemning the students' recent acts of violence.


2006 student protests in Chile, Take-overs
I want our citizens to be critical, self-conscious, and to express their ideas and demands. However, the criticism must be expressed in a constructive manner, laying clear proposals upon a table, and most importantly, with an unveiled face without resorting to violence. I want to be crystal clear in this, what we have witnessed in the past weeks is unacceptable. I shall not tolerate acts of vandalism or intimidation. We won democracy without resorting to concealing our faces and we shall continue [enjoying it] without doing so (this was in reference to the practice of certain individuals who anonymously partook in violence under the cover of hoods).


2006 student protests in Chile, Take-overs
The government's reply did not satisfy the students' leaders who called for the continuation of demonstrations, even though the Instituto Nacional students desisted in its school take-over in exchange for a school strike which was supported by teachers, parents and the school administrators alike. Occupations of several Liceos (public high schools) continued — among others Liceo A-13 (formerly, Confederación Suiza) and Liceo Carmela Carvajal — and two failed attempts to occupy the Liceo José Victorino Lastarria in Providencia. Although peaceful, the occupations were rejected by the government and the Education Minister Martín Zilic, broke off negotiations stating that he would not come back to the table as long as the mobilizations continued.


2006 student protests in Chile, Take-overs
In order to move forward in a discussion about quality, we need everybody's participation (...) that's a dialogue, not with occupations of schools, not with violence on the streets, not with covered faces. The president said we won democracy with uncovered faces and we are going to maintain talks with an uncovered face as a lesson to some youths in Santiago who have occupied their schools; that's not the way. The path is through dialogue, that is the way you build a better education and make a big leap to the future


2006 student protests in Chile, Take-overs
However, the ministerial strategy of avoiding dialogue did not work out. Since April 24, there were fourteen schools either occupied or on strike including the Liceo Nº1 de Niñas — the school that President Bachelet herself attended as a student.


2006 student protests in Chile, Take-overs
What is not understandable is that while trying to talk, there's also the applying of pressure. That is not the way to create dialogue in a democracy. It is terrific that they have chosen to reveal their faces. Now what they must do is to be able to dialogue seriously, but with a will to negotiate from both sides. The government is willing to discuss many topics, but it must be done with respect and without pressure.


2006 student protests in Chile, Take-overs
The government has already shown that it agrees to seek a solution on the PSU and the school bus pass, jointly with the ministries of Transportation, Education, and Finance, and they know this...regarding the JEC, they know that I am interested in knowing their evaluation of the JEC, if they consider that it isn't fulfilling its objective, what we want is to improve the quality of education, we are completely available to listen to everything.


2006 student protests in Chile, Take-overs
That same night, eleven schools in Santiago downtown, Ñuñoa, Estación Central, La Cisterna, Maipú, Providencia and Recoleta were occupied by students. The students received political support from deputies from the governing coalition, the College of Teachers and other institutions, leaving Minister Zilic in a fragile position. He finally called for a new round of negotiations with "all representatives of schools in conflict" which was scheduled for the following Monday May 29. Throughout the day, more schools were occupied in Arica, Iquique, Valparaíso, Rancagua and Concepción.


2006 student protests in Chile, Take-overs
On May 26, the situation escalated, as students from Maipú, San Miguel, Las Condes, Puente Alto and Pudahuel carried out peaceful marches and private schools adhered to the events. One-hundred thousand students (and up to a 100 schools) were on mass demonstrations throughout the country. Meanwhile, the ACES called for a national strike on Tuesday May 30, which was supported by the Student Federation of the University of Chile (FECH), and the Teachers National Union.


2006 student protests in Chile, Take-overs
Public opinion became increasingly critical of the government and its mishandling of the crisis, forcing President Bachelet to express her will to reestablish a dialogue "in an agenda without exclusions" but reaffirming that this new stand was not a contradiction nor a defeat: "What we have here is the decision to sit down to talk and listen. There will be things which we agree on and there will be others which we do not".


2006 student protests in Chile, Take-overs
The last opportunity to avoid a nationwide strike was the meeting called by the Minister Zilic with the representatives of the schools in conflict. However, this meeting was not presided by the minister himself but rather by the deputy minister Pilar Romaguera, a situation which was rejected by the students. In addition, the site chosen for the negotiations did not have the capacity for the approximately one hundred student representatives, leading to the secondary students refusing to continue the negotiations unless all school representatives were in one room. The government maintained confidence in continuing negotiations, refusing to consider the situation as a failure and insisting that a small step had been achieved.


2006 student protests in Chile, Take-overs
[In the ministry,] disorganization reigned. It was pretty clear they were in a hurry, and we can't sit down and talk and even more resolve anything in such circumstances.


2006 student protests in Chile, Take-overs
After the breakdown of the meeting, the ACES reorganized itself into six regional branches and set up a meeting with senators of both the Concertación and the Alliance for Chile, another sign of the widespread support the movement had won across the political spectrum.


2006 student protests in Chile, First national strike
According to ACES, more than 250 schools were paralyzed on May 30, 2006 in a day that was characterized by diverse acts of violence, despite many calls to carry out peaceful demonstrations. The secondary students' call to strike was followed by university students from Universidad de Chile, Universidad Católica and the Universidad de Santiago. The actual number of students on strike was calculated at between 600,000 and one million.


2006 student protests in Chile, First national strike
During that morning, President Bachelet, summoned her Political Team — the Ministers of Interior, Finance, Gen. Sec. of Gov. and Gen. Sec. of the Presidency — as well as Minister Zilic to a special meeting in La Moneda. Zilic was sent away to meet directly that afternoon with 23 student leaders at the National Library — a neutral place chosen because of the symbolism of being Chile's main public library.


2006 student protests in Chile, First national strike
In other areas of the country, a number of demonstrations took place, many being broken up by the police. The main incidents took place in Maipú, Puente Alto, La Florida (all large middle-class districts of Santiago) and in Santiago itself, around the Liceo de Applicación and the University of Chile's head office. The police were widely criticized for firing tear gas at people gathered outside the National Library, waiting for the meeting's resolution.


2006 student protests in Chile, First national strike
The press showed images of policemen arresting students and bystanders inside buses and private houses, and even press members being attacked by the police's special forces. Fighting extended throughout the night, with 725 people arrested and 26 injured. The actions of the police were strongly repelled by the public. Some of the strongest reactions came from the press and the President herself:


2006 student protests in Chile, First national strike
For our government, a complete freedom of expression and the right to work are fundamental; that is why we have expressed our indignation at the latest events suffered both by journalists and cameramen as well as the students who have been victims of excesses, abuse, condemnable unjustified violence. We want our police to safeguard our security, but we cannot accept the events we witnessed yesterday


2006 student protests in Chile, First national strike
Despite having initially backed the police, the regional government and the Interior Minister, Andrés Zaldívar, later severely criticized them as did the Gen. Director of Carabineros who opened an investigation and dismissed ten officers including the Special Forces Prefect and his deputy.


2006 student protests in Chile, First national strike
In accordance to my powers, I have ordered the dismissal of the Special Forces Prefect (...) This is a sign that I shall not tolerate, as I said when I assumed this rank, any excesses. I will also defend all procedures adhering to the law, but this is not such a case


2006 student protests in Chile, First national strike
Further demonstrations, mostly peaceful, took place in Temuco and Valparaíso, with some riots in Santiago's Plaza Italia, resulting in the arrest on May 31 of 54 people.


2006 student protests in Chile, Ongoing negotiations
On May 31, 2006, ACES members gathered at the Instituto Nacional to analyze the Minister's proposal to exempt the PSU fees for applicants of the population's three lowest-income quintiles. After hours of debate by the hundreds of student leaders, their spokespersons declared their disagreement with the proposal and extended an ultimatum for the following Monday in which they would call for a national general strike, which would also include university students, teachers and workers.


2006 student protests in Chile, Ongoing negotiations
Minister Zilic met with the students again at the Recoleta Domínica, an old church in Santiago. After seven hours of negotiations the students declared that they had not received new offers and that their call for a general strike would continue. Zilic declared the unwillingness of the government to negotiate under such pressure.


2006 student protests in Chile, Ongoing negotiations
In the evening of June 1 president Bachelet addressed the nation by radio and television to announce new non-negotiable measures on education:


2006 student protests in Chile, Ongoing negotiations
Bachelet also referred specifically to the government's incapacity to deliver free transport fare to all students, due to prohibitively high costs (166 billion Chilean pesos annually, US$300 million), which she equated to the funding of 33,000 new social houses, the whole cost of the health system or the creation of seventeen new fully equipped hospitals. Nevertheless, she did announce a 25% rise in family benefits for 2007 that would affect 968,000 beneficiaries. The following day, the economic proposals were detailed by the Finance Minister Andrés Velasco who announced that the total cost of the measures would reach 60 million dollars in 2006 and 138 million dollars per year from 2007 onwards.


2006 student protests in Chile, Ongoing negotiations
The students met to analyze the president's proposal at the Instituto Superior de Comercio (Insuco) on June 2. After a long meeting of more than eight hours, the ACES met with the Education minister. Close to 10 p.m., Minister Zilic announced that he had not been able to reach an agreement with the students, which was later confirmed by the student spokespersons, who further announced another meeting for the following day in the Internado Nacional Barros Arana in order to organize the national strike to take place on June 5.


2006 student protests in Chile, Second national strike and movement decay
On 3 June 2006, the Coordinating Assembly held a new assembly in the Internado Nacional Barros Arana. However, speculation began to arise concerning a split between the radical and moderate groups of the Assembly, which would explain the resignation of César Valenzuela as spokesperson (he insisted that he had stepped down in order to look after his sick mother).


2006 student protests in Chile, Second national strike and movement decay
Rumors began to spread that some of the traditional schools of Providencia and Santiago were holding parallel talks with Zilic and that one of the leaders of the Assembly, the communist spokesperson María Jesús Sanhueza, had been removed because of her extremist positions. Nevertheless, the ACES later expressed that all of these rumors were unfounded and part of a government strategy to undermine the movement.


2006 student protests in Chile, Second national strike and movement decay
Meanwhile, more than one hundred groups showed their support for the Monday 5 June strike, including a call from the Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodríguez (FPMR) to march in protest, contrary to the wishes of the student leaders who had called for peaceful demonstrations from within the schools. The call from the FPMR provoked much annoyance in the government (motivating the Minister Ricardo Lagos Weber to declare that this act was condemnable); however, the student leaders expressed that the FPMR were within their rights to demonstrate as they wished but that they should assume full responsibility for their actions.


2006 student protests in Chile, Second national strike and movement decay
The strike was held on Monday with the additional support of university students, high school teachers, truckers and workers amongst other unions. There was relative calm during the morning apart from a few minor isolated incidents close to the Plaza Italia by an unauthorized march and the burning of tires in the Alameda and Del Sol Highway around 7 a.m.


2006 student protests in Chile, Second national strike and movement decay
Throughout the country, protest activity was dissimilar: while there were almost no protests in Punta Arenas, more than 140 establishments in the Bío-Bío Region, 58 in Iquique, 9 in Coihaique were occupied as well as the only school on Easter Island. Peaceful marches took place in Osorno, Puerto Montt and La Serena as well as Valparaíso where more than 12,000 people peacefully gathered.


2006 student protests in Chile, Second national strike and movement decay
In Santiago, the majority of the occupied schools underwent protests of a cultural nature, within their premises, the largest of which took place in the Instituto Nacional and the nearby University of Chile's main campus. Nevertheless, as the afternoon wore on, disorderly behavior and looting began to take place which led to the mobilization of the Carabineros, who later attacked the people gathered at the Instituto Nacional with tear-gas and water cannons, which according to Germán Westhoff, President of the Student Center, was a "provocation on the part of the Carabineros". In all, more than 240 people were detained during this day of mobilizations.


2006 student protests in Chile, Second national strike and movement decay
On June 6, the student assembly wrote a letter to the Minister of Internal Affairs informing him that they saw the creation of a presidential advisory committee — announced by Bachelet in her speech of June 1 to discuss the long-term demands — as a positive step, adding that it should include students, teachers, school administrators, education experts and other social stakeholders and that half of them should be determined by the student assembly. This petition was rejected by the government because it was considered excessive, explaining that the president was free to decide who should be included. On June 7, the president announced a committee of 73 members, which included six seats reserved for high school students.


2006 student protests in Chile, Second national strike and movement decay
According to El Mercurio, on 7 June, 50 schools in Santiago and 175 across the country ended the strikes and were ready to return to classes. According to La Tercera, the number of schools ending mobilizations was close to 500.


2006 student protests in Chile, Second national strike and movement decay
On June 9 the student assembly agreed to participate in the committee and put an end to strikes and school take-overs.


2006 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States
The 2006 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 2, 2006, and concluded September 30, 2007. The table illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.


2006 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, 2006 term membership and statistics
This was the second term of Chief Justice Roberts' tenure and the first full term with the same membership; Justice Alito joined the Court during the 2005 term.


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States
Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices. All justices on the Court at the time the decision was handed down are assumed to have participated and concurred unless otherwise noted.


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Court membership
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Purcell v. Gonzalez
549 U.S. 1 Decided October 20, 2006. Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded.


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Burton v. Stewart
549 U.S. 147 Decided January 9, 2007. Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded.


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Lance v. Coffman
549 U.S. 437 Decided March 5, 2007. District Court for the District of Colorado vacated in part and remanded and affirmed in part.


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Roper v. Weaver
550 U.S. 598 Argued March 21, 2007.Decided May 21, 2007. The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Roper v. Weaver
The Court wrote that it was "now aware of circumstances that persuade us that dismissal of the writ is the appropriate manner in which to dispose of this case." The Court had granted review to decide whether the Court of Appeals had correctly applied the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in setting aside Weaver's capital sentence that he challenged by a petition of habeas corpus. Upon review, the Court discovered that Weaver only filed the current habeas petition after the enactment of AEDPA because the District Court had erroneously dismissed Weaver's first petition. As two other petitioners were "virtually identically situated" to Weaver yet not governed by AEDPA's stricter standards, the Court dismissed so a different legal standard would not apply to Weaver's case simply because the District Court had committed an error.


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Roper v. Weaver
Roberts filed a concurrence, stating that he did not agree with all of the reasons given in the Court's per curiam opinion, but that he agreed with the disposition. Scalia filed a dissent, joined by Thomas and Alito.


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Los Angeles County v. Rettele
550 U.S. 609 Decided May 21, 2007. Ninth Circuit reversed.


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Los Angeles County v. Rettele
The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner, even though the individual in the home they searched was engaging in private, non-criminal activity.


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Los Angeles County v. Rettele
The District Court had granted summary judgment in favor of the County of Los Angeles. The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that the deputies violated the Fourth Amendment and were not entitled to qualified immunity, because a reasonable deputy would have stopped the search upon discovering that the respondents were of a different race than the suspects and because a reasonable deputy would not have ordered respondents, who were unclothed, from their bed.


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Los Angeles County v. Rettele
The Court reversed, stating that because the Fourth Amendment allows warrants to issue based on probable cause, "a standard well short of absolute certainty. Valid warrants will issue to search the innocent, and people like Rettele and Sadler unfortunately bear the cost. Officers executing search warrants on occasion enter a house when residents are engaged in private activity; and the resulting frustration, embarrassment, and humiliation may be real, as was true here. When officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect themselves from harm, however, the Fourth Amendment is not violated."


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Los Angeles County v. Rettele
Souter noted without separate opinion that he would deny the petition for a writ of certiorari. Stevens filed a concurrence, joined by Ginsburg.


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 Decided June 4, 2007. Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded.


2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Erickson v. Pardus
Scalia noted without separate opinion that he would deny the petition for a writ of certiorari. Thomas filed a dissent.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot
The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot was a terrorist plot to detonate liquid explosives, carried on board airliners travelling from the United Kingdom to the United States and Canada, disguised as soft drinks. The plot was discovered by British police during an extensive surveillance operation. As a result of the plot, unprecedented security measures were initially put in place at airports. The measures were gradually relaxed in the following weeks, but passengers are still not allowed to carry liquid containers larger than 100 ml onto commercial aircraft in the UK and most other countries, as of 2021.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot
Of 24 suspects who were arrested in and around London on the night of 9 August 2006, eight were initially tried for terrorism offences in connection with the plot. The first trial took place from April to September 2008. The jury failed to reach a verdict on charges of conspiracy to kill by blowing up aircraft but did find three men guilty of conspiracy to murder and acquitted one other of all charges. In September 2009, a second trial (of the now seven originally accused but with the addition of another man) found three men guilty of conspiracy to kill by blowing up aircraft and one other guilty of conspiracy to murder, while the 'additional' man was cleared of all terrorism charges.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot
In July 2010, a further three of the accused were found guilty at a third trial at Woolwich Crown Court of conspiracy to murder. Thus, of the nine men tried, two were acquitted and seven found guilty of conspiracy charges.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Surveillance
In Pakistan, a British man from Birmingham named Rashid Rauf is believed to have put plotters in touch with al-Qaeda's leadership. When Abdulla Ahmed Ali, who was under police surveillance, returned from Pakistan in June 2006, investigators covertly opened his baggage. Inside they found a powdered soft drink—Tang—and a large number of batteries, which raised suspicions; in the following weeks the police mounted the UK's largest surveillance operation, calling on an additional 220 officers from other forces.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Surveillance
Assad Sarwar (from High Wycombe) was seen buying items that did not appear to fit with his daily needs. On one occasion surveillance officers watched him dispose of empty hydrogen peroxide bottles at a recycling centre. Sarwar and Ali were seen meeting in an east London park. When MI5 covertly entered a flat being used by Ali, they found what appeared to be a bomb factory. They installed a camera and microphone and on 3 August, Ali and Tanvir Husain were filmed constructing devices out of drink bottles. Surveillance officers later watched Ali spend two hours in an Internet cafe researching flight timetables.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Arrests
On 9 August 2006, British police arrested 24 people for questioning. The arrests were made in London, Birmingham, and High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, in an overnight operation. Two of the arrests were made in the Birmingham area and five were made in High Wycombe; firearms officers were not involved in the arrests. The key suspects were British-born Muslims, some of Pakistani descent. Three of the suspects were recent converts to Islam.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Arrests
Eight of the suspects were later charged with conspiracy to murder and commit acts of terrorism, a further three with failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism, and one youth with possession of articles related to a terrorist act. Others were released without charge.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Arrests
Police said they had been observing the plot evolve for months, and that the "investigation reached a critical point" on the night of 9 August 2006 when the decision was made to take urgent action in order to disrupt possible execution of the plot. An undercover British agent had infiltrated the group, according to CNN sources. According to Franco Frattini, the European Commissioner for Justice, Freedom & Security, "the plotters received a very short message to 'Go now' ", while British officials denied any explicit message existed. However, it was not clear when the attacks were planned to have been launched, and the New York Times has since reported that the plans were at an earlier stage than had been initially stated.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Arrests
British authorities carried out a total of 69 searches of residences, businesses, vehicles and open spaces, which netted possible bomb-making equipment and chemicals including hydrogen peroxide, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke said on 21 August 2006. "As well as the bomb-making equipment, we have found more than 400 computers, 200 mobile telephones and 8,000 items of removable storage media such as memory sticks, CDs and DVDs," he said. "So far, from the computers alone, we have removed some 6 terabytes of data." It will take "many months" for investigators to analyse all of the data, he said. Police said they found a list of flights on a memory stick belonging to Mr. Ali following his arrest. The memory stick listed scheduled flights from three carriers – American Airlines, United Airlines and Air Canada.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Arrests, Disagreement over when to make the arrests
NBC News reported disagreement between the United States and the United Kingdom over when to make the arrests. According to NBC News, a senior British official contended that an attack was not imminent, noting that the suspects had not yet purchased airline tickets and some did not even have passports; he had urged that the investigation continue to collect more evidence.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Arrests, Disagreement over when to make the arrests
The same source also told NBC News that the United States had threatened to use extraordinary rendition upon suspected ringleader Rashid Rauf in Pakistan, or to pressure the Pakistan government to arrest him. A United States official acknowledged disagreement over the timing of arrests and that British officials had believed that an attack was not imminent. However, Frances Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, denied the report of a dispute: "There was no disagreement between US and UK officials."


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Arrests, Disagreement over when to make the arrests
In Ron Suskind's The Way of the World (2008), Dick Cheney is reported to have "ordered" the arrest of Rauf in Pakistan in August 2006, apparently with a view to providing "good news" ahead of the US 2006 mid-term elections.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, The plot
The plotters planned to use peroxide-based liquid explosives; the Metropolitan Police said that the plot involved acetone peroxide, (TATP), which is sensitive to heat, shock, and friction, and can be initiated with fire or an electrical charge, and can also be used to produce improvised detonators.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, The plot
During the trial of the conspirators, the prosecution stated that each bomber would board a plane with the "necessary ingredients and equipment". They would then construct the devices mid-flight and detonate them. The hydrogen peroxide would be placed in 500 ml plastic bottles of the Oasis and Lucozade soft drinks. A sugary drink powder, Tang, would be mixed with the hydrogen peroxide to colour it to resemble a normal soft drink. Hydrogen peroxide is widely available for use as hair bleach and along with the other ingredients can become explosive if mixed to a specific strength.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, The plot
The mixture would be injected into the bottles with a syringe. The bottle's cap would not have been removed and the hole would have been resealed, thereby allowing the device to resemble a normal, unopened drink bottle when screened by airport security. The use of liquid explosives with dissolved powder is similar to the composition used in the 21 July 2005 London bombings, using hydrogen peroxide and chapati flour, activated by a detonator.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, The plot
A second substance, a type of high explosive, would be hidden within an AA battery casing; this small explosive charge would detonate the main bomb. The charge would be detonated by linking the bottle of explosives to a light bulb and a disposable camera. The charge from the camera's flash unit would trigger the explosion.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, The plot
On 28 August 2006 the New York Times reported that seven martyrdom tapes made by six suspects were recovered. This number was not confirmed by the prosecution during the subsequent trial.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, The plot, Flights targeted
Prosecutors at the court hearing said that the suspects had talked about including 18 suicide bombers and that they had examined Denver, Boston, and Miami as possible flight destinations to target along with the following flights, details of which they had put on USB sticks.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, The plot, Responsibility
There was speculation in the UK that the militant Islamic organisation al-Qaeda could be behind the plot, which, it was claimed, was scheduled to take place only weeks after the group threatened to attack British aviation. One of the suspects’ martyrdom video was taken from a fatwa by Osama bin Laden. United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Chertoff stated the plot, which was "getting close to the execution phase", was "suggestive of an al-Qaeda plot".


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, The plot, Responsibility
In their martyrdom tapes, the suspects quoted from the Quran, claimed they were seeking revenge for the foreign policy of the United States, and “their accomplices, the U.K. and the Jews” and hoped God would be "pleased with us and accepts our deed." It also called upon other Muslims to join jihad, and justified the killing of innocent civilians in Western countries.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, The plot, Alleged Pakistani involvement
Press reports claimed that the bombers were funded by "charities" intended to help victims of the 2005 Kashmir earthquake. The FBI and Scotland Yard investigated links to militants  and the flow of money to the conspirators. Pakistan and international press also reported that Rashid Rauf had links with the Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Kashmir militant group banned by several countries. Media reports state that he has close family ties to Maulana Masood Azhar, one of the most wanted criminals in India.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, The plot, Alleged Pakistani involvement
In Pakistan, law enforcement authorities interrogated Rashid Rauf, a Briton of Pakistani descent, over his alleged key role in the plot. Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao said British police were conducting inquiries in Pakistan but were not involved in questioning Rauf. The UK Foreign Office sought Rauf's extradition from Pakistan, and it was reported that Pakistan planned to accept the request. However, in mid-December 2006, terrorism charges against Rauf were dropped by a Pakistani judge, who ruled there was a lack of evidence. Rauf's case was transferred from a terrorism court to a regular court where he faced lesser charges including forgery. The charges were later dropped, and Rauf was reported killed in a US drone attack in Pakistan in November 2008.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Public announcement
On 10 August 2006, British Home Secretary John Reid, broke the news, along with Douglas Alexander, the Transport Secretary. The same day, Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Paul Stephenson, said that a plot, intended to destroy as many as ten aircraft in mid-flight from the United Kingdom to the United States using explosives brought on board in the suspects' hand luggage, had been disrupted.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Public announcement
News media reported that planned targets included American Airlines, British Airways, Continental Airlines, and United Airlines flights from London Heathrow and London Gatwick airports to Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles; Miami; Orlando; Boston; Newark; New York City; San Francisco; Cleveland and Washington, D.C. Air Canada flights were also included, with destinations being Montreal and Toronto. BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera said the plot involved a series of simultaneous attacks, targeting three planes each time. Reports vary regarding the number of planes involved, ranging from three to twelve.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Public announcement
In a press release, the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, said "multiple commercial aircraft" were targeted. Some reports say the attacks were planned for 16 August, but police said no evidence of any specific date had been found. British officials later stated that the estimate of ten aircraft was "speculative and exaggerated."


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Public announcement
In the United States, the announcement was made during a joint press conference by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration Kip Hawley and the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller. Chertoff refused to be drawn on questions about the design of the devices or whether any bombs had actually been built.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Public announcement
On the same day, President George W. Bush commented upon arrival in Wisconsin: "The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Public announcement
Prior to the arrests, the plot had been discussed at the highest levels of government; Prime Minister Tony Blair had known about it for months, and had discussed it with President George W. Bush on a number of occasions.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Responses, Scepticism in response to the arrests
Several commentators expressed scepticism over the allegations. Many mentioned the Forest Gate raid, the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and the Iraq War, all based on intelligence that turned out to be wrong, as reasons for their doubts.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Responses, Scepticism in response to the arrests
Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray was sceptical of the account of the plot. He said that "None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not have passports". He also suggested that suspected ringleader Rashid Rauf had invented the plot under torture in Pakistan.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Responses, Scepticism in response to the arrests
Technology website The Register explored the practicalities of producing TATP on board a plane from constituent liquids and concluded that, while theoretically possible, the chances of success would be extremely low. Later, following additional details revealed at the trial, The Register wrote that the plot and bombing method chosen were viable.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Responses, Scepticism in response to the arrests
Lieutenant-Colonel Nigel Wylde, a former senior British Army Intelligence Officer, declared the plot to be "fiction", an invention of the UK security services intended to justify new security measures that threatened to permanently curtail civil liberties. He said the explosives in question could not possibly have been produced on the plane.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Security reaction
In the immediate aftermath of the first arrests, passengers were forbidden from carrying any liquids, apart from baby milk, onto flights between the United States and the United Kingdom. Since passengers could purchase beverages after passing airport security checkpoints in some American airports, gate checkpoints were also introduced at such airports.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Security reaction, United Kingdom
Following the raids, the UK terror alert level was raised by the Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre from 'Severe' to 'Critical', signalling an attack was believed to be imminent. On 14 August 2006 the threat level was reduced from 'Critical' to 'Severe'.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Security reaction, United Kingdom
Immediately following the raids, no hand luggage was allowed except for essentials, such as travel documents and wallets. Limited hand baggage was reintroduced at some smaller airports on 14 August, but was not permitted at Heathrow and Gatwick Airports until 15 August. Some restrictions were relaxed in September 2006, and on 6 November 2006 restrictions were again relaxed to allow limited volumes of liquids to be carried into the cabin.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Security reaction, United Kingdom
In March 2020 Jonathan Evans, former Director General, MI5, gave an interview saying the aircraft plot "felt like some of the later-stage investigations into Irish terrorism that we had been doing. Because we had good intelligence coverage of what the Irish terrorist cells were doing, we could intervene at the relevant point, and we felt like we had a good insight into individual plots that were being prepared".


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Security reaction, United States
Following the operation, United States Homeland Security banned all liquids and gels except baby formula and prescription medicines in the name of the ticket holder in carry-on luggage on all flights. The DHS level in the United States was raised to 'Severe' (red) for all flights from the UK. The terror level for all other domestic or non-British international flights to the United States was raised to 'High' (orange).


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Security reaction, United States
From 13 August 2006, airline passengers in the United States could take up to 3.4 US fl oz (101 ml) of non-prescription medicine, glucose gel for diabetics, solid lipstick, and baby food aboard flights. The TSA also began demanding that passengers remove their shoes so they could be X-rayed before boarding. Eventually passengers were allowed to carry only 100 ml (3.5 imp fl oz; 3.4 US fl oz) of liquid in their hand luggage, TSA standards required all non-medical liquids to be kept in a quart-sized plastic bag, with only one bag per passenger.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Effects
Overall, an estimated 400,000 passengers were affected because of the alerts. It has been estimated that the first day of delays cost the airlines over £175 million. As many as 20,000 bags are believed to have been misplaced at Heathrow.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Effects, Flight cancellations
All international inbound flights to London Heathrow Airport were cancelled on the day of the arrests except those already en route. Some flights to and from London Gatwick Airport were also suspended. Later on that evening, some flights had resumed; shorter flights were resumed around 6pm. However, passengers boarding planes were told they could only carry boarding passes and passports. All other belongings were to be checked in with the rest of their luggage.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Effects, Flight cancellations
A few hours after the beginning of the confusion, aircraft began to fly out of London Heathrow, although in reduced numbers. The situation remained chaotic with long queues of passengers waiting to check-in and get through the strengthened security procedures. Some aircraft were reportedly leaving Heathrow with only transit passengers aboard.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Effects, Flight cancellations
On Sunday 13 August 30% of flights out of Heathrow were cancelled to reduce pressure on screeners. By 15 August flight cancellations had fallen to 47 flights at Heathrow, and 8 Ryanair flights from Stansted. It was reported by BA that 10,000 items of baggage belonging to their passengers had gone missing. It was anticipated that cancellations would reduce on 16 August, with 90% of flights expected to depart as scheduled.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Effects, Controversy over the alert
On 12 August a public argument broke out between BAA, the operator of Heathrow and other airports, and British Airways, with Willie Walsh, BA's Chief Executive, accusing BAA of not being able to cope with the increased security and baggage checks. Ryanair also called on the British government to employ police and military reservists to speed up the full body searches which were now mandated.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Effects, Controversy over the alert
Three days later on 12 August 2006 the owner and operator of London Heathrow, BAA ordered airlines using the airport to make a 30 per cent reduction in departing passenger flights (something BA was already having to do as many passengers missed flights due to the extra time it took to clear security), to help reduce delays and cancellations.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Effects, Controversy over the alert
On 18 August Ryanair's CEO, Michael O'Leary delivered an ultimatum to the British government demanding the resumption of normal hand baggage dimensions and hand screening one passenger in four instead of one in two within one week, otherwise Ryanair would sue the Government for compensation under section 93 of the Transport Act 2000. The government responded that the actions were taken under the Aviation Security Act 1982, and no compensation was payable.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Effects, Controversy over the alert
Several pilots complained about the "ridiculous" luggage restrictions that were thought up by "utter morons". Carolyn Evans, head of flight safety at the British Airline Pilots Association, said that "the procedures put in place are not sustainable long-term, and unless the passengers are treated more reasonably, we will not have an industry left".


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Effects, Controversy over the alert
The British government was criticised for scare mongering as a result of its response to the alert and for using it to drive through unpopular reforms.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Effects, Economic effects
The Times commented on the day after the arrests that the economic effects were minor. It observed that the real commercial risk is that "people may stop travelling ... because they are tired of complying with necessary security measures."


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Effects, Economic effects
British Airways cancelled 1,280 flights, at an estimated cost of £40 million. Ryanair had to cancel 500 flights at an estimated cost of £3.3 million. EasyJet had to cancel 469 flights, at a cost of about £4 million. BAA said the alert cost them £13 million. In November 2006, BA also claimed the increased security measures since August had cost it £100 million.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Effects, Economic effects
Air passengers also switched to other means of travel, including ferries operating from Dover to Calais, and Eurostar.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Effects, Economic effects
On 13 August 2006, Michael O'Leary, chief executive of Ryanair, claimed that the chaos at airports meant that the terrorists were achieving their aims.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Trials and sentencing
Following the August 2006 arrests, The New York Times blocked IP addresses in Britain from accessing a story titled "Details Emerge in British Terror Case." This arose as a result of a requirement in British law that prejudicial information about a defendant may not be published before a trial. Using software technology designed for targeted advertising, The New York Times was able to comply with the UK's stricter laws.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Trials and sentencing
In 2008, eight men (Ahmed Abdullah Ali, Assad Sarwar, Tanvir Hussain, Ibrahim Savant, Arafat Khan, Waheed Zaman, Umar Islam, Mohammed Gulzar) were tried in connection with the plot. The trial began in April 2008, with the exhibition of what were described as 'suicide videos' made by Ali, Hussain, Savant, Khan, Zaman, and Islam, and the allegation that the suspects had bought chemicals. Intercepted emails and phone calls were not allowed as evidence at the first trial.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Trials and sentencing
In their defence, the seven men, six of whom had recorded videos denouncing Western foreign policy, said they had only planned to cause a political spectacle and not to kill anyone. Ali told the court that he intended to make a political statement by letting off a small device at Heathrow and scaring people and that the plot did not involve attacking planes. All the accused, except for Gulzar, admitted plotting to cause a public nuisance. Ali, Sarwar and Hussein also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to cause explosions.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Trials and sentencing
On 7 September 2008 after more than 50 hours of deliberations, the jury found Ali, Sarwar and Hussein guilty of conspiracy to murder but were unable to reach verdicts on charges of conspiracy to murder by blowing up aircraft for them and Islam. Three of the other accused were found not guilty on the latter charges.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Trials and sentencing
On 7 September 2009, the second jury at Woolwich Crown Court found Ali, Sarwar and Hussain guilty of "conspiracy to murder involving liquid bombs" and that the targets of the conspiracy were airline passengers. The plot was said at court to have been discovered by MI5 using covert listening devices in a flat in east London. The jurors were unable to reach verdicts on the charges against Savant, Khan, Zaman or Islam. Islam was however convicted on a separate charge of conspiracy to murder.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Trials and sentencing
Ali, described as 'the ringleader', was sentenced to at least 40 years in prison, Sarwar was sentenced to at least 36 years, while Hussain was jailed for at least 32 years. Islam, convicted of the more general 'conspiracy to murder' charge, was given a sentence of a minimum of 22 years in prison.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Trials and sentencing
At the same 2009 Woolwich trial, Donald Stewart-Whyte, who had not been charged at the 2008 trial, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded gun, but was cleared of all terrorism offences.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Trials and sentencing
At the third trial in July 2010 at Woolwich Crown Court, Savant, Khan and Zaman were found guilty and sentenced to life in prison for the lesser charge of conspiracy to murder. They were all three sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in prison before being eligible for release.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction
This article details the security measures taken in response to the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, United Kingdom
Following the raids, the terror alert level was raised by Britain's Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre on 10 August 2006 from 'severe' to 'critical', signalling an attack was believed to be imminent. Security at all British airports was raised to the highest level, with all property having to go into the aircraft's hold, except for essentials such as travel documents and wallets. Passengers travelling with small children were permitted to carry baby food but had to taste it in front of staff.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, United Kingdom
On 14 August 2006, the threat level was reduced from 'Critical' to 'Severe'. An announcement was made that the hand baggage rules would shortly be relaxed to permit the carrying of one small item of hand baggage, although the ban on all liquids remained. Hand baggage was reintroduced at some smaller airports on 14 August, but was not permitted at Heathrow and Gatwick Airports until 15 August.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, United Kingdom
Despite having made it clear in August that the security measures were "here to stay", at the end of September, under pressure from the flight industry and professional musicians, the British government relaxed the size restrictions to the aviation industry standard (56 cm × 45 cm × 25 cm) and allowed musical instruments as hand luggage.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, United Kingdom
On 6 November 2006 the restrictions were relaxed once again to allow limited volumes of liquids in the cabin.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, United Kingdom
In November 2007, Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly announced that from 8 January 2008, British airports would be able to allow more than one item of hand luggage on board. This was following criticism in October by the shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers, who said that because of the restrictive rules, Heathrow was "rapidly becoming a national embarrassment". Chief executive of British Airways Willie Walsh was also critical, saying that they are "damaging the UK's reputation around the world from a business perspective".


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, United States
Following the operation, the United States Department of Homeland Security banned all liquids and gels except baby formula and prescription medications in the name of the ticket holder in carry-on luggage on all flights. The DHS level in the United States was raised to 'severe' (red) for all flights from the UK. The terror level for all other domestic or non-British international flights in the United States was raised to High (orange). According to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, President Bush was aware of the plot by 6 August and approved raising the alert on 9 August.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Hand luggage restrictions, United Kingdom
Passengers travelling from and through all other UK airports were temporarily only permitted to carry-on those items on a restricted list, and these items had to be carried in transparent plastic bags. No liquids could be carried on board. Liquid medications, such as insulin for diabetics, were banned, "unless verified as authentic." All laptops, mobile phones, digital audio players and other electronic items were also banned.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Hand luggage restrictions, United Kingdom
It was suggested in The Times that the restrictions on hand baggage would be "enforced pending a decision from the National Aviation Security Committee following which they may be made permanent." This was confirmed by sources close to Douglas Alexander, the Secretary of State for Transport, on BBC News.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Hand luggage restrictions, United Kingdom
On 14 August 2006, an announcement was made that the restrictions on hand baggage for flights originating in the UK would shortly be liberalised to permit carriage of one small (45 cm × 35 cm × 16 cm) piece of hand baggage per person. Whilst electronics, books, and other dry items were again permitted on flights leaving the UK, all liquids above 100ml remained banned in hand luggage.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Hand luggage restrictions, United Kingdom
On 2 November 2014, liquid restriction rules were eased. However, as of current, some airports, including Stansted Airport and Manchester Airport, have added another restriction for travel bottle kits, stating that the bottle capacity must be printed or embossed on the bottles, with measurements on handwritten and sticker labels deemed insufficient and outright inadmissible to security.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Hand luggage restrictions, United States
Similar emergency restrictions were placed on airline passengers traveling within and from the United States. Initially, all liquids were forbidden, including beverages, hair gels, toothpaste, lipstick, sunscreen, and hand lotions, due to the suspicion that liquid chemicals were planned to be used in the attacks. Electronic devices (iPods, laptops, etc.) were still allowed for domestic flights.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Hand luggage restrictions, United States, 3-1-1 for carry-ons
As of 26 September 2006, the Transportation Security Administration adjusted the ban on liquids, aerosols and gels. Travellers are permitted to carry liquids through security checkpoints in containers of 3.4 ounces (100 mL) or less that fit comfortably in one quart-size clear plastic zip-top bag. This procedure came to be known as "3-1-1 for carry-ons" (3.4 ounce containers in a 1 quart bag, 1 bag per passenger). Items purchased in the airside zone after clearing security could be brought on board without restriction. Other exemptions to this restriction include medications and breast milk.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Hand luggage restrictions, European Union
On 10 October 2006 a European Union Regulation placed restrictions on carrying liquid materials in hand luggage across the EU.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Hand luggage restrictions, European Union
This restriction was eased on 2 November 2014 with new RapidScan liquid explosive detectors.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Hand luggage restrictions, Japan
On 1 March 2007, The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport also set out new regulations concerning the carriage of liquids in carry-on luggage for international flights. Passengers travelling abroad from Japan are required to place liquids less than 100ml into a transparent resealable bag not exceeding 20 cm × 20 cm. Any liquids over 100ml are forbidden.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Hand luggage restrictions, Singapore
On 8 May 2007, Singapore introduced new liquid restrictions, which is limited to 100ml for all flights (excluding Seletar Airport), where Changi Airport is the biggest airport with more frequent visitors and direct services. Liquids less than 100ml must be sealed into transparent resealable bag not exceeding 20 cm x 20 cm.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Hand luggage restrictions, Other Countries
Subsequently, similar restrictions for liquids in carry on luggage were set out in many other countries worldwide including Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam and China who all set out liquid restrictions on international flights.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Impact
Overall, an estimated 400,000 passengers were affected because of the alerts. It has been estimated that the first day of delays cost the airlines over £175 million. As many as 20,000 bags are believed to have been misplaced at Heathrow in the days following the flight cancellations.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Impact, Flight cancellations
Some inbound flights to London Heathrow Airport were cancelled on the day of the arrests, most notably the Thursday short-haul flights of British Airways. Some flights to and from London Gatwick Airport were also suspended,


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Impact, Flight cancellations
On Sunday 13 August 30% of flights out of Heathrow were cancelled to reduce pressure on the screeners. By 15 August flight cancellations had fallen to 47 flights at Heathrow, and 8 Ryanair flights from Stansted. It was anticipated that cancellations would reduce on 16 August, with 90% of flights expected to depart as scheduled.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Impact, Controversy over the alert
On 12 August a public argument broke out between BAA, the operator of Heathrow and other airports, and British Airways, with Willie Walsh, BA's Chief Executive, accusing BAA of not being able to cope with the increased security and baggage checks. Ryanair also called on the British government to employ police and military reservists to speed up the full body searches which were now mandated, with Chief Executive Michael O'Leary saying:


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Impact, Controversy over the alert
Ryanair and other major UK airlines cannot keep cancelling flights and disrupting the travel plans of tens of thousands of British passengers and visitors solely because the BAA cannot cope with the new body search requirements. If the British government is serious about defeating terrorism and/or not allowing the terrorists to disrupt normal everyday British life, then it must provide the additional security staffing, either police or army reserve personnel, immediately to prevent London's main airports from grinding to a halt over the coming days.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Impact, Controversy over the alert
On 18 August Ryanair's O'Leary delivered an ultimatum to the British government demanding the resumption of normal hand baggage dimensions and hand screening one passenger in four instead of one in two within one week, otherwise Ryanair would sue the Government for compensation under section 93 of the Transport Act 2000. The government responded that the actions were taken under the Aviation Security Act 1982, and no compensation was payable.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Impact, Controversy over the alert
Several pilots complained about the "ridiculous" luggage restrictions that was thought up by "utter morons", the Sunday Herald reported. Carolyn Evans, head of flight safety at the British Airline Pilots Association, said, "the procedures put in place are not sustainable long term, and unless the passengers are treated more reasonably we will not have an industry left".


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Impact, Economic effects
The Times commented the day after the arrests, that the economic effects were minor and that the FTSE 100 index showed only "mild signs of strain", suggesting that terror was already priced into assets, that the market impact will be contained, and that "what is lost on the swings may be gained on the roundabouts".


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Impact, Economic effects
It observed that the real commercial risk is that "people's behaviour is altered... change may come so subtly and subconsciously that it is hard to see, let alone measure… people may stop travelling for example, not because they are scared of being blown up, but because they are tired of complying with necessary security measures."


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Impact, Economic effects
Estimates have also been made of the cost to airlines of their disrupted business. British Airways had to cancel 1280 flights, at a cost of £40 million. Ryanair had to cancel 500 flights, and are suing the UK government for the £3.3 million the cancellations cost them. Easyjet had to cancel 469 flights, at a cost of about £4 million. BAA says the alert cost them £13 million.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Impact, Economic effects
BA is considering making a claim for compensation against BAA, which operates Heathrow, for its failure to provide adequate security services and shortages of personnel during the crisis. The Civil Aviation Authority has just commenced its five-yearly review of operation of the airport, and it is likely that BAA's ability to handle the security alert will now become part of that review. The combined airline losses may have totalled £250 million.


2006 transatlantic aircraft plot security reaction, Impact, Economic effects
Air passengers also switched to other means of travel. Sea France ferry company operating from Dover to Calais announced that it had beaten its all-time record for number of passengers carried in one week, while Eurostar found that at the peak of the alert it was receiving 10 bookings per minute for immediate travel.


2006 youth protests in France
The 2006 youth protests in France occurred throughout France during February, March, and April 2006 as a result of opposition to a measure set to deregulate labour. Young people were the primary participants in the protests as the bill would have directly affected their future jobs in a way that they considered negative.


2006 youth protests in France, The labour bill
The controversial bill, entitled "Loi pour l'égalité des chances" ("Equal Opportunity Law"), created a new job contract, the Contrat première embauche (CPE – First Employment Contract or Beginning Workers Contract).


2006 youth protests in France, The labour bill
Under this job contract, which aimed to encourage the creation of new jobs, it would have been easier, during a contract's first two years, for workers under twenty-six years old to be fired. It would have allowed employers the opportunity to terminate employment of workers under twenty-six without any reason, within their first two years of employment. Those opposed to the First Employment Contract were worried that it could compromise job security, encourage social pressure with a view to lowering wages, and impede employees in having legal recourse in cases of sexual harassment or other abuse, since this could lead to their subsequently being fired.


2006 youth protests in France, The labour bill
Proponents of the bill argued that France's tightly regulated employment market discourages French businesses from employing staff, which has led to France suffering high unemployment. High unemployment, especially for young immigrants, was seen as one of the driving forces behind the 2005 civil unrest in France and this unrest mobilized the perceived public urgency for the First Employment Contract. Youths are particularly at risk as they have been locked out of the same career opportunities as older workers, contributing to both a rise in tensions amongst the economically disenfranchised underclass, and, some claim, a brain drain of graduates leaving for better opportunities in Britain and the United States.


2006 youth protests in France, The labour bill
The French population was roughly split on the issue of whether the First Employment Contract should be implemented. The contract was first proposed after the civil unrest that occurred in France in October and November 2005. French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin's rating dropped to a four-month low of forty-two percent, largely because of the recent protests against the bill. He stated though that he had the backing of French President Jacques Chirac. Later on, polls in L'Express and Paris-Match displayed a swing of the population behind protesters – around 70% were against the CPE law when it was promulgated by president Chirac.


2006 youth protests in France, The labour bill
The bill also included the possibility of manual labour apprenticeships for 14-year-olds, suspension of family welfare in cases of students skipping school (a measure long in the programme of the far-right National Front party), and night labour being permitted for youths as young as 15 years old (as compared to 16 years old before).


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, February
Protests against the bill originally occurred before the bill was approved by Dominique de Villepin. On 7 February, between 200,000 and 400,000 people took part in 187 demonstrations. Some universities, including Rennes, were also occupied during February.


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, Early March
Over a million took part in protests on 7 March. On 9 March, around 38 universities were on strike.


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, 16 March
Protests across France on 16 March led to widespread disruptions. Approximately one hundred bicyclists barricaded streets around the Louvre in protests unrelated to the labour contract. (The protest around the Louvre concerned the lack of sports teachers in schools.) Another hundred protesters descended on City Hall in Rennes, refusing to leave. Other, mostly peaceful, protests occurred throughout the country, in cities such as Marseille. Many universities, including the University of Toulouse, were forced to close on 16 March as some wanted them to remain open and others wanted them closed during the large protests.


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, 18 March
Media attention focused on the violent element of the demonstrations in Paris on 18 March, when as many as 700,000 protesters converged on the city's Place de la Nation. Once the protesters departed from the meeting, a few dozen rioters began to torch cars and vandalize store fronts as police were called in to calm the situation. To suppress the crowd, police officers began to spray tear gas.


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, 18 March
In the evening, new clashes occurred on the Place de la Sorbonne, between a hundred demonstrators and the police, until 1 am.


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, 18 March
A protester from that night, Cyril Ferez, a trade unionist from the Sud-PTT union, trampled by riot police, was in a coma for three weeks after skirmishes in the Place de la Nation, Paris.


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, 18 March
Protesters in Marseille were also sprayed with tear gas after some of them climbed Marseille's City Hall and replaced a French flag with a flag that proclaimed "anticapitalism."


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, 18 March
Throughout the rest of the country, less violent protests occurred. In the estimated 160 protests organized around the country, police estimated that half a million students and labourers participated. Organizers estimated the number was closer to 1.5 million.


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, 18 March
Students (including high school students) demonstrations began to become daily, and often were the site of clashes with the police.


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, 21 March
After large demonstrations and subsequent riots on 16 and 18 March, on the 21st the Dijon students' union called for a general strike, as demanded by left-wing papers such as Libération. A meeting that day of various labour and student groups agreed for another 'day of action' against the law, including strikes, demonstrations and university occupations across the country.


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, 23 March
Riots erupted again after a day of relative calm in several cities in France. According to the French national ministry of education, universities had continued their strike and 21 universities out of 84 were entirely blocked by students. In total, 67 universities were either on strike or blockage.


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, 28 March
CPE opponents convened a fourth national 'day of action' against the law on 28 March, including strikes, demonstrations and university occupations across France. Strikes disrupted rail and air transport, public education and mail services while between 1.055 million people (according to police estimates) and 2.71 million (according to union estimates) marched against the law. Much of the discrepancy in crowd estimates is in Paris where the police estimated 92,000 demonstrators while unions estimated 700,000. Whatever the sources, this is double the number that on 16 March demonstration, and more than during the December 1995 protests against the reform of pensions laws. 600 persons were arrested by the police Police repression also took place in minor towns, such as Lons-le-Saunier (Jura) or Lannion (Côtes d'Armor).


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, 4 April
In total 3.1 million people (according to the CGT) or 1 million (according to the police) people turned out to protest the law throughout the country, while rail and air transport were affected.


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, 11 April
The CPE was scrapped by Chirac on 10 April under the pressure of ongoing protests and blockade across France, though some protests continue against the law of which it was part (the loi pour l'égalité des chances [Equal Opportunity Law], or LEC). Protests were smaller in scale as the movement against the CPE split into those that wanted to fight the LEC and those that considered the victory against the CPE to be an acceptable compromise.


2006 youth protests in France, The protests, 11 April
Because of this split, and because of the universities' Easter holidays, the movement lost its momentum and within a week of the law's withdrawal, the major acts of protest, such as university occupations, had essentially ceased. By 18 April the students at every one of the blocked universities had either voted to reopen immediately, or were on holiday with no blockade planned afterward.


2006 youth protests in France, University occupations
During the dispute, numerous student bodies went on strike, or occupied parts of their faculties. Due to police counter-attacks at the Sorbonne, an initial occupation was repulsed – yet the national student federation UNEF claimed that the number of occupations carried on increasing – by the end of March, 68 of France's 89 universities were on strike according to UNEF.


2006 youth protests in France, University occupations
"The strikes that formed the backdrop to the protests disrupted aspects of daily life from transportation to services." (New York Times Database). Many places within those areas were with closed or worked a lot slower than they normally did. Some places that were affected were universities, schools, post offices, etc.


2006 youth protests in France, Detentions
According to the Collectif Assistance Juridique (CAJ) independent group, a total of 4,500 people were arrested during the events. Among them, 1,950 were kept in garde à vue and 635 prosecution cases opened. Less than 15% of the arrested people were therefore  presented to the magistrates, due to insufficient evidence of alleged legal violations. The CAJ note that many of the people presented before the courts had no previous criminal record and were far from the profile of "criminal rioters". They included many leaders of the movement, in particular outside Paris.


2006 youth protests in France, Detentions
A 24 March 2006 internal administrative order asked the magistrates not to be too lenient on their judgments. 42% of the persons presented before courts passed in immediate comparution, a specific (and controversial) procedure, which allow them to be judged on the spot. During the 1994 demonstrations against the CIP, a student law prepared by Balladur's government, 1000 persons only had been arrested, although the clashes had been more violent.


2006 youth protests in France, Detentions
Although Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy stated on 16 March that his "priority was to arrest casseurs" (rioters), the independent CAJ (Judicial Assistance Group) noted that the vast majority of arrestations hadn't been of on-the-spot witnessed violence (flagrant délit) and that many were contested. For example, on 31 March a US citizen visiting Paris was detained by the police, while on 7 April an old man getting out of a supermarket was also detained. Furthermore, many young people from the suburbs were blocked from demonstrating in Paris.


2006 youth protests in France, Detentions
According to the government, this was to impede turmoils in the capital, but critics such as the CAJ have spoken of a negation of presumption of innocence and of "racial and social discrimination", since some categories of the population – mainly youth living in housing projects, those accused of having taken part in the riots in autumn 2005 – were blocked from exercising their civil rights of demonstrating against a law that affected them as well as other categories of the population.


2006 youth protests in France, Detentions
These blockings in suburbs' train stations have provoked in some cases clashes with the police, for example in Savigny-sur-Orge, in Saint-Denis or in Les Ulis... "There is no evidence which permit us to establish a parallel between the young rioters of November and the disturbing elements of this spring", notes the CAJ report, countering the Interior Minister's claims. Furthermore, police abuse was reported on a number of cases, including Cyril Ferez, a trade union member who entered coma state for several weeks following the 18 March demonstration.


2006 youth protests in France, Detentions
In Caen Charlotte entered coma for a day; Victor had two ribs broken, etc. A three-year-old child was placed 24 hours in observation after having inhaled gas. On 16 March, the Parisian préfecture de police announced that 18 demonstrators had been injured. The IGS (internal affairs department) was charged of Cyril Ferez' case (who was in coma for several weeks) and litigation was initiated against police officers allegedly excessively brutal and violent during arrests.


2006 youth protests in France, Detentions
Additionally, cooperation between the police forces and the trade union "service orders" (SO, in charge of the demonstrations) was observed, including handing-over of several demonstrators to the police by the trade union's SO. Finally, the CAJ note the disproportion of sentences toward young demonstrators, while others acts of vandalism currently committed by farmers or viticulturists were more lightly punished.


2006 youth protests in France, Detentions
It thus alluded to this Alsatian mayor accused of having burned 14 travel trailers but who was condemned only to six months on parole, contrasting with the sentences given to demonstrators (for example, a high school student condemned to 41 days of jail in Fleury-Mérogis because he had burnt two garbage cans before his school).


2006 Úrvalsdeild
The 2006 season of Úrvalsdeild was the 95th season of league football in Iceland. FH defended their title making them the fifth club in Icelandic football history to win the championship three years running. ÍBV were relegated for the first time in 16 years and Grindavík suffered relegation for the first time in the club's history. An attendance record was set this season as 98,026 people saw the 90 matches, an average of 1,089.17 people per match.


2006 Úrvalsdeild, Results
Each team played every opponent once home and away for a total of 18 matches.


2006 Úrvalsdeild, Top goal scorers
The player who has scored the most goals at the end of each tournament receives the Icelandic Golden Boot.


2006 Úrvalsdeild, Promoted teams
These two teams were promoted from 1. deild karla at the start of the season:


2006 Úrvalsdeild, Promoted teams
These two teams will be promoted from 1. deild karla at the start of next season:


2006 Úrvalsdeild, Relegated teams
These two teams were relegated to 1. deild karla at the end of the season:


2006 Ýokary Liga
The 2006 Turkmenistan Higher League (Ýokary Liga) season was the fourteenth season of Turkmenistan's professional football league. Eight teams competed in 2006.


2006 İstanbul Cup
The 2006 İstanbul Cup was a tennis tournament played on clay courts. It was the second edition of the Istanbul Cup, and part of the WTA Tier III tournaments of the 2006 WTA Tour. It was held in İstanbul from 22 through 28 May 2006.


2006 İstanbul Cup, Singles main-draw entrants, Other entrants
The following players received wildcards into the singles main draw:


2006 İstanbul Cup, Champions, Singles
It was the 3rd title for Pe'er in her singles career.


2006 İstanbul Cup, Champions, Doubles
It was the 1st title for both Bondarenko and Yakimova in their respective doubles careers.


2006 İstanbul Cup – Doubles
The Women's Doubles Tournament at the 2006 İstanbul Cup took place between 22 May and 27 May on outdoor clay courts in Istanbul, Turkey. Alona Bondarenko and Anastasiya Yakimova won the title, defeating Sania Mirza and Alicia Molik in the final.


2006 İstanbul Cup – Singles
Venus Williams was the defending champion, but did not compete this year.


2006 İstanbul Cup – Singles
Shahar Pe'er won the title by defeating Anastasia Myskina 1–6, 6–3, 7–6(7–3) in the final.


2006 İstanbul Cup – Singles, Seeds
The top two seeds received a bye into the second round.


2006–07 1. FC Kaiserslautern season
During the 2006–07 German football season, 1. FC Kaiserslautern competed in the 2. Bundesliga.


2006–07 1. FC Kaiserslautern season, Season summary
Kaiserslautern failed to challenge for an immediate return to the Bundesliga. Manager Wolfgang Wolf left the club in April; after a brief spell under caretaker Wolfgang Funkel, Kjetil Rekdal was appointed as permanent successor.


2006–07 1. FC Kaiserslautern season, Players, First-team squad
Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.


2006–07 1. FC Kaiserslautern season, Players, Left club during season
Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.


2006–07 1. FC Nürnberg season
The 2006–07 1. FC Nürnberg season was the club's 107th year of existence.


2006–07 2. Bundesliga
The 2006–07 2. Bundesliga was the 33rd season of the 2. Bundesliga, the second tier of Germany football league.


2006–07 2. Bundesliga
Karlsruher SC, F.C. Hansa Rostock and MSV Duisburg were promoted to the Bundesliga. Rot -Weiss Essen, SpVgg Unterhaching, SV Wacker Burghausen and Eintracht Braunschweig were relegated to the Regionalliga.


2006–07 2. Bundesliga, League table
For the 2006–07 season FC Augsburg, TuS Koblenz, FC Carl Zeiss Jena and Rot-Weiss Essen were newly promoted to the 2. Bundesliga from the Regionalliga while 1. FC Kaiserslautern, 1. FC Köln and MSV Duisburg had been relegated to the league from the Bundesliga.


2006–07 2. Frauen-Bundesliga
The 2nd Fußball-Bundesliga (women) 2006–07 was the 3rd season of the 2. Fußball-Bundesliga (women), Germany's second football league. It began on 10 September 2006 and ended on 28 May 2007.


2006–07 2. Frauen-Bundesliga, Group North, Final standings
* Potsdam was awarded a 3-point penalty for using a player without a player's license.


2006–07 2. Frauen-Bundesliga, Group North, Final standings
Pld = Matches played; W = Matches won; D = Matches drawn; L = Matches lost; GF = Goals for; GA = Goals against; GD = Goal difference; Pts = Points


2006–07 2. Frauen-Bundesliga, Group South, Final standings
Pld = Matches played; W = Matches won; D = Matches drawn; L = Matches lost; GF = Goals for; GA = Goals against; GD = Goal difference; Pts = Points


2006–07 2. Frauen-Bundesliga, Relegation Play-offs
For the first time a five teams were relegated after the season. The 11th and 12th-place finishers of each division were automatically relegated while the 10th-place finishers of each division determined the fifth team to be relegated in a match over two legs.


2006–07 A Group
The 2006–07 A Group was the 59th season of the Bulgarian A Football Group since its establishment in 1948 and the 83rd of a Bulgarian national top football division.


2006–07 A Group
The league was contested by 16 teams, thirteen returning from the 2005–06 season and three promoted from the B Group. Levski Sofia won the championship scoring a record 96 goals.


2006–07 A Group, Changes from last season
Three teams were relegated at the end of the 2005-06 season: Pirin 1922 Blagoevgrad, Naftex Burgas, and FC Pirin Blagoevgrad. The latter was disqualified for financial reasons after the first two rounds.


2006–07 A Group, Changes from last season
The relegated teams were replaced by Spartak Varna and Rilski Sportist, the two regional winners of B PFG. Spartak Varna make an immediate return to the top tier, while Rilski Sportist return after a three-year absence. A further place in the league was decided through a one match playoff, between Chernomorets Burgas Sofia and Maritsa Plovdiv, the two runners-up from the two B Groups. Chernomorets won the match 3-2 and promoted to the top tier for the very first time.


2006–07 A-League
The 2006–07 A-League was the 30th season of top-flight soccer in Australia, and the second season of the A-League since its establishment the previous season. Football Federation Australia hoped to build on the success of the first season and on the interest generated by the Socceroos competing in the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Fox Sports had signed a A$120 million deal over 7 years for the exclusive broadcast rights of the A-League, AFC Champions League, and national team matches (excluding matches played in the World Cup finals).


2006–07 A-League
The television advertisement campaign used for the 2006–07 season was the same as the previous season, with different music. Scribe's song "Not Many" was replaced with Manuel Neztic's "Kickin Down". The second season was marketed as "A-League: Version 2".