Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (418957)	3/29/2011 1:06:58 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793835

AP fact checks Obama: FACT CHECK: How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts (AP) – 7 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi's forces. In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show. And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion — coordinated or not — to advance an offensive. Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts: ___ OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role." THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption. NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars. The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American. ___ OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives." THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear. Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi's forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday. The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters. Obama said "we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms. ___ OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful — yet fragile — transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America." THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait. "The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch." Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest." ___ OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance." THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials. Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened." Only small numbers of Gadhafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said. At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that." ___ OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action." THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated. More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara. The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S. Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself. In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands." He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?" Now, such questions are coming at him. Associated Press writers Jim Drinkard and Robert Burns contributed to this report. google.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (418957)	3/30/2011 2:16:30 PM
From: KLP	3 Recommendations Respond to of 793835

Long War Journal: DC Circuit Court finds Gitmo detainee was no 'Forrest Gump' By THOMAS JOSCELYN March 29, 2011 The DC Circuit Court overturned a District Court's decision to grant Guantanamo detainee Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman's petition for a writ of habeas corpus on Tuesday. In reversing the lower court's ruling, a three-judge panel found that Uthman's account of his trip from Yemen to Afghanistan "piles coincidence upon coincidence upon coincidence" and is ultimately unconvincing. It "remains possible," the judges found, "that Uthman was innocently going about his business and just happened to show up in a variety of extraordinary places -- a kind of Forrest Gump in the war against al Qaeda." But "the far more likely explanation is that he was part of al Qaeda." Uthman's "account at best strains credulity." The Circuit Court judges found that several facts, all of which were either "found by the District Court or are otherwise uncontested," were incriminating. The judges explain that Uthman's trip began at the Furqan Institute, "a religious school in Yemen where al Qaeda had successfully recruited fighters." Declassified documents produced at Guantanamo note that some of the terrorists involved in bombing the USS Cole attended Furqan. Uthman then "traveled to Afghanistan along a route used by al Qaeda recruits" and later "lied to hide the fact that someone else paid for his travel to Afghanistan." Uthman had good reasons to lie about the funding for his trip. The money, as well as the spiritual advice he received to join the jihad, came from the now-deceased Sheikh Muqbil al Wadi, a longtime al Qaeda recruiter in Yemen, who gave Uthman $1,000 for the trip. After arriving in Afghanistan, Uthman "was seen at an al Qaeda guesthouse." He was then captured in December 2001 "in the vicinity of Tora Bora, an isolated, mountainous area where al Qaeda forces had gathered to fight the United States and its allies." Captured along with Uthman were two men who "were al Qaeda members and bodyguards for Osama bin Laden," as well as a "Taliban fighter." All three of these known jihadists "also attended the Furqan Institute." Finally, the court found that "Uthman's explanation of why he went to Afghanistan and why he was traveling in a small group that included al Qaeda members and a Taliban fighter near Tora Bora during the battle there involves a host of unlikely coincidences." In particular, Uthman claimed he went to Afghanistan to teach the Koran and yet "he does not remember the names of any of his students and cannot describe his school in Kabul." Whereas District Judge Henry H.Kennedy, Jr. did not find that this evidence justified Uthman's detention, the DC Circuit Court did. A key difference between the two rulings is the use of the "command structure test," which requires the government to show that a Guantanamo detainee received or executed orders from enemy forces. That test has been shot down by the DC Circuit Court in previous rulings, but only after Judge Kennedy, Jr. ruled in Uthman's favor. Dispensing with the test, the DC Circuit Court found that the evidence showed Uthman was more likely than not a part of al Qaeda -- and not a Koran teacher who just happened to wander into al Qaeda's company in late 2001. Key allegations not pursued In a footnote, the Circuit Court panel explains that the government also contends "Uthman attended an al Qaeda training camp, fought against the Northern Alliance, and himself became one of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards." While these allegations were made during the District Court proceeding, they were dropped during the government's appeal. District Judge Kennedy, Jr. dismissed these allegations, finding that they were sourced primarily to two detainees who were allegedly tortured. The two detainees in question are Abdu Ali al Hajj Sharqawi (ISN # 1457), aka "Riyadh the Facilitator" -- a known, high-level al Qaeda operative who is detained at Guantanamo -- and Sanad Yislam Ali Al Kazimi (ISN # 1453), who is also detained at Guantanamo. Judge Kennedy, Jr. excluded Sharqawi's incriminating descriptions of Uthman, finding that Sharqawi had been "tortured" during his detention in Jordan, at a CIA-run facility in Afghanistan, and at Bagram. The sole piece of evidence Judge Kennedy, Jr. relied upon in determining that Sharqawi had been tortured came from Sharqawi himself. Counsel for Uthman submitted a declaration written by Sharqawi's attorney, who Sharqawi purportedly told about his time in Jordanian and US custody. During the District Court hearings, the government countered by presenting as a witness the criminal investigator who had interviewed Sharqawi and al Kazimi at Bagram and Guantanamo. Kazimi had similarly identified Uthman as an al Qaeda operative and then, in a declaration filed by his attorney, claimed he was tortured. The government argued, however, that the investigator, who worked for the Department of Defense's Criminal Investigative Task Force (CITF), "did not mistreat" Sharqawi or Kazimi, or "observe any torture," or even witness "any signs of abuse in the demeanor or physical state of either man." Moreover, the investigator took Sharqawi's and Kazimi's testimony during "cordial," non-coercive interview sessions. Despite the prosecution's arguments, however, Judge Kennedy, Jr. still excluded Sharqawi's and Kazimi's statements, reasoning that the government had failed to rebut the declarations made by the detainees' lawyers. Judge Kennedy, Jr. ruled that the CITF investigator did not have knowledge of Sharqawi's and Kazimi's time in custody prior to arriving at Bagram and Guantanamo, and had only limited knowledge of their time in custody after being transferred to those facilities. Thus, Judge Kennedy, Jr. excluded Sharqawi's and Kazimi's statements because their lawyers' declarations were supposedly unrebutted. Sharqawi's and Kazimi's friendly interrogations were considered "tainted" by their earlier alleged mistreatment. The government decided not to pursue the matter further during appeal and so, while the government believes Uthman was a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden (just as two of the men he was captured with also were), that allegation and others were dropped. The story of Sharqawi's testimony took a surprising turn in February, however, when a District Judge in another habeas matter ruled that there was "no evidence that Sharqawi's statements were the result of torture." In that case, counsel for Mashour Abdullah Muqbel al Sabri sought to include Sharqawi's statements -- precisely the opposite of what Uthman's counsel sought. Al Sabri's lawyers thought that Sharqawi's statements helped their case, and so they did not seek to exclude them as "tainted" evidence. [See LWJ report, Judge finds Gitmo detainee was no 'Gucci jihadist'.] The inconsistent handling of Sharqawi's testimony highlights a fundamental problem in the habeas proceedings. Sources familiar with the government's thinking in these proceedings tell The Long War Journal that prosecutors are often reluctant to delve into any topics involving the CIA's formerly secret detention program. The Agency does not want its program dragged into court, where sensitive intelligence may be exposed, and regularly withholds information from the habeas proceedings. As a result, the government frequently does not fully rebut charges of "torture," even in instances when prosecutors believe the allegations are completely false. In Uthman's case, there was enough evidence to justify his detention regardless of any torture allegations. Read more: longwarjournal.org

To: Brumar89 who wrote (418957)	3/30/2011 5:05:59 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793835

3 'Strange' Men Cause Flight Diversion At least one man of “Middle Eastern descent” got into a fight with an attendant, passengers say Wednesday, Mar 30, 2011 \| Updated 2:38 PM CDT Source: nbcchicago.com By Phil Rogers and Andrew Greiner A Portland, Ore.-bound flight made a "level two emergency" stop in Chicago Tuesday night after passengers said three men, reportedly of Middle Eastern descent, were acting strangely, even fighting with flight crews. At least one of the men walked back to the area of the plane where flight attendants work, laid down and began complaining of illness. That man engaged in "some sort of altercation" with the flight attendant, a passenger said. At one point another man, who was pacing back and forth in the aisles, also got into a "verbal altercation" with a flight attendant, according to a passenger. Other men of “Middle Eastern descent” were passing notes and “writing in their notebooks,” a source told NBC Chicago. United contacted officials at O'Hare and alerted them that the flight, which originated in Washington D.C., would stop. The flight was diverted to Chicago. Three passengers were removed from the aircraft, and the remaining passengers were re-screened through security, before being sent on their way. Passengers arriving at Portland told NBC affiliate KGW they were aware of problems during the flight. Cliff Robinett described the incident as “strange goings on in the back of the plane." Another passenger, Lydia Omelchenko, said the three individuals removed were “strange people.” Robinett said the man was lying on the floor in the back of the plane did not speak English, and an interpreter had difficulty translating. Robinett said a doctor on the plane also tried to assist the passenger. He said three men got off the plane, one of them ill. No one knew what was happening at the time, including TSA officials in Chicago, he said. Stacy Niedermeyer of Southwest Portland was on the flight with her husband and four children. Niedermeyer said one of the men went to the back of the plane and "sat down on his bottom." Some type of heated altercation took place. Lydia Omelchenko said passengers knew something was amiss and were texting about the incident. She reported that two men, one of them young, left the plane and neither looked ill. Other passengers interviewed did not wish to be identified. One passenger said a man with a backpack was pacing back and forth and got into an argument with a flight attendant. Another said she understood it was some type of medical issue and despite it all, she never felt unsafe. United spokesman Rahsaan Johnson refused to elaborate Wednesday morning on the reasons for the passengers’ removal other than saying “they were not following crew member instructions.” “It was agreed they should not continue on to Portland.” Johnson said the crew and passengers spoke with law enforcement on the ground. A Chicago police spokesman professed no knowledge of the incident and said officers at O’Hare were not contacted. The flight was diverted to O’Hare at 7:30 Tuesday night, then left Chicago for Portland at about 11 p.m. and arrived at 3 a.m. Chicago time.