NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen: "New NATO – New Turkey"
http://bit.ly/Aibzxt
NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 17 Feb. 2012 "New NATO – New Turkey" Speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen held in Ankara, Turkey Minister Davutoglu - dear Ahmet, thank you very much for that very kind introduction. Ladies and gentlemen, It is indeed a great pleasure to be here today on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Turkey’s membership of the NATO Alliance. I have been looking very much forward to visiting Turkey today, and before proceeding I have to apologize that due to weather conditions I will have to leave immediately after my statement. But it is important for me to be here and tell you how much we appreciate Turkey’s contribution to our Alliance. Turkey has been a vital member of NATO for 60 years. Many things have changed in that time. But our commitment to each other has not. Turkey plays an important role in our operations and we are particularly grateful for your steadfast commitment to our ISAF operation. Turkey has an important voice in our decisions. And Turkey has a vital part to play in shaping our partnerships. Together, we are the most successful military Alliance in the world. So Turkey has done very much for NATO. It has shown its commitment to stability, security and solidarity time and time again. But NATO has also done a lot and does a lot for Turkey. Let me highlight just three of those benefits. First, Article 5. NATO’s founding treaty is still the world’s most powerful insurance policy. Its collective defence clause means you have 27 Allies ready, and willing, to help defend you. That was true when you stood on the cold war flank of the Alliance. It is just as true today. Second, the very existence of our Alliance sends a strong signal of solidarity. Any aggressor would think long and hard before upsetting your own stability and security. Because they know that to threaten one Ally is to threaten them all. By being a member of NATO, you benefit not just from your own contributions, but you benefit from other Allies’ contributions too. So the security each Ally gets out, is about more than just the security you contribute. And finally, consultation. NATO remains the only structured forum that brings together North America and Europe. It is a dynamic and unique forum for Allied consultations on both the political and the military dimensions of security. All decisions are taken by consensus. So Turkey’s voice matters. When your country speaks, its views are heard across all Allied capitals. And when NATO meets with its partners, Turkey’s views are heard across the world – from Stockholm to Sydney and from Algiers to Astana. For sixty years, Turkey has been a part of the transatlantic family. Turkey gains what all the family members gain – not just the promotion of our interests, but also the protection of our values. We believe in freedom. We believe in democracy. And we believe that the human desire for both will prevail against repression and dictatorship. We saw this in Tunisia. We saw this in Egypt. And we saw this in Libya. We are also seeing this today in Syria. I welcome Turkey’s efforts to bring a peaceful resolution to this crisis. And I agree with Foreign Minister Davutoglu, that the only way forward in Syria, as everywhere else, is to satisfy the democratic aspirations of the people. Ladies and gentlemen, I have been NATO Secretary General for two and a half years now. During that time, I have greatly valued Turkey’s role in the Alliance. And I believe that, as the Arab Spring unfolds, continued Turkish leadership will be crucial for a peaceful future. Many choose to focus on the short-term problems of the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. I choose to focus on the long-term opportunities. And I believe we should seize them with both hands. So that we keep alive the dream of freedom, security, and stability. And open a new era of cooperation between NATO, Turkey, and countries in this region. Turkey brings together East and West, North and South. Its strong heart beats where Europe, Asia and the Mediterranean all meet. And that is a great advantage, for Turkey, and for us all. Thank you very much.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Panetta, Dempsey: Sequestration Would Defeat Defense Strategy
http://bit.ly/zFd1zj
By Karen Parrish American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2012 – The Defense Department’s senior leaders strongly warned Congress today that doubling defense spending cuts would leave the military without a workable strategy to counter staggering global threats. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, along with Pentagon Comptroller Robert F. Hale, logged their third day of congressional budget testimony, speaking before the House Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee. Under the 2013 budget request, the Defense Department will spend $614 billion in fiscal 2013, divided between a $525.4 billion base budget and $88.5 billion covering war costs. The request incorporates the 2011 Budget Control Act’s requirement for a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years. The act also included a “sequestration” provision for an additional $500 billion in across-the-board cuts to take effect in January if Congress does not pass a plan to reduce the budget. “If additional efforts are made to go after the defense budget, I think it could have a serious impact in terms of our ability to implement the strategy,” Panetta said. Panetta repeatedly has emphasized the 2013 DOD budget request supports a new defense strategy, released in January, aimed at creating a smaller, more mobile and technologically advanced joint force. The secretary has also emphasized keeping faith with the all-volunteer force and the families who support them. While he doesn’t think Congress will permit sequestration, the secretary said, the threat alone is creating a “huge shadow of doubt” over defense industries, their workers and the military. Panetta outlined global threats from ongoing war in Afghanistan to challenges in the space and cyber domains to growing competition in the Pacific region and a volatile Middle East, where, he said, “any one of these countries could explode on us.” A half trillion dollars in new defense cuts could result in a military unprepared to meet those threats, he said. “It is very important that we get together -- both the administration and the Congress -- and we develop a package … to make sure this doesn't happen,” the secretary said. Dempsey said he shares the secretary’s “deep concerns, … actually, anxieties, about sequestration.” “The two things about sequestration that are alarming to us is one, the magnitude, [and] second, the mechanism,” he said. The law calls for across-the-board cuts if sequestration kicks in, but certain areas of military spending can’t be cut, the chairman explained. In restructuring the force, he noted, the current plan of trimming 124,000 troops over the next five years -- mostly from the Army and Marine Corps -- can’t be done much faster. Another round of service member reductions, which sequestration could require, would mean “we just … hand them a pink slip and send them off. And I don’t think anybody wants to do that,” he said. Infrastructure costs also are fixed, Dempsey said. Even if Congress approves new base realignment and closure processes, as the Defense Department has requested, the department won’t save any money on facilities for five to 10 years, he said. That leaves only a few budget areas the military could cut under sequestration, Dempsey said. “It’s coming out of three places, and that’s it,” the general said. “It’s coming out of equipment and modernization, that’s one. It’s coming out of maintenance, and it’s coming out of training. And then, we’ve hollowed out the force.” Dempsey told the House panel he has lived through two military drawdowns in his nearly four-decade career: one after Vietnam, and another after Desert Storm. The current drawdown is different, he said, because the previous two happened during a period of relative stability. “In my personal military judgment, formed over 38 years, we are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime right now, and I think sequestration would be completely oblivious to that, and counterproductive,” the chairman said. President Barack Obama was deeply involved with department leaders in developing the new defense strategy, Dempsey said. “It is a strategy that has to have this budget to support it,” he added. “Anything beyond this, we have to go back to the drawing board on the strategy.” The defense strategy is an aggregate of military objectives, the resources available, and how to meet those objectives with those resources, he said. “We’ve got it balanced right now,” the chairman said. “But any change in the future means we have to go back and redo our strategy.”
http://bit.ly/zFd1zj
By Karen Parrish American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2012 – The Defense Department’s senior leaders strongly warned Congress today that doubling defense spending cuts would leave the military without a workable strategy to counter staggering global threats. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, along with Pentagon Comptroller Robert F. Hale, logged their third day of congressional budget testimony, speaking before the House Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee. Under the 2013 budget request, the Defense Department will spend $614 billion in fiscal 2013, divided between a $525.4 billion base budget and $88.5 billion covering war costs. The request incorporates the 2011 Budget Control Act’s requirement for a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years. The act also included a “sequestration” provision for an additional $500 billion in across-the-board cuts to take effect in January if Congress does not pass a plan to reduce the budget. “If additional efforts are made to go after the defense budget, I think it could have a serious impact in terms of our ability to implement the strategy,” Panetta said. Panetta repeatedly has emphasized the 2013 DOD budget request supports a new defense strategy, released in January, aimed at creating a smaller, more mobile and technologically advanced joint force. The secretary has also emphasized keeping faith with the all-volunteer force and the families who support them. While he doesn’t think Congress will permit sequestration, the secretary said, the threat alone is creating a “huge shadow of doubt” over defense industries, their workers and the military. Panetta outlined global threats from ongoing war in Afghanistan to challenges in the space and cyber domains to growing competition in the Pacific region and a volatile Middle East, where, he said, “any one of these countries could explode on us.” A half trillion dollars in new defense cuts could result in a military unprepared to meet those threats, he said. “It is very important that we get together -- both the administration and the Congress -- and we develop a package … to make sure this doesn't happen,” the secretary said. Dempsey said he shares the secretary’s “deep concerns, … actually, anxieties, about sequestration.” “The two things about sequestration that are alarming to us is one, the magnitude, [and] second, the mechanism,” he said. The law calls for across-the-board cuts if sequestration kicks in, but certain areas of military spending can’t be cut, the chairman explained. In restructuring the force, he noted, the current plan of trimming 124,000 troops over the next five years -- mostly from the Army and Marine Corps -- can’t be done much faster. Another round of service member reductions, which sequestration could require, would mean “we just … hand them a pink slip and send them off. And I don’t think anybody wants to do that,” he said. Infrastructure costs also are fixed, Dempsey said. Even if Congress approves new base realignment and closure processes, as the Defense Department has requested, the department won’t save any money on facilities for five to 10 years, he said. That leaves only a few budget areas the military could cut under sequestration, Dempsey said. “It’s coming out of three places, and that’s it,” the general said. “It’s coming out of equipment and modernization, that’s one. It’s coming out of maintenance, and it’s coming out of training. And then, we’ve hollowed out the force.” Dempsey told the House panel he has lived through two military drawdowns in his nearly four-decade career: one after Vietnam, and another after Desert Storm. The current drawdown is different, he said, because the previous two happened during a period of relative stability. “In my personal military judgment, formed over 38 years, we are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime right now, and I think sequestration would be completely oblivious to that, and counterproductive,” the chairman said. President Barack Obama was deeply involved with department leaders in developing the new defense strategy, Dempsey said. “It is a strategy that has to have this budget to support it,” he added. “Anything beyond this, we have to go back to the drawing board on the strategy.” The defense strategy is an aggregate of military objectives, the resources available, and how to meet those objectives with those resources, he said. “We’ve got it balanced right now,” the chairman said. “But any change in the future means we have to go back and redo our strategy.”
Higher gold prices next week?
http://bit.ly/whkdZC
By Jeremy Holcombe Contributing writer for Goldco Direct and End the Lie It seems to be the consensus of many that gold prices are going to spike even higher this next week, the third full week of February. Gold was at a standstill earlier this week, but with optimistic news out of Greece, gold actually went up a little bit to finish out this week. There have been reasons to believe that gold was about to spike up again, and of course the most popular reason surrounded the news of a close bailout deal involving Greece. However, there have been a number of other specifics stated as to why many investors think gold is going to spike upwards next week. Gold holding support at $1,700 an ounce, open interest building in the Comex gold futures and continued loose monetary policy should all contribute to gold spiking next week. Many investors, as stated above, have also expressed optimism that Monday’s meeting of the Eurozone finance ministers will come to some agreement to help bail out Greece prior to when the country must make a big bond payment or risk a default. Mike Zarembski, senior commodity analyst at optionsXpress, cited a technical-chart reason. “Gold prices continue to remain above the downtrend line drawn from the September 2011 highs. We may be seeing a ‘bull flag’ forming in the daily futures charts which, if verified, would further confirm the up-move seen in 2012,” he said. A lot has been happening with gold over the early parts of 2012. In January gold had its biggest one month gain in over 30 years. While gold has continued to perform strong in the early part of 2012, it is still thought that gold is going to make a serious run at $2,000 per ounce, but it is also thought that at some point gold will drop in price a bit before regaining a strong foothold and making that run. A lot of what happens in Greece before March 20 will play a big part as far as how fast we see gold make the rise to $2,000 per ounce or perhaps take a bit of a dip. Look for gold to remain strong through next week, and even spike in price. There has been a great deal of good news from Greece over the last week, so hopefully they will go ahead and pull the trigger and put to rest anymore notion that they may default. A default would not be ideal for the world’s economies, in this analyst’s opinion. The above article is for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation by End the Lie or Goldco Direct . It is the commentator’s opinion only and not intended for investment recommendations, and does not necessarily reflect the views of End the Lie or Goldco Direct . Any references to outside sources are believed to be accurate. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. All commodities involve risk. Investors should consult their financial adviser before making any investment decisions.
http://bit.ly/whkdZC
By Jeremy Holcombe Contributing writer for Goldco Direct and End the Lie It seems to be the consensus of many that gold prices are going to spike even higher this next week, the third full week of February. Gold was at a standstill earlier this week, but with optimistic news out of Greece, gold actually went up a little bit to finish out this week. There have been reasons to believe that gold was about to spike up again, and of course the most popular reason surrounded the news of a close bailout deal involving Greece. However, there have been a number of other specifics stated as to why many investors think gold is going to spike upwards next week. Gold holding support at $1,700 an ounce, open interest building in the Comex gold futures and continued loose monetary policy should all contribute to gold spiking next week. Many investors, as stated above, have also expressed optimism that Monday’s meeting of the Eurozone finance ministers will come to some agreement to help bail out Greece prior to when the country must make a big bond payment or risk a default. Mike Zarembski, senior commodity analyst at optionsXpress, cited a technical-chart reason. “Gold prices continue to remain above the downtrend line drawn from the September 2011 highs. We may be seeing a ‘bull flag’ forming in the daily futures charts which, if verified, would further confirm the up-move seen in 2012,” he said. A lot has been happening with gold over the early parts of 2012. In January gold had its biggest one month gain in over 30 years. While gold has continued to perform strong in the early part of 2012, it is still thought that gold is going to make a serious run at $2,000 per ounce, but it is also thought that at some point gold will drop in price a bit before regaining a strong foothold and making that run. A lot of what happens in Greece before March 20 will play a big part as far as how fast we see gold make the rise to $2,000 per ounce or perhaps take a bit of a dip. Look for gold to remain strong through next week, and even spike in price. There has been a great deal of good news from Greece over the last week, so hopefully they will go ahead and pull the trigger and put to rest anymore notion that they may default. A default would not be ideal for the world’s economies, in this analyst’s opinion. The above article is for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation by End the Lie or Goldco Direct . It is the commentator’s opinion only and not intended for investment recommendations, and does not necessarily reflect the views of End the Lie or Goldco Direct . Any references to outside sources are believed to be accurate. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. All commodities involve risk. Investors should consult their financial adviser before making any investment decisions.
Secretary Clinton Remarks With European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton After Their Meeting
http://bit.ly/zCYDwW
Hillary Rodham Clinton Secretary of State Treaty Room Washington, DC February 17, 2012 SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good morning everyone. It’s always a pleasure to welcome my friend and colleague, the high representative of the European Union, here to Washington. We always have a lot to discuss and we are always relying on each other, because, as I said in Munich a few weeks ago, Europe remains America’s partner of first resort on all of the global challenges we are confronting together. I know that Cathy understands the significance of our cooperation, because she and I have had the opportunity to meet on many occasions in the last several years, and we, again today, had a very comprehensive discussion. Let me just quickly run over a few of the issues. I will turn first to Iran. We’re very grateful to Lady Ashton for her leadership on the P-5+1. The international community has been looking to Iran to demonstrate it is prepared to come to the table in a serious and constructive way. We have been reviewing Iran’s proposal to resume talks on its nuclear activities and consulting closely between us and with our other P-5+1 partners. This response from the Iranian Government is one we’ve been waiting for, and if we do proceed, it will have to be a sustained effort that can produce results. Turning to Syria, I know that the high representative joins me in, once again, condemning in the strongest possible terms the ongoing violence against the Syrian people perpetrated by the Assad regime. I also want to extend on behalf of myself and our government our sympathies to the family of Anthony Shadid and to the New York Times for his untimely death. He was somebody I always turned to and read very carefully, and if I didn’t have the time when I got to the press reporting, I would put it aside and read it because he had his pulse on what was happening. Yesterday’s UN General Assembly vote demonstrated an overwhelming international consensus that the bloody assaults must end. In the face of this global condemnation, the regime in Damascus, however, appears to be escalating its assaults on civilians, and those who are suffering cannot get access to the humanitarian assistance they need and deserve. So we will keep working to pressure and isolate the regime, to support the opposition, and to provide relief to the people of Syria. I will be attending the Friends of Syria conference in Tunisia next week, where a number of nations will work to intensify pressure on the regime and to mobilize the humanitarian relief that is needed. We also hope to coordinate efforts to enable a Syrian-led transition before the regime’s actions tear the country apart. We’re looking for an inclusive democratic process. Ultimately, our shared values between the U.S. and the EU are the bedrock of our cooperation, and we are promoting those values together. We also discussed the situation in the Balkans. We share the view that the future of both Serbia and Kosovo lies with the European Union, and the United States strongly supports the dialogue that the EU is leading to try to advance Euro-integration for both Serbia and Kosovo. Deputy Secretary Burns is encouraging both sides to remain flexible and open to compromise. We have a – we have a very long list of what we discussed, but I’ll just end it there and turn it over to Lady Ashton with my appreciation for her leadership and the great partnership we have. MS. ASHTON: Well first of all, can I say what a pleasure it is to be back here and to be meeting and working as closely as I do with you. It is extremely significant that we’re meeting today, because we meet on the back of having received a letter from Dr. Jalili from Iran in response to my letter from October. As you said, we are consulting colleagues and analyzing closely what this letter would mean. Let me say that I think it’s good to see that the letter has arrived and that there is a potential possibility that Iran may be ready to start talks. We’ll continue to discuss and make sure that what we’re looking at is substantive, but I'm cautious and I’m optimistic at the same time for this. It also demonstrates the importance of the twin-track approach, that the pressure that we have put on together, the sanctions that have been put there because that’s the responsibility of the international community, I believe, they’re having an effect. But we, of course, want to resolve this through talks. And as you’ve said, Hillary, the situation in Syria is a cause for enormous concern, and we feel extremely worried about the level of violence and terror that is happening within that country. We’ve been very clear that President Assad should stand aside and should enable a process that would bring the people of Syria together, all of them. An inclusive process that can take the country forward. I want to commend the work of Nabil Elaraby, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, who has shown great leadership in bringing together the Arab community, but in coordination, working closely with the international community, to demonstrate that inclusivity and to demonstrate the leadership on the ground. I hope that the meeting next week will give us a chance to consider how we can support humanitarian efforts especially. And I will be working with the UN, the OIC, and the Arab League, as we did through the situation in Libya, on the humanitarian side of the challenges that we face. I hope it will also show, too, the international consensus to try and see the situation in Syria end. As you said, there are hundreds of things on our agendas at all times, and we keep in constant touch, so we can deal with only some of them at every meeting. The situation in Serbia-Kosovo, of course, is very important to the European Union because we do believe, as you rightly say, the future for both lies within the European Union. The team that we’ve got there at the moment are working closely together to try and support both into their future. I hope that both will be able to work on the plan that we’ve put to them that will enable Serbia to become a candidate, will enable Kosovo to move forward with visas, with trade, with economic support, and eventually to see its future as well with the European Union. Thank you. MS. NULAND: We have time for two today. We’ll start with The New York Times, Steve Myers. QUESTION: Madam Secretary, Lady Ashton, thank you. The Iranian letter refers to a readiness for dialogue, talks at the earliest possibility, and also, significantly, no preconditions in it for those talks. And yet you seem somewhat hesitant to embrace this. Is that that you think the letter is not sincere? And what more do you need to see before you could begin, or what next steps could you see for those talks to begin? Thank you. SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, as I think we both have said, we are evaluating the response. And our unity within the P-5+1 has been absolutely critical in dealing with Iran in the past. It remains so going forward. It takes time to consult and to do so in a thorough manner. So we need to give time to our partners in the P-5+1 process to do their own evaluation. But we’ve been clear about two things that I want to stress. First, as outlined in Cathy’s October letter to Iran, any conversation with Iran has to begin with a discussion of its nuclear program. And Iran’s response to Cathy’s letter does appear to acknowledge and accept that. And second, we must be assured that if we make a decision to go forward, we see a sustained effort by Iran to come to the table, to work until we have reached an outcome that has Iran coming back into compliance with their international obligations. So we’re evaluating all of these factors. But I think it’s fair to say – and of course, I’ll let Cathy speak for herself – that we think this is an important step, and we welcome the letter. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. I mean, exactly. We see the things that you’ve seen in the letter – no preconditions and a recognition of what we’ll be talking about. The next question, really, is to look at then where we left off in Istanbul. And you’ll recall that we put out in Istanbul a series of options for confidence-building measures, things that Iran could do that would help us move forward with the talks, things that the inspectors would be allowed to do, for example. We also said at that time they could come forward with their own ideas about what they wanted to do, so that this was a genuine open process. So for us, the evaluation now is also about thinking through okay, where did we leave off, where do we need to go next? If we start the talks, we want to sustain them. Therefore, we need to set in train the process whereby we can be clear what it is we mean to achieve and what we’re expecting from the Iranians. And that’s what we’re in the process of doing right now. QUESTION: Is the TRR still on the table? MS. ASHTON: Well, when we were talking in Istanbul, there were two sets of issues: one, the confidence-building measures I’ve described; the other was support for the TRR and for, of course,
http://bit.ly/zCYDwW
Hillary Rodham Clinton Secretary of State Treaty Room Washington, DC February 17, 2012 SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good morning everyone. It’s always a pleasure to welcome my friend and colleague, the high representative of the European Union, here to Washington. We always have a lot to discuss and we are always relying on each other, because, as I said in Munich a few weeks ago, Europe remains America’s partner of first resort on all of the global challenges we are confronting together. I know that Cathy understands the significance of our cooperation, because she and I have had the opportunity to meet on many occasions in the last several years, and we, again today, had a very comprehensive discussion. Let me just quickly run over a few of the issues. I will turn first to Iran. We’re very grateful to Lady Ashton for her leadership on the P-5+1. The international community has been looking to Iran to demonstrate it is prepared to come to the table in a serious and constructive way. We have been reviewing Iran’s proposal to resume talks on its nuclear activities and consulting closely between us and with our other P-5+1 partners. This response from the Iranian Government is one we’ve been waiting for, and if we do proceed, it will have to be a sustained effort that can produce results. Turning to Syria, I know that the high representative joins me in, once again, condemning in the strongest possible terms the ongoing violence against the Syrian people perpetrated by the Assad regime. I also want to extend on behalf of myself and our government our sympathies to the family of Anthony Shadid and to the New York Times for his untimely death. He was somebody I always turned to and read very carefully, and if I didn’t have the time when I got to the press reporting, I would put it aside and read it because he had his pulse on what was happening. Yesterday’s UN General Assembly vote demonstrated an overwhelming international consensus that the bloody assaults must end. In the face of this global condemnation, the regime in Damascus, however, appears to be escalating its assaults on civilians, and those who are suffering cannot get access to the humanitarian assistance they need and deserve. So we will keep working to pressure and isolate the regime, to support the opposition, and to provide relief to the people of Syria. I will be attending the Friends of Syria conference in Tunisia next week, where a number of nations will work to intensify pressure on the regime and to mobilize the humanitarian relief that is needed. We also hope to coordinate efforts to enable a Syrian-led transition before the regime’s actions tear the country apart. We’re looking for an inclusive democratic process. Ultimately, our shared values between the U.S. and the EU are the bedrock of our cooperation, and we are promoting those values together. We also discussed the situation in the Balkans. We share the view that the future of both Serbia and Kosovo lies with the European Union, and the United States strongly supports the dialogue that the EU is leading to try to advance Euro-integration for both Serbia and Kosovo. Deputy Secretary Burns is encouraging both sides to remain flexible and open to compromise. We have a – we have a very long list of what we discussed, but I’ll just end it there and turn it over to Lady Ashton with my appreciation for her leadership and the great partnership we have. MS. ASHTON: Well first of all, can I say what a pleasure it is to be back here and to be meeting and working as closely as I do with you. It is extremely significant that we’re meeting today, because we meet on the back of having received a letter from Dr. Jalili from Iran in response to my letter from October. As you said, we are consulting colleagues and analyzing closely what this letter would mean. Let me say that I think it’s good to see that the letter has arrived and that there is a potential possibility that Iran may be ready to start talks. We’ll continue to discuss and make sure that what we’re looking at is substantive, but I'm cautious and I’m optimistic at the same time for this. It also demonstrates the importance of the twin-track approach, that the pressure that we have put on together, the sanctions that have been put there because that’s the responsibility of the international community, I believe, they’re having an effect. But we, of course, want to resolve this through talks. And as you’ve said, Hillary, the situation in Syria is a cause for enormous concern, and we feel extremely worried about the level of violence and terror that is happening within that country. We’ve been very clear that President Assad should stand aside and should enable a process that would bring the people of Syria together, all of them. An inclusive process that can take the country forward. I want to commend the work of Nabil Elaraby, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, who has shown great leadership in bringing together the Arab community, but in coordination, working closely with the international community, to demonstrate that inclusivity and to demonstrate the leadership on the ground. I hope that the meeting next week will give us a chance to consider how we can support humanitarian efforts especially. And I will be working with the UN, the OIC, and the Arab League, as we did through the situation in Libya, on the humanitarian side of the challenges that we face. I hope it will also show, too, the international consensus to try and see the situation in Syria end. As you said, there are hundreds of things on our agendas at all times, and we keep in constant touch, so we can deal with only some of them at every meeting. The situation in Serbia-Kosovo, of course, is very important to the European Union because we do believe, as you rightly say, the future for both lies within the European Union. The team that we’ve got there at the moment are working closely together to try and support both into their future. I hope that both will be able to work on the plan that we’ve put to them that will enable Serbia to become a candidate, will enable Kosovo to move forward with visas, with trade, with economic support, and eventually to see its future as well with the European Union. Thank you. MS. NULAND: We have time for two today. We’ll start with The New York Times, Steve Myers. QUESTION: Madam Secretary, Lady Ashton, thank you. The Iranian letter refers to a readiness for dialogue, talks at the earliest possibility, and also, significantly, no preconditions in it for those talks. And yet you seem somewhat hesitant to embrace this. Is that that you think the letter is not sincere? And what more do you need to see before you could begin, or what next steps could you see for those talks to begin? Thank you. SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, as I think we both have said, we are evaluating the response. And our unity within the P-5+1 has been absolutely critical in dealing with Iran in the past. It remains so going forward. It takes time to consult and to do so in a thorough manner. So we need to give time to our partners in the P-5+1 process to do their own evaluation. But we’ve been clear about two things that I want to stress. First, as outlined in Cathy’s October letter to Iran, any conversation with Iran has to begin with a discussion of its nuclear program. And Iran’s response to Cathy’s letter does appear to acknowledge and accept that. And second, we must be assured that if we make a decision to go forward, we see a sustained effort by Iran to come to the table, to work until we have reached an outcome that has Iran coming back into compliance with their international obligations. So we’re evaluating all of these factors. But I think it’s fair to say – and of course, I’ll let Cathy speak for herself – that we think this is an important step, and we welcome the letter. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. I mean, exactly. We see the things that you’ve seen in the letter – no preconditions and a recognition of what we’ll be talking about. The next question, really, is to look at then where we left off in Istanbul. And you’ll recall that we put out in Istanbul a series of options for confidence-building measures, things that Iran could do that would help us move forward with the talks, things that the inspectors would be allowed to do, for example. We also said at that time they could come forward with their own ideas about what they wanted to do, so that this was a genuine open process. So for us, the evaluation now is also about thinking through okay, where did we leave off, where do we need to go next? If we start the talks, we want to sustain them. Therefore, we need to set in train the process whereby we can be clear what it is we mean to achieve and what we’re expecting from the Iranians. And that’s what we’re in the process of doing right now. QUESTION: Is the TRR still on the table? MS. ASHTON: Well, when we were talking in Istanbul, there were two sets of issues: one, the confidence-building measures I’ve described; the other was support for the TRR and for, of course,
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen: "New NATO – New Turkey"
http://bit.ly/wjzF6V
NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 17 Feb. 2012 "New NATO – New Turkey" Speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen held in Ankara, Turkey Minister Davutoglu - dear Ahmet, thank you very much for that very kind introduction. Ladies and gentlemen, It is indeed a great pleasure to be here today on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Turkey’s membership of the NATO Alliance. I have been looking very much forward to visiting Turkey today, and before proceeding I have to apologize that due to weather conditions I will have to leave immediately after my statement. But it is important for me to be here and tell you how much we appreciate Turkey’s contribution to our Alliance. Turkey has been a vital member of NATO for 60 years. Many things have changed in that time. But our commitment to each other has not. Turkey plays an important role in our operations and we are particularly grateful for your steadfast commitment to our ISAF operation. Turkey has an important voice in our decisions. And Turkey has a vital part to play in shaping our partnerships. Together, we are the most successful military Alliance in the world. So Turkey has done very much for NATO. It has shown its commitment to stability, security and solidarity time and time again. But NATO has also done a lot and does a lot for Turkey. Let me highlight just three of those benefits. First, Article 5. NATO’s founding treaty is still the world’s most powerful insurance policy. Its collective defence clause means you have 27 Allies ready, and willing, to help defend you. That was true when you stood on the cold war flank of the Alliance. It is just as true today. Second, the very existence of our Alliance sends a strong signal of solidarity. Any aggressor would think long and hard before upsetting your own stability and security. Because they know that to threaten one Ally is to threaten them all. By being a member of NATO, you benefit not just from your own contributions, but you benefit from other Allies’ contributions too. So the security each Ally gets out, is about more than just the security you contribute. And finally, consultation. NATO remains the only structured forum that brings together North America and Europe. It is a dynamic and unique forum for Allied consultations on both the political and the military dimensions of security. All decisions are taken by consensus. So Turkey’s voice matters. When your country speaks, its views are heard across all Allied capitals. And when NATO meets with its partners, Turkey’s views are heard across the world – from Stockholm to Sydney and from Algiers to Astana. For sixty years, Turkey has been a part of the transatlantic family. Turkey gains what all the family members gain – not just the promotion of our interests, but also the protection of our values. We believe in freedom. We believe in democracy. And we believe that the human desire for both will prevail against repression and dictatorship. We saw this in Tunisia. We saw this in Egypt. And we saw this in Libya. We are also seeing this today in Syria. I welcome Turkey’s efforts to bring a peaceful resolution to this crisis. And I agree with Foreign Minister Davutoglu, that the only way forward in Syria, as everywhere else, is to satisfy the democratic aspirations of the people. Ladies and gentlemen, I have been NATO Secretary General for two and a half years now. During that time, I have greatly valued Turkey’s role in the Alliance. And I believe that, as the Arab Spring unfolds, continued Turkish leadership will be crucial for a peaceful future. Many choose to focus on the short-term problems of the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. I choose to focus on the long-term opportunities. And I believe we should seize them with both hands. So that we keep alive the dream of freedom, security, and stability. And open a new era of cooperation between NATO, Turkey, and countries in this region. Turkey brings together East and West, North and South. Its strong heart beats where Europe, Asia and the Mediterranean all meet. And that is a great advantage, for Turkey, and for us all. Thank you very much.
http://bit.ly/wjzF6V
NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 17 Feb. 2012 "New NATO – New Turkey" Speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen held in Ankara, Turkey Minister Davutoglu - dear Ahmet, thank you very much for that very kind introduction. Ladies and gentlemen, It is indeed a great pleasure to be here today on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Turkey’s membership of the NATO Alliance. I have been looking very much forward to visiting Turkey today, and before proceeding I have to apologize that due to weather conditions I will have to leave immediately after my statement. But it is important for me to be here and tell you how much we appreciate Turkey’s contribution to our Alliance. Turkey has been a vital member of NATO for 60 years. Many things have changed in that time. But our commitment to each other has not. Turkey plays an important role in our operations and we are particularly grateful for your steadfast commitment to our ISAF operation. Turkey has an important voice in our decisions. And Turkey has a vital part to play in shaping our partnerships. Together, we are the most successful military Alliance in the world. So Turkey has done very much for NATO. It has shown its commitment to stability, security and solidarity time and time again. But NATO has also done a lot and does a lot for Turkey. Let me highlight just three of those benefits. First, Article 5. NATO’s founding treaty is still the world’s most powerful insurance policy. Its collective defence clause means you have 27 Allies ready, and willing, to help defend you. That was true when you stood on the cold war flank of the Alliance. It is just as true today. Second, the very existence of our Alliance sends a strong signal of solidarity. Any aggressor would think long and hard before upsetting your own stability and security. Because they know that to threaten one Ally is to threaten them all. By being a member of NATO, you benefit not just from your own contributions, but you benefit from other Allies’ contributions too. So the security each Ally gets out, is about more than just the security you contribute. And finally, consultation. NATO remains the only structured forum that brings together North America and Europe. It is a dynamic and unique forum for Allied consultations on both the political and the military dimensions of security. All decisions are taken by consensus. So Turkey’s voice matters. When your country speaks, its views are heard across all Allied capitals. And when NATO meets with its partners, Turkey’s views are heard across the world – from Stockholm to Sydney and from Algiers to Astana. For sixty years, Turkey has been a part of the transatlantic family. Turkey gains what all the family members gain – not just the promotion of our interests, but also the protection of our values. We believe in freedom. We believe in democracy. And we believe that the human desire for both will prevail against repression and dictatorship. We saw this in Tunisia. We saw this in Egypt. And we saw this in Libya. We are also seeing this today in Syria. I welcome Turkey’s efforts to bring a peaceful resolution to this crisis. And I agree with Foreign Minister Davutoglu, that the only way forward in Syria, as everywhere else, is to satisfy the democratic aspirations of the people. Ladies and gentlemen, I have been NATO Secretary General for two and a half years now. During that time, I have greatly valued Turkey’s role in the Alliance. And I believe that, as the Arab Spring unfolds, continued Turkish leadership will be crucial for a peaceful future. Many choose to focus on the short-term problems of the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. I choose to focus on the long-term opportunities. And I believe we should seize them with both hands. So that we keep alive the dream of freedom, security, and stability. And open a new era of cooperation between NATO, Turkey, and countries in this region. Turkey brings together East and West, North and South. Its strong heart beats where Europe, Asia and the Mediterranean all meet. And that is a great advantage, for Turkey, and for us all. Thank you very much.
Pakistan allies with Iran against US
http://bit.ly/yqpnpm
Pakistan has pledged to support Iran if the US launches a military attack against the Islamic Republic. The Pakistani president assured the Iranian leader that his country’s territory will not be used as a launch pad for such an assault. Should the United Stated decide to attack Iran, Pakistan will not support the move and will not allow the US to use its local airbases for military operations, the Pakistani leader Asif Ali Zardari said on Friday. His assurances of support came during a meeting of the leaders of Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan in Islamabad. The talks are seen as Pakistan’s way of sending a message of defiance to the US. Meanwhile, Turkey has denied Israel the right to use intelligence from its NATO radar system. In the wake of a recent US-Israel joint missile test and the ongoing tensions between Ankara and Tel Aviv, Turkish FM Ahmet Davutoglu said on Friday that any intelligence gathered by the NATO facilities should not be shared with a third country, especially if the country is Israel. Relations between Pakistan and the US are at an all-time low, after a November US air strike on a Pakistani border post killed 24 troops who were mistaken for Taliban militants. It took the Pentagon a month to reluctantly admit their part of the blame for the deadly mistake and offer apologies. But even without military facilities on Pakistani soil, Washington and its allies already have more than enough military force accumulated in the region to unleash full-scale war on Iran. The American aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln passed through the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday , joining another US battle group already positioned in the region headed by the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson. Yet another aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, is expected to join the strike force in March. The buildup of the US and its allies’ military presence has “turned the Gulf into a weapons depot,” Iran's Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said on Tuesday. The West considers Iran’s controversial nuclear program – which Washington and others claim without evidence to be at least partly military – to be a threat to be dealt with by any means necessary. But so far neither extensive economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic nor the assassinations of top Iranian nuclear scientists has stopped Iran from working on developing nuclear power, which Tehran maintains is solely civilian. A military operation against Iran is considered by many to be the most likely outcome of Iran’s refusal to stop its nuclear research. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, however, has rejected the possibility of a military strike on Iranian nuclear sites as an alternative to diplomacy. “There is no alternative to a peaceful resolution on this issue,” Ban said Friday. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak believes that a “nuclear Iran will be more complicated to deal with, more dangerous and more costly in blood than if it is stopped today.” “Whoever says 'later,' might find that it will be too late,” Barak said. Earlier in February, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta noted the “strong possibility” of an Israeli strike on Iran in either April, May or June , before Iran enters a so-called "immunity zone," when its nuclear facilities will be too heavily fortified for an attack to succeed, the Washington Post reported. The attack on Iran, however, would be like committing a suicide, said Iranian Ambassador to Russia Seyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi last week. "The issue of a military attack from America on the Islamic Republic of Iran has been on the agenda for several years," said Sajjadi. “If it attacks, we have a list of counter actions.” Despite such self-confidence, it is highly unlikely that Iran will initiate an attack unless provoked by the US or Israel , says US Defense Intelligence Agency Director Ronald Burgess. "Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz at least temporarily, and may launch missiles against United States forces and our allies in the region if it is attacked," Burgess said. Tehran has repeatedly threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, which connects Gulf oil exporters with the Arabian Sea, if any sort of a military attack is carried out against the republic.
http://bit.ly/yqpnpm
Pakistan has pledged to support Iran if the US launches a military attack against the Islamic Republic. The Pakistani president assured the Iranian leader that his country’s territory will not be used as a launch pad for such an assault. Should the United Stated decide to attack Iran, Pakistan will not support the move and will not allow the US to use its local airbases for military operations, the Pakistani leader Asif Ali Zardari said on Friday. His assurances of support came during a meeting of the leaders of Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan in Islamabad. The talks are seen as Pakistan’s way of sending a message of defiance to the US. Meanwhile, Turkey has denied Israel the right to use intelligence from its NATO radar system. In the wake of a recent US-Israel joint missile test and the ongoing tensions between Ankara and Tel Aviv, Turkish FM Ahmet Davutoglu said on Friday that any intelligence gathered by the NATO facilities should not be shared with a third country, especially if the country is Israel. Relations between Pakistan and the US are at an all-time low, after a November US air strike on a Pakistani border post killed 24 troops who were mistaken for Taliban militants. It took the Pentagon a month to reluctantly admit their part of the blame for the deadly mistake and offer apologies. But even without military facilities on Pakistani soil, Washington and its allies already have more than enough military force accumulated in the region to unleash full-scale war on Iran. The American aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln passed through the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday , joining another US battle group already positioned in the region headed by the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson. Yet another aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, is expected to join the strike force in March. The buildup of the US and its allies’ military presence has “turned the Gulf into a weapons depot,” Iran's Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said on Tuesday. The West considers Iran’s controversial nuclear program – which Washington and others claim without evidence to be at least partly military – to be a threat to be dealt with by any means necessary. But so far neither extensive economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic nor the assassinations of top Iranian nuclear scientists has stopped Iran from working on developing nuclear power, which Tehran maintains is solely civilian. A military operation against Iran is considered by many to be the most likely outcome of Iran’s refusal to stop its nuclear research. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, however, has rejected the possibility of a military strike on Iranian nuclear sites as an alternative to diplomacy. “There is no alternative to a peaceful resolution on this issue,” Ban said Friday. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak believes that a “nuclear Iran will be more complicated to deal with, more dangerous and more costly in blood than if it is stopped today.” “Whoever says 'later,' might find that it will be too late,” Barak said. Earlier in February, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta noted the “strong possibility” of an Israeli strike on Iran in either April, May or June , before Iran enters a so-called "immunity zone," when its nuclear facilities will be too heavily fortified for an attack to succeed, the Washington Post reported. The attack on Iran, however, would be like committing a suicide, said Iranian Ambassador to Russia Seyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi last week. "The issue of a military attack from America on the Islamic Republic of Iran has been on the agenda for several years," said Sajjadi. “If it attacks, we have a list of counter actions.” Despite such self-confidence, it is highly unlikely that Iran will initiate an attack unless provoked by the US or Israel , says US Defense Intelligence Agency Director Ronald Burgess. "Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz at least temporarily, and may launch missiles against United States forces and our allies in the region if it is attacked," Burgess said. Tehran has repeatedly threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, which connects Gulf oil exporters with the Arabian Sea, if any sort of a military attack is carried out against the republic.
Person Arrested in Washington as Part of FBI Probe
http://bit.ly/woDdRv
February 17, 2012 VOA News U.S. federal authorities say they have arrested a person near the U.S. Capitol building who they say was seeking to carry out a terrorist attack. Officials say the suspect had sought to use what he thought were explosives in an attack on the Capitol. Law enforcement authorities say the explosives had been "rendered inoperable by law enforcement and posed no threat to the public." The U.S. Capitol Police say the person was detained Friday in the area of the Capitol as part of a "lengthy and extensive operation" with the FBI. The arrest comes one day after a Nigerian man was sentenced in the U.S. to life in prison for trying to bring down an Amsterdam-to-U.S. flight on Christmas Day 2009 with explosives hidden in his underwear. U.S. officials blame Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's plot on the Yemen-based branch of al-Qaida. Some information for this report was provided by AP.
http://bit.ly/woDdRv
February 17, 2012 VOA News U.S. federal authorities say they have arrested a person near the U.S. Capitol building who they say was seeking to carry out a terrorist attack. Officials say the suspect had sought to use what he thought were explosives in an attack on the Capitol. Law enforcement authorities say the explosives had been "rendered inoperable by law enforcement and posed no threat to the public." The U.S. Capitol Police say the person was detained Friday in the area of the Capitol as part of a "lengthy and extensive operation" with the FBI. The arrest comes one day after a Nigerian man was sentenced in the U.S. to life in prison for trying to bring down an Amsterdam-to-U.S. flight on Christmas Day 2009 with explosives hidden in his underwear. U.S. officials blame Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's plot on the Yemen-based branch of al-Qaida. Some information for this report was provided by AP.
Gold falls after Bernanke comments
http://bit.ly/A6VhFT
By Jeremy Holcombe Contributing writer for Goldco Direct and End the Lie Well, we all know it can’t be good news everyday. Today Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke spoke, and gold tumbled immediately. Bernanke stated that the improvements in the United States economy may have lessened the need for more stimulus packages. Basically, he said that the Federal Reserve would not want to put any more money into the U.S. economy if it continues to perform like it is currently. On Bernanke’s comments Gold for April delivery fell by $63.70 to end up at $1,724.70 an ounce at the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange earlier today. The price of gold traded as high as $1,792.30 and as low as $1,708.40 an ounce while the spot price of gold lost $60.50. During his speech before congress – the same speech he gives semi-annually, Bernake painted the picture that the pace of economic growth has been "uneven and modest by historical standards." However, he also did acknowledge that there was some improvement in the labor market and said that headwinds like Europe and a weak housing market would fade beyond 2012. So this was some good news out of the speech. "Gold market participants are taking profit taking opportunity in conjunction with the Fed Chairman's comments regarding monetary policy," said Jeff Wright, senior research analyst with Global Hunter Securities. "With the recent run up in gold and silver; no fund manager wants to be the 'Bag-Holder' if a true correction back to the $1600 range occurs.... Our thesis of gradual appreciation is still intact but with periods of volatility in both gold and silver markets. I believe longer term investors will step in to support gold and silver if the sell off continues in the coming days." While gold did drop quite a bit early on today, there is simply no real reason to think that the overall outlook of the yellow metal is in any danger. As I have stated time and time again, gold will drop with news like this, but it will also spike back up fairly quickly. I chose to interpret the Bernanke comments in a different way. Since he is stating that there would be no more Federal Reserve money pumped into the United States economy if it continued to perform like this, I took that as a sign that the economy is finally making some headway and getting back to where it needs to be. Personally, I know that I will use this price drop in gold as an opportunity to buy more at a lower price. The above article is for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation by End the Lie or Goldco Direct . It is the commentator’s opinion only and not intended for investment recommendations, and does not necessarily reflect the views of End the Lie or Goldco Direct . Any references to outside sources are believed to be accurate. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. All commodities involve risk. Investors should consult their financial adviser before making any investment decisions.
http://bit.ly/A6VhFT
By Jeremy Holcombe Contributing writer for Goldco Direct and End the Lie Well, we all know it can’t be good news everyday. Today Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke spoke, and gold tumbled immediately. Bernanke stated that the improvements in the United States economy may have lessened the need for more stimulus packages. Basically, he said that the Federal Reserve would not want to put any more money into the U.S. economy if it continues to perform like it is currently. On Bernanke’s comments Gold for April delivery fell by $63.70 to end up at $1,724.70 an ounce at the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange earlier today. The price of gold traded as high as $1,792.30 and as low as $1,708.40 an ounce while the spot price of gold lost $60.50. During his speech before congress – the same speech he gives semi-annually, Bernake painted the picture that the pace of economic growth has been "uneven and modest by historical standards." However, he also did acknowledge that there was some improvement in the labor market and said that headwinds like Europe and a weak housing market would fade beyond 2012. So this was some good news out of the speech. "Gold market participants are taking profit taking opportunity in conjunction with the Fed Chairman's comments regarding monetary policy," said Jeff Wright, senior research analyst with Global Hunter Securities. "With the recent run up in gold and silver; no fund manager wants to be the 'Bag-Holder' if a true correction back to the $1600 range occurs.... Our thesis of gradual appreciation is still intact but with periods of volatility in both gold and silver markets. I believe longer term investors will step in to support gold and silver if the sell off continues in the coming days." While gold did drop quite a bit early on today, there is simply no real reason to think that the overall outlook of the yellow metal is in any danger. As I have stated time and time again, gold will drop with news like this, but it will also spike back up fairly quickly. I chose to interpret the Bernanke comments in a different way. Since he is stating that there would be no more Federal Reserve money pumped into the United States economy if it continued to perform like this, I took that as a sign that the economy is finally making some headway and getting back to where it needs to be. Personally, I know that I will use this price drop in gold as an opportunity to buy more at a lower price. The above article is for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation by End the Lie or Goldco Direct . It is the commentator’s opinion only and not intended for investment recommendations, and does not necessarily reflect the views of End the Lie or Goldco Direct . Any references to outside sources are believed to be accurate. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. All commodities involve risk. Investors should consult their financial adviser before making any investment decisions.
Alabama refuses to allow DNA test which could exonerate death row inmate
http://ping.fm/lWksG
By Madison Ruppert Editor of End the Lie [caption id="attachment_39505" align="alignleft" width="230" caption="Thomas Arthur"] [/caption] Three decades ago, Thomas Arthur was convicted of murder. He is scheduled to be executed next month, despite the many uncertainties in the prosecution’s case against him. As you read on about the events that have taken place since the murder of Troy Wicker on February 1, 1982, you will likely come to be astounded by the absurdity of the state's case against Arthur. That being said, I must be fair in my treatment of this man. Arthur is far from a man I am quick to feel sorry for, especially given his escape from jail in 1986 which involved shooting a prison guard. Then again, as Andrew Cohen, a contributing editor at The Atlantic and 60 Minutes legal analyst points out , when one looks at the history of this case it becomes clear that there is something very wrong. The case makes so little sense it is almost mind boggling. Alabama actually convicted Arthur and sentenced him to death a whopping three times and every time there were problems at trial. Yet the most absurd part of the whole debacle is the fact that the prosecution’s entire case hinges on the testimony of the victim’s wife, Judy Wicker, who claimed at the time that she had been raped by a stranger. Alabama investigators repeatedly asked if Arthur was involved and she said no every time. But the whole story changed after Wicker was convicted to murder and subsequently sentenced to life in prison. She cut a deal with prosecutors and in exchange for a recommended early release; she changed her testimony and accused Arthur of the crime. For over two decades state and federal courts have upheld the third and final conviction of Arthur based on Wicker’s clearly untrue testimony. This entire debacle would be ludicrous enough if it ended there, but it only gets worse. In 2008 Bobby Ray Gilbert, who was already serving life in prison without parole for stabbing another inmate to death over cigarettes, confessed under oath that he murdered Troy Wicker, not Arthur. At the time, an attorney for the state claimed that Gilbert lacked credibility, even though he clearly had nothing to gain from the confession. Gilbert gave many gruesome details about the crime, including the exact weapon and distance from which he shot Wicker. In Gilbert’s affidavit he testified that he was paid $2,000 by Wicker’s wife, who he was having an affair with at the time. He testified that Wicker instructed him to have sex after the crime and beat her, which lead to her claim that the burglar raped her and killed her husband, which of course turned out to be a complete lie. The fact that it is even legal for someone to get released early after changing testimony at the behest of prosecutors is quite disturbing. It is also a perfect example of just how flawed the American “justice” system really is. Gilbert’s story could very easily be verified, since he said that he wore a disguise during the murder consisting of an “Afro wig” and dark makeup. After the murder, Gilbert said he drove Wicker’s car to a parking lot to meet his cousin, still wearing the disguise. Later, police recovered the vehicle and found the “Afro wig” inside it in the parking lot of Northwest Alabama State Junior College. This is the wig which Arthur’s attorneys want tested for DNA, as it would definitively substantiate Gilbert’s confession and thus exonerate Arthur completely. While it is indeed curious that Gilbert would choose to wait more than 25 years to come forward with his confession, Arthur’s attorneys make it quite clear why he waited. “Gilbert explained that he did not come forward with his confession earlier because he feared receiving the death penalty, and only confessed after the United States Supreme Court ruled that a minor at the time of the crime could not receive the death penalty,” Arthur’s attorneys said. The Supreme Court decision referred to here is Roper v. Simmons , a 2005 decision which determined that executing murders under 18 at the time of the crime violated protection from cruel and unusual punishment under the 8 th Amendment. After the Alabama Supreme Court stayed his execution date in 2008, he was given the opportunity to test the case’s key evidence for DNA. No evidence linked either Arthur or Gilbert to the crime, but Judy Wicker’s rape kit (which would likely carry Gilbert’s DNA due to the fact that Gilbert claims they had unprotected sex after the crime) was missing from the list of evidence and had been before Arthur’s third and final trial in 1991. Forensic experts discovered DNA on the wig but for some reason were unable to use it to develop a comparative DNA profile which could have exonerated Arthur. The hearing was even more farcical than the rest of the case. Arthur called on Gilbert to repeat his confession in open court, but Gilbert exercised his 5 th Amendment right to remain silent. Arthur’s attorneys say this was due to Gilbert being punished by prison officials after giving his original confession. Unsurprisingly, Alabama denied any wrongdoing and claimed that Gilbert said he would recant his confession entirely if he was given back certain prison privileges. It appears that Gilbert was taking note of the maneuvers made by Judy Wicker and was trying to exploit a thoroughly corrupt system like she had. Judy Wicker herself also took the stand and claimed that Gilbert was lying. The judge ruled that Gilbert and Arthur were attempting to “perpetuate a fraud” against the court and rejected Gilbert’s story entirely. She nonsensically claimed that the lack of DNA evidence linking Gilbert to the murder scientifically proved that Gilbert was giving a false confession. Of course, if one used the same logic and applied it to Arthur’s case, one would conclude that it was scientifically proven that Arthur was innocent. The attorneys for Arthur are challenging this ruling and now are calling for more advanced DNA testing on the wig which was not available to Alabama back in 2008 and 2009 when the original testing took place. In an email to Cohen Suhana Han, Arthur’s lead attorney, explained why they are calling for a new test, The test we are proposing today (mini-STR DNA typing) may be able to detect a profile where standard autosomal STR typing (the test conducted by the Alabama Dep't of Forensic Sciences in 2009) cannot. Mini-STR DNA typing is a specialized form of autosomal STR typing that can produce a profile when standard autosomal typing fails because the pieces of DNA are too small to be picked up by that system. The mini-STR DNA typing "looks" at a smaller segment of DNA, making it more likely to get a profile out of a degraded sample. Han said that if this new profile matched anyone other than Arthur they “would consider that evidence that Mr. Arthur didn't wear the wig all parties agree was worn by the perpetrator.” Alabama claims, “[E]vidence presented at the [2009] hearing established that while Arthur and Gilbert were both incarcerated at Holman Correctional Facility, the two men passed notes to one another so that Gilbert would have enough information about Troy Wicker's murder to confess to it.” Cohen rightly points back to the fact that Arthur murdered a prison guard during his escape, which means that it is highly doubtful that guards would be compliant with Arthur and pass notes for him. Alabama claims that just the supposed lack of credibility of Gilbert is enough to justify the judge’s conclusion that Arthur was not entitled to any relief and thus has no responsibility to authorize any additional testing, even though the attorneys for Arthur have offered to foot the bill. Furthermore, Alabama is alleging that the advanced testing requested by Arthur’s representation is no better than the tests conducted years ago. They also claim that there is no more DNA left on the wig, although this could be verified through actual DNA testing and not the unilateral claims of a clearly corrupt prosecutor’s office. Cohen rightly states, “The fact that Arthur's attorneys are willing to pay for the test makes the state's refusal to test unconscionable.” This is especially true when one considers the astounding amount of money that the state prosecution must have poured into Arthur’s case. Considering that they had to pay for years of prosecution, imprisonment, investigation and eventually defending their conviction, the sum is quite likely astronomical. Cohen su
http://ping.fm/lWksG
By Madison Ruppert Editor of End the Lie [caption id="attachment_39505" align="alignleft" width="230" caption="Thomas Arthur"] [/caption] Three decades ago, Thomas Arthur was convicted of murder. He is scheduled to be executed next month, despite the many uncertainties in the prosecution’s case against him. As you read on about the events that have taken place since the murder of Troy Wicker on February 1, 1982, you will likely come to be astounded by the absurdity of the state's case against Arthur. That being said, I must be fair in my treatment of this man. Arthur is far from a man I am quick to feel sorry for, especially given his escape from jail in 1986 which involved shooting a prison guard. Then again, as Andrew Cohen, a contributing editor at The Atlantic and 60 Minutes legal analyst points out , when one looks at the history of this case it becomes clear that there is something very wrong. The case makes so little sense it is almost mind boggling. Alabama actually convicted Arthur and sentenced him to death a whopping three times and every time there were problems at trial. Yet the most absurd part of the whole debacle is the fact that the prosecution’s entire case hinges on the testimony of the victim’s wife, Judy Wicker, who claimed at the time that she had been raped by a stranger. Alabama investigators repeatedly asked if Arthur was involved and she said no every time. But the whole story changed after Wicker was convicted to murder and subsequently sentenced to life in prison. She cut a deal with prosecutors and in exchange for a recommended early release; she changed her testimony and accused Arthur of the crime. For over two decades state and federal courts have upheld the third and final conviction of Arthur based on Wicker’s clearly untrue testimony. This entire debacle would be ludicrous enough if it ended there, but it only gets worse. In 2008 Bobby Ray Gilbert, who was already serving life in prison without parole for stabbing another inmate to death over cigarettes, confessed under oath that he murdered Troy Wicker, not Arthur. At the time, an attorney for the state claimed that Gilbert lacked credibility, even though he clearly had nothing to gain from the confession. Gilbert gave many gruesome details about the crime, including the exact weapon and distance from which he shot Wicker. In Gilbert’s affidavit he testified that he was paid $2,000 by Wicker’s wife, who he was having an affair with at the time. He testified that Wicker instructed him to have sex after the crime and beat her, which lead to her claim that the burglar raped her and killed her husband, which of course turned out to be a complete lie. The fact that it is even legal for someone to get released early after changing testimony at the behest of prosecutors is quite disturbing. It is also a perfect example of just how flawed the American “justice” system really is. Gilbert’s story could very easily be verified, since he said that he wore a disguise during the murder consisting of an “Afro wig” and dark makeup. After the murder, Gilbert said he drove Wicker’s car to a parking lot to meet his cousin, still wearing the disguise. Later, police recovered the vehicle and found the “Afro wig” inside it in the parking lot of Northwest Alabama State Junior College. This is the wig which Arthur’s attorneys want tested for DNA, as it would definitively substantiate Gilbert’s confession and thus exonerate Arthur completely. While it is indeed curious that Gilbert would choose to wait more than 25 years to come forward with his confession, Arthur’s attorneys make it quite clear why he waited. “Gilbert explained that he did not come forward with his confession earlier because he feared receiving the death penalty, and only confessed after the United States Supreme Court ruled that a minor at the time of the crime could not receive the death penalty,” Arthur’s attorneys said. The Supreme Court decision referred to here is Roper v. Simmons , a 2005 decision which determined that executing murders under 18 at the time of the crime violated protection from cruel and unusual punishment under the 8 th Amendment. After the Alabama Supreme Court stayed his execution date in 2008, he was given the opportunity to test the case’s key evidence for DNA. No evidence linked either Arthur or Gilbert to the crime, but Judy Wicker’s rape kit (which would likely carry Gilbert’s DNA due to the fact that Gilbert claims they had unprotected sex after the crime) was missing from the list of evidence and had been before Arthur’s third and final trial in 1991. Forensic experts discovered DNA on the wig but for some reason were unable to use it to develop a comparative DNA profile which could have exonerated Arthur. The hearing was even more farcical than the rest of the case. Arthur called on Gilbert to repeat his confession in open court, but Gilbert exercised his 5 th Amendment right to remain silent. Arthur’s attorneys say this was due to Gilbert being punished by prison officials after giving his original confession. Unsurprisingly, Alabama denied any wrongdoing and claimed that Gilbert said he would recant his confession entirely if he was given back certain prison privileges. It appears that Gilbert was taking note of the maneuvers made by Judy Wicker and was trying to exploit a thoroughly corrupt system like she had. Judy Wicker herself also took the stand and claimed that Gilbert was lying. The judge ruled that Gilbert and Arthur were attempting to “perpetuate a fraud” against the court and rejected Gilbert’s story entirely. She nonsensically claimed that the lack of DNA evidence linking Gilbert to the murder scientifically proved that Gilbert was giving a false confession. Of course, if one used the same logic and applied it to Arthur’s case, one would conclude that it was scientifically proven that Arthur was innocent. The attorneys for Arthur are challenging this ruling and now are calling for more advanced DNA testing on the wig which was not available to Alabama back in 2008 and 2009 when the original testing took place. In an email to Cohen Suhana Han, Arthur’s lead attorney, explained why they are calling for a new test, The test we are proposing today (mini-STR DNA typing) may be able to detect a profile where standard autosomal STR typing (the test conducted by the Alabama Dep't of Forensic Sciences in 2009) cannot. Mini-STR DNA typing is a specialized form of autosomal STR typing that can produce a profile when standard autosomal typing fails because the pieces of DNA are too small to be picked up by that system. The mini-STR DNA typing "looks" at a smaller segment of DNA, making it more likely to get a profile out of a degraded sample. Han said that if this new profile matched anyone other than Arthur they “would consider that evidence that Mr. Arthur didn't wear the wig all parties agree was worn by the perpetrator.” Alabama claims, “[E]vidence presented at the [2009] hearing established that while Arthur and Gilbert were both incarcerated at Holman Correctional Facility, the two men passed notes to one another so that Gilbert would have enough information about Troy Wicker's murder to confess to it.” Cohen rightly points back to the fact that Arthur murdered a prison guard during his escape, which means that it is highly doubtful that guards would be compliant with Arthur and pass notes for him. Alabama claims that just the supposed lack of credibility of Gilbert is enough to justify the judge’s conclusion that Arthur was not entitled to any relief and thus has no responsibility to authorize any additional testing, even though the attorneys for Arthur have offered to foot the bill. Furthermore, Alabama is alleging that the advanced testing requested by Arthur’s representation is no better than the tests conducted years ago. They also claim that there is no more DNA left on the wig, although this could be verified through actual DNA testing and not the unilateral claims of a clearly corrupt prosecutor’s office. Cohen rightly states, “The fact that Arthur's attorneys are willing to pay for the test makes the state's refusal to test unconscionable.” This is especially true when one considers the astounding amount of money that the state prosecution must have poured into Arthur’s case. Considering that they had to pay for years of prosecution, imprisonment, investigation and eventually defending their conviction, the sum is quite likely astronomical. Cohen su
How the government reads your emails without a warrant
http://bit.ly/y8huPs
Worried that the US government might be able to read your emails? Don’t be — they already can! The American Civil Liberties Union is asking the feds to come clean on why — and what — they do with the personal correspondence of its citizens. The ACLU has filed request under the US Freedom of Information Act in hopes of learning more about the powers the government has granted itself to snoop through the emails, texts and instant messages of Americans. Being able to browse through correspondence without a warrant is a power that the government has had for ages, but with the Internet making sending mail as easy as a click of a button, the ACLU says it is about time the feds fix their current policies. The organization writes in a recent press release that they are going after the FBI, US Justice Department, IRS and US Attorneys Offices around the country with the intent of figuring out why the government is so interested in sticking its nose in the inboxes of millions of Americans. They have sent FOIA requests to all of those agencies in which they ask “about the government’s policies, procedures and practices for accessing the content of private electronic communications.” In the long run, the ACLU hopes for a law change. The ACLU note that, since the 1870s, the government has been able to leer at the personal letters between Americans as long as they are older than 180 days, all without a warrant. Such legislation is also applied to electronic communication, but with ever expanding technology allowing Internet users to essentially keep communiqué on file for an eternity, this allows for not just impressively large “unread message” counts on inboxes across America — it also gives the government at even large cache of correspondence to call their own — without a warrant. “In an era when everyone stores their email forever, this rule makes no sense and puts a great deal of personal information at risk,” writes the ACLU. “Unfortunately, the government continues to take advantage of an outdated law to read Americans' private electronic communications without a warrant.” The ACLU adds that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wrote in 2010 that “By obtaining access to someone's email, government agents gain the ability to peer deeply into his activities,” acknowledging the privacy violations could be brought up by government intervention in emails and texts. In the meantime, however, the government at large hasn’t addressed the issue. “The appeals court got it right, but its decision is only binding in a few states, and it's not clear that the government follows its guidance in much of the country,” adds the ACLU. “Once we hear back from the government, we will share what we learn.”
http://bit.ly/y8huPs
Worried that the US government might be able to read your emails? Don’t be — they already can! The American Civil Liberties Union is asking the feds to come clean on why — and what — they do with the personal correspondence of its citizens. The ACLU has filed request under the US Freedom of Information Act in hopes of learning more about the powers the government has granted itself to snoop through the emails, texts and instant messages of Americans. Being able to browse through correspondence without a warrant is a power that the government has had for ages, but with the Internet making sending mail as easy as a click of a button, the ACLU says it is about time the feds fix their current policies. The organization writes in a recent press release that they are going after the FBI, US Justice Department, IRS and US Attorneys Offices around the country with the intent of figuring out why the government is so interested in sticking its nose in the inboxes of millions of Americans. They have sent FOIA requests to all of those agencies in which they ask “about the government’s policies, procedures and practices for accessing the content of private electronic communications.” In the long run, the ACLU hopes for a law change. The ACLU note that, since the 1870s, the government has been able to leer at the personal letters between Americans as long as they are older than 180 days, all without a warrant. Such legislation is also applied to electronic communication, but with ever expanding technology allowing Internet users to essentially keep communiqué on file for an eternity, this allows for not just impressively large “unread message” counts on inboxes across America — it also gives the government at even large cache of correspondence to call their own — without a warrant. “In an era when everyone stores their email forever, this rule makes no sense and puts a great deal of personal information at risk,” writes the ACLU. “Unfortunately, the government continues to take advantage of an outdated law to read Americans' private electronic communications without a warrant.” The ACLU adds that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wrote in 2010 that “By obtaining access to someone's email, government agents gain the ability to peer deeply into his activities,” acknowledging the privacy violations could be brought up by government intervention in emails and texts. In the meantime, however, the government at large hasn’t addressed the issue. “The appeals court got it right, but its decision is only binding in a few states, and it's not clear that the government follows its guidance in much of the country,” adds the ACLU. “Once we hear back from the government, we will share what we learn.”
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Panetta, Dempsey: Sequestration Would Defeat Defense Strategy
http://bit.ly/AlhBbO
By Karen Parrish American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2012 – The Defense Department’s senior leaders strongly warned Congress today that doubling defense spending cuts would leave the military without a workable strategy to counter staggering global threats. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, along with Pentagon Comptroller Robert F. Hale, logged their third day of congressional budget testimony, speaking before the House Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee. Under the 2013 budget request, the Defense Department will spend $614 billion in fiscal 2013, divided between a $525.4 billion base budget and $88.5 billion covering war costs. The request incorporates the 2011 Budget Control Act’s requirement for a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years. The act also included a “sequestration” provision for an additional $500 billion in across-the-board cuts to take effect in January if Congress does not pass a plan to reduce the budget. “If additional efforts are made to go after the defense budget, I think it could have a serious impact in terms of our ability to implement the strategy,” Panetta said. Panetta repeatedly has emphasized the 2013 DOD budget request supports a new defense strategy, released in January, aimed at creating a smaller, more mobile and technologically advanced joint force. The secretary has also emphasized keeping faith with the all-volunteer force and the families who support them. While he doesn’t think Congress will permit sequestration, the secretary said, the threat alone is creating a “huge shadow of doubt” over defense industries, their workers and the military. Panetta outlined global threats from ongoing war in Afghanistan to challenges in the space and cyber domains to growing competition in the Pacific region and a volatile Middle East, where, he said, “any one of these countries could explode on us.” A half trillion dollars in new defense cuts could result in a military unprepared to meet those threats, he said. “It is very important that we get together -- both the administration and the Congress -- and we develop a package … to make sure this doesn't happen,” the secretary said. Dempsey said he shares the secretary’s “deep concerns, … actually, anxieties, about sequestration.” “The two things about sequestration that are alarming to us is one, the magnitude, [and] second, the mechanism,” he said. The law calls for across-the-board cuts if sequestration kicks in, but certain areas of military spending can’t be cut, the chairman explained. In restructuring the force, he noted, the current plan of trimming 124,000 troops over the next five years -- mostly from the Army and Marine Corps -- can’t be done much faster. Another round of service member reductions, which sequestration could require, would mean “we just … hand them a pink slip and send them off. And I don’t think anybody wants to do that,” he said. Infrastructure costs also are fixed, Dempsey said. Even if Congress approves new base realignment and closure processes, as the Defense Department has requested, the department won’t save any money on facilities for five to 10 years, he said. That leaves only a few budget areas the military could cut under sequestration, Dempsey said. “It’s coming out of three places, and that’s it,” the general said. “It’s coming out of equipment and modernization, that’s one. It’s coming out of maintenance, and it’s coming out of training. And then, we’ve hollowed out the force.” Dempsey told the House panel he has lived through two military drawdowns in his nearly four-decade career: one after Vietnam, and another after Desert Storm. The current drawdown is different, he said, because the previous two happened during a period of relative stability. “In my personal military judgment, formed over 38 years, we are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime right now, and I think sequestration would be completely oblivious to that, and counterproductive,” the chairman said. President Barack Obama was deeply involved with department leaders in developing the new defense strategy, Dempsey said. “It is a strategy that has to have this budget to support it,” he added. “Anything beyond this, we have to go back to the drawing board on the strategy.” The defense strategy is an aggregate of military objectives, the resources available, and how to meet those objectives with those resources, he said. “We’ve got it balanced right now,” the chairman said. “But any change in the future means we have to go back and redo our strategy.”
http://bit.ly/AlhBbO
By Karen Parrish American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2012 – The Defense Department’s senior leaders strongly warned Congress today that doubling defense spending cuts would leave the military without a workable strategy to counter staggering global threats. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, along with Pentagon Comptroller Robert F. Hale, logged their third day of congressional budget testimony, speaking before the House Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee. Under the 2013 budget request, the Defense Department will spend $614 billion in fiscal 2013, divided between a $525.4 billion base budget and $88.5 billion covering war costs. The request incorporates the 2011 Budget Control Act’s requirement for a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years. The act also included a “sequestration” provision for an additional $500 billion in across-the-board cuts to take effect in January if Congress does not pass a plan to reduce the budget. “If additional efforts are made to go after the defense budget, I think it could have a serious impact in terms of our ability to implement the strategy,” Panetta said. Panetta repeatedly has emphasized the 2013 DOD budget request supports a new defense strategy, released in January, aimed at creating a smaller, more mobile and technologically advanced joint force. The secretary has also emphasized keeping faith with the all-volunteer force and the families who support them. While he doesn’t think Congress will permit sequestration, the secretary said, the threat alone is creating a “huge shadow of doubt” over defense industries, their workers and the military. Panetta outlined global threats from ongoing war in Afghanistan to challenges in the space and cyber domains to growing competition in the Pacific region and a volatile Middle East, where, he said, “any one of these countries could explode on us.” A half trillion dollars in new defense cuts could result in a military unprepared to meet those threats, he said. “It is very important that we get together -- both the administration and the Congress -- and we develop a package … to make sure this doesn't happen,” the secretary said. Dempsey said he shares the secretary’s “deep concerns, … actually, anxieties, about sequestration.” “The two things about sequestration that are alarming to us is one, the magnitude, [and] second, the mechanism,” he said. The law calls for across-the-board cuts if sequestration kicks in, but certain areas of military spending can’t be cut, the chairman explained. In restructuring the force, he noted, the current plan of trimming 124,000 troops over the next five years -- mostly from the Army and Marine Corps -- can’t be done much faster. Another round of service member reductions, which sequestration could require, would mean “we just … hand them a pink slip and send them off. And I don’t think anybody wants to do that,” he said. Infrastructure costs also are fixed, Dempsey said. Even if Congress approves new base realignment and closure processes, as the Defense Department has requested, the department won’t save any money on facilities for five to 10 years, he said. That leaves only a few budget areas the military could cut under sequestration, Dempsey said. “It’s coming out of three places, and that’s it,” the general said. “It’s coming out of equipment and modernization, that’s one. It’s coming out of maintenance, and it’s coming out of training. And then, we’ve hollowed out the force.” Dempsey told the House panel he has lived through two military drawdowns in his nearly four-decade career: one after Vietnam, and another after Desert Storm. The current drawdown is different, he said, because the previous two happened during a period of relative stability. “In my personal military judgment, formed over 38 years, we are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime right now, and I think sequestration would be completely oblivious to that, and counterproductive,” the chairman said. President Barack Obama was deeply involved with department leaders in developing the new defense strategy, Dempsey said. “It is a strategy that has to have this budget to support it,” he added. “Anything beyond this, we have to go back to the drawing board on the strategy.” The defense strategy is an aggregate of military objectives, the resources available, and how to meet those objectives with those resources, he said. “We’ve got it balanced right now,” the chairman said. “But any change in the future means we have to go back and redo our strategy.”
International raids result in arrests of 25 suspected Anonymous hackers
http://bit.ly/wK4D0c
By Madison Ruppert Editor of End the Lie Twenty-five alleged members of Anonymous were arrested in a worldwide sweep Tuesday, according to Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization. Anonymous, which The New York Times characterizes as a “loose-knit … hacker movement” cannot actually be defined with any degree of certainty due to the fact that anyone and everyone can call themselves a member of Anonymous. However, the group has become infamous for organizing and/or taking credit for a series of “hacktivist” operations where entities were deliberately targeted for attack. In a statement, Interpol said that arrests occurred in Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Spain by national law enforcement personnel who were working with Interpol’s Latin American Working Group of Experts on Information Technology Crime. The suspects are accused of planning coordinated cyber attacks on various institutions around the world including the Colombian defense ministry and president’s websites, the Endesa electric company of Chile and their national library, and the websites of Spanish political parites, among other targets. According to the Associated Press , those arrested ranged widely in age from 17-years-old all the way up to 40 and were the result of an ongoing investigation which began in mid-February. Interpol reports that the investigation has already resulted in searches in 40 locations across 15 cities and the seizure of 250 pieces of “information technology equipment” and cellular phones. According to police in Spain, four of the 25 individuals arrested were suspected of hacking Spanish political party websites and two servers in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic used by the group have been blocked. They claim that one of the four individuals arrested was actually the suspected manager of Anonymous computer operations in both Spain and Latin America. This individual, identified solely by the aliases “Thunder” and “Pacotron” along with his initials, would be quite a high value target if he indeed is the “manager” of such operations. However, the distributed nature of Anonymous makes me suspicious of any claims that they could catch a “manager” given the non-hierarchical nature of the group and the fact that they would likely avoid putting any inordinate amount of power or information in the hands of just one person. The four suspects spoken of by the Spanish police are accused of carrying out denial of service (DOS) attacks, defacing websites and publishing data about the police who were assigned to the royal palace and the office of the premier on the internet. The mainstream media’s coverage of Anonymous has been marked with abject ignorance, but it appears that they have begun to grasp what the group is about and how it is made up. “Anonymous has no real membership structure. Hackers, activists, and supporters can claim allegiance to its freewheeling principles so it is not clear what impact the arrests will have,” the Associated Press wrote. The Associated Press coverage mentions talk of a possible revenge attack on the Interpol website and at the time of writing they reported that “the police organization’s home page appeared to be operating normally late Tuesday.” However, when I attempted to access the page at 8:17 PM Pacific Standard Time on February 28, it was in fact completely offline as confirmed by several services utilizing servers across the world. Anonymous has been around for quite a while now, although their activities have become growingly political in nature over recent years. What could be perceived as one of their greatest successes, and thus humiliations for law enforcement, was achieved earlier this month when members of Anonymous were able to listen in on a conference call between the American Federal Bureau of Investigations, Scotland Yard and other foreign police entities. The call, which you can listen to below, was dealing with the agencies’ joint investigation into Anonymous and similar groups. http://ping.fm/OTJ3A Anonymous doesn’t seem to be phased by this latest attempt to cripple the group, with one Twitter account claiming to be associated with Anonymous in Brazil said, “Interpol, you can’t take Anonymous. It’s an idea,” according to the Associated Press (I was unable to locate the tweet myself). Indeed this seems to be something that police agencies around the globe are missing. Arresting a handful of hacktivists isn’t going to do anything, in fact, it will likely just embolden them. If they really want to stop Anonymous, they’ll have to stop giving Anonymous a reason to do what they are doing. Previously I have been critical of Anonymous and the related Lulz Security, or LulzSec, group due to the fact that their activities can be used by politicians to fight internet freedom. Similarly, I see the Anonymous attack on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to be similar in its pointlessness. The attack, carried out earlier this month , achieved absolutely nothing and only served to give more support to people like Senator John McCain who are pushing to give the National Security Agency and military more control over the internet. If Anonymous really wants to make a difference I believe that they shouldn’t be adding fuel to the anti-internet freedom fire by carrying out attacks which are best characterized as “skiddie” or “script kiddie” attacks . Want to give me some feedback, tip me off to an important story or submit your own writing? Email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com
http://bit.ly/wK4D0c
By Madison Ruppert Editor of End the Lie Twenty-five alleged members of Anonymous were arrested in a worldwide sweep Tuesday, according to Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization. Anonymous, which The New York Times characterizes as a “loose-knit … hacker movement” cannot actually be defined with any degree of certainty due to the fact that anyone and everyone can call themselves a member of Anonymous. However, the group has become infamous for organizing and/or taking credit for a series of “hacktivist” operations where entities were deliberately targeted for attack. In a statement, Interpol said that arrests occurred in Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Spain by national law enforcement personnel who were working with Interpol’s Latin American Working Group of Experts on Information Technology Crime. The suspects are accused of planning coordinated cyber attacks on various institutions around the world including the Colombian defense ministry and president’s websites, the Endesa electric company of Chile and their national library, and the websites of Spanish political parites, among other targets. According to the Associated Press , those arrested ranged widely in age from 17-years-old all the way up to 40 and were the result of an ongoing investigation which began in mid-February. Interpol reports that the investigation has already resulted in searches in 40 locations across 15 cities and the seizure of 250 pieces of “information technology equipment” and cellular phones. According to police in Spain, four of the 25 individuals arrested were suspected of hacking Spanish political party websites and two servers in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic used by the group have been blocked. They claim that one of the four individuals arrested was actually the suspected manager of Anonymous computer operations in both Spain and Latin America. This individual, identified solely by the aliases “Thunder” and “Pacotron” along with his initials, would be quite a high value target if he indeed is the “manager” of such operations. However, the distributed nature of Anonymous makes me suspicious of any claims that they could catch a “manager” given the non-hierarchical nature of the group and the fact that they would likely avoid putting any inordinate amount of power or information in the hands of just one person. The four suspects spoken of by the Spanish police are accused of carrying out denial of service (DOS) attacks, defacing websites and publishing data about the police who were assigned to the royal palace and the office of the premier on the internet. The mainstream media’s coverage of Anonymous has been marked with abject ignorance, but it appears that they have begun to grasp what the group is about and how it is made up. “Anonymous has no real membership structure. Hackers, activists, and supporters can claim allegiance to its freewheeling principles so it is not clear what impact the arrests will have,” the Associated Press wrote. The Associated Press coverage mentions talk of a possible revenge attack on the Interpol website and at the time of writing they reported that “the police organization’s home page appeared to be operating normally late Tuesday.” However, when I attempted to access the page at 8:17 PM Pacific Standard Time on February 28, it was in fact completely offline as confirmed by several services utilizing servers across the world. Anonymous has been around for quite a while now, although their activities have become growingly political in nature over recent years. What could be perceived as one of their greatest successes, and thus humiliations for law enforcement, was achieved earlier this month when members of Anonymous were able to listen in on a conference call between the American Federal Bureau of Investigations, Scotland Yard and other foreign police entities. The call, which you can listen to below, was dealing with the agencies’ joint investigation into Anonymous and similar groups. http://ping.fm/OTJ3A Anonymous doesn’t seem to be phased by this latest attempt to cripple the group, with one Twitter account claiming to be associated with Anonymous in Brazil said, “Interpol, you can’t take Anonymous. It’s an idea,” according to the Associated Press (I was unable to locate the tweet myself). Indeed this seems to be something that police agencies around the globe are missing. Arresting a handful of hacktivists isn’t going to do anything, in fact, it will likely just embolden them. If they really want to stop Anonymous, they’ll have to stop giving Anonymous a reason to do what they are doing. Previously I have been critical of Anonymous and the related Lulz Security, or LulzSec, group due to the fact that their activities can be used by politicians to fight internet freedom. Similarly, I see the Anonymous attack on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to be similar in its pointlessness. The attack, carried out earlier this month , achieved absolutely nothing and only served to give more support to people like Senator John McCain who are pushing to give the National Security Agency and military more control over the internet. If Anonymous really wants to make a difference I believe that they shouldn’t be adding fuel to the anti-internet freedom fire by carrying out attacks which are best characterized as “skiddie” or “script kiddie” attacks . Want to give me some feedback, tip me off to an important story or submit your own writing? Email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com
Is the current surge in silver price sustainable?
http://bit.ly/yhzbJp
By Jeremy Holcombe Contributing writer for Goldco Direct and End the Lie [caption id="attachment_39491" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="24 hour spot silver price covering February 27 and 28 (Image credit: Kitco)"] [/caption]Silver has been on fire for the first couple of months in 2012. The white metal has actually been the very best performing precious metal commodity since the start of the year. Currently, silver has gained more than 25 percent since the close of 2011. However, even with the amazing performance put on by silver in the opening months of 2012, the big question on the tips of every investor’s tongue is: will silver be able to sustain this type of performance for the rest of the year? This is a huge question, and answers may vary drastically depending on whom you speak with. Since I am the writer of this article, I am going to tell you what I believe silver will do for the rest of 2012. Silver has several things going for it, things that it will always have going for it that will help sustain the price to some degree. Perhaps the biggest pro that silver has on its side at any given point is the fact that the white metal is very heavily used within industries around the world. It is also used heavily within the healthcare field and thus is constantly in demand. From a supply and demand viewpoint, the demand just continues to grow. The fact that silver is being used faster than mining companies are able to mine it right now is actually a good thing. While something needs to be figured out in terms of solving this problem (there is an almost unlimited silver supply, mining companies just have to figure out how to get to it and how to mine it faster), the fact of the matter is that demand is so high for industrial use, that the metal will always have some value. Let us not forget the fact that silver is used in a great deal of jewelry, fine cutlery and tableware, and other luxury items. Now, add onto that fact that silver coins and silver bars are still very collectible and highly sought after for investment purposes and you have a nice mixture of opportunity for the white metal. Sure, silver had its ups and downs last year. It rose higher than it ever had in price before dropping for the last few months of 2011. However, many have speculated (myself included) that silver will make it to the $50 per ounce price range sometime this year, or at the very least get close to it. I think the overall outlook for silver is still excellent. It is used by so many industries that it will always have value even if the luxury items and collectibles fall out of demand. I believe that right now is a great time to get invested in some silver bars or silver coins if you’d like to get in on silver before the price goes even higher. At the very least you will be putting your money into something physical that will protect it. The above article is for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation by End the Lie or Goldco Direct . It is the commentator’s opinion only and not intended for investment recommendations, and does not necessarily reflect the views of End the Lie or Goldco Direct . Any references to outside sources are believed to be accurate. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. All commodities involve risk. Investors should consult their financial adviser before making any investment decisions.
http://bit.ly/yhzbJp
By Jeremy Holcombe Contributing writer for Goldco Direct and End the Lie [caption id="attachment_39491" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="24 hour spot silver price covering February 27 and 28 (Image credit: Kitco)"] [/caption]Silver has been on fire for the first couple of months in 2012. The white metal has actually been the very best performing precious metal commodity since the start of the year. Currently, silver has gained more than 25 percent since the close of 2011. However, even with the amazing performance put on by silver in the opening months of 2012, the big question on the tips of every investor’s tongue is: will silver be able to sustain this type of performance for the rest of the year? This is a huge question, and answers may vary drastically depending on whom you speak with. Since I am the writer of this article, I am going to tell you what I believe silver will do for the rest of 2012. Silver has several things going for it, things that it will always have going for it that will help sustain the price to some degree. Perhaps the biggest pro that silver has on its side at any given point is the fact that the white metal is very heavily used within industries around the world. It is also used heavily within the healthcare field and thus is constantly in demand. From a supply and demand viewpoint, the demand just continues to grow. The fact that silver is being used faster than mining companies are able to mine it right now is actually a good thing. While something needs to be figured out in terms of solving this problem (there is an almost unlimited silver supply, mining companies just have to figure out how to get to it and how to mine it faster), the fact of the matter is that demand is so high for industrial use, that the metal will always have some value. Let us not forget the fact that silver is used in a great deal of jewelry, fine cutlery and tableware, and other luxury items. Now, add onto that fact that silver coins and silver bars are still very collectible and highly sought after for investment purposes and you have a nice mixture of opportunity for the white metal. Sure, silver had its ups and downs last year. It rose higher than it ever had in price before dropping for the last few months of 2011. However, many have speculated (myself included) that silver will make it to the $50 per ounce price range sometime this year, or at the very least get close to it. I think the overall outlook for silver is still excellent. It is used by so many industries that it will always have value even if the luxury items and collectibles fall out of demand. I believe that right now is a great time to get invested in some silver bars or silver coins if you’d like to get in on silver before the price goes even higher. At the very least you will be putting your money into something physical that will protect it. The above article is for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation by End the Lie or Goldco Direct . It is the commentator’s opinion only and not intended for investment recommendations, and does not necessarily reflect the views of End the Lie or Goldco Direct . Any references to outside sources are believed to be accurate. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. All commodities involve risk. Investors should consult their financial adviser before making any investment decisions.
GE paid just 2.3 percent in federal taxes over last 10 years on more than $81 billion in profits
http://bit.ly/zLH89m
By Madison Ruppert Editor of End the Lie Thanks to tax loopholes and deductions, General Electric (GE) was able to pay a mere 2.3 percent in federal taxes on over $81 billion in profits over the last 10 years, according to analysis of the corporation’s tax filings conducted by Citizens for Tax Justice . The Citizens for Tax Justice, a non-partisan watchdog group, said that GE’s latest filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reveal that they were far under the supposed 35 percent corporate tax rate. GE was able to rob taxpayers blind during years when their profits declined, all while paying taxes at a rate far below what most hardworking American individuals are saddled with. Just last year we learned that GE’s 2010 tax return showed that the massive corporation paid no taxes whatsoever on a whopping $14.2 billion in profits. In fact, GE actually reaped $3.2 billion in refunds and tax credits from the government, even with profits as massive as they were. In response to these shocking numbers – which left many struggling Americans enraged, and rightly so – former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold expressed outrage at the fact that the man who Obama placed in charge of creating jobs was also running a corporation that paid no taxes and thus thoroughly exploited the American people. “Someone like Immelt, who has helped his company evade taxes on its huge profits – and is now looking to workers to take major pay cuts after his compensation was doubled – should not lead the administration’s effort to create jobs,” he wrote in an email obtained by The Washington Post at the time. The Citizens for Tax Justice reported that in 2010 GE paid just an 11.3 percent tax rate on their $14.8 billion in profits. Meanwhile, the corporation itself claimed that their tax rate in the United States was near 25 percent. Even more disturbing, the Citizens for Tax Justice found that GE effectively had a “negative” tax balance from 2006 through 2011. Indeed, they found that GE actually took back $2.7 billion from taxpayers during the period, even though they raked in $39.2 billion in U.S. profits before tax. In a statement to media outlets Bob McIntyre, the director of Citizens for Tax Justice, noted just how foreign this tax rate really is to most working Americans. “I don’t think most Americans would consider 11.3 percent, not to mention GE’s long-term effective rate of 2.3 percent, to be ‘normal,’” McIntyre stated. “But for GE, taxes are something to be avoided rather than paid.” GE attempts to counter the findings of groups like Citizens for Tax Justice by claiming that their numbers are inflated due to foreign earnings being out of the Internal Revenue Service’s reach. Obama has expressed interesting in taxing foreign earnings of American corporations and closing some of the tax loopholes for corporations while also lowering the corporate tax rate to 28 percent. However, Obama’s word is worth absolutely nothing and the current 35 percent tax rate is already close to the lowest in the United States since the start of World War II. Obama’s intimate relationship with GE and individuals like Immelt is also highly questionable, especially given Obama’s reluctance to do anything to compromise the profits of his major supporters on Wall Street and throughout corporate America. The tax situation in the United States is wildly flawed, with average people footing the bill for the largest earners who are taxed at historic lows allowing major corporations to pay more to their executives than the IRS in 2010. Warren Buffet has also come out against the astoundingly low corporate tax rate, writing in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal , “So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world.” Polls have found that much of America supports raising taxes on the highest earning Americans, even amongst a majority of Republicans who were polled. The poll, released by The Washington Post in October of last year, reported that a stunning eight in ten Americans support raising the tax rate on households earning more than $250,000 a year. 81% of Democrats, 67% of Independents and 53% of Republicans expressed support for the move, although I would say that instead of raising taxes, it might be more effective to actually make people pay the taxes they are supposed to be paying already. I do not think that we would be forced to raise taxes on households earning 250,000 per year if corporations actually paid what they owed and we weren’t constantly paying off interest on ludicrous debt. The unfortunate fact is that corporations work together with institutions like the private Federal Reserve to exploit and profit off the American people . Our government allows war profiteers to continue to bleed our nation dry and of course the Federal Reserve and their cronies in government love it since they get all of the interest on the bloated spending. Raising taxes alone will not fix the problem. We need a radical overhaul of the financial system in the United States. We need to put the power of the purse back in the hands of the people and not a private banking cartel. We need to sever the ties between corporate interests and the federal government and stop the preferential treatment that corporations have enjoyed for far too long. Without taking a full spectrum approach, there can be no true change and if nothing else Obama has proven that he has absolutely no interest in change .
http://bit.ly/zLH89m
By Madison Ruppert Editor of End the Lie Thanks to tax loopholes and deductions, General Electric (GE) was able to pay a mere 2.3 percent in federal taxes on over $81 billion in profits over the last 10 years, according to analysis of the corporation’s tax filings conducted by Citizens for Tax Justice . The Citizens for Tax Justice, a non-partisan watchdog group, said that GE’s latest filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reveal that they were far under the supposed 35 percent corporate tax rate. GE was able to rob taxpayers blind during years when their profits declined, all while paying taxes at a rate far below what most hardworking American individuals are saddled with. Just last year we learned that GE’s 2010 tax return showed that the massive corporation paid no taxes whatsoever on a whopping $14.2 billion in profits. In fact, GE actually reaped $3.2 billion in refunds and tax credits from the government, even with profits as massive as they were. In response to these shocking numbers – which left many struggling Americans enraged, and rightly so – former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold expressed outrage at the fact that the man who Obama placed in charge of creating jobs was also running a corporation that paid no taxes and thus thoroughly exploited the American people. “Someone like Immelt, who has helped his company evade taxes on its huge profits – and is now looking to workers to take major pay cuts after his compensation was doubled – should not lead the administration’s effort to create jobs,” he wrote in an email obtained by The Washington Post at the time. The Citizens for Tax Justice reported that in 2010 GE paid just an 11.3 percent tax rate on their $14.8 billion in profits. Meanwhile, the corporation itself claimed that their tax rate in the United States was near 25 percent. Even more disturbing, the Citizens for Tax Justice found that GE effectively had a “negative” tax balance from 2006 through 2011. Indeed, they found that GE actually took back $2.7 billion from taxpayers during the period, even though they raked in $39.2 billion in U.S. profits before tax. In a statement to media outlets Bob McIntyre, the director of Citizens for Tax Justice, noted just how foreign this tax rate really is to most working Americans. “I don’t think most Americans would consider 11.3 percent, not to mention GE’s long-term effective rate of 2.3 percent, to be ‘normal,’” McIntyre stated. “But for GE, taxes are something to be avoided rather than paid.” GE attempts to counter the findings of groups like Citizens for Tax Justice by claiming that their numbers are inflated due to foreign earnings being out of the Internal Revenue Service’s reach. Obama has expressed interesting in taxing foreign earnings of American corporations and closing some of the tax loopholes for corporations while also lowering the corporate tax rate to 28 percent. However, Obama’s word is worth absolutely nothing and the current 35 percent tax rate is already close to the lowest in the United States since the start of World War II. Obama’s intimate relationship with GE and individuals like Immelt is also highly questionable, especially given Obama’s reluctance to do anything to compromise the profits of his major supporters on Wall Street and throughout corporate America. The tax situation in the United States is wildly flawed, with average people footing the bill for the largest earners who are taxed at historic lows allowing major corporations to pay more to their executives than the IRS in 2010. Warren Buffet has also come out against the astoundingly low corporate tax rate, writing in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal , “So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world.” Polls have found that much of America supports raising taxes on the highest earning Americans, even amongst a majority of Republicans who were polled. The poll, released by The Washington Post in October of last year, reported that a stunning eight in ten Americans support raising the tax rate on households earning more than $250,000 a year. 81% of Democrats, 67% of Independents and 53% of Republicans expressed support for the move, although I would say that instead of raising taxes, it might be more effective to actually make people pay the taxes they are supposed to be paying already. I do not think that we would be forced to raise taxes on households earning 250,000 per year if corporations actually paid what they owed and we weren’t constantly paying off interest on ludicrous debt. The unfortunate fact is that corporations work together with institutions like the private Federal Reserve to exploit and profit off the American people . Our government allows war profiteers to continue to bleed our nation dry and of course the Federal Reserve and their cronies in government love it since they get all of the interest on the bloated spending. Raising taxes alone will not fix the problem. We need a radical overhaul of the financial system in the United States. We need to put the power of the purse back in the hands of the people and not a private banking cartel. We need to sever the ties between corporate interests and the federal government and stop the preferential treatment that corporations have enjoyed for far too long. Without taking a full spectrum approach, there can be no true change and if nothing else Obama has proven that he has absolutely no interest in change .
Research finds California three-strikes law fails to reduce violent crime
http://bit.ly/zY707E
By Madison Ruppert Editor of End the Lie [caption id="attachment_39479" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Sociologist Robert Nash Parker (Image credit: University of California, Riverside)"] [/caption] Robert Nash Parker, a sociologist and the director of the Presley Center for Crime and Justice Studies at the University of California, Riverside, has found that the declining crime rates in California and around the United States are linked to a decline in alcohol consumption, not the so-called “tough-on-crime” policies like three-strikes laws. Worst of all, Parker found that these policies only serve to compound the massive financial problems in California by increasing the already ludicrously bloated prison population. Physorg.com characterizes Parker as a scholar who “is known internationally for groundbreaking research on the relationship between alcohol policies and crime” and his newest research will appear in the spring issue of the California Journal of Politics and Policy. His findings will be detailed in a piece he dubbed “Worse Policy After Bad: How and Why California’s ‘Three Strikes’ is a Complete Failure as Crime and Economic Policy , and What to Do About Either.” Three-strikes laws first came into being around 1994 and were billed as an effort to curb recidivism, or more colloquially, to stop so-called “career criminals.” When previous offenders have been convicted a third time, they can be sentenced for 25 years to life, even if that third offense is a nonviolent crime like shoplifting. One statistic regularly cited by proponents of such legislation is the 20-year decline of crime rates in California. Indeed, over the past two decades the crime rate has been reduced by half, although the fatal flaw in pointing to this statistic is that the decline began two years before the three-strikes laws came into play. Parker highlights this in saying, “Political leaders, activists, law enforcement personnel, and elected officials in California believe the state’s three-strikes law is the cause of this magnificent decline in violence. That is not the case. Three-strikes has had nothing whatsoever to do with the drop in violent crime.” Parker came to his conclusions by analyzing crime data from across the United States. In the course of his analysis so he discovered that crime in California has declined at rates comparable to states both with three-strikes laws in place and those without. “This suggests that whatever is driving the trend in violent crime over the last 46 years in these states it is not three-strikes policy,” Parker stated. Interestingly, the rate of imprisonment in states with three-strikes legislation is not always the same. Indeed, a review of three-strikes legislation by the National Institute of Justice found that California imprisoned 300 times the inmates as Washington state, even though California’s population is only around 5.5 times that of Washington. Washington put their three-strikes law into place about the same time as California and Parker notes that they experienced about the same drop in crime, even with radically different rates of incarceration. “Differences between California’s three-strikes law and those of Washington and other states explains this difference,” Parker said. “California increased its prison population significantly yet obtained roughly the same crime drop at the same time as states that had similar laws, but without their impact, as well as that obtained by states that did not pass any laws aimed at reducing violence through [a] vast increase in the prison population,” he added. Parker’s previous research dealing with the correlations between alcohol consumption and crime found some other interesting connections. He discovered that nationwide homicide rates have a strong correlation with both alcohol consumption and rates of unemployment. Beginning with the 1930s, Parker found that a spike in murder rates was preceded by an increase in alcohol consumption by one to two years. Similarly, he noticed that homicide rates decreased one to two years after a decrease in alcohol consumption. Alcohol consumption in the United States rose to its highest point back in 1982, after which it has declined steadily and considerably. Parker’s research brings one to the unavoidable conclusion that three-strikes legislation cannot be justified based on its impact on crime. “There is no justification for continuing three-strikes from a violence-prevention point of view,” Parker states. “My analysis suggests that alcohol policy designed to reduce overall consumption in California may be more effective at reducing violence than three-strikes or other criminal justice policy initiatives.” However, since three-strikes legislation leads to more people being put in prison – and thus greater profits for the private prison industry – I doubt that there will be a powerful push to actually introduce meaningful legislation. While the budget situation in California is obviously far from simple, Parker notes that the three-strikes law has made the problem significantly worse by making the prison system consume a constantly growing and unsustainably large portion of the general budget on a yearly basis. This is evidenced by looking at the state’s spending in 1985 compared to 2010. In 1985, higher education spending made up 11 percent of the general budget fund and prison funding was around 4 percent. Then in 2010, higher education funding dropped to less than 6 percent of the total state spending and prisons ate up around 10 percent. The future prison costs in California are highly variable, depending a great deal on how the state chooses to respond to the United State Supreme Court’s decision last year aimed at fighting overcrowded prisons. The California state auditor has estimated that future costs attributable to sentencing caused by three-strikes laws range from $19 billion to $23 billion per year or even more depending on the state’s response to the Supreme Court’s order. In response to the decision, the state legislature has reportedly planned on diverting most of the inmates to county jails, with the states picking up the bill, to avoid possibly releasing 40,000 inmates. The auditor’s report revealed that if all of the inmates who had been sentenced under three-strikes legislation were immediately released, the state of California and counties would save $1.3 billion in prison spending right away. This number would likely even go up in coming years and Parker is an advocate of releasing these inmates. “If three strikes has resulted in all this incarceration and expense, yet has little to do with controlling crime, why not release these inmates?” Parker said. “The state of California should give up its addiction to the all-you-can eat buffet of imprisonment, the result of which has been to undermine the financial health of the state, weaken the quality of education at all levels, and force California to make draconian cuts in programs that enhance and benefit the lives of its residents in exchange for a mistaken idea that public safety was the result,” he said. “The bottom line result of three-strikes has been an almost unbearable financial burden that looms in the future despite current efforts and which will only be resolved when the pipeline of over-punishment is finally shut down,” Parker added. Indeed, this is quite obvious when one looks at the facts which cannot easily be skewed or spun by parties who seek to benefit in one way or another. Yet so long as there is money to be made – and a lot of it I might add – I think there will be a concerted effort to marginalize findings like Parker’s in order to keep the massive funds flowing into the coffers of the private prison industry titans. The American “justice” system is far from just as evidenced by the fact that police can brutally beat elderly men with dementia and only get a written reprimand as a result , while average people can be put in prison for 25 years to life for something as minor as stealing golf clubs . The United States has become a society where we criminalize children at the earliest age possible and thus we create a criminal culture which leads to the incarceration rate
http://bit.ly/zY707E
By Madison Ruppert Editor of End the Lie [caption id="attachment_39479" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Sociologist Robert Nash Parker (Image credit: University of California, Riverside)"] [/caption] Robert Nash Parker, a sociologist and the director of the Presley Center for Crime and Justice Studies at the University of California, Riverside, has found that the declining crime rates in California and around the United States are linked to a decline in alcohol consumption, not the so-called “tough-on-crime” policies like three-strikes laws. Worst of all, Parker found that these policies only serve to compound the massive financial problems in California by increasing the already ludicrously bloated prison population. Physorg.com characterizes Parker as a scholar who “is known internationally for groundbreaking research on the relationship between alcohol policies and crime” and his newest research will appear in the spring issue of the California Journal of Politics and Policy. His findings will be detailed in a piece he dubbed “Worse Policy After Bad: How and Why California’s ‘Three Strikes’ is a Complete Failure as Crime and Economic Policy , and What to Do About Either.” Three-strikes laws first came into being around 1994 and were billed as an effort to curb recidivism, or more colloquially, to stop so-called “career criminals.” When previous offenders have been convicted a third time, they can be sentenced for 25 years to life, even if that third offense is a nonviolent crime like shoplifting. One statistic regularly cited by proponents of such legislation is the 20-year decline of crime rates in California. Indeed, over the past two decades the crime rate has been reduced by half, although the fatal flaw in pointing to this statistic is that the decline began two years before the three-strikes laws came into play. Parker highlights this in saying, “Political leaders, activists, law enforcement personnel, and elected officials in California believe the state’s three-strikes law is the cause of this magnificent decline in violence. That is not the case. Three-strikes has had nothing whatsoever to do with the drop in violent crime.” Parker came to his conclusions by analyzing crime data from across the United States. In the course of his analysis so he discovered that crime in California has declined at rates comparable to states both with three-strikes laws in place and those without. “This suggests that whatever is driving the trend in violent crime over the last 46 years in these states it is not three-strikes policy,” Parker stated. Interestingly, the rate of imprisonment in states with three-strikes legislation is not always the same. Indeed, a review of three-strikes legislation by the National Institute of Justice found that California imprisoned 300 times the inmates as Washington state, even though California’s population is only around 5.5 times that of Washington. Washington put their three-strikes law into place about the same time as California and Parker notes that they experienced about the same drop in crime, even with radically different rates of incarceration. “Differences between California’s three-strikes law and those of Washington and other states explains this difference,” Parker said. “California increased its prison population significantly yet obtained roughly the same crime drop at the same time as states that had similar laws, but without their impact, as well as that obtained by states that did not pass any laws aimed at reducing violence through [a] vast increase in the prison population,” he added. Parker’s previous research dealing with the correlations between alcohol consumption and crime found some other interesting connections. He discovered that nationwide homicide rates have a strong correlation with both alcohol consumption and rates of unemployment. Beginning with the 1930s, Parker found that a spike in murder rates was preceded by an increase in alcohol consumption by one to two years. Similarly, he noticed that homicide rates decreased one to two years after a decrease in alcohol consumption. Alcohol consumption in the United States rose to its highest point back in 1982, after which it has declined steadily and considerably. Parker’s research brings one to the unavoidable conclusion that three-strikes legislation cannot be justified based on its impact on crime. “There is no justification for continuing three-strikes from a violence-prevention point of view,” Parker states. “My analysis suggests that alcohol policy designed to reduce overall consumption in California may be more effective at reducing violence than three-strikes or other criminal justice policy initiatives.” However, since three-strikes legislation leads to more people being put in prison – and thus greater profits for the private prison industry – I doubt that there will be a powerful push to actually introduce meaningful legislation. While the budget situation in California is obviously far from simple, Parker notes that the three-strikes law has made the problem significantly worse by making the prison system consume a constantly growing and unsustainably large portion of the general budget on a yearly basis. This is evidenced by looking at the state’s spending in 1985 compared to 2010. In 1985, higher education spending made up 11 percent of the general budget fund and prison funding was around 4 percent. Then in 2010, higher education funding dropped to less than 6 percent of the total state spending and prisons ate up around 10 percent. The future prison costs in California are highly variable, depending a great deal on how the state chooses to respond to the United State Supreme Court’s decision last year aimed at fighting overcrowded prisons. The California state auditor has estimated that future costs attributable to sentencing caused by three-strikes laws range from $19 billion to $23 billion per year or even more depending on the state’s response to the Supreme Court’s order. In response to the decision, the state legislature has reportedly planned on diverting most of the inmates to county jails, with the states picking up the bill, to avoid possibly releasing 40,000 inmates. The auditor’s report revealed that if all of the inmates who had been sentenced under three-strikes legislation were immediately released, the state of California and counties would save $1.3 billion in prison spending right away. This number would likely even go up in coming years and Parker is an advocate of releasing these inmates. “If three strikes has resulted in all this incarceration and expense, yet has little to do with controlling crime, why not release these inmates?” Parker said. “The state of California should give up its addiction to the all-you-can eat buffet of imprisonment, the result of which has been to undermine the financial health of the state, weaken the quality of education at all levels, and force California to make draconian cuts in programs that enhance and benefit the lives of its residents in exchange for a mistaken idea that public safety was the result,” he said. “The bottom line result of three-strikes has been an almost unbearable financial burden that looms in the future despite current efforts and which will only be resolved when the pipeline of over-punishment is finally shut down,” Parker added. Indeed, this is quite obvious when one looks at the facts which cannot easily be skewed or spun by parties who seek to benefit in one way or another. Yet so long as there is money to be made – and a lot of it I might add – I think there will be a concerted effort to marginalize findings like Parker’s in order to keep the massive funds flowing into the coffers of the private prison industry titans. The American “justice” system is far from just as evidenced by the fact that police can brutally beat elderly men with dementia and only get a written reprimand as a result , while average people can be put in prison for 25 years to life for something as minor as stealing golf clubs . The United States has become a society where we criminalize children at the earliest age possible and thus we create a criminal culture which leads to the incarceration rate
Panetta, Dempsey: Sequestration Would Defeat Defense Strategy
http://bit.ly/AlhBbO
By Karen Parrish American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2012 – The Defense Department’s senior leaders strongly warned Congress today that doubling defense spending cuts would leave the military without a workable strategy to counter staggering global threats. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, along with Pentagon Comptroller Robert F. Hale, logged their third day of congressional budget testimony, speaking before the House Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee. Under the 2013 budget request, the Defense Department will spend $614 billion in fiscal 2013, divided between a $525.4 billion base budget and $88.5 billion covering war costs. The request incorporates the 2011 Budget Control Act’s requirement for a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years. The act also included a “sequestration” provision for an additional $500 billion in across-the-board cuts to take effect in January if Congress does not pass a plan to reduce the budget. “If additional efforts are made to go after the defense budget, I think it could have a serious impact in terms of our ability to implement the strategy,” Panetta said. Panetta repeatedly has emphasized the 2013 DOD budget request supports a new defense strategy, released in January, aimed at creating a smaller, more mobile and technologically advanced joint force. The secretary has also emphasized keeping faith with the all-volunteer force and the families who support them. While he doesn’t think Congress will permit sequestration, the secretary said, the threat alone is creating a “huge shadow of doubt” over defense industries, their workers and the military. Panetta outlined global threats from ongoing war in Afghanistan to challenges in the space and cyber domains to growing competition in the Pacific region and a volatile Middle East, where, he said, “any one of these countries could explode on us.” A half trillion dollars in new defense cuts could result in a military unprepared to meet those threats, he said. “It is very important that we get together -- both the administration and the Congress -- and we develop a package … to make sure this doesn't happen,” the secretary said. Dempsey said he shares the secretary’s “deep concerns, … actually, anxieties, about sequestration.” “The two things about sequestration that are alarming to us is one, the magnitude, [and] second, the mechanism,” he said. The law calls for across-the-board cuts if sequestration kicks in, but certain areas of military spending can’t be cut, the chairman explained. In restructuring the force, he noted, the current plan of trimming 124,000 troops over the next five years -- mostly from the Army and Marine Corps -- can’t be done much faster. Another round of service member reductions, which sequestration could require, would mean “we just … hand them a pink slip and send them off. And I don’t think anybody wants to do that,” he said. Infrastructure costs also are fixed, Dempsey said. Even if Congress approves new base realignment and closure processes, as the Defense Department has requested, the department won’t save any money on facilities for five to 10 years, he said. That leaves only a few budget areas the military could cut under sequestration, Dempsey said. “It’s coming out of three places, and that’s it,” the general said. “It’s coming out of equipment and modernization, that’s one. It’s coming out of maintenance, and it’s coming out of training. And then, we’ve hollowed out the force.” Dempsey told the House panel he has lived through two military drawdowns in his nearly four-decade career: one after Vietnam, and another after Desert Storm. The current drawdown is different, he said, because the previous two happened during a period of relative stability. “In my personal military judgment, formed over 38 years, we are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime right now, and I think sequestration would be completely oblivious to that, and counterproductive,” the chairman said. President Barack Obama was deeply involved with department leaders in developing the new defense strategy, Dempsey said. “It is a strategy that has to have this budget to support it,” he added. “Anything beyond this, we have to go back to the drawing board on the strategy.” The defense strategy is an aggregate of military objectives, the resources available, and how to meet those objectives with those resources, he said. “We’ve got it balanced right now,” the chairman said. “But any change in the future means we have to go back and redo our strategy.”
http://bit.ly/AlhBbO
By Karen Parrish American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2012 – The Defense Department’s senior leaders strongly warned Congress today that doubling defense spending cuts would leave the military without a workable strategy to counter staggering global threats. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, along with Pentagon Comptroller Robert F. Hale, logged their third day of congressional budget testimony, speaking before the House Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee. Under the 2013 budget request, the Defense Department will spend $614 billion in fiscal 2013, divided between a $525.4 billion base budget and $88.5 billion covering war costs. The request incorporates the 2011 Budget Control Act’s requirement for a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years. The act also included a “sequestration” provision for an additional $500 billion in across-the-board cuts to take effect in January if Congress does not pass a plan to reduce the budget. “If additional efforts are made to go after the defense budget, I think it could have a serious impact in terms of our ability to implement the strategy,” Panetta said. Panetta repeatedly has emphasized the 2013 DOD budget request supports a new defense strategy, released in January, aimed at creating a smaller, more mobile and technologically advanced joint force. The secretary has also emphasized keeping faith with the all-volunteer force and the families who support them. While he doesn’t think Congress will permit sequestration, the secretary said, the threat alone is creating a “huge shadow of doubt” over defense industries, their workers and the military. Panetta outlined global threats from ongoing war in Afghanistan to challenges in the space and cyber domains to growing competition in the Pacific region and a volatile Middle East, where, he said, “any one of these countries could explode on us.” A half trillion dollars in new defense cuts could result in a military unprepared to meet those threats, he said. “It is very important that we get together -- both the administration and the Congress -- and we develop a package … to make sure this doesn't happen,” the secretary said. Dempsey said he shares the secretary’s “deep concerns, … actually, anxieties, about sequestration.” “The two things about sequestration that are alarming to us is one, the magnitude, [and] second, the mechanism,” he said. The law calls for across-the-board cuts if sequestration kicks in, but certain areas of military spending can’t be cut, the chairman explained. In restructuring the force, he noted, the current plan of trimming 124,000 troops over the next five years -- mostly from the Army and Marine Corps -- can’t be done much faster. Another round of service member reductions, which sequestration could require, would mean “we just … hand them a pink slip and send them off. And I don’t think anybody wants to do that,” he said. Infrastructure costs also are fixed, Dempsey said. Even if Congress approves new base realignment and closure processes, as the Defense Department has requested, the department won’t save any money on facilities for five to 10 years, he said. That leaves only a few budget areas the military could cut under sequestration, Dempsey said. “It’s coming out of three places, and that’s it,” the general said. “It’s coming out of equipment and modernization, that’s one. It’s coming out of maintenance, and it’s coming out of training. And then, we’ve hollowed out the force.” Dempsey told the House panel he has lived through two military drawdowns in his nearly four-decade career: one after Vietnam, and another after Desert Storm. The current drawdown is different, he said, because the previous two happened during a period of relative stability. “In my personal military judgment, formed over 38 years, we are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime right now, and I think sequestration would be completely oblivious to that, and counterproductive,” the chairman said. President Barack Obama was deeply involved with department leaders in developing the new defense strategy, Dempsey said. “It is a strategy that has to have this budget to support it,” he added. “Anything beyond this, we have to go back to the drawing board on the strategy.” The defense strategy is an aggregate of military objectives, the resources available, and how to meet those objectives with those resources, he said. “We’ve got it balanced right now,” the chairman said. “But any change in the future means we have to go back and redo our strategy.”
Friendly advice: France, UK to command ousting of Assad?
http://bit.ly/x9gNcd
Eurasian wrote in 14 This is what they have destroyed for the Libyan people - a system, and welfare system, even the west cannot dream for: • In 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world • Today Libya has attained the highest standard of living in Africa • Libya utilized the revenue from its oil to develop its country • The young people are well dressed, well fed and well educated • Libyans now earn more per capita than the British • Libya's wealth has been fairly spread throughout society • Every Libyan gets free, and often excellent, education, medical and health services • Today, Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African World • All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of all charges. • New colleges and hospitals are impressive by any international standard • All Libyans own their own homes and cars • Large scale housing construction has taken place right across the country • Every citizen has been given a decent house or apartment to live in rent-free • Any Libyan who wants to become a farmer is given free use of land, a house, farm equipment, some livestock and seed. • First World, Libyans have it very good indeed Why are we bombing them? Benefits for being Libyan: 1. Electricity for household use is free 2. Interest-free loans during the study 3. Student receives the average salary for this profession if he/she does not find a job after graduation 4. Every unemployed person receives social assistance $ 15,000 a year 5. Cars at factory prices 6. Free health and education 7. Free higher education abroad 8. 40 loaves of bread costs $ 0.15 9. Water in the middle of the desert, drinking water (read about great manmade river) 10. 8 dinars per litter of oil (0.08 EUR) 11. Gasoline at 44 cents a gallon 12. For each infant, the couple received $ 5,000 for his needs. 13. Lowest infant mortality rate 14. $76,000 wedding gift 15. Home loans are available at 10% of a family's yearly salary 16. 300,000 homes built for the poor 17. Guarantee of land ownership for all Libyans HOW can the Libyans ever forgive seeing ALL this is gone?
http://bit.ly/x9gNcd
Eurasian wrote in 14 This is what they have destroyed for the Libyan people - a system, and welfare system, even the west cannot dream for: • In 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world • Today Libya has attained the highest standard of living in Africa • Libya utilized the revenue from its oil to develop its country • The young people are well dressed, well fed and well educated • Libyans now earn more per capita than the British • Libya's wealth has been fairly spread throughout society • Every Libyan gets free, and often excellent, education, medical and health services • Today, Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African World • All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of all charges. • New colleges and hospitals are impressive by any international standard • All Libyans own their own homes and cars • Large scale housing construction has taken place right across the country • Every citizen has been given a decent house or apartment to live in rent-free • Any Libyan who wants to become a farmer is given free use of land, a house, farm equipment, some livestock and seed. • First World, Libyans have it very good indeed Why are we bombing them? Benefits for being Libyan: 1. Electricity for household use is free 2. Interest-free loans during the study 3. Student receives the average salary for this profession if he/she does not find a job after graduation 4. Every unemployed person receives social assistance $ 15,000 a year 5. Cars at factory prices 6. Free health and education 7. Free higher education abroad 8. 40 loaves of bread costs $ 0.15 9. Water in the middle of the desert, drinking water (read about great manmade river) 10. 8 dinars per litter of oil (0.08 EUR) 11. Gasoline at 44 cents a gallon 12. For each infant, the couple received $ 5,000 for his needs. 13. Lowest infant mortality rate 14. $76,000 wedding gift 15. Home loans are available at 10% of a family's yearly salary 16. 300,000 homes built for the poor 17. Guarantee of land ownership for all Libyans HOW can the Libyans ever forgive seeing ALL this is gone?
Friendly advice: France, UK to command ousting of Assad?
http://bit.ly/winfwY
Eurasian wrote in 14 This is what they have destroyed for the Libyan people - a system, and welfare system, even the west cannot dream for: • In 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world • Today Libya has attained the highest standard of living in Africa • Libya utilized the revenue from its oil to develop its country • The young people are well dressed, well fed and well educated • Libyans now earn more per capita than the British • Libya's wealth has been fairly spread throughout society • Every Libyan gets free, and often excellent, education, medical and health services • Today, Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African World • All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of all charges. • New colleges and hospitals are impressive by any international standard • All Libyans own their own homes and cars • Large scale housing construction has taken place right across the country • Every citizen has been given a decent house or apartment to live in rent-free • Any Libyan who wants to become a farmer is given free use of land, a house, farm equipment, some livestock and seed. • First World, Libyans have it very good indeed Why are we bombing them? Benefits for being Libyan: 1. Electricity for household use is free 2. Interest-free loans during the study 3. Student receives the average salary for this profession if he/she does not find a job after graduation 4. Every unemployed person receives social assistance $ 15,000 a year 5. Cars at factory prices 6. Free health and education 7. Free higher education abroad 8. 40 loaves of bread costs $ 0.15 9. Water in the middle of the desert, drinking water (read about great manmade river) 10. 8 dinars per litter of oil (0.08 EUR) 11. Gasoline at 44 cents a gallon 12. For each infant, the couple received $ 5,000 for his needs. 13. Lowest infant mortality rate 14. $76,000 wedding gift 15. Home loans are available at 10% of a family's yearly salary 16. 300,000 homes built for the poor 17. Guarantee of land ownership for all Libyans HOW can the Libyans ever forgive seeing ALL this is gone?
http://bit.ly/winfwY
Eurasian wrote in 14 This is what they have destroyed for the Libyan people - a system, and welfare system, even the west cannot dream for: • In 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world • Today Libya has attained the highest standard of living in Africa • Libya utilized the revenue from its oil to develop its country • The young people are well dressed, well fed and well educated • Libyans now earn more per capita than the British • Libya's wealth has been fairly spread throughout society • Every Libyan gets free, and often excellent, education, medical and health services • Today, Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African World • All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of all charges. • New colleges and hospitals are impressive by any international standard • All Libyans own their own homes and cars • Large scale housing construction has taken place right across the country • Every citizen has been given a decent house or apartment to live in rent-free • Any Libyan who wants to become a farmer is given free use of land, a house, farm equipment, some livestock and seed. • First World, Libyans have it very good indeed Why are we bombing them? Benefits for being Libyan: 1. Electricity for household use is free 2. Interest-free loans during the study 3. Student receives the average salary for this profession if he/she does not find a job after graduation 4. Every unemployed person receives social assistance $ 15,000 a year 5. Cars at factory prices 6. Free health and education 7. Free higher education abroad 8. 40 loaves of bread costs $ 0.15 9. Water in the middle of the desert, drinking water (read about great manmade river) 10. 8 dinars per litter of oil (0.08 EUR) 11. Gasoline at 44 cents a gallon 12. For each infant, the couple received $ 5,000 for his needs. 13. Lowest infant mortality rate 14. $76,000 wedding gift 15. Home loans are available at 10% of a family's yearly salary 16. 300,000 homes built for the poor 17. Guarantee of land ownership for all Libyans HOW can the Libyans ever forgive seeing ALL this is gone?
FEMA preparing “National Responder Support Camps” eerily similar to KBR’s “National Quick Response Team”
http://bit.ly/w2Ojfm
By Madison Ruppert Editor of End the Lie On February 24, 2012 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) posted the final draft solicitation for what they are calling a National Responder Support Camp (NRSC). The announcement was posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website and boasts a great deal of similarity to a solicitation put out by KBR, Inc. on November 16, 2011 . While neither one of these solicitations are sinister when considered in isolation – as horrific natural disasters are an unfortunate fact of life – when one thinks about the historical precedents at work and the possibilities for how these camps could be used, it gets a little less hunky-dory. Furthermore, we must consider the fact that the solicitation actually puts some harsh restrictions on what the contractors are allowed to say about the contract and the fact that the potential scenarios outlined in the solicitation both put the camps on military bases. Let us not forget about the plans for mass-migration or the previous contracts from Homeland Security (the FEMA parent agency) for detention centers in the United States , which just happen to also have been given to KBR. This is regularly done under the guise of creating detention centers for " temporary immigration " and other possibilities (either real or contrived) which could result in a national emergency. Under section C.2.1 we read , “All press releases or announcements about agency programs, projects, and contract awards must be cleared by the Program Office as authorized by the CO, working in conjunction with the Office of External Affairs. Under no circumstances shall the Contractor, or anyone acting on behalf of the Contractor, refer to the supplies, services, or equipment furnished pursuant to the provisions of this contract in any publicity news release or commercial advertising, or communicates with any media without first obtaining explicit written consent to do so from the Program Office and the CO.” The second paragraph under this section seems much more reasonable, given that it deals with making sure companies do not give the impression in commercial advertisements that their products or services are “endorsed or preferred by the Federal Government or [are] considered by the Government to be superior to other products or services.” The problem I see with the first paragraph is the restriction on even referring to the “the supplies, services, or equipment furnished pursuant to the provisions of this contract” even if it was just communicated with the media. Why the secrecy if this is just a benevolent project to house people in response to a natural disaster? Wouldn’t they encourage people going out and publicizing these wonderful projects FEMA is engaged in given their horrific track record when it comes to responding to natural disasters? KBR’s document (which was incidentally released immediately after S.1867, the final Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, was introduced) was dealing with the establishment of what they called National Quick Response Teams for their current and future contracts with FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It appears that KBR’s Quick Response Teams are not enough for FEMA when it comes to their projections of massive numbers of “displaced citizens,” thus the need for additional contracts. Like the KBR solicitation, FEMA’s solicitation focuses on making Responder Support Centers (RSCs) operation in an extremely short period of time. Section C.2.0 of the solicitation says, “The Contractor shall be capable of establishing and maintaining a RSC within disaster-impacted areas within 72 hours of task order award.” It is specified that the capacity of the RSC will be no less than 301 and no more than 2,000 RSC occupants, although it is said that the contractor should have early phasing capabilities. This means that if requested, the contractor will have to provide partial support for the RSC which they classify as, “sleeping, feeding, i.e. commercial ready to eat meals, medical and sanitation” within 36 hours for just 100 people, likely staff who are preparing the camp. The contractor has to provide the staff to set-up, operate and manage the camp and “have sufficient equipment readily available for rapid deployment as well as preventive maintenance programs to ensure optimum equipment readiness levels at all times.” However, one thing it appears that the contractor is not held responsible for is security. Indeed in section C.2.2 it is specifically said that “RSC Security will be provided by the Government” and “The Government reserves the right to provide any other equipment or services to support Camp operations.” There is also a focus on fencing and barricades “to ensure the health and safety of occupants” which still meet “any applicable FEMA security requirements as defined by the Joint Field Office (JFO) Security Officer.” It appears that these camps are not meant to be used for a short period of time as within three days after the setup of the camp it is required that the contractor provide a “Morale Welfare and Recreation (MWR)” facility with television, internet access, charging stations, reading materials and games, along with refrigerators and microwaves. However, the MWR is only required for 10% of the total occupancy, which makes me think it might only be provided for workers. The security situation in these camps is obviously quite tight with photo identification cards to be mandatory to access lodging, RSC facilities, meals and laundry services. It is also written on page 80 of the PDF that a fence or barricade 6 feet tall must be provided to surround the Responder Support Camp. There are Occupant Identification Cards which “will be clearly distinctive from other categories of identification cards” and “Non-Occupant Identification cards will also be provided to authorized, non-occupant RSC visitors and will allow these authorized visitors access to the RSC dining and laundry on a self-pay for services basis.” Employees of the contractor and any sub-contractors are required to “have identifiable markings on their outer clothing displayed at all times. Contractor Identification badges shall display their name and photograph identifying they are employees of the Contractor which shall be visible at all times. These ID badges will be clearly distinctive from other categories of ID badges stating “Under Contract to FEMA”. FEMA Security will have a badge machine at the RSC to issue badges to contractor personnel that have background checks and fingerprints completed on file.” Interestingly, contractor workers are even required to have badges when they are performing work on the camp prior to the camp site even being fully accepted. Contractors are also required to send two individuals to participate in a FEMA-sponsored training conference every year to be no longer than four days. The contracts are a year long and may continue up to five years total if all of the four one-year options are exercised by FEMA. All of this is to be performed in the Continental United States (CONUS) and the Task Orders themselves will specifically designate the locations where services will be provided by contractors. There are some guides for wage determination rates included with the information. These include rates for “Montgomery, Alabama to be Used for Scenario I” and for “Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio to be Used for Scenario II.” Attachments two and three both outline what Scenario I and II consist of with Scenario I being located on the FEMA leased portion of Craig Field (by Craig Air Force Base) and Scenario II in Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH, Area B. They even provide some crude templates for Responder Support Camp ID cards including a red temporary ID card and a blue occupant ID card for the actual RSC occupants. As I said before, if this was evaluated on its own, it would not seem at all suspicious or sinister. However, when one considers the fact that the NDAA – which
http://bit.ly/w2Ojfm
By Madison Ruppert Editor of End the Lie On February 24, 2012 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) posted the final draft solicitation for what they are calling a National Responder Support Camp (NRSC). The announcement was posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website and boasts a great deal of similarity to a solicitation put out by KBR, Inc. on November 16, 2011 . While neither one of these solicitations are sinister when considered in isolation – as horrific natural disasters are an unfortunate fact of life – when one thinks about the historical precedents at work and the possibilities for how these camps could be used, it gets a little less hunky-dory. Furthermore, we must consider the fact that the solicitation actually puts some harsh restrictions on what the contractors are allowed to say about the contract and the fact that the potential scenarios outlined in the solicitation both put the camps on military bases. Let us not forget about the plans for mass-migration or the previous contracts from Homeland Security (the FEMA parent agency) for detention centers in the United States , which just happen to also have been given to KBR. This is regularly done under the guise of creating detention centers for " temporary immigration " and other possibilities (either real or contrived) which could result in a national emergency. Under section C.2.1 we read , “All press releases or announcements about agency programs, projects, and contract awards must be cleared by the Program Office as authorized by the CO, working in conjunction with the Office of External Affairs. Under no circumstances shall the Contractor, or anyone acting on behalf of the Contractor, refer to the supplies, services, or equipment furnished pursuant to the provisions of this contract in any publicity news release or commercial advertising, or communicates with any media without first obtaining explicit written consent to do so from the Program Office and the CO.” The second paragraph under this section seems much more reasonable, given that it deals with making sure companies do not give the impression in commercial advertisements that their products or services are “endorsed or preferred by the Federal Government or [are] considered by the Government to be superior to other products or services.” The problem I see with the first paragraph is the restriction on even referring to the “the supplies, services, or equipment furnished pursuant to the provisions of this contract” even if it was just communicated with the media. Why the secrecy if this is just a benevolent project to house people in response to a natural disaster? Wouldn’t they encourage people going out and publicizing these wonderful projects FEMA is engaged in given their horrific track record when it comes to responding to natural disasters? KBR’s document (which was incidentally released immediately after S.1867, the final Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, was introduced) was dealing with the establishment of what they called National Quick Response Teams for their current and future contracts with FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It appears that KBR’s Quick Response Teams are not enough for FEMA when it comes to their projections of massive numbers of “displaced citizens,” thus the need for additional contracts. Like the KBR solicitation, FEMA’s solicitation focuses on making Responder Support Centers (RSCs) operation in an extremely short period of time. Section C.2.0 of the solicitation says, “The Contractor shall be capable of establishing and maintaining a RSC within disaster-impacted areas within 72 hours of task order award.” It is specified that the capacity of the RSC will be no less than 301 and no more than 2,000 RSC occupants, although it is said that the contractor should have early phasing capabilities. This means that if requested, the contractor will have to provide partial support for the RSC which they classify as, “sleeping, feeding, i.e. commercial ready to eat meals, medical and sanitation” within 36 hours for just 100 people, likely staff who are preparing the camp. The contractor has to provide the staff to set-up, operate and manage the camp and “have sufficient equipment readily available for rapid deployment as well as preventive maintenance programs to ensure optimum equipment readiness levels at all times.” However, one thing it appears that the contractor is not held responsible for is security. Indeed in section C.2.2 it is specifically said that “RSC Security will be provided by the Government” and “The Government reserves the right to provide any other equipment or services to support Camp operations.” There is also a focus on fencing and barricades “to ensure the health and safety of occupants” which still meet “any applicable FEMA security requirements as defined by the Joint Field Office (JFO) Security Officer.” It appears that these camps are not meant to be used for a short period of time as within three days after the setup of the camp it is required that the contractor provide a “Morale Welfare and Recreation (MWR)” facility with television, internet access, charging stations, reading materials and games, along with refrigerators and microwaves. However, the MWR is only required for 10% of the total occupancy, which makes me think it might only be provided for workers. The security situation in these camps is obviously quite tight with photo identification cards to be mandatory to access lodging, RSC facilities, meals and laundry services. It is also written on page 80 of the PDF that a fence or barricade 6 feet tall must be provided to surround the Responder Support Camp. There are Occupant Identification Cards which “will be clearly distinctive from other categories of identification cards” and “Non-Occupant Identification cards will also be provided to authorized, non-occupant RSC visitors and will allow these authorized visitors access to the RSC dining and laundry on a self-pay for services basis.” Employees of the contractor and any sub-contractors are required to “have identifiable markings on their outer clothing displayed at all times. Contractor Identification badges shall display their name and photograph identifying they are employees of the Contractor which shall be visible at all times. These ID badges will be clearly distinctive from other categories of ID badges stating “Under Contract to FEMA”. FEMA Security will have a badge machine at the RSC to issue badges to contractor personnel that have background checks and fingerprints completed on file.” Interestingly, contractor workers are even required to have badges when they are performing work on the camp prior to the camp site even being fully accepted. Contractors are also required to send two individuals to participate in a FEMA-sponsored training conference every year to be no longer than four days. The contracts are a year long and may continue up to five years total if all of the four one-year options are exercised by FEMA. All of this is to be performed in the Continental United States (CONUS) and the Task Orders themselves will specifically designate the locations where services will be provided by contractors. There are some guides for wage determination rates included with the information. These include rates for “Montgomery, Alabama to be Used for Scenario I” and for “Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio to be Used for Scenario II.” Attachments two and three both outline what Scenario I and II consist of with Scenario I being located on the FEMA leased portion of Craig Field (by Craig Air Force Base) and Scenario II in Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH, Area B. They even provide some crude templates for Responder Support Camp ID cards including a red temporary ID card and a blue occupant ID card for the actual RSC occupants. As I said before, if this was evaluated on its own, it would not seem at all suspicious or sinister. However, when one considers the fact that the NDAA – which
Monday, February 27, 2012
Panetta, Dempsey: Sequestration Would Defeat Defense Strategy
http://bit.ly/wfeU6j
By Karen Parrish American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2012 – The Defense Department’s senior leaders strongly warned Congress today that doubling defense spending cuts would leave the military without a workable strategy to counter staggering global threats. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, along with Pentagon Comptroller Robert F. Hale, logged their third day of congressional budget testimony, speaking before the House Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee. Under the 2013 budget request, the Defense Department will spend $614 billion in fiscal 2013, divided between a $525.4 billion base budget and $88.5 billion covering war costs. The request incorporates the 2011 Budget Control Act’s requirement for a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years. The act also included a “sequestration” provision for an additional $500 billion in across-the-board cuts to take effect in January if Congress does not pass a plan to reduce the budget. “If additional efforts are made to go after the defense budget, I think it could have a serious impact in terms of our ability to implement the strategy,” Panetta said. Panetta repeatedly has emphasized the 2013 DOD budget request supports a new defense strategy, released in January, aimed at creating a smaller, more mobile and technologically advanced joint force. The secretary has also emphasized keeping faith with the all-volunteer force and the families who support them. While he doesn’t think Congress will permit sequestration, the secretary said, the threat alone is creating a “huge shadow of doubt” over defense industries, their workers and the military. Panetta outlined global threats from ongoing war in Afghanistan to challenges in the space and cyber domains to growing competition in the Pacific region and a volatile Middle East, where, he said, “any one of these countries could explode on us.” A half trillion dollars in new defense cuts could result in a military unprepared to meet those threats, he said. “It is very important that we get together -- both the administration and the Congress -- and we develop a package … to make sure this doesn't happen,” the secretary said. Dempsey said he shares the secretary’s “deep concerns, … actually, anxieties, about sequestration.” “The two things about sequestration that are alarming to us is one, the magnitude, [and] second, the mechanism,” he said. The law calls for across-the-board cuts if sequestration kicks in, but certain areas of military spending can’t be cut, the chairman explained. In restructuring the force, he noted, the current plan of trimming 124,000 troops over the next five years -- mostly from the Army and Marine Corps -- can’t be done much faster. Another round of service member reductions, which sequestration could require, would mean “we just … hand them a pink slip and send them off. And I don’t think anybody wants to do that,” he said. Infrastructure costs also are fixed, Dempsey said. Even if Congress approves new base realignment and closure processes, as the Defense Department has requested, the department won’t save any money on facilities for five to 10 years, he said. That leaves only a few budget areas the military could cut under sequestration, Dempsey said. “It’s coming out of three places, and that’s it,” the general said. “It’s coming out of equipment and modernization, that’s one. It’s coming out of maintenance, and it’s coming out of training. And then, we’ve hollowed out the force.” Dempsey told the House panel he has lived through two military drawdowns in his nearly four-decade career: one after Vietnam, and another after Desert Storm. The current drawdown is different, he said, because the previous two happened during a period of relative stability. “In my personal military judgment, formed over 38 years, we are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime right now, and I think sequestration would be completely oblivious to that, and counterproductive,” the chairman said. President Barack Obama was deeply involved with department leaders in developing the new defense strategy, Dempsey said. “It is a strategy that has to have this budget to support it,” he added. “Anything beyond this, we have to go back to the drawing board on the strategy.” The defense strategy is an aggregate of military objectives, the resources available, and how to meet those objectives with those resources, he said. “We’ve got it balanced right now,” the chairman said. “But any change in the future means we have to go back and redo our strategy.”
http://bit.ly/wfeU6j
By Karen Parrish American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2012 – The Defense Department’s senior leaders strongly warned Congress today that doubling defense spending cuts would leave the military without a workable strategy to counter staggering global threats. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, along with Pentagon Comptroller Robert F. Hale, logged their third day of congressional budget testimony, speaking before the House Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee. Under the 2013 budget request, the Defense Department will spend $614 billion in fiscal 2013, divided between a $525.4 billion base budget and $88.5 billion covering war costs. The request incorporates the 2011 Budget Control Act’s requirement for a $487 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 10 years. The act also included a “sequestration” provision for an additional $500 billion in across-the-board cuts to take effect in January if Congress does not pass a plan to reduce the budget. “If additional efforts are made to go after the defense budget, I think it could have a serious impact in terms of our ability to implement the strategy,” Panetta said. Panetta repeatedly has emphasized the 2013 DOD budget request supports a new defense strategy, released in January, aimed at creating a smaller, more mobile and technologically advanced joint force. The secretary has also emphasized keeping faith with the all-volunteer force and the families who support them. While he doesn’t think Congress will permit sequestration, the secretary said, the threat alone is creating a “huge shadow of doubt” over defense industries, their workers and the military. Panetta outlined global threats from ongoing war in Afghanistan to challenges in the space and cyber domains to growing competition in the Pacific region and a volatile Middle East, where, he said, “any one of these countries could explode on us.” A half trillion dollars in new defense cuts could result in a military unprepared to meet those threats, he said. “It is very important that we get together -- both the administration and the Congress -- and we develop a package … to make sure this doesn't happen,” the secretary said. Dempsey said he shares the secretary’s “deep concerns, … actually, anxieties, about sequestration.” “The two things about sequestration that are alarming to us is one, the magnitude, [and] second, the mechanism,” he said. The law calls for across-the-board cuts if sequestration kicks in, but certain areas of military spending can’t be cut, the chairman explained. In restructuring the force, he noted, the current plan of trimming 124,000 troops over the next five years -- mostly from the Army and Marine Corps -- can’t be done much faster. Another round of service member reductions, which sequestration could require, would mean “we just … hand them a pink slip and send them off. And I don’t think anybody wants to do that,” he said. Infrastructure costs also are fixed, Dempsey said. Even if Congress approves new base realignment and closure processes, as the Defense Department has requested, the department won’t save any money on facilities for five to 10 years, he said. That leaves only a few budget areas the military could cut under sequestration, Dempsey said. “It’s coming out of three places, and that’s it,” the general said. “It’s coming out of equipment and modernization, that’s one. It’s coming out of maintenance, and it’s coming out of training. And then, we’ve hollowed out the force.” Dempsey told the House panel he has lived through two military drawdowns in his nearly four-decade career: one after Vietnam, and another after Desert Storm. The current drawdown is different, he said, because the previous two happened during a period of relative stability. “In my personal military judgment, formed over 38 years, we are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime right now, and I think sequestration would be completely oblivious to that, and counterproductive,” the chairman said. President Barack Obama was deeply involved with department leaders in developing the new defense strategy, Dempsey said. “It is a strategy that has to have this budget to support it,” he added. “Anything beyond this, we have to go back to the drawing board on the strategy.” The defense strategy is an aggregate of military objectives, the resources available, and how to meet those objectives with those resources, he said. “We’ve got it balanced right now,” the chairman said. “But any change in the future means we have to go back and redo our strategy.”
FBI arrests man who dared to mock them
http://bit.ly/AeHKwJ
Over a year after he told the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he wanted no part in their plan to have him wear a wire while talking to trading partners, the FBI has taken John Kinnucan into custody. Kinnucan, a technical consultant and founder of Broadband Research, has been the subject of an FBI probe for quite some time. In October 2010, they approached him and asked for his cooperation in a sting that aimed to take down an alleged insider trading ring. Not only did he refuse — Kinnucan went public with their plea. Now 16 months later, the FBI has found a way to deal with Kinnucan’s lack of cooperation. Federal agents with the FBI arrested Kunnucan on Friday outside his Portland, Oregon home, charging him with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and two counts of securities fraud. He is now awaiting arraignment in New York City. Kinnucan, 54, founded Broadband Research LLC. When his involvement aroused rumors of insider trading, the FBI began an investigation in 2010. They approached Kinnucan at the time and asked for his cooperation in a sting to bring down others. Kinnucan responded by going public. “A lot of people say, don't mess with the Feds when they come into your yard and ask for your cooperation you're better off giving it. Most people would say you certainly don' t want to go on television. But you've chosen to do that. I'm just curious as to why?" a reporter for CNBC asked him in 2010. "I feel very strongly I've done nothing wrong,” Kinnucan responded. “My clients have done nothing wrong… I just felt it was the right thing to do." Kinnucan would continue to mock the FBI for their failed attempt at persuading him to rat on his associates. He publicly denounced the agents that approached him as "fresh faced eager beavers” and would eventually pen a column for The New York Times baring the title, "Why I Chose Not to Wear a Wire.” Kinnucan would write that the FBI threatened to arrest him when he first refused to record conversation with trading partners. He would say in The Times, " My personal belief is that much of this activity is politically motivated, and will ultimately only delay the return of the confidence of Main Street and Wall Street in our country,” while defending himself by declaring “my clients and I have done nothing wrong.” The FBI still thinks otherwise, however, and on Thursday, ten agents arrived at his Oregon home and took Kinnucan into custody. Responding to requests from Bloomberg News on Friday, the FBI declined to offer any comment. Authorities attest that Kinnucan had a crucial role in what is being pegged the “biggest insider trading investigation of a generation.” On Friday, Former SanDisk Corp. executive Donald Barnetson pleaded guilty to charges of participating in a securities fraud scheme along with Kinnucan. Prosecutors believe that the two engaged in insider trading over the course of several years. The investigation launched by the FBI, a five-year probe called “Perfect Hedge,” has so far spawned charges against around 60 individuals.
http://bit.ly/AeHKwJ
Over a year after he told the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he wanted no part in their plan to have him wear a wire while talking to trading partners, the FBI has taken John Kinnucan into custody. Kinnucan, a technical consultant and founder of Broadband Research, has been the subject of an FBI probe for quite some time. In October 2010, they approached him and asked for his cooperation in a sting that aimed to take down an alleged insider trading ring. Not only did he refuse — Kinnucan went public with their plea. Now 16 months later, the FBI has found a way to deal with Kinnucan’s lack of cooperation. Federal agents with the FBI arrested Kunnucan on Friday outside his Portland, Oregon home, charging him with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and two counts of securities fraud. He is now awaiting arraignment in New York City. Kinnucan, 54, founded Broadband Research LLC. When his involvement aroused rumors of insider trading, the FBI began an investigation in 2010. They approached Kinnucan at the time and asked for his cooperation in a sting to bring down others. Kinnucan responded by going public. “A lot of people say, don't mess with the Feds when they come into your yard and ask for your cooperation you're better off giving it. Most people would say you certainly don' t want to go on television. But you've chosen to do that. I'm just curious as to why?" a reporter for CNBC asked him in 2010. "I feel very strongly I've done nothing wrong,” Kinnucan responded. “My clients have done nothing wrong… I just felt it was the right thing to do." Kinnucan would continue to mock the FBI for their failed attempt at persuading him to rat on his associates. He publicly denounced the agents that approached him as "fresh faced eager beavers” and would eventually pen a column for The New York Times baring the title, "Why I Chose Not to Wear a Wire.” Kinnucan would write that the FBI threatened to arrest him when he first refused to record conversation with trading partners. He would say in The Times, " My personal belief is that much of this activity is politically motivated, and will ultimately only delay the return of the confidence of Main Street and Wall Street in our country,” while defending himself by declaring “my clients and I have done nothing wrong.” The FBI still thinks otherwise, however, and on Thursday, ten agents arrived at his Oregon home and took Kinnucan into custody. Responding to requests from Bloomberg News on Friday, the FBI declined to offer any comment. Authorities attest that Kinnucan had a crucial role in what is being pegged the “biggest insider trading investigation of a generation.” On Friday, Former SanDisk Corp. executive Donald Barnetson pleaded guilty to charges of participating in a securities fraud scheme along with Kinnucan. Prosecutors believe that the two engaged in insider trading over the course of several years. The investigation launched by the FBI, a five-year probe called “Perfect Hedge,” has so far spawned charges against around 60 individuals.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen: "New NATO – New Turkey"
http://bit.ly/xeVpY4
NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 17 Feb. 2012 "New NATO – New Turkey" Speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen held in Ankara, Turkey Minister Davutoglu - dear Ahmet, thank you very much for that very kind introduction. Ladies and gentlemen, It is indeed a great pleasure to be here today on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Turkey’s membership of the NATO Alliance. I have been looking very much forward to visiting Turkey today, and before proceeding I have to apologize that due to weather conditions I will have to leave immediately after my statement. But it is important for me to be here and tell you how much we appreciate Turkey’s contribution to our Alliance. Turkey has been a vital member of NATO for 60 years. Many things have changed in that time. But our commitment to each other has not. Turkey plays an important role in our operations and we are particularly grateful for your steadfast commitment to our ISAF operation. Turkey has an important voice in our decisions. And Turkey has a vital part to play in shaping our partnerships. Together, we are the most successful military Alliance in the world. So Turkey has done very much for NATO. It has shown its commitment to stability, security and solidarity time and time again. But NATO has also done a lot and does a lot for Turkey. Let me highlight just three of those benefits. First, Article 5. NATO’s founding treaty is still the world’s most powerful insurance policy. Its collective defence clause means you have 27 Allies ready, and willing, to help defend you. That was true when you stood on the cold war flank of the Alliance. It is just as true today. Second, the very existence of our Alliance sends a strong signal of solidarity. Any aggressor would think long and hard before upsetting your own stability and security. Because they know that to threaten one Ally is to threaten them all. By being a member of NATO, you benefit not just from your own contributions, but you benefit from other Allies’ contributions too. So the security each Ally gets out, is about more than just the security you contribute. And finally, consultation. NATO remains the only structured forum that brings together North America and Europe. It is a dynamic and unique forum for Allied consultations on both the political and the military dimensions of security. All decisions are taken by consensus. So Turkey’s voice matters. When your country speaks, its views are heard across all Allied capitals. And when NATO meets with its partners, Turkey’s views are heard across the world – from Stockholm to Sydney and from Algiers to Astana. For sixty years, Turkey has been a part of the transatlantic family. Turkey gains what all the family members gain – not just the promotion of our interests, but also the protection of our values. We believe in freedom. We believe in democracy. And we believe that the human desire for both will prevail against repression and dictatorship. We saw this in Tunisia. We saw this in Egypt. And we saw this in Libya. We are also seeing this today in Syria. I welcome Turkey’s efforts to bring a peaceful resolution to this crisis. And I agree with Foreign Minister Davutoglu, that the only way forward in Syria, as everywhere else, is to satisfy the democratic aspirations of the people. Ladies and gentlemen, I have been NATO Secretary General for two and a half years now. During that time, I have greatly valued Turkey’s role in the Alliance. And I believe that, as the Arab Spring unfolds, continued Turkish leadership will be crucial for a peaceful future. Many choose to focus on the short-term problems of the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. I choose to focus on the long-term opportunities. And I believe we should seize them with both hands. So that we keep alive the dream of freedom, security, and stability. And open a new era of cooperation between NATO, Turkey, and countries in this region. Turkey brings together East and West, North and South. Its strong heart beats where Europe, Asia and the Mediterranean all meet. And that is a great advantage, for Turkey, and for us all. Thank you very much.
http://bit.ly/xeVpY4
NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 17 Feb. 2012 "New NATO – New Turkey" Speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen held in Ankara, Turkey Minister Davutoglu - dear Ahmet, thank you very much for that very kind introduction. Ladies and gentlemen, It is indeed a great pleasure to be here today on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Turkey’s membership of the NATO Alliance. I have been looking very much forward to visiting Turkey today, and before proceeding I have to apologize that due to weather conditions I will have to leave immediately after my statement. But it is important for me to be here and tell you how much we appreciate Turkey’s contribution to our Alliance. Turkey has been a vital member of NATO for 60 years. Many things have changed in that time. But our commitment to each other has not. Turkey plays an important role in our operations and we are particularly grateful for your steadfast commitment to our ISAF operation. Turkey has an important voice in our decisions. And Turkey has a vital part to play in shaping our partnerships. Together, we are the most successful military Alliance in the world. So Turkey has done very much for NATO. It has shown its commitment to stability, security and solidarity time and time again. But NATO has also done a lot and does a lot for Turkey. Let me highlight just three of those benefits. First, Article 5. NATO’s founding treaty is still the world’s most powerful insurance policy. Its collective defence clause means you have 27 Allies ready, and willing, to help defend you. That was true when you stood on the cold war flank of the Alliance. It is just as true today. Second, the very existence of our Alliance sends a strong signal of solidarity. Any aggressor would think long and hard before upsetting your own stability and security. Because they know that to threaten one Ally is to threaten them all. By being a member of NATO, you benefit not just from your own contributions, but you benefit from other Allies’ contributions too. So the security each Ally gets out, is about more than just the security you contribute. And finally, consultation. NATO remains the only structured forum that brings together North America and Europe. It is a dynamic and unique forum for Allied consultations on both the political and the military dimensions of security. All decisions are taken by consensus. So Turkey’s voice matters. When your country speaks, its views are heard across all Allied capitals. And when NATO meets with its partners, Turkey’s views are heard across the world – from Stockholm to Sydney and from Algiers to Astana. For sixty years, Turkey has been a part of the transatlantic family. Turkey gains what all the family members gain – not just the promotion of our interests, but also the protection of our values. We believe in freedom. We believe in democracy. And we believe that the human desire for both will prevail against repression and dictatorship. We saw this in Tunisia. We saw this in Egypt. And we saw this in Libya. We are also seeing this today in Syria. I welcome Turkey’s efforts to bring a peaceful resolution to this crisis. And I agree with Foreign Minister Davutoglu, that the only way forward in Syria, as everywhere else, is to satisfy the democratic aspirations of the people. Ladies and gentlemen, I have been NATO Secretary General for two and a half years now. During that time, I have greatly valued Turkey’s role in the Alliance. And I believe that, as the Arab Spring unfolds, continued Turkish leadership will be crucial for a peaceful future. Many choose to focus on the short-term problems of the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East. I choose to focus on the long-term opportunities. And I believe we should seize them with both hands. So that we keep alive the dream of freedom, security, and stability. And open a new era of cooperation between NATO, Turkey, and countries in this region. Turkey brings together East and West, North and South. Its strong heart beats where Europe, Asia and the Mediterranean all meet. And that is a great advantage, for Turkey, and for us all. Thank you very much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)