Bush hits Obama on foreign policy

President says meeting with adversarial leaders can 'send the wrong signal.'

By James Gerstenzang, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 29, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Setting aside his stated reluctance to enter the presidential campaign, President Bush on Thursday strongly criticized Barack Obama's expressed readiness to meet with foreign leaders cast as tyrants, warning that such discussions "can be extremely counterproductive" and "send the wrong signal."

He also challenged Democrats' skepticism about the North American Free Trade Agreement, and reminded Obama that Al Qaeda has been seeking to establish a base in Iraq "for the past four years."

At the same time, he said at a White House news conference that he was not yet willing to join the political fray, but his comments suggested otherwise. He worked beyond the edges of the debate, challenging for the first time -- and across a broad spectrum of issues -- some of the tenets of Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns and the direction in which the Democrats would take the nation.

In the lively 46-minute session, during which Bush bantered with reporters, he delivered a forceful plea for congressional support of his plan to renew anti-terrorist eavesdropping legislation.

He attacked congressional critics of his Iraq policy and expressed curiosity -- as well as uncertainty -- about Dmitri A. Medvedev, the all-but-certain successor to Russian President Vladimir V. Putin.

But it was in his challenge to Obama's readiness to meet with the pariahs of American foreign policy that Bush plunged most directly into the presidential campaign.

The president said that "sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro" would lend the status of the American presidency to the new Cuban leader.

"He gains a lot from it by saying, 'Look at me, I'm now recognized by the president of the United States,' " Bush said.

Bush's reluctance to speak publicly about the campaign serves a political purpose, given his low approval ratings and questions about whether his words can help or hurt Republican candidates.

However, with Obama and Clinton seeking to differentiate themselves from each other and from Bush on foreign policy, he may have helped make their point.

Bush has long objected to talking with adversaries -- notably from Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Asked why such talks, without preconditions, would be wrong, he said they would "give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity."

Obama, who has said that if elected he would be willing to meet U.S. enemies, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told reporters after Bush spoke that the United States should not fear engaging its foes.

Campaigning in Texas, he said he would enter such a meeting only after "a lot of preparation and diplomatic spadework," and would tell Ahmadinejad that Iran's development of nuclear weapons, its funding for Hezbollah and Hamas, and its anti-Israel rhetoric were unacceptable.

In exchange for changes in its behavior, Obama said, Iran could expect eventual consideration of its bid to join the World Trade Organization and the loosening of U.N. sanctions.

The controversy takes on new timeliness with the ascendance of Raul Castro to the Cuban presidency, replacing his brother, Fidel.

"I'm not suggesting there's never a time to talk, but I'm suggesting now is not the time . . . to talk with Raul Castro," Bush said.

"He's nothing more than an extension of what his brother did, which was to ruin an island, and imprison people because of their beliefs.

"The decisions of the U.S. president to have discussions with certain international figures can be extremely counterproductive," he said. "It can send chilling signals and messages to our allies; it can send confusion about our foreign policy; it discourages reformers inside their own country. And in my judgment, it would be a mistake."

Even as Bush put up a wall between himself and certain foreign leaders -- he singled out Kim Jong Il of North Korea -- he said it was "important to establish personal relations with leaders even though you may not agree with them."

Bush is expected to hold a farewell meeting with Putin, with whom he acknowledged having had "diplomatic head-butts," while in eastern Europe for a NATO summit in April, roughly four weeks before Putin leaves the presidency.

Asked whether he thought Medvedev, as the Russian president's hand-picked successor, would turn into a Putin puppet, Bush said: "I wouldn't say that."

Trade policy has increasingly become a focal point in the Democratic presidential race, particularly in Ohio. Texas and Ohio are the two biggest prizes in Tuesday's primaries.

Clinton has called for renegotiating elements of NAFTA, which her husband's administration pushed through Congress after it was largely negotiated by the George H.W. Bush administration.

Broadening her criticism of the current administration's trade policy, she said in Ohio on Thursday that Bush had "turned a blind eye to all of the actions by China and others to dump steel into Ohio, hurting Ohio workers and the Ohio economy."

Defending the pact that in 1993 tore down barriers to trade among the U.S., Canada and Mexico, Bush said "the idea of just unilaterally withdrawing from a trade treaty because of trying to score political points is not good policy."

On other topics, Bush:

* Criticized Obama's statement in a Democratic debate Tuesday that "if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq," then the United States would have to act to protect itself. "Well, that's exactly what they've been trying to do for the past four years," he said.

* Said if eavesdropping legislation did not protect telephone companies from lawsuits -- a central issue in whether to renew a measure aimed at listening in on potential terrorists' conversations -- litigation "would give Al Qaeda and others a road map as to how to avoid the surveillance." He said that the telephone companies' help was needed, but that without government protection they would be exposed to lawsuits by "class-action plaintiffs attorneys" sensing "a financial gravy train."

* Was asked whether he was trying to collect up to $200 million for his presidential library, whether Americans should know who is contributing, whether he would disclose the contributions as they arrive, and whether he would restrict who could donate and how much they could give.

"No, yes, no, yes," he replied.

james.gerstenzang@ latimes.com

Times staff writers Mark Z. Barabak in Texas and Michael Finnegan in Ohio contributed to this report.

*** *** ***

Em destaque: Presidente Bush, que até então evitava comentários sobre a corrida dos candidatos às eleições americanas deste ano para não prejudicar os republicanos, faz críticas às intenções de Barack Obama de encontrar líderes de países não aliados aos Estados Unidos se eleito.

Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Publicação: 29 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/campaign08/newsletter/la-na-bush29feb29,0,1632976.story?page=1

War and peace, the Army way

Rosa Brooks

February 28, 2008

Another 100 years of U.S. troops in Iraq?

"Fine with me," GOP presidential contender John McCain said in January. McCain, who's famously irascible, was presumably exaggerating. His point, he clarified, wasn't that he actually foresaw another 100 years of war, but that U.S. troops may retain an important role in Iraq that goes on for many years after direct combat operations end.

Don't like that idea? Get used to it. Because in many ways, McCain's comments are squarely in line with the latest Army doctrine.

This week, the Army released a new version of FM 3-0, the Army Field Manual on Operations. The first revision since 9/11, it offers what the Army -- which is not an institution prone to exaggeration -- calls "a revolutionary departure from past doctrine." For more than 200 years, the Army has had two "core missions": offense and defense. FM 3-0 adds a third: "stability operations," better (if more controversially) known to the public as nation building.

Remember the 1990s, when disgruntled Army officers waged a muttering campaign against the Clinton administration's decision to send them to Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, on the grounds that real soldiers ought to spend their time fighting, not acting as peacekeepers/cops/prison guards/civil administrators? Things are different now.

The 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan and Iraq changed a lot of minds about the value of what the military once marginalized as "OOTW" -- "Operations Other Than War." The rise of Al Qaeda helped demonstrate that the many varieties of human misery -- poverty, chaos, repression, civil conflict -- also happen to be perfect breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism. And our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq made it painfully clear that winning the peace matters as much as winning the war.

The U.S. military has always been exceptionally good at war fighting. In Iraq, for instance, defeating the military forces of Saddam Hussein took less than a month. But we all know what happened after that.

By adding stability operations as a new core mission, the revised Army Field Manual tries to ensure that the failures of Iraq will never be repeated. FM 3-0 foresees future Army forces fighting when fighting is called for -- but troops also will work as needed to ensure civilian security and provide "emergency infrastructure reconstruction, humanitarian relief [and] political, legal, social and economic institutions that support the transition to legitimate local governance."

Stability operations will be integrated into Army planning and training at every level and will take place across the "full spectrum of conflict": that is, such activities may be preventive (intended to keep an unstable society from collapsing), or coexist with traditional war fighting, or occur in the aftermath of a conflict.

Imagine! If the White House and the Defense Department had seen Iraq in those terms from the beginning and committed resources accordingly, thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilian lives might have been saved, the insurgency might never have gotten off the ground, Al Qaeda in Iraq might never have gained a footing and the U.S. might have a lot more friends in the world today.

So FM 3-0 is welcome, and overdue.

But here's the rub. Successful stability operations take a lot of time.

Maybe not McCain's 100 years, but if the U.S. is serious about seeing stability operations as part of the Army's core mission, we'll need a larger Army, and we'll be looking at extended deployments in trouble spots around the globe. You can defeat an enemy army in a month, but truly "stabilizing" a society is something that will happen -- if it happens -- over 10 or 20 years, not 10 or 20 weeks.

FM 3-0 also raises as many new questions as it answers.

The Army can't possibly "stabilize" every troubled society, so how will the U.S. select priorities? Will military involvement in traditionally humanitarian activities create new dangers for private relief and humanitarian organizations? Will others around the world see U.S. stability operations as just a new form of imperialism?

And: Should FM 3-0 be seen as a continuation of a disturbing post-9/11 trend toward the militarization of U.S. foreign policy? Or should it be seen as a sort of "civilianization" of the military, insofar as it acknowledges that real security for the United States can't be achieved through force alone?

And: What role will civilians play? The State Department supposedly "coordinates" U.S. stability operations, including those undertaken by the military -- but that's like saying a mouse will coordinate a pack of 800-pound gorillas. Will Congress commit the funds to build up civilian capacity to match our undoubted military capacity?

In the end, of course, the Army can't answer these questions. Congress and the next president need to. And let's hope they take the task seriously, because 100 years without answers would be an awfully long time.

rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com

***
Em destaque: A colunista do Los Angeles Times, Rosa Brooks, comenta a inserção de mais uma base de atuação do exército americano no seu manual de operações de campo em sua primeira revisão desde 11 de setembro de 2001 (FM 3-0): 'operações de estabilidade', ou seja, atuação do exército na reconstrução de uma nação.
Antes as bases eram apenas duas: a de defesa e ataque.

Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Autora: Rosa Brooks
Publicação: 28 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oe-brooks28feb28,0,1983673.column

Obama, McCain trade jabs on Iraq, terror

They offer a preview of a possible matchup in the general election, while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton focuses on trade and foreclosures.

By Mark Z. Barabak and Maeve Reston, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
February 28, 2008

DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama sparred long distance Wednesday over Iraq and terrorism, previewing a likely foreign policy debate should the two men face each other in the fall.

The exchange was sparked by a response Obama gave in Tuesday night's debate with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Both Democrats favor a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, which McCain opposes.

Asked if he would reserve the right as president to send U.S. troops back into Iraq to quell an insurrection or civil war, Obama replied: "As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

Reacting Wednesday morning in Tyler, Texas, McCain taunted: "I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. . . . It's called 'Al Qaeda in Iraq.' " Some in the town-hall audience laughed.

"If we left . . . they wouldn't be establishing a base," the Arizona Republican said. "They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends."

Obama responded at a rally in the sports arena at Ohio State University in Columbus. "I have some news for John McCain," the Illinois Democrat said, leaning into the crowd for emphasis. "There was no such thing as 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

Noting that McCain tells audiences that he would follow Osama bin Laden to the "gates of hell" to catch him, Obama brought the crowd of more than 7,000 to its feet by gibing, "All he has done is to follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq."

Later, at a rally Wednesday night in Texas, Obama added, "That's the news, John McCain. And I'm happy to have that debate with you in November. In October. In September."

The back-and-forth framed the case that the two men, still fighting to clinch their party nominations, would be likely to make against each other in a general election campaign.

McCain suggests that Obama, 46, is too callow to serve as commander in chief. "If we do what Sen. Obama wants to do -- and that's an immediate withdrawal -- that would mean surrender in Iraq," McCain said at a noontime town hall in San Antonio. "I guess that means that he would surrender and then go back."

Obama asserts that McCain, 71, is too wed to the policies of President Bush and old-line Washington. "He's tied to the politics of the past," Obama told the crowd in Columbus. "We are about policies of the future."

The Democrat later left Ohio to campaign in Duncanville and San Marcos, Texas; the two states hold primaries Tuesday that pose a potential make-or-break challenge for Clinton. In the race superdelegates, Obama gained and Clinton lost one Wednesday when Democratic Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, a leader of the civil rights movement, changed sides and endorsed the senator from Illinois.

"I understand he's been under tremendous pressure," Clinton told KTRK-TV in Houston in a satellite interview. "He's been my friend. He will always be my friend."

The New York Democrat campaigned Wednesday in Ohio, where she focused on the state's ailing economy and accused Obama and McCain of failing to address the surge in home foreclosures.

"Sen. Obama does not have a plan," Clinton told reporters on a flight from Cleveland to Columbus. "Sen. McCain doesn't have a plan."

She said she was pleased by Tuesday night's Democratic debate in Cleveland, saying she had succeeded in drawing contrasts with Obama and in demonstrating her credentials to be president.

Clinton ignored suggestions that she had failed to change the essential dynamic of the Democratic race, which has tipped Obama's way since early February, when he began his string of 11 straight victories. "What's important is that we have a lot of people yet to vote," Clinton said.

In Zanesville, Clinton again pledged to fix the problems she sees with the North American Free Trade Agreement. The pact with Mexico and Canada was signed into law by her husband, former President Clinton.

"We're going to have trade that lifts up our families -- pro-worker, pro-environment, pro-American trade," Clinton told several hundred supporters. She also touted her plan to put a moratorium on home foreclosures. "Too many Ohioans are losing their homes," she said. "The numbers are staggering."

mark.barabak@latimes.com

maeve.reston@latimes.com

Barabak reported from Ohio and Texas, and Reston reported from Texas. Times staff writers Michael Finnegan in Ohio and Johanna Neumann in Washington also contributed to this report.

****

Em destaque: Os candidatos Barack Obama e John McCain, os favoritos para serem os finalistas das eleições americanas de 2008 trocam 'farpas' sobre suas posições em relação ao Iraque.

Publicação: 28 de fevereiro 2008
Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/mideastemail/la-na-campaign28feb28,0,5906566.story

Duas opiniões

Segue abaixo dois artigos do Los Angeles Times.

O primeiro, de Andrew Napolitano, problematiza e critica a discriminação feita pelos Estados Unidos aos estrangeiros, que são alvos não protegidos pela constituição federal americana (4th Amendment) para as práticas de vigilância pelo governo.
(link original: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-napolitano18feb18,0,1665050.story)

O segundo artigo é uma resposta a Napolitano feita pelo congressista republicano Darrell Issa, que defende a prática de vigilância de 'terroristas estrangeiros' para o bem estar do povo americano.
(link original: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-issa25feb25,0,1843063.story)

****

The invasion of America

Creeping intrusions against our privacy rights are an assault on the Constitution.

By Andrew P. Napolitano
February 18, 2008

When President Nixon was in his pre-Watergate heyday, he ordered the FBI and the CIA to electronically monitor the private behavior of his domestic political adversaries. Shortly after Nixon resigned, investigators discovered hundreds of reports of break-ins and secret electronic surveillance. None of it was authorized by warrants, and thus all of it was illegal. But it had been conducted pursuant to the president's orders. Nixon's defense was, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

He made that infamous statement in a TV interview years after he left office, but the attitude espoused was obviously one he embraced while in the White House. He, like his present-day successor, rejected the truism that the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from conducting electronic surveillance of anyone without a search warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause of a crime, restrains the president.

In response to the abuses during the Nixon administration, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, in 1978. The law provides that no electronic surveillance may occur by anyone in the government at any time under any circumstances for any reason other than in accordance with law, and no such surveillance may occur within the U.S. of an American other than in accordance with the 4th Amendment.

The 4th Amendment was written in response to the Colonial experience whereby British soldiers wrote their own search warrants, thus literally authorizing themselves to enter the private property of colonists.

The amendment has been uniformly interpreted by the courts to require a warrant by a judge; and judges can only issue search warrants after government agents, under oath, have convinced the judges that it is more likely than not that the things to be seized are evidence of crimes. This standard of proof is called probable cause of crime. It is one of only two instances in which the founders wrote a rule of criminal procedure into the Constitution itself, surely so that no Congress, president or court could tamper with it.

FISA also created the bizarre, constitutionally questionable procedure in which federal agents could appear in front of a secret court and, instead of presenting probable cause of a crime in order to obtain a search warrant, would only need to present probable cause that the target of the warrant was an agent of a foreign government. The foreign government could be friendly or it could wish us ill, but no illegal or even anti-American behavior need be shown. Subsequent amendments to this statute removed the "agency" requirement and demanded only that the target be a person physically present in the U.S. who was not born here and is not an American citizen, whether working for a foreign government or not.

The FISA statute itself significantly -- and, in my opinion, unconstitutionally -- lowered the 4th Amendment bar from probable cause of "crime"to probable cause of "status." However, in order to protect the 4th Amendment rights of the targets of spying, the statute erected a so-called wall between gathering evidence and using evidence. The government cannot constitutionally prosecute someone unless it has evidence against him that was obtained pursuant to probable cause of a crime, a standard not met by a FISA warrant.

Congress changed all that. The Patriot Act passed after 9/11 and its later version not only destroyed the wall between investigation and prosecution,they mandated that investigators who obtained evidence of criminal activity pursuant to FISA warrants share that evidence with prosecutors. They also instructed federal judges that the evidence thus shared is admissible under the Constitution against a defendant in a criminal case. Congress forgot that it cannot tell federal judges what evidence is admissible because judges, not politicians, decide what a jury hears.

Then the Bush administration and Congress went even further. The administration wanted, and Congress has begrudgingly given it, the authority to conduct electronic surveillance of foreigners and Americans without even a FISA warrant -- without any warrant whatsoever. The so-called Protect America Act of 2007, which expired at the end of last week, gave the government carte blanche to spy on foreign persons outside the U.S., even if Americans in the United States with whom they may be communicating are spied on -- illegally -- in the process. Director of National Intelligence J. Michael McConnell told the House Judiciary Committee last year that hundreds of unsuspecting Americans' conversations and e-mails are spied on annually as a consequence of the warrantless surveillance of foreigners outside the United States.

So where does all this leave us? Even though, since 1978, the government has gotten more than 99% of its FISA applications approved, the administration wants to do away with FISA altogether if at least one of the people whose conversations or e-mails it wishes to monitor is not in the U.S. and is not an American.

Those who believe the Constitution means what it says should tremble at every effort to weaken any of its protections. The Constitution protects all "persons" and all "people" implicated by government behavior. So the government should be required, as it was until FISA, to obtain a 4th Amendment warrant to conduct surveillance of anyone, American or not, in the U.S. or not.

If we lower constitutional protections for foreigners and their American correspondents, for whom will we lower them next?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is "A Nation of Sheep."

**********

Artigo Resposta

**********

No 4th Amendment for terrorists abroad

Foreign intelligence gathering requires different tools from criminal investigations.

By Darrell Issa
February 25, 2008

Andrew Napolitano's Op-Ed article arguing that foreign terrorists are entitled to protections under the 4th Amendment is riddled with false arguments and absurd comparisons. It is lucky for all of us that federal courts have rejected his wrong-headed, judicial-activist theories.

We live in a dangerous time and our intelligence agencies are our front line of defense. To a great extent, it is through their efforts that we have prevented numerous attacks on the United States since the tragedies of Sept. 11, 2001. Our vigilance and aggressive approach to combating terrorism must continue if we are to avert future attacks.

I sit on both of the committees in the House of Representatives with jurisdiction over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Intelligence and Judiciary. One of the biggest differences between the two committees is that many proceedings before the Intelligence Committee are held in secret, closed sessions. The simple reason for this is that much of the information disclosed at these hearings could endanger American lives if released to the public.

For the very same reason, requests for FISA wiretaps are made in nonpublic FISA court proceedings. The information presented during these proceedings is sensitive in nature, and we cannot allow our enemies to know what we know, or worse, give them information they do not already have. Napolitano's assertion that FISA court proceedings are "bizarre" and unconstitutional ignores our national security interests as well as interpretations of the Constitution by our nation's court system.

Napolitano, arguing that FISA and our government's monitoring of terrorists are unconstitutional, posed a question that I find truly perplexing. He asked, "If we lower constitutional protections for foreigners and their American correspondents, for whom will we lower them next?"

Let me be clear, foreigners abroad do not enjoy — and have never been granted — the protections of the U.S. Constitution, including 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

FISA requires a different showing of probable cause from traditional criminal wiretaps. However, this isn't a "constitutionally questionable procedure" as Napolitano suggests. It's common sense. Clearly, acquiring evidence to prosecute a crime that has already been committed is markedly different from acquiring foreign intelligence information to prevent a terrorist attack. Congress recognized this when it enacted FISA in 1978 — an effort that did not extend the powers of the presidency but attempted to limit them. The constitutionality of FISA is well-settled by the courts. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review even noted that, in certain respects, FISA actually surpasses constitutional requirements for traditional criminal warrants.

Since its enactment in 1978, FISA has not required court orders to monitor a person who is not in the U.S. and is not an American. Napolitano seemingly misunderstands the real and important purpose of FISA — to provide constitutional protections to U.S. persons, not foreigners.

Napolitano's article echoes many of the arguments made by the Democrat majority in the House, that effectively monitoring foreign terrorists and protecting the rights of Americans are incompatible. Earlier this month, the Senate adopted a bipartisan bill that would stay on the books for six years — House Democrats, however, refused to bring this bill to the floor for a vote, deciding instead to allow authority critical to our ability to monitor terrorists to simply expire. Leaving town without acting on an issue so important is shameful — the House Democrat leadership has placed both our homeland and our troops fighting abroad in increased danger.

The debate over FISA is an important one and Republicans are committed to ensuring that individuals within the United States continue to enjoy their full constitutional rights. Everyone agrees that we need strong protections against monitoring of Americans' communications. That's why our intelligence laws have always required court orders to target people in the U.S. However, we cannot hamstring our intelligence agencies by forcing them to seek a court order every time they need to monitor the communications of suspected terrorists abroad. The tools used by the intelligence community must be as real and rapidly deployed as any looming threat.

Darrell Issa is a Republican congressman from Vista.

Guantanamo prosecutor turns defense witness

Air Force Col. Morris Davis, who resigned as the prison's chief military prosecutor in October, will testify at a hearing for the driver of Osama bin Laden.

From the Associated Press

February 22, 2008

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO -- The former chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay said Thursday that he would be a defense witness for the driver of Osama bin Laden.

Air Force Col. Morris Davis, who resigned in October over alleged political interference in the U.S. military tribunals, told the Associated Press that he would appear at a hearing for Salim Ahmed Hamdan."I expect to be called as a witness. . . . I'm more than happy to testify," Davis said in a telephone interview from Washington. He called it "an opportunity to tell the truth."

At the April pretrial hearing inside the U.S. military base in southeast Cuba, Hamdan's defense team plans to argue that the alleged political interference cited by Davis violates the Military Commissions Act, Hamdan's military lawyer, Navy Lt. Brian Mizer, told the Associated Press.

Davis alleges, among other things, that Pentagon General Counsel William J. Haynes II said in August 2005 that any acquittals of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo would make the United States look bad, calling into question the fairness of the proceedings.

"He said, 'We can't have acquittals; we've got to have convictions,' " Davis recalled.

A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, denied that Haynes made such a comment. Gordon also denied the former prosecutor's allegations of political interference, which he has repeated in newspaper opinion columns and in interviews in recent months.

If the judge rejects the motion to dismiss, Mizer said, the defense will seek to remove two top officials in the military commission system -- legal advisor Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann and Convening Authority Susan Crawford -- from Hamdan's case. This would probably result in further delays to a trial that has been stalled by legal challenges.

It is not clear whether the Pentagon -- which defends the commission system as fair -- will allow Davis to testify. In December, two months after he resigned as the chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo war-crimes tribunals, the Defense Department barred Davis from appearing before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.

The U.S. holds about 275 men at Guantanamo and plans to prosecute about 80 before military commissions. The Pentagon this month charged six detainees with murder and war crimes for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and said they could be executed if convicted.

*** *** ***
Em destaque: Um ex-procurador de Guantánamo, Morris Davis, se dispõe a ser testemunha de defesa no processo de julgamento de um motorista de Osama Bin Laden, Salim Ahmed Hamdan. Davis largou seu cargo em Outubro de 2007 alegando intervenções políticas nos tribunais militares americanos. Segundo ele, o general William J. Haynes , que faz parte do Conselho de Segurança do Pentágono, disse em Agosto de 2005 que qualquer absolvição de suspeitos de terrorismo presos em Guantánamo faria os Estados Unidos serem mal vistos, o que colocou em questão a justeza dos tribunais militares.

Observação: Esta matéria não está diretamente relacionada às Eleições Americanas, mas possui informações pertinentes para o blog e para a pesquisa do grupo.

Fonte: The LA Times
Publicação: 22 de fevereiro 2008
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/mideastemail/la-na-gitmo22feb22,0,2370010.story

Shame, Sen. McCain

His vote against a ban on 'enhanced' interrogation methods belies his opposition to torture.

February 19, 2008

One of John McCain's most admirable traits has been his eloquent opposition to the use of torture against suspected terrorists. During a Republican presidential debate last year in which other candidates tried to out-tough each other by endorsing "enhanced" interrogation methods, McCain recalled: "When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us as we went -- underwent torture ourselves -- is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them. It's not about the terrorists; it's about us."

Yes it is, which is why Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) should have voted last week for legislation sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would remove any doubt that CIA interrogators are forbidden to engage in waterboarding and other tactics banned by the Army Field Manual. Instead, McCain squandered some of his moral authority by supporting the Bush administration's position that the CIA should have more leeway than military interrogators. The legislation passed the Senate anyway, as well as the House, but support from McCain, the putative Republican nominee, would have made it harder for President Bush to veto.

McCain was adamant that he wasn't reneging on his belief that waterboarding is illegal under a law he sponsored in 2005 prohibiting "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of prisoners in U.S. custody. With waterboarding off the table, in McCain's view, there's nothing wrong with allowing CIA interrogators to use other methods not available to the military. Although McCain wasn't specific about what those might be, the Army Field Manual bans subjecting prisoners to sleep deprivation, painful "stress positions" or extreme temperatures, or using dogs to intimidate them.

To be fair, McCain's original anti-torture amendment also gave the CIA greater leeway -- and that was the problem. As long as there is a double standard for interrogations, there will be suspicions that the CIA is engaging in practices that most reasonable people would consider torture -- including waterboarding, which was inflicted on three suspected terrorists in 2002 and 2003. Such suspicion is deepened by signs that Bush doesn't agree with McCain that waterboarding is now illegal. Earlier this month, Bush spokesman Tony Fratto said that it was legal and could be employed again "under certain circumstances."

Bush long ago proved that, in dealing with the reality and the threat of terrorism, his administration will take a mile for every inch that Congress gives. In voting to give Bush that inch, McCain has been untrue to his principles.


*** *** ***

Em destaque: Editorial do jornal LA Times critica a decisão do candidato republicano John McCain de dar apoio a posição da administração Bush quanto ao uso de métodos 'mais persuasivos' pela CIA - como o waterboarding - para interrogar suspeitos. Seu voto no Senado, contrário a medida que proibiria a CIA dessas ações, segundo o editorial, estaria desmentindo sua posição contrária ao uso da tortura.

Publicação: 19 de fevereiro 2008
Fonte: La Times
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-mcain19feb19,0,4421936.story

Sobre Tortura

Primeiro, uma coluna de Rosa Brooks, do LA Times sobre recentes esforços do atual presidente americano, George Bush, para a legalização do waterboarding - considerado pelos atuais candidatos a presidência uma forma de tortura assim como pelas Nações Unidas. A coluna foi publicada dia 14 de fevereiro deste ano, e aqui vai o link direto:
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-brooks14feb14,1,1585725.column?ctrack=5&cset=true

Bush's last push for torture
In its lame-duck year, the administration has been conducting a PR campaign for waterboarding.

February 14, 2008

They're baack! The Bushies, that is. I was so preoccupied with the presidential primaries that I almost forgot about that guy who keeps hanging around in the White House, despite the nation's fervent desire that he disappear. And I'm sure I wasn't alone in my memory lapse. With the news so full of Obama, Clinton, McCain and Huckabee, Bush and Cheney had started to seem like dead men walking.

But I was making the classic horror movie mistake. You know ... you let down your guard for an instant, and that's when you realize that the dead men walking are actually vampires -- and they're stalking you.

That's what happened this week. While we were all fixated on who will be the next president, loyalists to the outgoing president took advantage of our collective distraction to try to leave a last gruesome legacy for the American people: torture.

Remember waterboarding? In most versions of waterboarding, detainees are blindfolded and then strapped to a board. After that, they have water poured into their mouth and nose, sometimes through a cloth or cellophane (to enhance the sensation of simultaneous smothering and drowning). It was a favorite interrogation method of the Spanish Inquisition. U.S. courts have recognized it as torture, and in past wars, the U.S. government prosecuted it as a war crime.

Not anymore! While the rest of us were obsessing over the 600 possible methods of counting delegates, the Bush administration was busily conducting a PR campaign on behalf of waterboarding. It began last week. First, Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey told Congress that no one could be investigated or prosecuted for "whatever was done" as part of a covert CIA interrogation program because the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had given its blessing to a bunch of secret "whatevers." Then CIA Director Michael V. Hayden openly acknowledged, for the first time, that "whatever" had, in fact, included waterboarding, which was used on at least three Al Qaeda suspects.

Did Hayden blush to confess that U.S. intelligence agencies were incapable of getting critical intelligence through means other than torture? Nope. Along with National Intelligence Director J. Michael McConnell, Hayden suggested that waterboarding might well be handy again in the future.

The White House was equally blase about waterboarding. White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended its legality and asserted that whether we waterboard more detainees in the future "will depend on circumstances." What's more, Fratto emphasized, it's the president who will make the call, not Congress. Vice President Dick Cheney called the interrogation of the three suspects who were waterboarded "a good thing," and cheering from the sidelines, Antonin Scalia, the administration's favorite Supreme Court justice, mused in a radio interview that it would be "absurd" to assume any clear constitutional restrictions on "so-called torture" when potential terrorist threats are at issue.

The administration's PR push on waterboarding doesn't enjoy much support, either internationally or here at home. Our closest allies, the British, reaffirmed Tuesday that they consider waterboarding a form of torture prohibited by international law. That's an opinion shared by the U.N. human rights commissioner.

Here in the U.S., Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic presidential candidates, have condemned waterboarding as torture. They've been joined by the leading GOP presidential candidates, John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Speaking in October 2007, McCain said that waterboarding "is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." In December 2007, Huckabee added his voice to McCain's: "Waterboarding is torture, and torture violates the moral code of Americans and jeopardizes the country's security."

Just for good measure, on Wednesday the Senate joined the House in passing legislation that prohibits the CIA from using waterboarding or any similar "harsh" interrogation techniques.

But President Bush says he'll veto the bill. And here's what I don't get. Bush has less than a year left in office. His approval ratings are already abysmally low. Why is he determined to compound his problems by going down in history as the first president to openly order and justify torture? Is this really the legacy he wants to leave behind?

The task for the next president, Democrat or Republican, is clear. Very soon after taking office, our next president needs to lay this monster to rest by unambiguously repudiating waterboarding and all forms of torture.

That's the easy part of the next president's task, though. The hard part? Prying the thumbscrews out of the Bush administration's cold, dead hands.

rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com

*** *** ***

E Segundo, dois vídeo do programa 'The Daily Show', com o apresentador Jon Stewart, focando a prática de tortura pelos EUA, como o waterboarding. Os programas foram veiculados dia 11 de fevereiro de 2008, o link: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156409&title=torture-talk

e os vídeos:



continuação:

McCain's doves

He's a hawk on the war, yet independent-minded voters who are sick of Iraq are voting for him anyway.

By Matt Welch

John McCain will likely go down in history as the first GOP presidential nominee who vaulted to the front of the pack despite failing to win a plurality among self-identified Republicans in any of the early state primaries.
According to Florida exit polls, the Arizona senator tied Mitt Romney among voters who described themselves as Republican but pulled away to victory with a nearly 2-1 advantage among independents. That formula -- battle to a draw for Republicans, stomp all comers among independents -- powered McCain's wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina and has made him the front-runner heading into Super Tuesday.
It's no mystery why independents gravitate toward McCain. He's a country-first, party-second kind of guy who speaks bluntly and delights in poking fellow Republicans in the eye on issues such as campaign finance reform and global warming.
But there's a bizarre disconnect in the warm embrace between McCain and the electorate's mavericks. They hate the Iraq war, while he's willing to fight it for another century. The most pro-war presidential candidate in a decade is winning the 2008 GOP nomination thanks to the antiwar vote.
A full 66% of independents think that the U.S. should completely withdraw from Iraq no later than 12 months from now, according to a Jan. 18-22 L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll. McCain, meanwhile, said last month that the U.S. might stay in Baghdad for another 100 years. He continually expresses bafflement at the idea that that might not be such a good thing. "It's not the point! It's not the point!" he snarled at reporters recently. "How long are we going to be in Korea?"
And yet he dominated the antiwar vote in New Hampshire, with 44% to Romney's 19%, according to CNN exit polls. Ron Paul, the only actual antiwar Republican running, drew just 16% of voters who said they were against the war. The three finished in the same order among antiwar voters in Michigan, even though Romney won the state overall.
The same pattern holds true in the case of voters who despise George W. Bush. In Florida, for example, McCain clobbered Romney 48% to 18% among those who described themselves as "angry" at the president, according to MSNBC exit polls.
So the voters most hostile to the war are backing a potential commander in chief who makes Bush look gun-shy. More than three years before the Bush administration elucidated the radical doctrine of preemptive war, McCain unveiled a plan during his first run at the presidency called "rogue-state rollback," in which "we politically and materially support indigenous forces within and outside of rogue states" -- including Iraq, North Korea and Serbia -- "to overthrow regimes that threaten our interests and values." And if the "odious regimes" crack down on freedom fighters, the U.S. should respond with force. In that campaign, McCain was the neocons' choice against the more internationally "humble" George Bush.
McCain has advocated threatening North Korea with "extinction," and memorably sung about how we should "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." He agitated for military intervention in Darfur, regrets that we didn't send troops to Rwanda and is fond of rattling sabers in the general direction of Moscow and Beijing. During the U.S. bombing of Kosovo in 1999 -- when McCain showily suspended his presidential campaign because he'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war -- the senator drew media raves for managing to support the intervention while simultaneously slamming the president for not threatening more overwhelming force.
This easily discoverable uber-hawkishness runs in the family. His four-star Navy admiral father helped prosecute the war in Vietnam and delivered famous lectures about the role of U.S. sea power in making the world safe for democracy. His four-star Navy admiral grandfather worshiped at the altar of interventionist extraordinaire Teddy Roosevelt. If the U.S. has an imperialist class, as historian (and informal McCain advisor) Niall Ferguson has advocated, then John McCain sits at its head.
Still, too many people, wowed by the candidate's considerable charm, have convinced themselves that launching wars is for icky people like that Bush fellow, not Our John. "He knows war," the Des Moines Register wrote, in one of roughly 17,000 newspaper endorsements of McCain over the last two months, "something we believe would make him reluctant to start one." For Californians tempted by such delusions, it's wise to recall the famous words of the last septuagenarian to successfully seek the presidency: Trust, but verify.

Matt Welch is editor of Reason magazine and author of "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick."

*** *** ***

Em destaque: a posição do candidato republicano John McCain quanto ao uso da força militar norte-americana, e o paradoxo de estar recebendo grande quantidade de votos de eleitores contrários à Guerra do Iraque.

Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Publicação: 1 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Matt Welch
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-welch1feb01,1,1193768.story?ctrack=6&cset=true

Seeking a balance between might and diplomacy

In a region of crises, Israelis and Arabs anxiously await the new U.S. leader who can mitigate some Bush policies.

By Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer February 4, 2008

CAIRO -- The U.S. primaries are an enticing, confusing political drama for a Middle East looking for an American president who can offer security and repair years of Bush administration policies widely seen as disastrous.
The next U.S. president will inherit the Iraq war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a rising Iran and competition from the growing economies of India and China for oil in Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations.
Still, the feeling here is that no matter who wins the White House, there is bound to be an improvement in relations.
In a part of the world where democracy and minority rights are largely token, the Middle East elite is captivated by the Democratic race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The two candidacies are seen as epitomizing democracy, suggesting that the presidency is open to anyone willing to endure town hall meetings, Internet chats, slick ads and televised debates.
The ideal U.S. president for the region is seen as someone who can balance military power and diplomacy. Israelis had preferred former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, but with his exit from the Republican campaign, they're inclined toward John McCain or Clinton. Palestinians are leaning toward Obama.
Egypt and other Arab nations are watching to see whether the candidates are pro-Israeli. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz rates candidates on a feature called The Israel Factor at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml.
In Saudi Arabia, women aren't allowed to drive, so the prospect of electing one as president is mesmerizing. And in Iraq, where bombings are relentless, most people are consumed with day-to-day survival, not exit polls.

jeffrey.fleishman@ latimes.com

Contributors: Richard Boudreaux in Jerusalem, Tina Susman in Baghdad and Noha El-Hennawy in Cairo.

*** *** ***

Em destaque: A expectativa das nações do Oriente Médio para os candidatos norte-americanos e suas propostas de políticas para a região.

Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Publicação: 4 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Jeffrey Fleishman
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-global-mideastfeb04,1,2632132.story?ctrack=5&cset=true

Where they stand on the issues

O site do jornal americano Los Angeles Times disponibiliza para os internautas ( no link http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-votersguide-prez,1,337358.htmlstory?ctrack=2&cset=true ) uma ferramenta que tem como função comparar as posições dos candidatos à presidência norte-americana quanto a algumas questões hoje pertinentes para os eleitores, entre elas, as de Segurança Nacional, Educação, Economia, etc.

Reproduzimos aqui o posicionamento dos candidatos apontado pelo site em relação a:

* Segurança Nacional :

Hillary Clinton - Supports modernizing and reforming U.S. intelligence services ... Supports strengthening and rebuilding alliances in Europe; proposes partnerships in Asia and other areas of the world ... Supports reinforcing military efforts in Afghanistan ... Maintains that a strong military is essential for national security ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison

Barack Obama - Supports improving intelligence information-sharing and analysis at all levels of government ... Supports expanding U.S. diplomatic presence in the world, strengthening NATO and seeking new partnerships in Asia ... Supports expanding the military, adding 65,000 to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines ... Supports revising the Patriot Act ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison

John McCain - Supports increasing and modernizing U.S. military ... Supports expanding and improving human intelligence capabilities ... Supports developing and deploying theater and national missile defenses ... Supports engaging in "battleground of ideas" to thwart terrorism recruitment ... Supports closing Guantanamo prison

Mitt Romney - Supports increasing military by 100,000 troops ... Supports dedicating at least 4% of gross domestic product to defense ... Supports strengthening global alliances and working with Middle Eastern allies to support moderate Muslims ... Supports keeping Guantanamo open (he has suggested doubling its size)

* Iraque

Hillary Clinton - Voted to authorize Iraq invasion in 2002 ... Supports three-step plan to end war: begin phased troop withdrawal within 60 days in office; redeploy some troops to ensure regional stability; convene group of key allies, global powers and states bordering Iraq to stabilize the region

Barack Obama - Opposed invading Iraq ... Has voted in Senate to authorize war funding ... Supports full withdrawal of combat brigades within 16 months; supports leaving some troops to protect diplomats and keep !Al Qaeda from gaining "foothold" ... Opposes permanent military bases in Iraq ... Supports aggressive regional diplomatic efforts to stabilize the ... Supports financial support for Iraqi reconstruction and humanitarian aid

John McCain - Was an early proponent of the "surge" ... Believes there are not enough U.S. forces in Iraq to halt violence, secure strongholds, rebuild the economy, dismantle Al Qaeda and stabilize the country ... Opposes setting a withdrawal timetable for troops ... Believes the war is justified but has been mismanaged

Mitt Romney - Supports Bush troop buildup ... Supports keeping troops in Iraq "until we have brought success" ... Supports Gen. David H. Petraeus' assessment

* Imigração

Hillary Clinton - Supports pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who learn English and pay fines ... Supports border fence ... Supports employment verification system, along with tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants ... Supports family reunification as basic immigration principle ... Supports agricultural jobs program, but opposes guest worker program that may exploit workers

Barack Obama - Supports pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in good standing who learn English and pay fines ... Supports border fence and additional personnel to secure borders ... Supports tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants; supports employment verification system ... Supports greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together ... Supports improving speed and accuracy of immigrant background checks

John McCain - Co-sponsored 2006 legislation that called for temporary-worker program and pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the U.S. ... Now proposes conditional pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants after they pay fines and learn English ... Believes a secure border is "essential to national security" ... Voted for border fence; supports securing ports and other points of entry

Mitt Romney - Opposes pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants ... Supports building border fence and securing other entry points ... Supports an employment verification system that uses biometric identification cards ... Supports tougher penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants ... Would punish "sanctuary cities"

* Aborto

Hillary Clinton - Supports abortion rights ... Supports appointing justices who will uphold Roe vs. Wade and right to privacy

Barack Obama - Supports abortion rights; would make "preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president"

John McCain -Believes Roe vs. Wade is a "flawed decision" that should be overturned ... Supports nominating judges who do not "legislate from the bench" ... Supports leaving abortion legislation to the states

Mitt Romney - Believes Roe vs. Wade should be overturned ... Supports leaving abortion laws to the states ... Previously supported abortion rights

*** *** ***

Fonte: Los Angeles Times
Publicação: 1 de fevereiro 2008
Autor: Graphics reporting by Nona Yates. Sources: Candidates' websites; Associated Press; Congressional Quarterly; Times research
Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-votersguide-prez,1,337358.htmlstory?ctrack=2&cset=true