Obama draws query by signing Patriot Act extension with auto-pen
What’s a president to do when Congress passes a bill just hours before key anti-terrorism surveillance measures are about to expire and he’s 4,000 miles away? Auto-pen of course.
For the uninitiated, lawmakers and yes, even the president of the United States, have a machine that has a real pen which goes over a copy of the person’s actual signature. It is typically used for signing proforma letters or souvenir pictures to send constituents or fans.
Well, President Barack Obama has been in Europe for the annual G-8 summit and Congress was racing to pass legislation extending the authorization of key surveillance methods used to try to thwart attacks on the United States, which were due to expire Thursday night at midnight. Congress came through just hours before midnight but Obama was in France.
The White House released a statement just before midnight saying that the legislation had been signed and a White House aide told Reuters that the auto-pen was used to do so at Obama’s direction.
That prompted at least one lawmaker, Georgia Republican Representative Tom Graves, to question whether that was legal or not, writing Obama a letter seeking clarification.
“I thought it was a joke at first, but the President did, in fact, authorize an autopen to sign the Patriot Act extension into law. Consider the dangerous precedent this sets. Any number of circumstances could arise in the future where the public could question whether or not the president authorized the use of an autopen,” Graves said in a statement.
Well, for those who may question the use of the auto-pen, there is a legal opinion issued during the Bush administration that gave the green-light to using it.
Attorney General Holder says he plans to stick around for a while
Eric Holder, President Barack Obama’s attorney general, has been castigated by liberals and conservatives for his decisions about prosecuting terrorism suspects in criminal courts, defending a law that effectively bans gay marriages and then dropping it, and efforts to go after fraud in the financial markets that have resulted in few senior corporate executives going to jail.
Despite all of that, he still professes a love for the job at the Justice Department and made it clear to reporters on Tuesday that he has no intention of going anywhere, at the very least until his wife says otherwise.
“I’m happy. I’m content. My wife says that I’ve got some more time and as long as she’s in the same place, I’ll be around,” Holder said during his first pen and pad briefing with reporters in over a year. “I like this job. This is my last swing through this great department and a lot of ways is a bittersweet experience.”
“I started here back in 1976 with little experience and lot more hair, actually a lot more hair, the styles were fundamentally different — and don’t anybody come up with a picture, that would really be unfair,” he said.
We dug up this photo (right) from the Reuters archives from 1997 when he was deputy attorney general. But we’ll leave it to others to find one from the 1970s when he served as an attorney in the public corruption section.
Holder acknowledged that not every day as attorney general has been great, which was obvious earlier this month when he finally caved in to demands that the self-professed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, be prosecuted by a military commission instead of in a criminal court.
That decision was a reversal of one of his defining moments, announcing with great fanfare in 2009 that Mohammed and his four alleged co-conspirators would be prosecuted in federal court just blocks from where the World Trade Center twin towers once stood.
from Environment Forum:
Campaign ad equating global warming with weather gets “pants-on-fire” rating
By now, almost everybody -- with the possible exception of Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina -- realizes there's a difference between climate and weather. Fiorina, running in the California primary and ultimately aiming to unseat Democrat Barbara Boxer, paid for and appeared in a campaign ad slamming the sitting senator for being "worried about the weather" when there are serious concerns like terrorism to deal with.
Take a look here:
A few problems with this ad earned it the not-so-coveted beyond-false "Pants on Fire" rating from Politifact, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalism website that checks on the truthfulness of political advertising. First off, Boxer didn't say she was worried about the weather. She said that climate change was "one of the very important national security issues" -- a position in line with the Pentagon and the CIA. The site also found that it's not an either/or thing, that focusing on climate change doesn't necessarily mean neglecting national security. They took a look at Boxer's record and found she has supported at least six bills against terrorism.
"Fiorina casts climate change as something you need to pack an umbrella for, or that prompts you to curse at the TV weatherman -- which strikes us as not only a trivialization of climate change but also a failure to distinguish between two well-established scientific specialties," Politifact said. "She also ignores Boxer's lengthy record supporting bills against terrorism. So we have to light up the meter (the site's Truth-o-Meter): Pants on Fire!"
Not surprisingly, Boxer's campaign fired back in a press release, saying that, "during Fiorina’s tenure at HP, the company sold millions of dollars worth of high tech gear to intermediary shell companies selling to Iran, despite trade sanctions against Iran, a country that the U.S. State Department has named as a State Sponsor of Terror."
Should be an interesting race. The California primary is on June 8.
Photo credits: REUTERS/Fred Prouser (Carly Fiorina at "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" panel Beverly Hills, California April 26, 2010. REUTERS/Fred Prouser)
@ truthseeker18
In the 80s there was a “… dearth of actual empirical information” that the Soviet Union would ever actually attack the U.S. (i.e. it had never happened). Yet this did not stop Reagan and the Republicans from squandering scores of billions of taxpayer dollars on building more missiles.
As for “legitimate scientists on both sides of the debate surrounding global warming theory”
The preponderance of legitimate scientist do not seriously question that the huge emissions of greenhouse gases by humans will be affecting the global climate negatively.
I suppose that you do not consider the **possibility** of serious crop failures, invasive diseases, and rising water levels and all the political turmoil that would ensue as a security issue?
A long slog gives way to a ‘good week’ for U.S. Justice Department
After months of trying times, U.S. Justice Department officials are walking with a little spring in their step, describing it as a “good week” after the terrorism suspect accused of trying to detonate a car bomb in the heart of New York’s busy Times Square was nabbed only two days after the failed attack.
The department has been under fire since last fall over issues ranging from Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to prosecute the accused plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks in the heart of Manhattan to closing the military prison at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
And when a Nigerian man was able to sneak a bomb hidden in his underwear aboard a U.S. commercial jet, the dull roar of anger became white hot rage by both Republicans and President Barack Obama’s fellow Democrats about how the administration handled the situation.
A presidential investigation was undertaken, intelligence agencies admitted they missed some clear warnings about a pending attack and who might try to carry it out, and scores of congressional hearings were called to delve into how Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab got on the plane and the response.
Republicans slammed the White House and Justice Department when details about Abdulmutallab’s interrogation leaked out — that it lasted about 50 minutes before he was wheeled into surgery and then later read his Miranda rights entitling him to remain silent and to a lawyer. He later began cooperating with authorities again.
Republicans and some Democrats argued that foreigners should not be afforded full U.S. constitutional rights and should also be tried in special military commissions if facing terrorism-related charges. They also argued that intelligence was lost because he was given Miranda rights and stopped talking. Further, they used it to also seize on the plan to prosecute the 9/11 suspects in New York and tried to block funding to bring them to the heart of New York City — for trial.
That all left the White House scrambling to decide where to prosecute the Sept. 11 cases. They have apparently backed off the idea of going through traditional criminal courts and may move the trials to the special military commissions, though a final decision has not been made.
Ahmadinejad says bin Laden in Washington
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has the answer to the question that has plagued the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.
He knows where Osama bin Laden is — in Washington.
In an interview with ABC’S “Good Morning America” on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad rejected reports that the al Qaeda leader was in Iran.
“I heard that Osama bin Laden is in the Washington, D.C.,” Ahmadinejad said through an interpreter in a contentious give-and-take with his interviewer, George Stephanopoulos.
“He’s there. Because he was a previous partner of Mr. Bush. They were colleagues in fact in the old days. You know that. They were in the oil business together. They worked together. Mr. Bin Laden never cooperated with Iran but he cooperated with Mr. Bush,” Ahmadinejad said.
“Rest assured that he’s in Washington. I think there’s a high chance he’s there.”
One thing is sure, no one would be able to recognise Mr Bin laden now since he must have undergone the cosmetic surgery to have a new visual appearance. Perhaps, it would be worthwhile to check with the cosmetic surgeons around the world to find out if any one admits to have given a new identity to Mr Bin Laden? The Iranian President has a point, knowing about the famous American Surgeons involved in cosmetic surgery and the large number of daily operations being performed in the country.
Rex Minor
Gallup poll gives Obama some good news on terrorism issue
President Barack Obama’s approval ratings may have slipped in some polling data. But there’s a tiny bit of good news for him on an issue that his Republican critics have been whacking away at for weeks now: terrorism.
A USA Today/Gallup poll says public approval for Obama’s handling of terrorism has risen since the Christmas Day bomb attempt, with more Americans than not giving him their approval on a political issue likely to rank high in this year’s congressional election campaign.
The numbers still aren’t great for the president, however. The thumbs up comes from less than half of the public — 49 percent – and those expressing disapproval are close behind at 46 percent. That three-point gap is well within the Jan. 8-10 survey’s 4 percentage point sampling error. Approval is also way down from May, when 55 percent of Americans endorsed his handling of terrorism.
But the latest numbers are up from the days before Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to blow up a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight. Back then, only 45 percent of the public approved of Obama on terrorism, vs. 47 percent who disapproved.
That’s interesting because Republicans have been doing their level best since Christmas to criticize Obama’s response to the failed attack, in hopes of making voters think the president and the Democrats are soft on national security.
Bottom line? “President Obama’s response to the Christmas Day bombing attempt — including a review of the incident and the government’s inability to prevent it, and the outlining of new steps designed to prevent a similar occurrence — seems to have had a marginally positive effect on Americans’ views of how he is handling the terrorism issue,” Gallup said.
However, the poll has some not-so-good news for Obama’s approval ratings on two key domestic issues — the economy (40 percent) and healthcare (37 percent). The president is usually stronger on domestic issues than he is on the international front. But Gallup called his current ratings on the economy and healthcare the lowest of his presidency to date. Those issues tend to have a more direct impact on the lives of Americans than national security and could be most important to voters come November.
Obama’s approval rating dips in CBS poll
President Barack Obama, about to mark his one-year anniversary at the White House, has seen his job approval rating drop to 46 percent in a new CBS News poll, the lowest recorded in this particular poll.
CBS said it is domestic issues that are hurting the president. His approval rating on handling the U.S. economy is at 41 percent and his handling of healthcare is at 36 percent. These are all time lows.
The poll comes as Obama seeks to gain congressional passage of a healthcare overhaul in the early weeks of this year.
Obama did a little better in his handling of the war in Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism, with 46 percent approving of him on Afghan policy weeks after he announced a troop surge. And 52 percent approved of how he is handling the threat of terrorism in the wake of the Christmas Day attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound plane.
The Obama White House tends to shrug off poor poll numbers and keeps its focus on the long view.
Republicans, however, are hoping sluggish presidential poll numbers will translate into election victories for them in the November congressional elections. They hope to make inroads into Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
CBS said Obama still receives strong support from Democrats (eight in ten approve), but his approval rating among Republicans was just 13 percent, and just 42 percent of independents approved. Independents were key to his 2008 election victory.
I remember when Bush’a approval rating was only something like 30%…but Pelosi and the Dems in Congress had an approval only 15%…just half of Bush’s. No one mentioned The Dems and Pelosi…just Bush.
Bomb plot thrusts Obama into political storm
President Barack Obama is weathering a political storm over last month’s suspected al Qaeda plot to bomb a Detroit-bound plane, particularly from Republicans who say he dropped the ball on security while pursuing healthcare and climate reforms. But how much substance there is behind the allegations may depend on who’s talking.
Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina told NBC’s Today show that he believes Obama just woke up to the gravity of the al Qaeda threat.
“A lot of us have been concerned over the last year that the president did seem to downplay the threat of terror. He doesn’t use the word anymore. He hesitates to say that there is a war on terror,” DeMint said.
“But in the last few days, he seems to have come around to the idea that there are people in Yemen and other places who are intent on hurting Americans,” the lawmaker added.
A completely different picture comes from Bob Woodward, the Pulitzer-winning journalist who chronicled Republican George W. Bush’s response to the Sept. 11 attacks.
“The new administration is taking a very aggressive stance on these matters and perhaps even more than the Bush administration, doing more about the al Qaeda sanctuaries in places like Yemen,” Woodward told ABC’s Good Morning America. That view comes from reporting Woodward says he is doing for a new book on the Obama White House.
Meanwhile, DeMint says he wants to eliminate politics from the security debate. That means not blaming Obama or members of the president’s team for security lapses, at least not for now. It also means retaining his hold on the Senate confirmation of Erroll Southers, Obama’s nominee for the Transportation Security Administration. DeMint blocked that nomination out of concern that Southers would unionize the TSA.
“You can’t leave non performers in positions of power and you have to make changes when things happen.”
If that were the case then Bush would have lost his bid for reelection. We were attacked by Arabs lead by Bin-Laden who was hiding in Afghanistan. He used his Muslim faith to hide behind the Taliban by accepting their protection (hospitality). They would not give him up to the infidels.
Bush let Bin-Laden get away. No one was held accountable for lying to the public about our reasons for going to war with Iraq. Remember the ‘weapons of mass destruction”? People still try to justify that blatant lie by saying that the weapons must have been moved before our forces got there. Really?
We as citizens need to stop regurgitating the blame we hear across party lines and instead be vigilant and hold our leaders accountable by not voting for them again if they vote against our interests. If there is justice Lieberman will not have a seat come next election.
The First Draft: US media’s Fort Hood coverage turns to militancy question
First came questions about whether anyone missed emotional signals that suspected Fort Hood shooter, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was close to cracking. Now U.S. media say Congress wants to know if he was also veering toward Islamist militancy.
A preliminary review of Hasan’s computer has revealed no evidence of any connection to terror groups or conspirators, according to a report by CBS News.
But lawmakers have asked the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies to preserve documents on Hasan. That’s according to ABC News, which says the spooks believe he may have been trying to contact U.S.-born imam Anwar al Awlaki, who is based in Yemen and supports holy war against the West.
It’s not clear whether the U.S. military knew one of its officers was under intelligence surveillance, ABC said.
U.S. law enforcement and military investigators are also looking into associations between Hasan and the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia, in early 2001, about the same time Awlaki and two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were there, the Los Angeles Times reported. The mosque is one of the biggest in the United States and thousands of people go there for prayer services and other events.
Witnesses at Fort Hood told investigators that Hasan yelled “Allahu Akbar” — Arabic for “God is Greatest” — before killing 13 people and wounding another 30 last week. The 39-year-old psychiatrist was shot four times by police and remains hospitalized.
It is unclear what motivated Hasan and the Army’s chief of staff, General George Casey, is afraid the shooting spree could cause a backlash against Muslims in the military.
Yada.
Yada.
Yada.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Foresight though isn’t, because it involves more than just having eyes. It requires having eyes that want to see. And ears that want to hear.
Since Candidate Obama first hawked the Iraq-to-Afghanistan switch-er-roo long con in the 2008 presidential debates, informed foresight should have told all that our military involvement in President Obama’s 2009 Afghanistan was no-win for those that would directly pay for it with their taxpayer money or worse yet, our service personnel with their lives.
So now hindsight wants to kick in after the Ft. Hood massacre by psycho whack-job muslim terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan. Well isn’t that just great.
As it’s currently shaking out though, this is like hitting something while driving along, wondering gee, what did I just hit, with eyes focused solely on the rear view mirror — as you continue driving along at uninterrupted forward speed and direction.
Who knew what and when and what they did or didn’t do re Hasan serves a useful purpose but isn’t going to change hindsight into foresight.
When you are doing something you shouldn’t be doing, in a place you shouldn’t be, you just can’t possibly get good enough at it — in this case identify psycho whack-job muslim terrorists before they do what a psycho whack-job muslim terrorist will do — to turn a no-win policy into anything other than a no-win policy.
Whether someone offs themselves exclusively by jumping off a bridge, or tries to force a suicide-by-cop, or in this case traitorously take out as many of their brothers and sisters in uniform as possible with them as part of solving their own existential dilemma, such reach that behavioral point by letting themselves get inextricably boxed in to that no-win behavior mode.
President Obama is likewise so boxed in, politically. Candidate Obama rode a team of duplicitous horses to election victory. Lead horse on that team was the Iraq-to-Afghanistan war of his necessity. If that weasel now makes with additional troops to Afghanistan, forget trying to understand Nidal Malik Hasan in hindsight and focus on foresight — to see President Obama is a Nidal Malik Hasan in the making, a thousand times over, AS WE SPEAK, IN REAL-TIME.
So why wasn’t Nidal Malik Hasan spotted as a bad apple and so handled? Short answer: The same reason that President Obama’s no-win Afghanistan war of his necessity isn’t CURRENTLY seen for what it is.
from Summit Notebook:
Napolitano defends bringing Guantanamo detainees to U.S.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the Obama administration's plans to bring terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States -- countering critics who questioned whether it would create security risks.
"There's no question in my mind that those detainees who would be moved to the United States would be held in such a fashion that they would not be any threat to public safety, and I say that as a former prosecutor," Napolitano said in an interview during the Reuters Washington Summit. She served as a U.S. attorney in Arizona during the Clinton administration.
President Barack Obama has pledged to close the controversial prison by Jan. 22, 2010, including bringing some of the terrorism suspects to U.S. soil for trial in military commissions or U.S. criminal courts. There have been questions and doubts about whether his goal can be achieved because of political, legal and logistical complications.
Napolitano held out hope that the administration could meet the fast-approaching deadline: "I would hope so." She declined to comment on the likely location of where the detainees could be held in the United States.
But Republicans have criticized the idea of bringing the terrorism suspects to U.S. soil, arguing that they are not entitled access to the criminal court system and could pose threats to the communities where they may be imprisoned.
Her remarks came as former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey issued a stinging condemnation of the Obama administration plan, writing in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that civilian courts were not the right place to try the terrorism suspects and could make communities, jurors and courts targets.
"Based on my experience trying such cases, and what I saw as attorney general, they aren't. That is not to say that civilian courts cannot ever handle terrorist prosecutions, but rather that their role in a war on terror—to use an unfashionably harsh phrase—should be, as the term 'war' would suggest, a supporting and not a principal role," he wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
Bring our bill of rights & Constitution back. We can only hope… Ron Paul 2012