Suspect in Times Square plot faces terror charges

By TOM HAYS and COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press Writers Tom Hays And Colleen Long, Associated Press Writers 49 mins ago

AP – In this photo from the social networking site Orkut.com, a man who was identified by neighbors in Connecticut …

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/arrest-made-in-attempted-times-square-bombing-19453657

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/nyc-bomb-suspect-will-face-terror-charges-19459090

NEW YORK – A Pakistani-born U.S. citizen was hauled off a plane about to fly to the Middle East and will face terrorism charges in the failed attempt to explode a bomb-laden SUV in the heart of Times Square, authorities said Tuesday. One official said he claimed to be acting alone.
Faisal Shahzad has admitted his role in the botched bombing attempt and is talking to investigators, providing them with valuable information, Attorney General Eric Holder said.
Shahzad was on board a Dubai-bound flight that was taxiing away from the gate at Kennedy Airport late Monday when the plane was stopped and FBI agents and New York Police Department detectives took him into custody, law enforcement officials said.
Shahzad, scheduled to appear later Tuesday in federal court in Manhattan, will face terrorism and weapons of mass destruction charges, Holder said.
"Based on what we know so far, it is clear that this was a terrorist plot aimed at murdering Americans in one of the busiest places in our country," he added.
In Pakistan, intelligence officials said at least one man has been detained in the southern city of Karachi in connection with the Times Square case: a man named Tauseef who was a friend of Shahzad. He did not say when the man was picked up.
Another Pakistani official said several people had been taken into custody since the failed attack. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of their work.
President Barack Obama said the FBI was investigating possible ties between Shahzad and terrorist groups.
Obama said "hundreds of lives" may have been saved Saturday night by the quick action of ordinary citizens and law enforcement authorities who saw the smoking SUV parked in Times Square.
"As Americans and as a nation, we will not be terrorized. We will not cower in fear. We will not be intimidated," Obama said.
Shahzad, 30, had recently returned from a five-month trip to Pakistan, where he had a wife, according to law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation into the failed car bombing.
Shahzad became a naturalized U.S. citizen last year shortly before traveling to Pakistan, a federal law enforcement official in Washington said, speaking on condition of anonymity amid the ongoing investigation.
Investigators hadn't established an immediate connection to the Pakistani Taliban — which had claimed responsibility for the botched bombing in three videos — or any foreign terrorist groups, a law enforcement official told the AP.
"He's claimed to have acted alone, but these are things that have to be investigated," the official said.
A Pakistani TV station reported that Shahzad spent time in Karachi and visited the northwestern city of Peshawar during his stay in Pakistan. Peshawar is a gateway for foreigners seeking to travel into nearby tribal regions, where militant groups have long had sanctuary.
In Washington, Pakistani Embassy spokesman Nadeem Haider Kiani said it's too soon to tell what motivated the bomber. Asked whether there were ties to foreign terrorist groups, Kiani said early indications suggest the bomber was "a disturbed individual."
Another law enforcement official said Shahzad was not known to the U.S. intelligence community before the failed bombing attempt, in which authorities found a crude bomb of gasoline, propane and fireworks in a 1993 Nissan Pathfinder parked on a bustling street in Times Square.
FBI agents searched the home at a known address for Shahzad in Bridgeport, Conn., early Tuesday, said agent Kimberly Mertz, who wouldn't answer questions about the search.
Authorities removed filled plastic bags from the house in a mixed-race, working-class neighborhood of multifamily homes in Connecticut's largest city. A bomb squad came and went without entering as local police and FBI agents gathered in the cordoned-off street. FBI agents appeared to have found fireworks in the driveway that they were marking off as evidence.
Shahzad was being held in New York and couldn't be contacted. A phone number at a listed address for Shahzad in Shelton, Conn., wasn't in service.
He used to live in a two-story grayish-brown colonial with a sloping yard in a working-class neighborhood in Shelton. The home looked as if it had been unoccupied for a while, with grass growing in the driveway and bags of garbage lying about.
Shahzad graduated from the University of Bridgeport with a bachelor's degree in computer applications and information systems in 2000 and later returned to earn a master's of business administration in 2005, the school said.
A neighbor in Bridgeport described him as quiet.
"Nobody ever had a problem with him," said Dawn Sampson, 34, who lives across the street from Shahzad's third-floor apartment. She said he had remodeled it and had put on the market to rent for $1,200, a fee she thought was much too high.
Law enforcement officials say Shahzad paid $1,300 cash three weeks ago for the Pathfinder, going first for a test-drive in a mall and offering less than the $1,800 advertised price. Peggy Colas, 19, of Bridgeport, sold the car to Shahzad after he answered an Internet ad, law enforcement officials said. The officials spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.
The vehicle identification number had been removed from the Pathfinder's dashboard, but it was stamped on the engine, and investigators used it to find the owner of record, who told them a stranger bought it. As the SUV buyer came into focus, investigators backed off other leads.
The SUV was parked near a theater where the musical "The Lion King" was being performed. The bomb inside it had cheap-looking alarm clocks connected to a 16-ounce can filled with fireworks, which were apparently intended to detonate gas cans and set off propane tanks in a chain reaction "to cause mayhem, to create casualties," police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.
A metal rifle cabinet in the SUV's cargo area was packed with fertilizer, but NYPD bomb experts believe it was not a type volatile enough to explode like the ammonium nitrate grade fertilizer used in previous terrorist bombings.
Police said the SUV bomb could have produced "a significant fireball" and sprayed shrapnel with enough force to kill pedestrians and knock out windows.
A vendor alerted a police officer to the parked SUV, which was smoking. Times Square, clogged with tourists on a warm evening, was shut down for 10 hours. A bomb squad dismantled the bomb and no one was hurt.
Holder urged Americans should remain vigilant.
"It's clear that the intent behind this terrorist act was to kill Americans," he said.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the arrest should not be as used as an excuse for anti-Muslim actions. "We will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers," he said.
Authorities did not address Shahzad's plans in Dubai. The airport there is the Middle East's busiest and is a major transit point for passengers traveling between the West and much of Asia, particularly India and Pakistan.
Dubai-based Emirates airline said three passengers were pulled from Flight EK202, which was delayed for about seven hours. The airline did not identify Shahzad by name or name the other two passengers.
The aircraft and passengers were then screened again before taking off Tuesday morning, and the airline is "cooperating with the local authorities," Emirates said in a statement e-mailed to the AP. The other two passengers who had been removed were allowed to get back aboard the flight, the airline said.
Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik told the AP that authorities had not been formally asked for help in the investigation but would cooperate if asked.
More than a dozen people with U.S. citizenship or residency, like Shahzad, have been accused in the past two years of supporting, attempting or carrying out attacks on U.S. soil, illustrating the threat of violent extremism from within the U.S.
Among them are Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, a U.S.-born Army psychiatrist of Palestinian descent, charged with fatally shooting 13 people last year at Fort Hood, Texas; Najibullah Zazi, a Denver-area airport shuttle driver who pleaded guilty in February in a plot to bomb New York subways; and a Pennsylvania woman who authorities say became radicalized online as "Jihad Jane" and plotted to kill a Swedish artist whose work offended Muslims.
___
Contributing to this report were Associated Press writers Eileen Sullivan, Pete Yost, Matt Apuzzo and Julie Pace in Washington; Sara Kugler in New York, Chris Brummitt in Islamabad, Adam Schreck in Dubai, AP Video journalist Ted Shaffrey and writer John Christoffersen in Bridgeport, Conn.; and AP photojournalist Doug Healey in Shelton, Conn.

Boehner Takes Credit For Ideas In Health Law, Then Calls For Its Repeal

Earlier this year, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) took credit for parts of the health care law he opposes and today, during an interview with NPR, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) also highlighted the Republican ideas in the bill, while promising to repeal it:

INSKEEP: As you know, Democrats are already pointing to things that are changing in America because of this bill. They will point to the fact that college seniors, who would have been kicked off their families’ insurance plans when they graduated, will get to stay on. Insurance companies are now saying they’re going to end the practice of “rescission,” where they take, or at least modify…
BOEHNER: Both of those ideas, by the way, came from Republicans, and are part of the common sense ideas that we ought to have in the law.
INSKEEP: Well, are you going to repeal those two specific things?
BOEHNER Uh, what I want to repeal are the other 158 mandates, commissions, boards that set up all the infrastructure for the government to take control of our health care system.

Listen:




If Boehner is unwilling to repeal the Republican ideas in the health care law, he’ll have to preserve a good deal of the legislation, which at its core is built on the Republican principles of personal responsibility and managed competition.
His refusal to call for a full repeal, moreover, could cause a rift with the more conservative members of the Republican party. Last week, for instance, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) — who has proposed a bill calling for complete repeal — warned leadership that “if we leave any component of it in there, it has, it’s just become a malignant tumor that’s attacking our liberty and our freedom and it’s diminishing our aspirations and it saps our overall productivity as a nation,” King said. “If we can’t come to that conclusion, then I want some new people to come help me.”
Currently, repeal legislation has has no more than 62 co-sponsors in the House and 20 in the Senate.

Five Months Before Disaster, BP Testified Offshore Drilling Is ‘Safe And Protective Of The Environment’
Five months and one day before its Deepwater Horizon rig exploded while exploring the Macondo Prospect off the coast of Louisiana, BP’s top Gulf of Mexico official testified its practices were “both safe and protective of the environment.” In June, the U.S. Minerals Management Service proposed stricter safety and environmental rules, opposed by BP and the rest of the offshore drilling industry as unnecessary. In a Senate hearing on offshore drilling “environmental stewardship policies” on November 19, 2009, BP America’s vice president of Gulf of Mexico exploration, David Rainey, opposed the proposed MMS rules and defended the existing regulatory system. Rainey claimed that drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) has been shown to be “both safe and protective of the environment”:

I think we should remember that scientific knowledge is always moving forward. And actually using the best available and the most up-to-date scientific information is part of the current regulatory system. And it supports the OCS leasing, exploration, and development program. And I think we need to remember that OCS has been going on for the last 50 years, and it has been going on in a way that is both safe and protective of the environment.

Watch it:



Letter from Bp stating that Off shore Drilling is safe for the Environment

Rainey’s testimony followed a September 14, 2009, letter from his predecessor Richard Morrison, which said “we are not supportive of the extensive and prescriptive regulations” in the proposed rule, because “[w]e believe industry’s current safety and environmental statistics demonstrate that the voluntary programs” since the American Petroleum Institute codified those programs in 2004 “have been and continue to be very successful.”

It appears that the MMS was correct when they argued in their proposed rule that existing safety rules were not sufficient. “The MMS believes that if OCS oil and gas operations are better planned and organized, then the likelihood of injury to workers and the risk of environmental pollution will be further reduced,” they wrote in 2009.

Establish An Independent Commission To Investigate The BP Disaster

by Guest

Our guest blogger is Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.



We cannot predict the full scope of public health, economic, or environmental damages of the BP disaster until BP is able to halt the flood of oil. But the horrible calamity has claimed 11 lives and contaminated the water with millions of gallons of oil. The best-case scenario at this point is that oil will continue to flood from the ocean floor for another week until BP is able to cap the well. If that effort fails, it could be several months before BP is able to drill another well to capture the oil currently fouling the Gulf Coast waters.
The federal government can look to past administrations for guidance in understanding the causes of this devastating situation and taking measures to minimize future occurrences. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan — after the Three Mile Island near-nuclear meltdown and the Challenger Space Shuttle explosion, respectively — appointed independent commissions of high-profile public officials and experts to thoroughly investigate the causes of these events and make recommendations to prevent future tragedies. President Barack Obama should follow their lead by appointing an independent commission to completely examine the causes of the BP disaster and offer guidance for how we can make sure it never happens again:

One of the charges of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, for instance, was to evaluate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing, inspection, operation, and enforcement procedures as applied to this facility since the NRC could not undertake a truly objective review of its own procedures.
The Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident was similarly able to review NASA’s management structure and procedures and more objectively assess its contribution to the accident. Both independent commissions issued findings that were critical of the agencies’ performances and made recommendations for management changes.

President Obama asked Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar after the initial explosion to “conduct a thorough review of this incident and report back to me in 30 days.” The Departments of Interior and Homeland Security agreed to conduct a joint investigation, with the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service and the U.S. Coast Guard sharing the lead for this evaluation.
This is an important start, but it is not a complete response to a disaster of this colossal magnitude. Any investigation must focus not only on BP, but also on the performance of federal and state agencies responsible for oversight of offshore oil production.
An independent commission is particularly necessary since the Minerals Management Service was scandal-ridden during the Bush administration. The Obama administration has had only 16 months to reform this agency. It is simply too much to ask it to assess its own performance.
An independent commission investigating the BP disaster should have subpoena power and conduct public hearings. The TMI and NASA commissions had six months and four months, respectively, to conduct their investigation and issue their reports. The BP disaster commission should similarly also have a limited period of time and the authority to conduct a thorough review.
The Obama administration swiftly responded to the BP disaster from day one and mobilized the U.S. government’s resources to attempt to minimize the harm from this unprecedented event on the health, economy, and environment of the Gulf Coast. President Obama should now ensure complete scrutiny of the explosion and its aftermath by appointing an independent commission to assess the causes and damages and make recommendations to prevent future tragedies.

The Crack Team on Deep Drilling Accidents

by Nick Anderson

Interview With David Gregory of NBC's Meet the Press
Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

Washington, DC

May 2, 2010

---

Editor's Note: This interview was taped on April 30, 2010 and broadcast on May 2.
QUESTION: Welcome back. Thanks for being here.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David, I’m thrilled to be here on the new set. Thank you.

QUESTION: Thanks very much. There’s a lot of important issues to talk about with certainly in the headlines this weekend is this oil spill off the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi. And it becomes a bigger issue, and even a national security issue, as it applies to climate change, which is an issue that you’ve dealt with. How will the Administration approach this particularly given the President’s interest in offshore drilling? Does that have to stop now?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David, I think that the President has ordered the departments that deal with this – Homeland Security, Interior, Environmental Protection, Defense – to all immediately not only do everything possible to mitigate the effects of this spill, but to try to come up with recommendations going forward. The first order of business, however, is to try to get this spill under control, which has been, as you know, very difficult, and to prevent further damage to the coastline along Louisiana to the fishing waters, to the wildlife.

I think it does raise questions which the President has said have to be answered. He put forth a very comprehensive approach that included the potential of drilling off of our own shore. That is a national security concern because we have to do better to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. But it has to be done safely. It can’t be done at the risk of having to spend billions of dollars cleaning up these spills.

So as with so much in these difficult areas, it’s going to require a balancing act.

QUESTION: Another area that has become a domestic political debate over immigration has also taken on some international ramifications. Mexico, because of the law – the stringent law against – the anti-immigration law passed in Arizona, has issued a pretty unusual alert to its own citizens traveling to Arizona. I’ll put it up on the screen. This is the alert – a travel alert over Arizona immigration law. This is how the USA Today reported it on Wednesday: “The country warned that the state’s adoption of a strict immigration enforcement law has created ‘a negative political environment from migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors.’ ‘It must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time,’ according to the foreign ministry.”

The president, President Calderon, with whom you will meet soon, has talked about criminalizing – this law criminalizes a largely social and economic phenomenon of migration. This is a pretty big shot across the bow to America here.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it is. And I think if you look at it, again, you have a lot of unanswered questions. This law, which is clearly a result of the frustration that people in Arizona and their elected officials feel about the difficulty of enforcing the law along our border and preventing the continued immigration of people who are not documented, but on the other hand, it is written so broadly that if you were visiting in Arizona and you had an accent and you were a citizen from my state of New York, you could be subjected to the kind of inquiry this law permits.

QUESTION: Do you think it invites profiling, racial profiling?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t think there’s any doubt about that, because clearly, as I understand the way the law is being explained, if you’re a legal resident, you still have to carry papers. Well, how is a law enforcement official supposed to know? So, again, we have to try to balance the very legitimate concerns that Americans – not just people in Arizona but across the country have about safe and secure borders, about trying to have comprehensive immigration reform, with a law that I think does what a state doesn't have the authority to do, try to impose their own immigration law that is really the province of the federal government.

QUESTION: That is important. Do you think this law will not stand up legally?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t want to offer a legal opinion. I think I’ll leave that to the Justice Department. But I know the Attorney General of Arizona has raised questions about the legality. And you’re right; we have a visit from President Calderon coming up, a state visit. He’s a very important partner to us on trying to stop illegal activity along our border – the importation of drugs, of arms, of human beings – all of the crime that that’s associated with. And we believe that he has really done the best he can under very difficult circumstances to get this under control. We don’t want to make his life any harder either. We want to try to support him in what has been a courageous campaign against the drug traffickers.

QUESTION: Let me move on to some other issues that are obviously on your plate, which is a big plate of issues. Let’s talk about Afghanistan. A big offensive is being planned for Kandahar. A very important visit by President Karzai is coming up after a period of turbulence between the U.S. and Karzai which I know the Administration has tried to tamp down. And yet, it’s the nature of the insurgency that our fighting men and women are dealing with. And the Pentagon issued a report that was reported on by the Los Angeles Times on Thursday. Let me put it up on the screen. It says the report presented a sobering new assessment Wednesday of the Taliban-led insurgency in the country, saying that its abilities are expanding and its operations are increasing in sophistication despite major offenses by U.S. forces in the militant heartland, like Marjah. The new report offers a grim take on the likely difficulty of establishing lasting security, especially in southern Afghanistan, where the insurgency enjoys broad support. The conclusions raise the prospect that the insurgency in the south may never be completely vanquished, but instead must be contained to prevent it from threatening the government of President Hamid Karzai.

A narrow question here: Are you resigned to the fact that the Taliban, the insurgency, will have to be a part of this government in the future?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No. And let me start by putting the recent report from the Pentagon into context. It was a look-back. It goes from last October through March. When we were devising the strategy that the President announced at West Point in early December, it was during the August, September, October, November period, and there was no doubt that the Taliban had the initiative, that there was a very serious threat to not only our forces, obviously, on the ground, but to the stability and security of Afghanistan.

QUESTION: But you hear all this talk and Karzai wants some kind of reconciliation with the Taliban as well.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but, David, I think that we have to sort of sort out what we mean by that. We talk about reconciliation and reintegration. They may sound the same, but they’re somewhat different concepts. Reintegration refers to the foot soldiers on the field who are coming in increasing numbers and saying, look, we’re fighting because we get paid, we’re fighting because we were volunteered to fight because the Taliban came to our village and intimidated our elders. So there seems to be an ongoing movement of people sort of out of the battlefield. And General McChrystal and his commanders on the ground are seeing that and kind of organizing and running that.

The larger question about reconciliation – I don’t know any conflict in recent times that didn’t have some political resolution associated with it. People either got tired of fighting and decided they would engage in a peace process; they were defeated enough so that they were willing to lay down their arms. What President Karzai is saying – and we agree with this direction – is that you’ve got to look to see who is reconcilable. Not everybody will be. We don’t expect Mullah Omar to show up and say, oh yeah, I’m giving up on my association with al-Qaida, et cetera. But we do think that there are leaders within the Taliban – in fact, there are some already – who have come over to the other side.

Now, if they do so, they have to renounce al-Qaida, they have to renounce violence, they have to give up their arms, and they have to be willing to abide by the Afghan constitution.

QUESTION: Another adversary, of course, gets us to Iran and the fact that President Ahmadinejad from Iran will be coming to New York to the UN for a nonproliferation meeting.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: You’re moving down a path of sanctions. We understand what that is. Do you feel like he’s going to try to show up here the early part of next week and steal the show?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t know what he’s showing up for, because the purpose of the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference is to reiterate the commitment of the international community to the three goals: disarmament, nonproliferation, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. So the vast majority of countries are coming to see what progress we can make. And this is a very high priority for President Obama. It’s why he pressed so hard for the START treaty, which he signed with President Medvedev in Prague. It’s why we convened a Nuclear Security Summit to highlight the threat posed by nuclear terrorism. It’s why we have begun to work out deals with India and others for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, which countries are entitled to under the nonproliferation regime.

If Iran is coming to say we’re willing to abide by the Nonproliferation Treaty, that would be very welcome news. I have a feeling that’s not what they’re coming to do. I think they’re coming to try to divert attention and confuse the issue. And there is no confusion. They have violated the terms of the NPT. They have been held under all kinds of restrictions and obligations that they have not complied with by the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, by the UN Security Council. So we’re not going to permit Iran to try to change the story from their failure to comply and in any way upset the efforts we are in the midst of, which is to get the international community to adopt a strong Security Council resolution that further isolates them and imposes consequences for their behavior.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, I’d like to spend a couple minutes on some other global hotspots which you’re dealing with.

The first one is actually with America’s strong ally. In the UK, in Great Britain, very interesting election going on. You’ve got three candidates, a resurgent third party in the Social Democrats, televised debates. You know something about those.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I do.

QUESTION: And as you watch what’s going on there, do you think there’s a movement that could spread? Do you see a third party becoming viable in the United States?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let’s see whether it’s viable in the UK. I don’t know the answer to that. We’ve had in my lifetime, and certainly long before, viable third-party candidates. We had Ross Perot, John Anderson just within my voting history. I think there’s always room in democracy for people to bring their views to the forefront. But I think one of the real strengths of our system has been our two-party approach, where each party may frustrate some of its own members because they do have a broad cross-section of voters and opinions.

But look, I’m going to be as interested as anybody to see what happens in the election in Great Britain.

QUESTION: Final one has to do with the election in Sudan, where you have Bashir as the victor, and yet this is Sudan, is a sponsor of state terror, according to the State Department, and this is someone who is boasting about the results and keeping the United States at bay. Nicholas Kristof wrote this in The New York Times: “Until he reached the White House, President Obama repeatedly insisted the U.S. apply more pressure on Sudan so as to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur and elsewhere. Yet as president, Mr. Obama and his aides have caved, leaving Sudan gloating at American weakness. President Bashir, al-Bashir of Sudan, a man wanted for crimes against humanity in Darfur, has been celebrating. His regime called itself the National Congress Party, or NCP, and he was quoted in Sudan as telling a rally in the Blue Nile region: ‘Every America – even America is becoming an NCP member, no one is against our will.’

“Memo to Mr. Obama, when a man who has been charged with crimes against humanity tells the world that America is in his pocket, it’s time to review your policy.”

What do you say?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I would say that, number one, I can’t take anything seriously that Bashir says. He is an indicted war criminal. The United States is very committed to seeing him brought to justice. But let’s look at what’s happening in Sudan, because I have the greatest respect, of course, for Nick Kristof and others who share my deep dismay at events in Sudan.

But here’s what we’re trying to do. When we came into office, Bashir threw out the groups, the nongovernmental organizations, who were providing most of the aid in the camps in Darfur, which could have been a disastrous humanitarian crisis. We were able to get a lot of the help back in and we’re beginning to see some slight progress in Darfur. I don’t want to overstate it because it is still a deplorable situation. But we are working to try to get the people back to their homes, out of the camps.

At the same time, you had this election going on. It was, by any measure, a flawed election. There were many, many things wrong with it. But there hadn’t been an election in many years, and so part of our goal was to try to empower opposition parties, empower people to go out and vote. Thousands and thousands did. The result, I think, was pretty much foreordained that Bashir would come out the winner, and that’s unfortunate. We are turning all of our attention to trying to help the South and to mitigate against the attitudes of the North. I can’t sit here and say that we are satisfied, because I’m certainly not satisfied with where we are and what we’re doing, but it is an immensely complicated arena.

Now, the United States could back off and say we won’t deal with these people, we’re not going to have anything to do with them, Bashir is a war criminal. I don’t think that will improve the situation. So along with our partners – the UK, Norway, neighboring countries – we are trying to manage what is a very explosive problem.

QUESTION: Just a couple minutes left. I want to ask you about another big thrust of your time as Secretary of State, and that is forging – well, I should say a realization that there are limits to what government can accomplish around the world. You have spent a lot of time working with the private sector to achieve certain commercial goals, also to achieve goals like the empowerment of women. You’ve got an announcement this weekend having to do with the China Expo and the U.S. role in the China Expo, as well as efforts to empower women around the world in developing countries through the help of the private sector.

Why is this really the route of the future for the government?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you for asking me that, because that is exactly what I believe, that diplomacy today is not just government-to-government. Part of what I had to do when I became Secretary of State was to rebuild America’s image, standing, and leadership in the world. And certainly, President Obama is our greatest advocate at that. But you can’t just do that by the government saying things or even by our President making incredibly important speeches. You have to begin to engage the people in other countries. And in order to do that effectively, I want more people-to-people contacts, I want more private sector partnerships with our public sector and with people around the world.

Let me give two quick examples. You mentioned the Shanghai Expo. There’ll probably be 70 million-plus people who go through that Expo. When I became Secretary of State, there was no money raised because we don’t put public money into a project like that. So with the help of a lot of very dedicated corporate sponsors, we now will be a player in that Expo.

Now, what does that mean? Well, when those 70 million Chinese – mostly Chinese but people from elsewhere in the world go through, they’re going to learn something about America. They’re going to learn something about our values, about our products, about how we live. I think that helps to build the kind of understanding and connection that is at the root of good relations.

And on women’s issues, we just had a great announcement through the combined efforts of a number of corporate sponsors, foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, we’re going to be working to help empower women doing what they do best and to try to up their education levels, their health levels.

Why does this matter? Because it’s the United States doing it. And it’s not just the United States Government. It’s the people of the United States.

QUESTION: Before you go, a question about whether you think it’s realistic that you will stay on as Secretary of State for the balance of the first term.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Well, I intend to. Yeah, I intend to.

QUESTION: You do intend to?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. But I mean, people have been asking me this. And in the interest of full disclosure, it is an exhausting job. But I enjoy it. I have a great time doing it. I feel like we’re making a difference around the world, that I’m a big believer in setting goals, having a vision of where we’re trying to get, but then trying to translate that into what we do today and what we do tomorrow. And we’ve made a lot of progress. We face incredibly difficult problems.

QUESTION: So you think you’ll stay for the whole first term?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think so. I think so. I mean, look, ask me next month and the month after that, but that certainly is my intention.

QUESTION: And yet you don’t care to be on the Supreme Court?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, never. I mean, I’m glad you (inaudible).

QUESTION: You’re a lawyer with all that background.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I am – I do not and have never wanted to be a judge, ever. I mean, that has never been anything that I even let cross my mind, because it’s just not my personality.

QUESTION: Do you think the President should pick another women – woman this time?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think he should pick a very well-qualified, people-savvy, young person to be on the Court to really help to shape the jurisprudence going forward. I think that it’s not a surprise that there’s a real division on the Court, and a lot of decisions that have great ramifications for the people of our country that I would like to see someone put on the Court who can really try to shift the direction of the current Court.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, thank you, as always.

SECRETARY CLINTON: You’re welcome.

# # #

Trumka: Wall St. Hasn't Learned Anything

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka has strong words for Wall Street.

04/29/2010

The Sunday morning shows are dedicated primarily to the unfolding oil apocalypse:

– Charlie “Drill three miles off my coast” Melancon (D-LA), Sen. Mary “Drilling is safe” Landrieu (D-LA), Sen. Bill “Drilling is DOA” Nelson (D-FL) are on CBS’s Face the Nation
– Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Coast Guard Commander Admiral Thad Allen, Gov. Charlie “Now I Remember” Crist (R-FL) on NBC’s Meet the Press
– Napolitano, Salazar, and Rep. Marco “Drill Here, Drill Now” Rubio (R-FL) on Fox News Sunday
– Napolitano, Salazar, and BP America President Lamar McKay on ABC’s This Week

This visualization of the oil spill extent was created by the Times-Picayune from official data.

EXCLUSIVE: Email From Author Of Arizona Law Reveals Intent To Cast Wide Net Against Latinos

by anill

Publish Post

Kris Kobach of the Immigration Reform Law Institute.

Yesterday, Arizona lawmakers made a handful of changes to the immigration bill Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) recently signed into effect that appear to be in response to many of the criticisms aimed at the bill. One of those changes replaces the phrase “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest” to “apparently clarify that officers don’t need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.” However, the legislature also implemented a third change that some call “frightening.” As part of the amended bill, a police officer responding to city ordinance violations would also be required to determine the immigration status of an individual they have reasonable suspicion of being an undocumented immigrant.Wonk Room recently obtained an email written by Kris Kobach, a lawyer at the Immigration Reform Law Institute — the group which credits itself with writing the bill — to Arizona state Sen. Russell Pierce (R), urging him to include language that will allow police to use city ordinance violations such as “cars on blocks in the yard” as an excuse to “initiate queries” in light of the “lawful contact” deletion:

To begin with, Kobach’s correspondence affirms that though the bill was proposed and passed in Arizona, the shots are being called by a small group of lawyers whose office is based in Washington, DC. It also indicates that after vigorously defending his bill and its “lawful contact provision” in the New York Times, Kobach may have had second thoughts about the constitutionality of the bill he prides himself with writing.
More importantly, Kobach is basically admitting to Pearce that by allowing police to use the violation of “any county or municipal ordinance” as a basis for inquiring about a person’s immigration status, the bill will still cast a wide enough net to help offset the effect of omitting the “lawful contact” language which would’ve allowed police to ask just about anyone they encounter about their immigration status. The examples Kobach provides, “cars on blocks in the yard” or “too many occupants of a rental accommodation,” suggest that net will mostly end up being cast over the poor.

Arizona immigration law sparks huge ralliues on May 1 2010

I call it racial profilzona

Democrats Extend Immigration Framework As An Open Invitation To Bipartisanship, GOP Says No Thanks

by anill

Yesterday, Senate Democrats officially released a 26-page frameworkoutlining the major components that a Democratic comprehensive immigration reform bill would contain. The framework, which has a strong emphasis on border security, was meant as a serious open invitation to Republicans that is meant to address several of the concerns expressed by members of the GOP. Nonetheless, Republican leaders scoffed at the effort. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said in a statement that the plan is “nothing more than an attempt to score political points.” “A conceptual paper that promises everything to everyone is not the same as responsible legislation that compiles the best ideas from both sides of the aisle,” read the statement.
However, several components of the framework directly address most of the concerns that are most often articulated by Republican lawmakers arguing against the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform:

CLAIM: “First thing we better do is enforce our borders and know who is here and who comes and who leaves.”
- Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
FACT: The proposal states that the border must be secured “before any action can be taken to change the status of people in the U.S. illegally.” The proposal reads, “benchmarks must be met before action can be taken to adjust the status of people.”
CLAIM: “One in ten Americans are unemployed. Wages are stagnant. The pace of job creation is too slow. In this context, there is little enthusiasm in Congress to pass legislation that would legalize millions of unlawful residents to compete with out-of-work Americans for needed jobs.”
- Sen. Jeff Session (R-AL)
FACT: The proposal explicitly states it will “reform America’s lower-skilled worker programs to ensure that businesses only obtain foreign workers when American workers are unavailable.” The framework also contains a provision that will allow for any qualified American worker who is “displaced” by an immigrant worker to have “redress.” By setting up a “commission” that “recommend[s] policies that promote economic growth and competitiveness while minimizing job displacement, wage depression and unauthorized employment,” the proposal suggests that the number of employment-based visas will be flexible and respond to economic changes.
CLAIM: “E-Verify is a successful and important program and is the key to the moderate position for immigration reform.”
- Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA)
FACT: The Schumer-Menendez-Reid proposal takes the notion of the idea of a mandatory electronic verification system (e-verify) one step further by instituting a biometric ID system. “Employers hiring workers in the future will be required to use the newly created Biometric Enrollment, Locally-stored Information, and Electronic Verification of Employment (BELIEVE) System as a means of verification,” says the framework.
CLAIM: “Instead of supporting a bill that rewards illegal behavior, I am committed to working toward a solution to the current situation that increases border security, improves the naturalization processes, and does not involve amnesty in any form.”
- Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
FACT: Far from proposing an “amnesty” measure that simply pardons undocumented immigrants who have broken the law by entering the U.S., the draft includes a “broad-based registration program that requires all illegal immigrants living in the U.S. to come forward to register, be screened, and, if eligible, complete other requirements to earn legal status, including paying taxes.” Others have also discussed requiring undocumented immigrants to pay a fine.

While the Democrats’ plan was written with winning the support of Republicans in mind, it has come at a cost. While the GOP has pretty much rejected the proposal, even some immigration advocates are skeptical of some of its harsher provisions. The ACLU outright condemned the framework and its biometric ID proposal and the Service Employees International Union appears tempered in its support. Meanwhile, chances are if Republicans do jump on board (which seems unlikely), an actual bill would bring the centrist framework much farther to the right.

Remarks at the Review Conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

The United Nations

New York City

May 3, 2010

---

SECRETARY CLINTON: I want to thank the Secretary General, Director General Amano, Ambassador Cabactulan, for their outstanding leadership in pulling together this Review Conference and addressing the challenges of nuclear proliferation.

As you know, President Obama has made reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons and materials a central mission of our foreign policy, and the NPT lies at the core of that mission. I want to begin by reading a section of the message that President Obama has sent to this conference:

“For four decades, the NPT has been the cornerstone of our collective efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But today, this regime is under increasing pressure. A year ago in Prague, I therefore made it a priority of the United States to strengthen each of the treaty’s key pillars as we work to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to pursue the peace and security of a world without them.

“Today, the eyes of the world are upon us. Over the coming weeks, each of our nations will have the opportunity to show where we stand. Will we meet our responsibilities or shirk them? Will we ensure the rights of nations or undermine them? In short, do we seek a 21^st century of more nuclear weapons or a world without them? These are the questions we must answer and the challenges we must meet. At this conference and beyond, let us come together in partnership to pursue the peace and security that our people deserve.”

Now, President Obama and I know that there are many different perspectives and historical experiences represented in this room. We know there are doubts among some about whether nuclear weapons states, including my own country, are prepared to help lead this effort. I am here to tell you as clearly as I can: The United States will do its part. I represent a President and a country committed to a vision of a world without nuclear weapons and to taking the concrete steps necessary that will help us get there. And along with my delegation, I come to this conference with sincere and serious proposals to advance the fundamental aims of the NPT and strengthen the global nonproliferation regime.

Now, President Obama and I have spoken often of rights and responsibilities, and for us that’s not just a slogan; it is the guiding principles of our efforts. We recognize the rights of all countries in compliance with the treaty to realize the benefits of nuclear energy. And we recognize our responsibility to commit the resources that will help spread those benefits as widely as possible.

We also recognize our responsibility as a nuclear weapons state to move toward disarmament, and that is exactly what we are doing. And as we work to uphold our end of the basic bargain of the NPT, we are asking all signatories to do the same, to work with us to strengthen global nonproliferation rules and hold accountable those who violate them.

So as we begin this conference, let’s remember why we are here, because it is easy to get lost in the jargon and the technical disputes. But there is a deeper mission here to create a safer world where all of our children and grandchildren can realize their God-given potential without the threat of nuclear proliferation.

This meeting comes 40 years after the NPT first entered into force. At that time, the world was at a crossroads. President Kennedy had warned that by the year 1975, up to 20 countries might have nuclear weapons, and many said that nuclear proliferation was inevitable. Well, today we can be grateful that this treaty helped dispel the darkest predictions of that era and that a nuclear weapon has not been used in those four decades.

Yet as we recognize the significance of the NPT, we must also acknowledge that like our predecessors 40 years ago, we stand at a crossroads too. Once again, we face the prospect of a new wave of proliferation. Once again, we hear claims that the spread of nuclear weapons is unavoidable. And once again, some say we must learn to live with the fear and instability of a world with more and more nuclear-armed states and networks.

Now, today, the vast majority of states are living up to their nonproliferation obligations. But a few outliers have demonstrated a determination to violate the rules and defy the international community. During the past decade, one state said it was withdrawing from the NPT after being caught cheating and subsequently announced two nuclear tests. Another has cynically claimed to be abiding by the treaty while violating its safeguards, expanding its enrichment program, failing to cooperate with the IAEA, and ignoring the injunctions of the Security Council.

But amid these challenges, once again, most nations have the opportunity to choose a different path. And the message that President Obama delivered in Prague last year has a new urgency. Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. And the world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now, at this conference, it is time for a strong international response.

These Review Conferences have been held every five years for the last four decades, but too often they have fractured along familiar lines: nuclear weapons states versus non-nuclear-weapons states, or the Western Group versus the Non-Aligned Movement. Instead of working together to meet a common challenge, we have retreated into predictable positions to protect our presumed interest. This time must be different. As one minister said to me, “We not only must think out of the box, we must think out of the blocs.”

We know there are some countries who will choose not to be constructive. This morning, Iran’s president offered the same tired, false, and sometimes wild accusations against the United States and other parties at this conference. But that’s not surprising. As you all heard this morning, Iran will do whatever it can to divert attention away from its own record and to attempt to evade accountability. Ultimately, however, we will all be judged not for our words but for our actions. And we will all be measured not by how assertively we claim our rights but by how faithfully we uphold our responsibilities. And as the Secretary General said, in this regard the onus is on Iran. So far, it has failed to meet its burden. Iran is the only country represented in this hall that has been found by the IAEA Board of Governors to be currently in noncompliance with its nuclear safeguards obligations – the only one. It has defied the UN Security Council and the IAEA, and placed the future of the nonproliferation regime in jeopardy. And that is why it is facing increasing isolation and pressure from the international community.

But Iran will not succeed in its efforts to divert and divide. The United States and the great majority of the nations represented here come to this conference with a much larger agenda: to strengthen a global nonproliferation regime that advances the security of all nations, to advance both our rights and our responsibilities. So now is the time to focus on promoting practical solutions, not pursuing unrealistic agendas. Now is the time to build consensus, not to block it. And I call on Iran to join with all the other delegations represented at this meeting to go ahead and fulfill our international obligations and work toward the goal of a safer world.

The stakes are as high as they were at the dawn of the NPT. And we cannot fall into the ruts left over from old divisions. So rather than allow a small minority to focus attention on our differences, we must acknowledge we are all in this together and set a course for 40 more years of progress to stem the tide of proliferation, prevent the use of these weapons, and use nuclear power for the purpose of peace and prosperity.

So to realize this goal, we must recommit ourselves to strengthening the three pillars of the nonproliferation regime. And with respect to those three pillars – nuclear disarmament, access to civilian nuclear energy, and nonproliferation – this Administration, the United States has led through deeds, not simply through words. Our commitment to the NPT begins with our efforts to reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons in our own arsenal. When President Obama came into office, he recognized that the greatest potential danger facing the United States comes from a terrorist group like al-Qaida obtaining a crude nuclear device, not from a global nuclear war. And we know that the threats of the 21^stcentury cannot be addressed with a massive nuclear stockpile. So we are taking irreversible, transparent, verifiable steps to reduce the number of the nuclear weapons in our arsenal. Our new START treaty with Russia will limit the number of strategic nuclear weapons deployed by our countries to levels not seen since the 1950s. This agreement is consistent with the Secretary General’s call to pursue nuclear disarmament through agreement on a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments.

Our Nuclear Posture Review ruled out the development of new U.S. nuclear weapons and new missions and capabilities for our existing weapons. It also stated we will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapons states that are parties to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations. We have made a commitment to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and we are ready – past ready – to start multilateral negotiations on a verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty.

And today, I am announcing we will submit protocols to the United States Senate to ratify our participation in the nuclear-weapon-free zones that have been established in Africa and the South Pacific. Upon ratification, parties to those agreements will have a legally binding assurance that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them, and will fully respect the nuclear-weapons-free status of the zones. And we are prepared to consult with the parties to the nuclear-weapons-free zones in Central and Southeast Asia, in an effort to reach agreement that would allow us to sign those protocols as well.

We support efforts to realize the goal of a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the Middle East, in accordance with the 1995 Middle East Resolution. The Middle East may present the greatest threat of nuclear proliferation in the world today. Adherence to the NPT is not universal, and a few countries that are parties to the NPT have violated their treaty obligations. But in spite of these difficulties, we want to reaffirm our commitment to the objective of a Middle East free of these weapons of mass destruction, and we are prepared to support practical measures that will move us toward achieving that objective.

President Obama has made clear the Unites States will retain a nuclear deterrent for as long as nuclear weapons exist, one that can protect our country and our allies. But we will continue to seek further reductions and we will pursue concrete steps to improve the transparency of our nuclear arsenal. Beginning today, the United States will make public the number of nuclear weapons in our stockpile and the number of weapons we have dismantled since 1991.

So for those who doubt that the United States will do its part on disarmament, this is our record, these are our commitments, and they send a clear, unmistakable signal. We are also committed to bolstering another pillar: access to civilian nuclear energy. We unequivocally support the rights of states that are in compliance with the treaty to access nuclear technology and energy for peaceful purposes. The IAEA’s high-end projection for new nuclear capacity has nearly doubled since the last Review Conference five years ago. And the United States wants to help expand the ability of all states to utilize peaceful nuclear energy. Over the past decade, we’ve provided nearly $200 million to support the IAEA’s Technical Cooperation Fund. We are the largest contributor to that effort. And it has helped more than 100 countries develop or expand the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Today, the President has asked me to announce that the United States will make an additional commitment of $50 million over the next five years for a new IAEA Peaceful Uses Initiative. We hope other partners will match this contribution with an additional $50 million. We will use these resources to improve health care and nutrition, manage water resources, increase food security, and help countries develop the infrastructure for the safe and secure use of nuclear power.

We are pleased that the IAEA’s director general has made expanding use of civil nuclear energy for humanitarian purposes one of his signature initiatives. The United States is also strengthening bilateral technical cooperation arrangements with more than 40 states, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia.

But this treaty is weakened when a state flouts the rules and develops illicit nuclear weapons capabilities. So as we pursue progress on these pillars, we must recommit our nations to bolster the nonproliferation regime. When leaders of the IAEA ask for more resources and authority to carry out their mission of verifying compliance with nonproliferation obligations, we must respond. When the IAEA calls on states to sign and ratify an additional protocol to ensure that parties to the NPT are meeting their treaty obligations, we must act.

But improving the IAEA’s ability to detect safeguard violations is not enough. Potential violators must know that they will pay a high price if they break the rules, and that is certainly not the case today. The international community’s record of enforcing compliance in recent years is unacceptable. So we need to consider automatic penalties for the violation of safeguards agreements such as suspending all international nuclear cooperation or IAEA technical cooperation projects until compliance has been restored. And we must use all of the possible financial and legal tools to disrupt illicit proliferation networks. That means tightening controls on transshipment and enhancing restrictions on transfers of sensitive technology. We should also find ways to dissuade states from utilizing the treaty’s withdrawal provision to avoid accountability.

Now, I am not proposing to amend the treaty to limit the rights of states to withdraw. But we cannot stand by when a state committing treaty violations says it will pull out of the NPT in an attempt to escape penalties and even pursue nuclear weapons. Parties to the NPT have invested decades in building a global nonproliferation regime, and that work will be rendered meaningless if the international community continues allowing nations to break the rules of the NPT with impunity.

Our work at this conference must provide a foundation for future actions, including strengthening IAEA safeguards, negotiating a fissile material cutoff treaty at the Conference on Disarmament and toughening enforcement against proliferation violations at the UN Security Council.

The last 40 years have proved that nuclear proliferation is not inevitable. We believe it can be stopped, but it will take all of us here recognizing common dangers and finding common ground, rolling up our sleeves and getting creative, taking practical steps together in the next month.

A lot of skeptics out there say that when countries gather at the United Nations, nothing happens but a lot of words are used up. Well, it is up to us at this conference to prove those doubters wrong. Forty years from now, our successors will mark the 80^th anniversary of the Nonproliferation Treaty. And the men and women, who gather on that occasion in the new building, once it is finally completed, will not remember the words we speak today unless those words are matched by actions. But our children and our grandchildren will live with the consequences of what we decide this month. Whether the world is more or less secure depends on the path we take, and there is no greater reason than that to find a way to act together and to act decisively.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)