Let Code Pink know what you think of their artwork:
info@womensaynotowar.org
[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
We agree with the district court that the Executive Branch need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance. Although the Supreme Court has never decided the issue which is presented to us, it formulated the analytical approach which we employ here in an analogous case, United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). In Keith, the executive had conducted warrantless domestic security surveillance. The Court posited two inquiries to guide the Fourth Amendment determination of whether a warrant is required:If the legitimate need of Government to safeguard domestic security requires the use of electronic surveillance, the question is whether the needs of citizens for privacy and free expression may not be better protected by requiring a warrant before such surveillance is undertaken. We must also ask whether a warrant would unduly frustrate the efforts of Government to protect itself from acts of subversion and overthrow directed against it.407 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. at 2135. Balancing individual privacy and government needs, the Supreme Court concluded that the executive must seek a warrant before it undertakes domestic security surveillance.
For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following Keith, "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed, and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence initiatives, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations. See Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594, 704 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (Wilkey, J., concurring and dissenting).
More importantly, the executive possesses unparalleled expertise to make the decision whether to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance, whereas the judiciary is largely inexperienced in making the delicate and complex decisions that lie behind foreign intelligence surveillance. See New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 727-30, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 2148-2150, 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971) (Stewart, J., concurring); United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 330, 57 S.Ct. 758, 760, 81 L.Ed. 1134 (1937). The executive branch, containing the State Department, the intelligence agencies, and the military, is constantly aware of the nation's security needs and the magnitude of external threats posed by a panoply of foreign nations and organizations. On the other hand, while the courts possess expertise in making the probable cause determination involved in surveillance of suspected criminals, the courts are unschooled in diplomacy and military affairs, a mastery of which would be essential to passing upon an executive branch request that a foreign intelligence wiretap be authorized. Few, if any, district courts would be truly competent to judge the importance of particular information to the security of the United States or the "probable cause" to demonstrate that the government in fact needs to recover that information from one particular source.
Perhaps most crucially, the executive branch not only has superior expertise in the area of foreign intelligence, it is also constitutionally designated as the pre-eminent authority in foreign affairs. See First National Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba, 406 U.S. 759, 765-68, 92 S.Ct. 1808, 1812-1814, 32 L.Ed.2d 466 (1972); Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 302, 38 S.Ct. 309, 310, 62 L.Ed. 726 (1918). The President and his deputies are charged by the constitution with the conduct of the foreign policy of the United States in times of war and peace. See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936). Just as the separation of powers in Keith forced the executive to recognize a judicial role when the President conducts domestic security surveillance, 407 U.S. at 316-18, 92 S.Ct. at 2136-2137, so the separation of powers requires us to acknowledge the principal responsibility of the President for foreign affairs and concomitantly for foreign intelligence surveillance.
In sum, because of the need of the executive branch for flexibility, its practical experience, and its constitutional competence, the courts should not require the executive to secure a warrant each time it conducts foreign intelligence surveillance. Accord, United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3 Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Ivanov v. United States, 419 U.S. 881, 95 S.Ct. 147, 42 L.Ed.2d 121 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5 Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 94 S.Ct. 1490, 39 L.Ed.2d 575 (1974); United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5 Cir. 1970), rev'd on other grounds, 403 U.S. 698, 91 S.Ct. 2068, 29 L.Ed.2d 810 (1971). Contra, Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C.Cir.1975) (dictum in plurality opinion in case involving surveillance of domestic organization having an effect on foreign relations but acting neither as the agent of nor in collaboration with a foreign power).
However, because individual privacy interests are severely compromised any time the government conducts surveillance without prior judicial approval, this foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement must be carefully limited to those situations in which the interests of the executive are paramount. First, the government should be relieved of seeking a warrant only when the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators. Cf. Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594, 613 n.42 (D.C. Cir. 1975). In such cases, the government has the greatest need for speed, stealth, and secrecy, and the surveillance in such cases is most likely to call into play difficult and subtle judgments about foreign and military affairs. When there is no foreign connection, the executive's needs become less compelling; and the surveillance more closely resembles the surveillance of suspected criminals, which must be authorized by warrant.
'Electronic surveillance' means -As Powerline's John Hinderaker observes, taping phones overseas for purposes of preventing terrorism, as opposed to criminal prosecution, isn't addressed:
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511(2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.
Based on what has been publicly disclosed, it seems likely that the NSA intercepts are picked up overseas, not inside the U.S. If that is the case, FISA simply has no application to the program.
Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted. (emphasis added)
[W]hile FISA was being debated during the Carter Administration, Attorney General Griffin Bell testified that “the current bill recognizes no inherent power of the President to conduct electronic surveillance, and I want to interpolate here to say that this does not take away the power [of] the President under the Constitution.” Foreign Intelligence Electronic Surveillance Act of 1978: Hearings on H.R. 5764, H.R. 9745, H.R. 7308, and H.R. 5632 Before the Subcomm. on Legislation of the House Comm. on Intelligence, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 15 (1978) (emphasis added)BTW, avoid the Congressional Research Service "analysis" of wiretap legality: as Captain Ed observes, "the CRS report was prepared Alfred Cumming -- the same Alfred Cumming who gave John Kerry $1,250 for his run against George Bush in the 2004 election cycle." Cumming somehow overlooked Bell's testimony, allowing him to conclude the President lacks warrantless wiretap authority.
The issue is not about circumventing normal civilian Constitutional protections, after all. The debate concerns surveillance for military purposes during wartime. No one would suggest the President must get a warrant to listen to terrorist communications on the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. But what the critics are really insisting on here is that the President get a warrant the minute a terrorist communicates with an associate who may be inside in the U.S. That's a loophole only a terrorist could love.MaxedOutMama:
Historically speaking, the Presidency has done such things on US soil in times of war. And even in the case of domestic wiretapping, the authorization given upon showing of probable cause is for the suspect number, which in these cases appears to be foreign. Now it's not controversial that the Presidency can monitor communications outside the US, but in FISA Congress set forth the principle that it could control the Presidency's use of domestic electronic networks to monitor foreign communications.Tommy:
But standards such as probable cause have little relationship to the type of intelligence work needed to identify amorphous lines of communication. What, exactly, is the purpose of a judicial review in such circumstances? Realistically speaking, such a net must be cast very wide in order to gain usable information. You have to spiderweb out from what you do know to all possible points, and look at patterns, etc. So either NSA would be going to judges and saying "well, this here number appears to be possibly associated with this one", or "this is being billed to the same entity, and in the past we have picked up such-and-such activity associated to this entity" and some judge would be saying "no, yes" basically at random, or FISA courts would be rubber-stamping all such requests.
Do you think that the NSA should have to get a judge to agree that it can look at calls made from inside the US to Iranian President Ahmadinejad's cell phone? Because that is what this amounts to. How severe is the impact on the individual freedom of American citizens?
We are fighting a war, the congress authorized, and the President took, action. I expect the communications of the enemy to be monitored. All of the communications of the enemy. The fact that the enemy is communicating with people within our borders does not in the slightest change that. Maybe I’ve spent more time around collection type assets than the average person, but I confess I was shocked to learn that people were surprised this was going on. If the program was monitoring domestic communications with persons other than Al Qaeda and associated groups, that is something different. But as of yet, I have heard nothing to suggest that was the case.
The NSA undoubtedly has identified many foreign phone numbers associated with al Qaeda. If these numbers are monitored only from outside the U.S., as consistent with FISA requirements, the agency cannot determine with certainty the location of the persons who are calling them, including whether they are in the U.S. New technology enables the president, via NSA, to establish an early-warning system to alert us immediately when any person located in the U.S. places a call to, or receives a call from, one of the al Qaeda numbers. Do Mr. Gore and congressional critics want the NSA to be unable to locate a secret al Qaeda operative in the U.S.?And John Hawkins at Right Wing News:
We have now come to a point in the war on terror where the most reasonable of protective measures, like listening in on the conversations of terrorists calling people in the United States, has become a source of great controversy. . .
[M]any of the very reasonable security measures the Bush administration has taken have been attacked as if they were pulled out of void, as if they were needless bits of red tape that could be cut with no consequences whatsoever.
This is a mistake.
Instead, people who attack the Bush administration for securing this country should be explicitly asked again and again whether getting rid of Gitmo, neutering our interrogation measures, stopping warrantless wiretaps of terrorist calls to the US, getting rid of the Patriot Act, etc., etc., is worth significantly increasing the chances of having another 9/11 style attack on the country.
Then, if they answer the affirmative, at least the voters will know where they stand and, as an added benefit, we'll perhaps be spared their shrill condemnations of President Bush for not protecting us from terrorists after an attack that they helped make possible occurs.
Alito isn't going to get anything close to 78 votes received by Chief Justice Roberts. He will be lucky to get 60 votes.Democrats embrace partisanship über alles. Why? Listen to liberal Sally Swift:
Yesterday Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Rick Santorum predicted Alito will be be confirmed on a straight partisan vote. Santorum may be right. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska remains the only Senate Democrat to announce that he will vote for Alito's confirmation. No Republican Senator is expected to vote against Alito's confirmation.
Make no mistake, Alito's a very dangerous man. Chosen by George W. Bush. A conservative's Conservative. Another Scalia. Another Thomas. A man who believes more firmly in Executive Powers than in individual rights. A strict Constructionist who will look backward, not forward.The actual text! A conservative! Quelle horrible! And Scalia was approved 98-0!
Here's the biggest clue:"In interpreting the Constitution," Judge Alito said Wednesday, "I think we should look to the text of the Constitution, and we should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption." New York Times
I don't think he is a bad person. I don't dislike him personally, but I don't think he has to be objective SC justice. I just have not seen it in his opinions. . .However one views Kelo -- I think it compelled by Midkiff -- the Kelo majority included liberals Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer! Is Dingo campaigning to impeach them? Nope--his principle is Procrustean jurisprudence, not property rights.
I gave Alito a fair chance. I read many of his opinions, and just did not like his judicial philosophies. He, is without question, very intelligent. But, he gives way too much power to the government over the rights of individuals. I have little doubt that he would have been in the majority on Kelo.
Right now, the safest tactic for Reid to pursue is to call for a filibuster, but to give consent to the 7 Democrat "gangsters" to vote for cloture (or at least, enough of them to push the vote over 60). In so doing, he can significantly tilt the playing field in at least one critical race in '06, basically for free. However, the bolder move would be to exercise all the discipline that he can, and force the GOP to exercise the Constitutional option. And, if he feels that the majority can be regained in '06, this is actually the right tactical decision.
It seems to me that at least two things are relatively certain: (1) Alito will be confirmed, and (2) If Reid plays his cards right, he can make the GOP pay for it. Either way, I can't see how a filibuster doesn't make tactial sense for the Democrats at this point, given the current political landscape. And I don't see a way to avoid some damage from the fallout.
The book starts to weaken here, and dribbles out altogether at the end, as he repeats his favorite complaints against SUV’s, health insurance insecurity, and the free market’s creation of losers. (He acknowledges, BTW, that market economies have created all the good things above, but keeps thinking there should be something, well, better. Great. Wake me when you find it, Gregg.)
ABC News has learned that Pakistani officials now believe that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.Item:
Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was identified by Pakistani authorities as one of four known major al Qaeda leaders present at an apparent terror summit in the village of Damadola early last Friday morning.
The United States had posted a $5 million reward for Mursi's capture. He is described by authorities as the man who ran al Qaeda's infamous Derunta training camp in Afghanistan, where he used dogs and other animals as subjects for experiments with poison and chemicals. His explosives training manual is still regarded as the bible for al Qaeda terrorists around the world.
"He wants to cause mayhem, major death, and he puts his expertise on the line. So the fact that we took him out is significant," said former FBI agent Jack Cloonan, an ABC News consultant, who was the senior agent on the FBI's al Qaeda squad. "He's the man who trained the shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, as well as hundreds of others."
Pakistani officials also said that Khalid Habib, the al Qaeda operations chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Abdul Rehman al Magrabi, a senior operations commander for al Qaeda, were killed in the Damadola attack. Authorities tell ABC News that the terror summit was called to funnel new money into attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
I can certainly understand the uproar over President Bush's flagrant abuses of civil liberties. This is America. What right does that fascist in the White House have to imprison Michael Moore, wiretap Nancy Pelosi and blackmail Howard Dean?Coincidence? I think not.
Wait. You mean he hasn't done those things? All he's done is intercept communications between terrorists abroad and their contacts in the U.S. without a court order? Talk about defining impeachable offenses downward. . .
All you have to do is recite this litany of excess to realize the absurdity of the cries of impeachment coming from the loonier precincts of the left. Muttering about "slippery slopes" isn't enough to convince most people that fascism is descending. If the president's critics want that part of the nation that doesn't read the Nation to believe that he's a threat to our freedom, they'd better do more than turn up the level of vituperation. They'd better find some real victims — the Eugene Debses and Martin Luther Kings of the war on terror.
Civil libertarians thought they were in luck when a college student in Massachusetts claimed that two FBI agents had shown up to interview him after he had requested a copy of Mao Tse-tung's Little Red Book. Ted Kennedy cited this incident to warn of the Patriot Act's "chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom." Relax, Senator. Free speech is safe. The student lied.
The anti-Bush brigade hasn't had any luck in turning up actual instances of abuse, despite no end of effort. The ACLU compiled a list of supposed victims of the Patriot Act. After examining each case, however, Sen. Dianne Feinstein — no friend of the administration — said "it does not appear that these charges rose to the level of 'abuse.'" . . .
And although the government has occasionally blundered, it has also used its enhanced post-9/11 powers to keep us safe. The National Security Agency's warrantless wiretaps, which have generated so much controversy, helped catch, among others, a naturalized American citizen named Iyman Faris who pleaded guilty to being part of an Al Qaeda plot to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge.
Prior to the presentation by the KCC (Kumbaya Clerics Corps), we had the opportunity to mingle and engage in a bit of chit chat with other attendees. It became immediately clear that all in attendance shared a kind and gentle spirit, coupled with absolute hatred for George Adolph Bush (the President was referred to that way more than once) as well as any version of Christianity that did not see the world their way. In addition, there was much visceral hatred extended towards Israel and Jews that would refuse to participate in their own slaughter and vilification. . .Answer: yes, academic liberals are insane. Gullible too. And the big fools say to push on.
In any event, the presentations were made and they were followed up by questions. Naturally, the self absorbed undergrads immediately took to the floor and predictably found novel ways to repeat the same thing, that we all need to get along. They ended their profound remarks with misunderstood quotes from Khalil Gibran, Kierkegaard, Andy Warhol and their pre school teachers.
When the 'look at me, mommy!' crowd was done, another 'Muslim scholar' in attendance took to the microphone to make a statement, in which he noted the obvious superiority of the Quran as and unchanged sacred text, as opposed to both the Old and New testaments. We immediately rose and challenged his assertion re the Quran, citing scholarly evidence to the contrary (there are at least three versions of the Quran. Yes, we are equipped to that argument. We are after all, SC&A).
At that point, we were interrupted and told that this was not the forum for textual discussions that might offend some. . .
At this point, [a Professor of psychiatry at Duke Medical School] pulled us aside and said, he didn't want to get into the specifics of what was and wasn't said (of course not). He did say that George Bush was a fascist and almost a Nazi (clearly, he wanted to have something to add for another day).
We looked at this world-renowned doctor and asked, "Are you insane?" Clearly uncomfortable, our conversation progressed and then the doctor went on to say that there was another way to disarm Saddam other than war. We asked what that was.
The doctor went on to describe a technique used in residential settings, when a client is in a highly agitated state (please note that even SC&A can be PC). The client is surrounded by professionals that very slowly move in to subdue the client. It is the hope that the when the client sees the inevitable, he will return to a calm state.
The doctor noted that the US needed to surround Iraq with two million soldiers and very slowly, go house to house, looking for weapons and in doing so, they would tighten the noose around Saddam Hussein. Thus surrounded, the doctor posited the notion that Saddam would come to his senses and surrender.
This was the advice and opinion from a world class psychiatrist teaching at a world class institution.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline President of Iran, launched an angry tirade against the West yesterday, accusing it of a 'dark ages' mentality and threatening retaliation unless it recognised his country's nuclear ambitions.So how has Europe -- the principal diplomatic contact -- responded? And what's the reaction elsewhere? Assorted, fluid--and frightened.
In a blistering assault, Ahmadinejad repeated the Islamic regime's position that it would press ahead with a nuclear programme despite threats by the European Union and United States to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, where it could face possible sanctions. He added that Iran was a 'civilised nation' that did not need such weapons. Iran insists its nuclear programme is a wholly peaceful attempt to generate electricity.
Addressing a rare press conference in Tehran, he appeared to issue thinly veiled threats against Western countries, implying that they could face serious consequences unless they backed down. 'You need us more than we need you. All of you today need the Iranian nation,' Ahmadinejad said. 'Why are you putting on airs? You don't have that might.' . . .
Ahmadinejad accused the West of misusing bodies such as the UN and IAEA. 'Why are you damaging the good name of the security council and IAEA for you own political purposes?' he asked. 'Don't take away the credibility of legitimate forums.
Q: [D]o you foresee any possible role for you to play as a possible go-between, and are you indicating that perhaps it is too early for the IAEA to refer the Iranian dispute to the Security Council?February 1998, on returning from Iraq:
Annan: I think we should try and resolve it, if possible, in the IAEA context. [Mohamed] ElBaradei is working with the parties, doing his best to try and resolve it there. Once that process is exhausted, it may end up in the [Security] Council and then I would leave it to the Council, to decide what to do, if it were to come here. I wouldn't want to preempt them.
I have been talking to all the parties, doing whatever I can to encourage a negotiated settlement and really keeping people at the table and trying to discourage escalation, and I will continue to do that. My good offices are always available; if I need to do more, and the parties so wish, I will do it.
Saddam Hussein is a man I can do business with.Sound familiar?1
[W]e are coming to the litmus test in the next few weeks. Diplomacy is not just talking. Diplomacy has to be backed by pressure and, in extreme cases, by force. We have rules. We have to do everything possible to uphold the rules through conviction. If not, then you impose them. Of course, this has to be the last resort, but sometimes you have to do it.
A committee led by the French, which includes America and other European powers, is drawing up a list of sanction options likely to influence any resolution put before the U.N. Security Council next month. The list includes limiting the travel of Iranian diplomats; restricting their membership in international organizations; expelling known intelligence officers attached to Iranian embassies; limiting Iran's import of dual-use items that could be diverted to its nuclear program, and - at its most punitive - banning the export of refined petroleum to the country, which imports 40% of the refined petroleum it uses.The Washington Times' Tony Blankley takes Europe seriously:
When cautious and circumspect European diplomats use words like "serious," "grave," "disastrous," "red line for international community," "urge Iran to immediately and unconditionally reverse its decision," the rest of us should take these phrases as unambiguous evidence that an international crisis of the first water is fast building.But, cautions the WSJ, we've seen this movie before:
The event that may precipitate formal diplomatic action will occur in March, when IAEA head Mr. ElBaradei will file his next report to the United Nations on the nuclear program status of Iran.
The question remains whether all this diplomatic agitation will lead to effective international action. It is generally recognized among leading American and European statesmen that the period of negotiating with Iran is about at an end. We are now entering a period of what is being called coercive diplomacy. The spectrum of actions range from mere criticism, to censure, to diplomatic isolation, to economic sanctions as punishment, to specific barring of importation into Iran of products and services critical to nuclear weapons production, to military actions intended to physically destroy Iran's nuclear capacity.
What we are really witnessing is a demonstration of what happens when Iran's provocations are dealt with in a manner that suits Europe's feckless diplomatic "consensus." After more than two years of nonstop diplomacy and appeasement, the world is no closer to resolving its nuclear stand-off with Iran. But Iran is considerably closer to acquiring the critical mass of technology and know-how needed to build a nuclear weapon.
Needless to say, the German deputy foreign minister, Gernot Erler, has already cautioned that this may be going too far, and that sanctions could well hurt us more than it hurts the Iranians. Perhaps this is what passes is for a good cop/bad cop routine, with Herr Erler affably suggesting to the punks that they might want to cooperate or he'll have to send his pal Jack in to tear up their tickets for the Michael Moore première at the Cannes Film Festival.Optimistic:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel met President Vladimir Putin on Monday for talks in which she was expected to press him to support European Union and U.S. diplomatic pressure on Iran over its nuclear program. . .
"There are a range of bilateral issues to discuss here ... There are international themes to be discussed, connected to your chairmanship of the G8 and also opinions to be exchanged about conflicts," Merkel told Putin as they met.
Prime Minister Tony Blair called on Wednesday for the U.N. Security Council to consider action against Iran after it resumed nuclear fuel research, but Iran's hardline president said his country would pursue its course regardless.Foreign Secretary Straw:
Blair told parliament he aimed to secure international agreement to haul Iran before the Security Council, which can impose punitive measures.
"Then .. we have to decide what measures to take and we obviously don't rule out any measures at all," he added.
Blair made no direct reference to military force, but his remarks seemed stronger than those of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who said on Tuesday military action was not on Britain's agenda and that he believed it was not on anyone else's.
Mr Straw's officials have indicated that they're prepared to consider the possibility of possibly considering the preparation of a possible motion on sanctions for the UN Security Council to consider the possibility of considering.
But don't worry, we're not escalating this thing any more than necessary. Initially, the FCO is considering "narrowly targeted sanctions such as a travel ban on Iranian leaders".
That'll show 'em: Iranian missiles may be able to leave Iranian airspace, but the deputy trade minister won't. No more trips to Paris for the spring collections or skiing in Gstaad for the A-list ayatollahs.
Russia is a complicated issue. Defense Minister Sergei Lavrov is playing the KGB two face. Not a particularly settling dance. He has hinted at Russian approval of a move to refer Iran to the UNSC, but at the same time has said there will be no change to a deal giving Iran short-range missiles that could be used with developed nuclear warheads. Again, they’ll follow their national interests, which will be in terms of its international place in the world and its energy interests with Iran. The problem is that it might not be in line with the West, as a nuclear Iran probably poses little threat to Russia. And China, for that matter. You don’t here them shouting, “Death to Russia!” do you?
China has offered to help rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions and ease U.S. complaints about pirated goods ahead of a Washington visit by President Hu Jintao expected in mid-April, visiting U.S. congressmen said on Wednesday.
The chairman of China's National People's Congress, Wu Bangguo, told the congressmen China "agreed that they (Iran) should not have nuclear weapons, and agreed to working with the United States and especially the EU3" on Iran, Mark Kirk, a Republican Congressman from Illinois, told reporters.
Egypt on Monday said it supported using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes but rejected the emergence of a nuclear military power in the region, in its first official reaction to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program.
"All countries should adhere to their commitments in a way to allow the international community to be sure of the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program, as we do not accept the emergence of a nuclear military power," Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said in a statement.
Turkey on Saturday called on neighboring Iran to rapidly cooperate with the European Union and the United Nation's (U.N.) nuclear watchdog to overcome a crisis over the country's nuclear program. Turkish politicians argue that Iran should not escalate tension in the region and should take all possible measures for co-operations. . .
Turkey called on neighboring Iran to avoid any move that could erode its dialogue with the international society.
"Turkey hopes that Iran would immediately engage into a full and transparent cooperation with the tripartite European Union (EU) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to overcome the crisis of confidence," the statement from Foreign Ministry said on Saturday. . .
One of the Turkish diplomat told the [Journal of Turkish Weekly] that "Turkey's support to Iran is not limitless".
Saudi Arabia broke its silence yesterday in the growing row between the West and Iran by warning Tehran that its nuclear ambitions could bring disaster to the region.
Prince Saud al-Faisal, the veteran Saudi Foreign Minister, criticised President Ahmadinejad’s Administration, urging him to forgo atomic energy, to moderate his foreign policy and resist the temptation of interfering in Iraq.
Speaking before a terrorism conference in London, which he will be attending today, Prince Saud spoke for many in the Arab world when he cautioned of the dangers of a regional arms race.
“We are urging Iran to accept the position that we have taken to make the Gulf, as part of the Middle East, nuclear free and free of weapons of mass destruction. We hope that they will join us in this policy and assure that no new threat of arms race happens in this region,” he told The Times.
[T]here are an increasing number of credible reports that Israel is well along in planning a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear sites. And these reports have new urgency given the news of Iran's impending purchase of advanced Russian anti-aircraft missiles that would complicate any strike. Given that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has promised to wipe the Jewish state "off the map," an Israeli pre-emption would certainly be justified, though the regional consequences -- including a ballistic missile exchange between the two countries -- may well be severe.
It should not be Israel's lot to safeguard the security of the West in the face of a common threat, as it did when it destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981. But if we're going to avoid this grim scenario, both Europe and the U.S. need to threaten, and apply, stiffer penalties against Iran than they have suggested so far.
Cnn's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, laughs before Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's press conference in Tehran on Saturday, Jan. 14, 2006. (source: AP via Yahoo)US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has urged the UN to confront Iran's "defiance" over its nuclear programme. . .Other officials may be bolder:
Speaking to reporters in Washington, she said Tehran had deliberately escalated the situation and was "in dangerous defiance of the entire international community".
Ms Rice talked of "a menu of possibilities" for diplomatic action against Iran.
But she said the US did not "at this point" have on its agenda the option of military action.
These diplomatic developments portend a confrontation next month between Iran and America's ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who will hold the rotating presidency of the Security Council in February. Mr. Bolton has been one of the toughest critics of Iran inside the Bush administration since he oversaw the nonproliferation and arms control file for the State Department in President Bush's first term. Mr. Bolton's advocacy for action against Iran - he opposed the postponement of a council referral in 2003 - has prompted the regime in Tehran to attack him personally in the state-run press.Informed speculation from WaPo writer William Arkin:
The post-9/11 National Security Strategy, published in September 2002, codified preemption, stating that the United States must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld directed the military in 2002 to create the capability to undertake "unwarned strikes" in crisis situations.
If Iran continues to defy the international community and manufactures nuclear weapons materials, and if U.S. intelligence detects peculiar movements or actions associated with nuclear facilities or, say, Iranian arming and alerting of its ballistic missile or fighter force, CONPLAN 8022 could be implemented to strike at the activity.
Given that the justification for preemption and for the global strike capability is to prevent "another 9/11," this time one with WMD, it wouldn't be relevant whether the United States was confident that it knew where ever last gram of Iran's weapons were. The focus would be against Iran's ability to deliver a WMD. The objective would be to forestall another 9/11. A strike that halted preparations for attack and set back the program so that it was no longer an immediate threat would be a success under the Bush administration's plan.
This is why commentators who warn that the United States does not know where all of Iran's nuclear capabilities are missing the point. Under global strike, the objective wouldn't be to "disarm" Iran: It would be to stop it.
The approach the Bush administration has pursued towards Iran -- multilateralism, private and public diplomacy, occasionally deferring to allies -- is besotted with the very tropes that liberals like to see in their American foreign policy. I'm still not sure what the end game will be with regard to Iran, but to date I can't see how a Kerry administration would have played its cards any differently than the Bush team.______________
I find it, as grave somber Senate Democrats like to say, "troubling." Indeed, I find it not just "troubling" but sad that a party once so good at "the politics of personal destruction" has got so bad at it. . .This is award-worthy. Hand Kennedy the Oscar for worst acting in an opposing role; for Steyn, a Pulitzer.
Sen. Leahy (D-Vt.): "I find it troubling that as a young man you joined an all-white club affiliated with a national institution that has a very troubling historical pattern when it comes to the treatment of minorities."
Sen. Leahy (D-Vt.): "Yes, it's true I joined the Vermont branch of the Democratic Party in the 1950s. But, I mean, I never met George Wallace or Robert C. Byrd or anyone . . ."
Sen. Kennedy (D-Mass.): "I find it, uh, troubling, uh, that as a, uh, grown man you were a, uh, member, uh, of an, uh, organization, uh, with, uh, a, uh, very troubling, uh, track record on, uh, the treatment of, uh, women."
Sen. Kennedy (D-Mass.): "Yes, it's, uh, true I was a member of the, uh, Kennedy family."
Sen. Kennedy (D-Mass.): "Please don't interrupt. And it's, uh, true, is it not, that you've, uh, made, uh, jokes that could be regarded as, uh, inappropriate and offensive to, uh, women, uh, you've, uh uh, known?"
Sen. Kennedy (D-Mass.): "Well, uh, I named my dog Splash, but, uh, other than, uh, that, uh uh..."
It seems unfair that only Sam Alito should get to play this game. Couldn't somebody develop some software you could stick in your DVD and play "Senate Confirmation" at home? . . .
The poor fellows had no choice but to sacrifice themselves on national TV at the behest of NOW and Daily Kos and the kookier parts of the base. It was said of the British Tommies in the trenches of the Great War that they were lions led by donkeys. In the Democratic Party, the old lions are now led by the grassroots donkeys, and, like some moth-eaten circus act, Ted and Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein are obliged to jump through ever more ludicrous hoops for the gratification of the base.
The media did their best to neutralize the impact of this pitiful spectacle, with expert commentators on hand to assure us that smart fellows like Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden were only going through the motions for the sake of all that MoveOn.org fund-raising gravy. Don't worry, Ted and Chuck and Pat are way too savvy to believe this junk. Thus democratic politics reaches a new level of circular hell: The spin is that it's only spin.
U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy — who ripped Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for ties to a group that discriminates against women — says he’s going to quit a club notorious for discriminating against women “as fast as I can.”Just as he got out of Chappaquiddick pond as fast as he could, ignoring anything left behind.
Kennedy was outed by conservatives late last week as a current member of The Owl Club, a social club for Harvard alumni that bans women from membership.
In an interview with WHDH Channel 7’s Andy Hiller that aired last night, Kennedy said, “I joined when I . . . 52 years ago, I was a member of the Owl Club, which was basically a fraternal organization.”
Asked by Hiller whether he is still a member, Kennedy said, “I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.”
He then said of being a member in a club that discriminates against women, “I shouldn’t be and I’m going to get out of it as fast as I can.”
[H]e is undeniably a conservative whose presence on the Supreme Court is likely to produce more conservative results than we would like to see. Which is, of course, just what President Bush promised concerning his judicial appointments. A Supreme Court nomination isn't a forum to refight a presidential election. The president's choice is due deference -- the same deference that Democratic senators would expect a Republican Senate to accord the well-qualified nominee of a Democratic president.It's exemplary principle, well stated. Agreed.
And Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His record on the bench is that of a thoughtful conservative, not a raging ideologue. He pays careful attention to the record and doesn't reach for the political outcomes he desires. His colleagues of all stripes speak highly of him. His integrity, notwithstanding efforts to smear him, remains unimpeached. . .
Supreme Court confirmations have never been free of politics, but neither has their history generally been one of party-line votes or of ideology as the determinative factor. To go down that road is to believe that there exists a Democratic law and a Republican law -- which is repugnant to the ideal of the rule of law. However one reasonably defines the "mainstream" of contemporary jurisprudence, Judge Alito's work lies within it. While we harbor some anxiety about the direction he may push the court, we would be more alarmed at the long-term implications of denying him a seat. No president should be denied the prerogative of putting a person as qualified as Judge Alito on the Supreme Court.
scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.Tying the physicist to present public policy, Seipp concludes "intelligent design" is un-falseable and thus unscientific under Feynman's philosophy. And it's true, as Philosophy prof Kelley Ross writes, Feynman belonged to the "if-you-can't-bite-it, it-ain't-there" school:
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.
Philosophical questions never had the slightest appeal to him, nor religion. He was thus a purely scientistic scientist, ignoring or dismissing anything about life and the world that was not accessible to scientific method.But that strategy seems outmoded, at least for those of us lacking Feynman's genius. Increasing complexity and ever-narrower specialization make falsification protracted for scientists (see, e.g., South Korean stem-cells) and unlikely for laymen (see, e.g., global warming). Partly, that's because politics permeates science to an unprecedented extent, with outcomes increasingly dictated by fund-source, with dissent stifled by circle-the-wagon peer review. Worse still, certainty's scorned -- hunted for sport by the Hollywood set -- the whole notion of objectivity's being supplanted by post-modern relativeness.
