Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Internment camp letters found in Denver building Posted: November 22, 2012 - 1:16am The walls where documents from the early 1940s were found during renovations at a former Denver pharmacy owned by Japanese-Americans are seen Tuesday. Some letters arriving from Japanese-American internment camps during World War II were very specific, asking for a certain brand of bath powder, cold cream or cough drops. Ed Andrieski Ed Andrieski The walls where documents from the early 1940s were found during renovations at a former Denver pharmacy owned by Japanese-Americans are seen Tuesday. Some letters arriving from Japanese-American internment camps during World War II were very specific, asking for a certain brand of bath powder, cold cream or cough drops. By BY COLLEEN SLEVIN ASSOCIATED PRESS DENVER — Some letters arriving from Japanese-American internment camps during World War II were very specific, asking for a certain brand of bath powder, cold cream or cough drops — but only the red ones. Others were just desperate for anything from the outside world. “Please don’t send back my check. Send me anything,” one letter said from a California camp on April 19, 1943. The letters, discovered recently during renovations at a former Denver pharmacy owned by Japanese-Americans, provide a glimpse into life in some of the 10 camps where 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry, including U.S. citizens, from the West Coast were forced to live during the war. They were written in English and in Japanese, expressing the kinds of mundane needs and wants of everyday life, such as medicine as well as condoms, cosmetics and candy. About 250 letters and postcards, along with war-time advertisements and catalogs, came tumbling out of the wall at a historic brick building on the outskirts of downtown. The reason they were in the wall and how they got there are a mystery, particularly because other documents were out in the open. The letters haven’t been reviewed by experts, though the couple that found them has contacted the Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles to gauge interest in the missives. It wasn’t unusual for internees to order items from mail order catalogs or from the many companies that placed ads in camp newspapers, selling everything from T-shirts to soy sauce, said Alisa Lynch, chief of interpretation at the Manzanar National Historic Site, which was the location of a camp south of Independence, Calif. They earned up to $19 a month doing jobs at camps and some were able to bring money with them before they were interned, Lynch said. The building where the documents were discovered had been vacant for seven years when Alissa and Mitch Williams bought it in 2010. The T.K. Pharmacy was originally owned by Thomas Kobayashi, a native Coloradan of Japanese descent, but during the war it was run by his brother-in-law, Yutaka “Tak” Terasaki, who died in 2004, according to his younger brother, Sam Terasaki of Denver. Sam Terasaki was in the service then and doesn’t remember his brother talking about taking orders from internment camps. He said his brother may have gotten involved because of his longtime participation in the Japanese American Citizens’ League, a national group dedicated to protecting Japanese-Americans’ civil rights. He said his brother’s wife worked as a secretary to Gov. Ralph Carr, who took the politically unpopular stand of welcoming Japanese-Americans to the state. Some writers noted seeing ads for the pharmacy. One letter from a man who said he arrived at the Poston, Ariz., camp “half dead” addressed his letter directly to “Tak” and asked for chocolate. “I had to wait twenty hours in the middle of the desert at (illegible) Junction, no place to go, just wait,” he wrote. The other camps the letters came from included Heart Mountain in Wyoming, Gila River in Arizona, and others in McGehee, Ark., Topaz, Utah and Granada in southern Colorado. Japanese-Americans who lived in Colorado and elsewhere in the interior West weren’t interned. The relatively small but stable Japanese-American community that began taking hold in Colorado in the 1880s provided a support network for those forcibly moved from California to the state camp, state historian Bill Convery said. Internees at that camp were able to leave with permission and could visit Denver as well as a fish market near the camp opened by two men of Japanese ancestry. It was relocated to Denver after the war. Convery said the pharmacy could have been one of the few Japanese-American owned pharmacies in the West, since business owners on the coast were interned. It could offer products favored by internees — who had one week to pack up two suitcases and sell any assets — and they might have felt more comfortable dealing with a Japanese-American-owned company, given tensions during the war. Internees couldn’t bring much to camp and they didn’t know where they were headed or how long they’d be gone. “So as much as anything could soften the blow of that unimaginable situation, those businesses did what they could,” Convery said. Alissa Williams has been poring over the letters and wondering about the stories behind the polite orders, including one for diabetes medicine. Her grandmother, aunt and uncle suffer from the disease and she wondered what they would do without medicine. The mother of a 2-year-old, she also thought about how she would cope in such a camp. “I can put myself in their place, they’re having kids, they’re sick and they can’t get what they need,” she said. “... But no one is complaining.”
Warning from Navy SEAL – Guns Being Taken, Road Checks..It’s Happening NOW! Wednesday, May 22, 2013 13:25 0 -URGENT TEXT MESSAGES FROM NAVY SEAL SOURCE- /alternative/2013/05/warning-from-navy-seal-guns-being-taken-road-checks-its-happening-now-2657700.html The following text messages have just been received from my former Navy SEAL source, who I interviewed regarding imminent martial law and OPERATION RING OF FIRE recently. I have simply edited it for proper format to post it. The warnings are clear. Looks like the REAL THING is about to come down upon this nation. -Pamela Rae Schuffert- ************************************* “Threats have been made against my family. Threats have been made to me. And one attempt made… Moore, OK, was not a natural storm..HAARP was used. This WAS and is only the START. HAARP BASES are on full power…ORION went online[active] full power Monday. HAARP and ORION are now online and time frame for full use and power up is slated for this weekend. Night rail use is really up…lots of military stock being moved to major cities. DENVER [detention] camp is online [activated] and working. Other such bases [detention camps] are already getting people for processing. Train loads of people. Military is setting up check points using the Exec Order… It is not GOING to start, it is HAPPENING NOW. Check points are being set up for “DUI and insurance checks”, this is the OFFICIAL REASON…BUT PEOPLE ARE BEING TAKEN. So-called safety checks and free coffee are to become common for the week, and are not to be trusted from what I have been seeing..the supplies for these places are government. ONE MORE THING…THEY ARE TAKING FIREARMS OUT OF PEOPLES’ HANDS. ONLY WHAT ARE IN THE OPEN. Not seen search of cars yet, but it looks like things are GOING DOWN NOW. I have started to use back roads only…have seen many spy type aircraft. Highway 2, 1-90, 1-25, 15, US 287, US 93 (Montana, Colorado)already have or will have check points by weekend. ************************************** FINAL TEXT RECEIVED SO FAR- (05/22/2013, 1:25 pm MST) …all teams have been told to fall back…stop any activities at once and may God have mercy on us …all the leaders are being rounded up…. [He is referring to their teams detecting/defusing the nukes planted for martial law and performing other anti-NWO military underground activities. I presume this is in NW Montana/Canada region...PRS] -END FOR NOW- ************************************** Readers, none of this is a joke or a game. This information is being publicly posted at great personal risk. I have just received this text information and have posted it as I have received it, edited properly to fit my format. Only certain info has been deleted for security purposes. God has called me to be a “watchman on the wall” in this hour of America’s destiny. I will give my life to warn my fellow American Patriots and Christians of approaching dangers. I have no way as of yet to confirm this information I have just received from my SEAL source, and am hoping to receive more information soon. This is very serious information and if confirmed, can only mean that martial law is almost HERE. PRAY. Pamela Rae Schuffert
Pro-Israel Z Street Group: IRS Told Us We Might Be Funding Terrorism (Video) Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, May 14, 2013, 11:22 PM Z Street representative Lori Lowenthal Marcus spoke out tonight about the harassment the pro-Israel group received from the IRS: “They told us terrorism happens in Israel. Therefore, they had to look into our organization because they thought we might be funding terrorism. We’re a purely educational entity. We didn’t fund anybody. We barely funded ourselves.” Via On the Record: Remember: This is the same administration that wouldn’t call the Benghazi massacre a terrorist attack. Z Street Jewish Group: IRS Accused Us of Being Linked to Terrorism Becau...: via @youtube
FRONT PAGE Today’s News BENGHAZI REPORT LIBERTYNEWS TV POLITICS & ELECTIONS HEALTHWIRE Faith & Family ABOUT ADVERTISE MOVEMENT BEGINS TO PUSH HOUSE TO #DEFUNDIRS OVER IRS-GATE POLITICAL ENEMY SCANDAL By Eric Odom Published: May 15, 2013 | 6 Comments 551 10 1 573 6 defund Alternative media (Those not funded by the likes of GE and and other government infused entities) is beginning to buzz with the idea of a logical step to defund the IRS over it’s proven abuse of power as a government department. The idea, at first glance, may seem a stretch, but once you scratch past the surface it actually makes quite a bit of sense. Dana Loesch published a list of verifiable offenses committed by the IRS. In the post Loesch also notes the government department now exposed as being entrenched in political corruption is the same department that will soon be entrusted with Obamacare, a law that will grant government sweeping authority over the lives of most Americans. As the number of persecuted increases and the list of abuses by the IRS expands, one thing is clear: this government entity cannot be entrusted with out health care nor should it be allowed to continue functioning, if anything for the time being. The list of persecuted: IRS, Labor Department Audit Businessman on Obama’s Enemies List Document: IRS ordered conservative educational group to turn over a list of high school and college students it trained IRS Faces Class Action Suit For Theft Of Health Care Records IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo IRS to Tea Party Group: “Provide Details of Your Planned Event With NEWT GINGRICH” IRS Asked For Facebook Posts, Thoughts POLL: Most Want IRS Officials Fired or Jailed Top Obama Official Illegally Revealed Conservative Group’s Tax Status in 2010 Obama Campaign Attacked Romney With Leaked IRS Documents Pro-Israel Z Street Group: IRS Told Us We Might Be Funding Terrorism Democrat Senators Demand IRS Scrutinize Tea Party Groups Loesch continues with the key part below. And we know this wasn’t just some “low level employees” in a Cincinnati office. This was widespread, at multiple levels. By whose direction? Remember: this very thing was cited in Nixon’s articles of impeachment. Congress should act immediately to strip the IRS of funding and freeze all hiring. Obamacare implementation should cease immediately as the entity through which health care decisions will be rendered has proven it cannot bear the trust of the people. Time to put extreme heat on our elected officials. Indeed, this is exactly the sort of abuse of power that ended in Nixon’s impeachment. Worse, this time around the IRS will control the entire national government healthcare system. Or, at least, the administration side when it comes to who pays and how they pay. Jim Hoft has this to say. The breadth and scope of the IRS scandal is growing as details continue to trickle out almost by the hour. Initially, the IRS, the White House and the MSM tried to shape this as an isolated incident in a single location. It is directly because of the bravery of Patriots from across the nation willing to share their stories on the record that that narrative is being defeated and the depths of the scandal is only now beginning to be seen. Additional stories continue to be shared with me but many are afraid to go public with the information in fear of additional, and possibly even more invasive, punishment at the hands of the IRS. Those fears are understandable. But the time has come for all of us to step out of the shadows the left is trying so desperately to push us into. There is strength in numbers and we need to provide those pushing for investigations an overwhelming and specific body of proof of this assault on liberty so that the IRS, the Obama administration and the MSM are unable to either ignore this scandal or try to minimize it. The truth is, had the Benghazi whistle blowers not come forward, or had it been a single testimony, that scandal would already have been swept under the rug. It is the essential bravery of these fellow Americans that kept that from happening. We need conservative and Tea Party groups from across the Nation to step forward and share, publically, the examples of IRS abuse that they have been subjected to either as political organizations or individuals facing further personal or business scrutiny for their associations. Remember, when Obamacare is fully implemented, this is the agency charged with oversight. If we sit by quietly, silenced by fear and bullying, the reach and ability of this agency and its cohorts on the left will become more powerful and more silencing. Please, follow the examples of the brave whistleblowers of Benghazi and the heroic families of our fallen SEALS, and provide an avalanche of proof of this abuse of power. Now is the time to speak out. Americans should take a stand. Speak out and demand Congress represent us in this critical matter. Loesch gets it started with the following links. Find your representative here. Find your senator here. Contact: John Boehner Eric Cantor Mitch McConnell On Twitter: #DefundIRS
BREAKING: ABC SAYS WHITE HOUSE AUTHORIZED IRS-GATE POLITICAL ENEMY SCANDAL BREAKING: ABC SAYS WHITE HOUSE AUTHORIZED IRS-GATE POLITICAL ENEMY SCANDAL By Eric Odom Published: May 14, 2013 | 96 Comments 39.5K 1173 14 41.1K 67 Screen Shot 2013-05-14 at 9.16.22 PM The Benghazi lies/scandal should alone be enough to initiate significant pressure on Congress to deal with Obama via their constitutional process of impeachment. The IRS scandal, however, should seal the deal. Especially if the following is true. Trey Hardin: “I will tell you this on the IRS front. I’ve worked in this town for over 20 years in the White House and on Capitol Hill and I can say with a very strong sense of certainty that there are people very close to this president that not only knew what the IRS were doing but authorized it. It simply just does not happen at an agency level like that without political advisers likely in the West Wing certainly connected to the president’s ongoing campaign organization.” Hardin didn’t say it was the President specifically, but if this is the office of the President directly involved in the IRS political enemy scandal then we have serious problems that need serious punishment. —-DIG DEEPER— The Constitution & Impeachment Shock Poll: Majority of Americans Believe White House Involved Congressman Says Impeachment Not Off Table Jon Stewart Blasts Obama Admin Over IRS-Gate Movement Underway to Call for Defunding IRS Politifact Slams Obama on Benghazi Scandal VIDEO: Interview audio below.
Woolwich 'Beheading' Attack: Radical Preacher Anjem Choudary Blames 'Murdering' British Troops By Gareth Platt: Subscribe to Gareth's RSS feed | May 22, 2013 10:32 PM GMT FOLLOW IBT: YOUR ONE-STOP NEWS SITE Google Plus Anjem Choudary Anjem Choudary Radical preacher Anjem Choudary has blamed today's murder in Woolwich on David Cameron and Britain's actions in Afghanistan. Share article Choudary, who grew up in Woolwich, was responded to reports that the alleged beheading was perpetrated by Islamic terrorists shouting "Allah u Akbar" - God is great. In response to the news, Choudary tweeted: "National News tell me that the man killed in woolwich is apparently being treated as "terrorist" as the attackers were shouting Allahu Akbar. "If they were Muslims killing a British soldier then the presence of British troops in Muslim land [Afghanistan] is surely a cause of insecurity in the UK." Referring to his upbringing in the area, Choudary continued: "I went to Mulgrave School [situated just yards from where the attack took place] & I know that the Muslim community is a peaceful one. I wonder what could have motivated this attack in Woolwich?! FOLLOW IBTIMES Google Plus "I blame Cameron for his foreign policy against Islam & Muslims! If the British regime sends people to murder Muslims in Iraq/Afghanistan, then it is bound to cause instability in the UK, time to withdraw!" Earlier, Boris Johnson said: "I know that Londoners from all communities have been here. This is a city of incredible resilience and courage, we will come through this." Choudary has previously courted controversy by imploring British muslms to bin their poppies on the eve of Remembrance Day, and claimed Islamic vigilantes are battling to rid London of 'evil' drunks and prostitutes. The preacher's remarks contrast sharply with those of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which has condemned today's attack in the strongest possible terms. In a statement, the MCB said the attack was a "barbaric act that has no place in Islam." To report problems or to leave feedback about this article, e-mail: To contact the editor, e-mail:


Warrantless Electronic Communications FOIA Requests - June 2012 Version of FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (partially redacted) Share Print Email Facebook Twitter Share June 15, 2012 Download» Download (3.97 MB) This PDF file can be opened with the free Adobe Reader download» FBI Response to Warrantless Electronic Communications FOIA Request campaign» Keep America Safe and Free


In re Warrant to Search a Target Computer at Premises..., --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2013) 2013 WL 1729765 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. In re WARRANT TO SEARCH A TARGET COMPUTER AT PREMISES UNKNOWN. No. H-13-234M. | April 22, 2013. The Government does not seek a garden-variety search warrant. Its application requests authorization to surreptitiously install data extraction software on the Target Computer. Once installed, the software has the capacity to search the computer's hard drive, random access memory, and other storage media; to activate the computer's built-in camera; to generate latitude and longitude coordinates for the computer's location; and to transmit the extracted data to FBI agents within this district. Using this software, the government seeks to obtain the following information: Opinion MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STEPHEN WM SMITH, United States Magistrate Judge. *1 The Government has applied for a Rule 41 search and seizure warrant targeting a computer allegedly used to violate federal bank fraud, identity theft, and computer security laws. Unknown persons are said to have committed these crimes using a particular email account via an unknown computer at an unknown location. The search would be accomplished by surreptitiously installing software designed not only to extract certain stored electronic records but also to generate user photographs and location information over a 30 day period. In other words, the Government seeks a warrant to hack a computer suspected of criminal use. For various reasons explained below, the application is denied. Background In early 2013, unidentified persons gained unauthorized access to the personal email account of John Doe, an individual residing within the Southern District of Texas, and used that email address to access his local bank account. The Internet Protocol (IP) address of the computer accessing Doe's account resolves to a foreign country. After Doe discovered the breach and took steps to secure his email account, another email account nearly identical to Doe's--the address differed by a single letter--was used to attempt a sizeable wire transfer from Doe's local bank to a foreign bank account. The FBI has commenced an investigation, leading to this search warrant request. At this point in the investigation, the location of the suspects and their computer is unknown. (1) records existing on the Target Computer at the time the software is installed, including: o records of Internet Protocol addresses used; records of Internet activity, including firewall logs, caches, browser history and cookies, "bookmarked" or "favorite" Web pages, search terms that the user entered into any Internet search engine, and records of usertyped Web addresses; o records evidencing the use of the Internet Protocol addresses to communicate with the [victim's bank's] email servers; o evidence of who used, owned, or controlled the TARGET COMPUTER at the time the things described in this warrant were created, edited, or deleted, such as logs registry entries, configuration file, saved user names and passwords, documents, browsing history, user profiles, e-mail contents, e-mail contacts, "chat," messaging logs, photographs, and correspondence; o evidence of software that would allow others to control the TARGET *2 COMPUTER; o evidence of times the TARGET COMPUTER was used; and o records of applications run. (2) prospective data obtained during a 30-day monitoring period, including: o accounting entries reflecting the identification of new fraud victims; (C) 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 In re Warrant to Search a Target Computer at Premises..., --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2013) o photographs (with no audio) taken using the TARGET COMPUTER's built-in camera after the installation of the NEW SOFTWARE, sufficient to identify the location of the TARGET COMPUTER and identify persons using the TARGET COMPUTER; o information about the TARGET COMPUTER's physical location, including latitude and longitude calculations the NEW SOFTWARE causes the TARGET COMPUTER to make; o records of applications run. Aff. Attach. B. 1 Analysis The Government contends that its novel request 2 is authorized by Rule 41. In the Court's view, this claim raises a number of questions, including: (1) whether the territorial limits of a Rule 41 search warrant are satisfied; (2) whether the particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment have been met; and (3) whether the Fourth Amendment requirements for video camera surveillance have been shown. Each issue is discussed in turn. 1. Rule 41(b) Territorial Limit Rule 41(b) sets out five alternative territorial limits on a magistrate judge's authority to issue a warrant. The government's application does not satisfy any of them. The rule's first subsection, the only one expressly invoked by the Government's application, allows a "magistrate judge with authority in the district ... to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district." FED.R.CRIM.P. 41(b)(1). Even though the Government readily admits that the current location of the Target Computer is unknown, it asserts that this subsection authorizes the warrant "because information obtained from the Target Computer will first be examined in this judicial district." Aff. ? 20. Under the Government's theory, because its agents need not leave the district to obtain and view the information gathered from the Target Computer, the information effectively becomes "property located within the district." This rationale does not withstand scrutiny. It is true that Rule 41(a)(2)(A) defines "property" to include "information," and the Supreme Court has long held that "property" under Rule 41 includes intangible property such as computer data. See United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 170, 98 S.Ct. 364, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977). For purposes of search and seizure law, many courts have analogized computers to large containers filled with information. 3 See United States v. Roberts, 86 F.Supp.2d 678, 688 (S.D.Tex.2000); United States v. Barth, 26 F.Supp.2d. 929, 936-37 (W.D.Tex.1998); United States v. David, 756 F.Supp. 1385, 1390 (D.Nev.2009)(holding that a computer notebook "is indistinguishable from any other closed container" for the purpose of Fourth Amendment analysis). By the Government's logic, a Rule 41 warrant would permit FBI agents to roam the world in search of a container of contraband, so long as the container is not opened until the agents haul it off to the issuing district. The court has found no case willing to stretch the territorial limits of Rule 41(b)(1) so far. *3 The "search" for which the Government seeks authorization is actually two-fold: (1) a search for the Target Computer itself, and (2) a search for digital information stored on (or generated by) that computer. Neither search will take place within this district, so far as the Government's application shows. Contrary to the current metaphor often used by Internet-based service providers, digital information is not actually stored in clouds; it resides on a computer or some other form of electronic media that has a physical location. 4 Before that digital information can be accessed by the Government's computers in this district, a search of the Target Computer must be made. That search takes place, not in the airy nothing of cyberspace, but in physical space with a local habitation and a name. Since the current location of the Target Computer is unknown, it necessarily follows that the current location of the information on the Target Computer is also unknown. This means that the Government's application cannot satisfy the territorial limits of Rule 41(b)(1). This interpretation of (b)(1) is bolstered by comparison to the territorial limit of subsection (b)(2), which expressly deals with a transient target. This subsection allows an extraterritorial search or seizure of moveable property "if it is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executed." FED.R.CRIM.P. 41(b)(2). Note that (b) (2) does not authorize a warrant in the converse situation-- that is, for property outside the district when the warrant is issued, but brought back inside the district before the warrant (C) 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 In re Warrant to Search a Target Computer at Premises..., --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2013) is executed. A moment's reflection reveals why this is so. If such warrants were allowed, there would effectively be no territorial limit for warrants involving personal property, because such property is moveable and can always be transported to the issuing district, regardless of where it might initially be found. 5 The other subsections of Rule 41(b) likewise offer no support for the Government's application. Subsection (b)(3), dealing with an investigation of domestic or international terrorism, authorizes a search by a magistrate judge with authority in "any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred," whether the property is within or outside that district. This case does not involve a terrorism investigation. Subsection (b)(4) deals with a tracking device warrant, and its provisions echo those of (b)(2), allowing the device to be monitored outside the district, provided the device is installed within the district. FED.R.CRIM.P. 41(b)(4). There is a plausible argument that the installation of software contemplated here falls within the statutory definition of a tracking device, 6 because the software will activate the computer's camera over a period of time and capture latitude/ longitude coordinates of the computer's physical location. But the Government's application would fail nevertheless, because there is no showing that the installation of the "tracking device" (i.e. the software) would take place within this district. To the contrary, the software would be installed on a computer whose location could be anywhere on the planet. 7 *4 The only remaining possibility is (b)(5), which authorizes a magistrate judge "in any district where activities related to the crime may have occurred" to issue a warrant for property that may be outside the jurisdiction of any state or district, but within a U .S. territory, possession, commonwealth, or premises used by a U.S. diplomatic or consular mission. FED.R.CRIM.P. 41(b)(5). The application does indicate that Doe's local bank account was improperly accessed, thereby satisfying (b)(5)'s initial condition. However, the remaining territorial hurdle of this subsection is not satisfied, because there is no evidence the Target Computer will be found on U.S.-controlled territory or premises. 2. Fourth Amendment particularity requirement The Fourth Amendment prescribes that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This particularity requirement arose out of the Founders' experience with abusive general warrants. See Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 220, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981); see generally William J. Cuddihy, The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning 602- 1791 (2009). As previously noted, the warrant sought here would authorize two different searches: a search for the computer used as an instrumentality of crime, and a search of that computer for evidence of criminal activity. Because the latter search presumes the success of the initial search for the Target Computer, it is appropriate to begin the particularity inquiry with that initial search. The Government's application contains little or no explanation of how the Target Computer will be found. Presumably, the Government would contact the Target Computer via the counterfeit email address, on the assumption that only the actual culprits would have access to that email account. Even if this assumption proved correct, it would not necessarily mean that the government has made contact with the end-point Target Computer at which the culprits are sitting. It is not unusual for those engaged in illegal computer activity to "spoof" Internet Protocol addresses as a way of disguising their actual on-line presence; in such a case the Government's search might be routed through one or more "innocent" computers on its way to the Target Computer. 8 The Government's application offers nothing but indirect and conclusory assurance that its search technique will avoid infecting innocent computers or devices: Further, the method in which the software is added to the TARGET COMPUTER is designed to ensure that the [persons] committing the illegal activity will be the only individuals subject to said technology. Aff. ? 17. 9 This "method" of software installation is nowhere explained. 10 Nor does the Government explain how it will ensure that only those "committing the illegal activity will be ... subject to the technology." What if the Target Computer is located in a public library, an Internet caf?, or a workplace accessible to others? What if the computer is used by family or friends uninvolved in the illegal scheme? What if the counterfeit email address is used for legitimate reasons by others unconnected to the criminal conspiracy? What if the (C) 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 In re Warrant to Search a Target Computer at Premises..., --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2013) email address is accessed by more than one computer, or by a cell phone and other digital devices? There may well be sufficient answers to these questions, but the Government's application does not supply them. *5 The court concludes that the revised supporting affidavit does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement for the requested search warrant for the Target Computer. 3. Constitutional standards for video camera surveillance As explained above, the Government's data extraction software will activate the Target Computer's built-in-camera and snap photographs sufficient to identify the persons using the computer. The Government couches its description of this technique in terms of "photo monitoring," as opposed to video surveillance, but this is a distinction without a difference. In between snapping photographs, the Government will have real time access to the camera's video feed. That access amounts to video surveillance. The Fifth Circuit has described video surveillance as "a potentially indiscriminate and most intrusive method of surveillance ." United States v. Cuevas-Sanchez, 821 F.2d 248, 250 (5th Cir.1987). In that case the court adopted constitutional standards for such surveillance by borrowing from the statute permitting wiretaps--Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. ?? 2510-2520. Id., citing United States v. Biasucci, 786 F.2d 504 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 827 (1986). Under those standards, a search warrant authorizing video surveillance must demonstrate not only probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be captured, but also should include: (1) a factual statement that alternative investigative methods have been tried and failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or would be too dangerous; (2) a particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted, and a statement of the particular offense to which it relates; (3) a statement of the duration of the order, which shall not be longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization nor, in any event, longer than 30 days, (though extensions are possible); and (4) a statement of the steps to be taken to assure that the surveillance will be minimized to effectuate only the purposes for which the order is issued. Cuevas-Sanchez, 821 F.2d at 252. The Government's application fails to meet the first and fourth of these criteria, i.e. inadequate alternatives and minimization. Regarding the inadequacy of alternative investigative techniques, the Government offers only a conclusory statement: Investigative methods that might be alternatives to the use of a camera attached to the TARGET COMPUTER reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or would be too dangerous. Aff. ? 14. The Government makes no attempt to explain why this is so. In fact, contemporaneous with this warrant application, the Government also sought and obtained an order under 18 U.S.C. ? 2703 directing the Internet service provider to turn over all records related to the counterfeit email account, including the contents of stored communications. To support that application, an FBI agent swore that the ISP's records would likely reveal information about the "identities and whereabouts" of the users of this account. Yet the same agent now swears that no other technique is likely to succeed. The Government cannot have it both ways. See Cuevas-Sanchez, 821 F.2d at 250 ("A juxtaposition of such contentions trifles with the Court.") (citation omitted). *6 As for minimization, the Government has offered little more than vague assurances: Steps will be taken to assure that data gathered through the technique will be minimized to effectuate only the purposes for which the warrant is issued. The software is not designed to search for, capture, relay, or distribute personal information or a broad scope of data. The software is designed to capture limited amounts of data, the minimal necessary information to identify the location of the TARGET COMPUTER and the user of TARGET COMPUTER. Aff. ? 17. The steps taken to minimize over-collection of data are left to the court's imagination. The statement that the software is designed to capture only limited amounts of data--"the minimal necessary information needed to identify the location of the Target Computer and the user"-- does mitigate the risk of a general search somewhat, but that assurance is fatally undermined by the breadth of (C) 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 In re Warrant to Search a Target Computer at Premises..., --- F.Supp.2d ---- (2013) data authorized for extraction in the proposed warrant. See Aff. Attach. B, described supra at p. 2-3. Software that can retrieve this volume of information--Internet browser history, search terms, e-mail contents and contacts, "chat", instant messaging logs, photographs, correspondence, and records of applications run, among other things--is not fairly described as capturing "only limited amounts of data." Finally, given the unsupported assertion that the software will not be installed on "innocent" computers or devices, there remains a non-trivial possibility that the remote camera surveillance may well transmit images of persons not involved in the illegal activity under investigation. For these reasons, the Government has not satisfied the Fourth Amendment warrant standards for video surveillance. Conclusion The court finds that the Government's warrant request is not supported by the application presented. This is not to say that such a potent investigative technique could never be authorized under Rule 41. And there may well be a good reason to update the territorial limits of that rule in light of advancing computer search technology. But the extremely intrusive nature of such a search requires careful adherence to the strictures of Rule 41 as currently written, not to mention the binding Fourth Amendment precedent for video surveillance in this circuit. For these reasons, the requested search and seizure warrant is denied. Footnotes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 At the Government's request, the warrant application has been sealed to avoid jeopardizing the ongoing investigation. This opinion will not be sealed because it deals with a question of law at a level of generality which could not impair the investigation. This appears to be a matter of first impression in this (or any other) circuit. The Court has found no published opinion dealing with such an application, although in 2007 a magistrate judge is known to have issued a warrant authorizing a similar investigative technique to track the source of e-mailed bomb threats against a Washington state high school. See Application and Affidavit for Search Warrant, In the Matter of the Search of Any Computer Accessing Electronic Message(s) Directed to Administrator(s) of MySpace Account "Timberlinebombinfo" and Opening Messages Delivered to That Account by the Government at 2, No. MJ07-5114 (W.D. Wash. June 12, 2007), available at ocs/fbi.cipav.sanders.affidavit.071607.pdf. Some scholars have challenged the aptness of the container metaphor, noting that the ever-growing storage capacity of an ordinary hard drive more closely resembles a library than a filing cabinet. See Paul Ohm, Massive Hard Drives, General Warrants, and the Power of Magistrate Judges, 97 Virginia Law Review In Brief 1, 5-6 (2011). See generally H. Marshall Jarrett et al., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations 84-85 (2009), available at http:// This situation should be distinguished from an anticipatory warrant, which may be issued upon a showing of (1) a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place if a triggering condition occurs, and (2) probable cause to believe the triggering condition will occur. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 96-97, 126 S.Ct. 1494, 164 L.Ed.2d 195 (2006). Here the "triggering condition" is the installation of software which will "extract" (i.e.seize) the computer data and transmit it to this district. This "triggering condition" is itself a search or seizure that separately requires a warrant. See 18 U.S.C. ? 3117(b)("an electronic or mechanical device which permits the tracking of the movement of a person or object"). According to the Government's application, the Target Computer's last known internet protocol address resolved to a country in Southeast Asia. See Neal K. Katyal, Criminal Law in Cyberspace, 149 U. Pa. L.Rev. 1003, 1028 (2001). The quoted passage is from the revised affidavit submitted by the FBI agent in response to the court's expressed concerns about the lack of particularity in the initial affidavit. In response to a FOIA request several years ago, the FBI publicly released information about a Web-based surveillance tool called "Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier" (CIPAV). See https:// deeplinks/2011/04/new-fbi-documents-showdepth-government. Although apparently in routine use as a law enforcement tool, the court has found no reported case discussing CIPAV in the context of a Rule 41 search warrant (or any other context, for that matter). End of Document (C) 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. (C) 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5
Rep. Chaffetz, Rep. Lynch on Benghazi whistleblowers; Sen. McCain talks US action in Syria Written by Chris Wallace [1] / Published May 05, 2013 / Fox News Sunday Special Guests: Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. The following is a rush transcript of the May 5, 2013, edition of "Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace." This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I'm Chris Wallace. Today, is the truth about Benghazi being covered up? (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm not familiar with this notion that anybody's been blocked from testifying. REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, R - UTAH: If he's going to get to the bottom of it, better hurry up and do it because we got, whistleblowers are coming to us. WALLACE: Eight months after the terror attack that killed four Americans, lawmakers are still asking what really happened. We'll talk with two members of the House committee that will hold a crucial hearing this week, Republican Jason Chaffetz and Democrat Stephen Lynch. And then, pressure builds for decisive action in Syria. REPORTER: The administration is rethinking its opposition to arming the rebels? CHUCK HAGEL, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Yes. WALLACE: As the civil war wages, we'll talk options with the leading member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain. Plus -- You're off drugs. MICHAEL TYSON, FORMER BOXING CHAMP: Thank God. WALLACE: You're off alcohol? TYSON: No, I will thank God. WALLACE: Our power player of the week, the former heavyweight champ goes from the heights to rock bottom and lives to tell about it. All, right now, on "Fox News Sunday." (END VIDEOTAPE) WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington. Well, this week, the long, slow investigation into the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi may take a dramatic turn when government workers with new information testify before Congress. Joining us now are two members of the House Oversight Committee that will conduct the hearing, Republican Jason Chaffetz, and from Massachusetts, Democrat Stephen Lynch. And, Congressmen, welcome to "Fox News Sunday." CHAFFETZ: Thanks for having us. WALLACE: Congressman Chaffetz, we know at least two whistleblowers with direct knowledge of Benghazi are going to testify before your committee on Wednesday. Gregory Hicks, who was the deputy chief of mission in Libya, and Mark Thompson, an officer in the state's counterterrorism bureau. What will they add to our understanding of the attack, and is anyone else going to come forward either Wednesday or later? CHAFFETZ: Well, we've had other people come forward. And I think you'll see other hearings as well, but these two gentlemen are in a unique position. Mr. Hicks became the chief of mission when Ambassador Stevens went missing. He has a unique insight. When I went to Libya, about three weeks, 3 1/2 weeks after, I was able to talk to him. I think he's patriotic, he's not partisan. I think he's being suppressed a little bit, and we need to hear about him exactly what happened and didn't happen that night. He was the chief of mission in Libya when this went down. WALLACE: Suppressed by whom? CHAFFETZ: Well, that's what we want to have a hearing about, because, you know, we heard things, for instance, that there was no military option. There was no ability to get any military personnel there. I think you're actually going to hear some testimony that says we did have some military options. We could have gotten some people there, and they were told to stand down. That's the kind of thing we need to be exploring in this hearing. WALLACE: And Mark Thompson, the officer in the state's counterterrorism bureau, what's he going to tell us? CHAFFETZ: Well, he oversees what's called the FEST, the Foreign Emergency Support Team. This is the unique group that is supposed to be the quick, rapid response interagency team when a terrorist type of activity, a hostage situation goes down. They were never called into action. Why was that? Why were they never engaged in this? That's exactly what they stood out for. WALLACE: Now, you said, then I'm going to bring in Congressman Lynch in a moment, but you said earlier that these are the only people who are going to testify, along with Eric Nordstrom, who testified earlier, but you said there are a lot of other potential witnesses out there watching. Watching for what? CHAFFETZ: Well, I think these people are afraid of retribution. They're afraid of what the State Department may do to them. They've had trouble getting an attorney. The State Department hasn't given us the documents they want. I mean, every single turn, the State Department and White House has impeded this investigation. It's why it's continued to go on so long. There are other people on the ground with firsthand knowledge that want to testify, and I think will testify at some point. WALLACE: Congressman Lynch, how do you explain the fact that eight months after Benghazi, we have still not heard from a single witness on the ground that night in Benghazi? REP. STEPHEN LYNCH, D - MA: We had an accountability review board that went through this led by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen. They've actually interviewed over 100 witnesses on the ground, some on the ground obviously, and many who were involved peripherally, and they made a review that there was no breach of duty here. They made a determination that the critical element here was that host country forces committed to protecting the consulate in Benghazi walked off the job basically, and that created, you know, a security profile that was totally insufficient on September 11th. WALLACE: But if I may, Congressman, why is it we have not heard in public from a single person who was on the ground in a congressional hearing? LYNCH: Well, the Republicans control the House. We've had -- we've had investigations. Nordstrom came forward. We've had other witnesses. You had hearings prior to the recent elections. The House -- you could ask Mr. Chaffetz have they haven't brought up people, if you want to know that. We don't have the ability to hold a hearing. The Democrats have been completely kept out of this whole process. This has been a one- sided investigation, if you want to call it that. There's been no sharing of information in a significant way with the Democrats staff members who usually conduct this type of investigation. And I think it's disgraceful, to be honest with you. WALLACE: OK. Let's get to this question because this has been one of the charges, that there'd been threats, intimidation, and threats of retaliation. So, let's discuss that. This week, a lawyer for one of the witnesses said that the State Department has threatened officials who wanted to testify. State responded and said they don't know of anybody who has requested to testify. Let's watch that exchange. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) VICTORIA TOENSING, ATTY FOR STATE DEPT EMPLOYEE: I'm not talking generally. I'm talking specifically about Benghazi, that people have been threatened, and not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA. PATRICK VENTRELL, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: We repeatedly have this person saying that they had a whistleblower who's been held back from telling their story, and we're not aware of this individual, anyone who's asking to tell their story. (END VIDEO CLIP) WALLACE: Congressman Chaffetz, has the Obama administration blocked potential witnesses from testifying or not. CHAFFETZ: Absolutely and more than one. We've asked for the non-classified version of how do these people get an attorney that has a degree in classified information and they still haven't given us that. No. There are people out there that want to testify that have been suppressed. WALLACE: But you hear the State Department just say nobody, neither a lawyer nor a witness, has requested to testify? CHAFFETZ: Because they're scared to death of what the State Department is doing to them. And that's what -- look, we're the other branch of government. They're supposed to be able to come to Congress and be able to share this type of information. That has not happened, because the administration has suppressed them (ph). We have a person who was injured eight months ago, who's still in the hospital. They changed his name on the medical records. This is a story of the State Department doing things that haven't been in any other case. WALLACE: Are you saying -- and, again, I want to bring in Congressman Lynch. Tell me, a direct threat -- a direct act of intimidation against a potential witness? CHAFFETZ: Yes, and I think we'll probably -- WALLACE: Tell me why. LYNCH: Completely false, completely false. (CROSSTALK) WALLACE: Let me -- before he -- go ahead. Tell me what's been said. CHAFFETZ: Yes, there are people -- more than one -- that have felt intimidation from the State Department. They can't even go through the process of getting an attorney to be able to represent them with a degree of classified information that they have. WALLACE: Congressman Lynch, your turn. LYNCH: The only reason that the attorneys -- and there have been two attorneys involved here -- the only reason they haven't received information is they haven't asked for it yet. They haven't asked for it. There has not been a request for these documents from these attorneys to the State Department. The State Department is more than willing to cooperate, but they haven't asked for this. The only retaliation I've heard of here is that one of these witnesses wants a reassignment and promotion. He hasn't gotten the promotion that he wanted, and he's saying that that's somehow retaliation. So, you know, hasn't got it yet. It's actually in the process. That's the -- that's the level of threats of intimidation? He hasn't got the promotion he wants yet? CHAFFETZ: Let me give you another example. The State Department will not release to the committee, to the United States Congress, unclassified documents. Here we are eight months after, we should be able to look at the same information the Accountability Review Board wants to see. We wanted the Accountability Review board to come before Congress. That hasn't happened. When we went to actually go see documents, they've given us eight types (ph) of documents over a multi-month process. They sent a State Department person in there to look over my shoulder to see what I'm looking at. We've had Democratic staff in there. There is not a single Democrat on that panel that has ever come down to look at those documents. I've been down there, but I've never seen a Democrat down there, and it's totally open to them, the entire process. WALLACE: Congressman Lynch? LYNCH: Sure. Every time I've given those type of documents, I have somebody from the State Department over my shoulder as well. CHAFFETZ: That's not right. That's not right. An unclassified document -- (CROSSTALK) WALLACE: Go ahead, Congressman Lynch. LYNCH: Look, I find it incredible -- look at this whole situation. We're talking about -- including my colleague, Mr. Chaffetz, when Secretary Clinton and the State Department asked for additional funding for embassy security, they all voted no. They all voted no. WALLACE: Wait a minute. We're getting a little bit of -- (CROSSTALK) LYNCH: Come on now. We've already admitted (ph) to this on CNN. WALLACE: This I understand that there's an issue about security. It's a little bit off the track. I want to try to stay on course here. LYNCH: No. This is the point. They're complaining about a lack of security at the embassies after they voted against for funding for security at the embassies. That's what they're complaining about, is a lack of security at the embassies when they all voted to cut a half a billion dollars on security. Is that not -- is that not related? CHAFFETZ: The CFO has said in an email -- WALLACE: Let's use real words. CHAFFETZ: The chief financial officer for the State Department said in an email that finances had nothing to do with the decisions about funding at the facility. The security personnel were paid from the Pentagon budget. They weren't paid from the State Department budget. This is a facade. It's a distraction. There are four people dead here, Chris. Come on. WALLACE: And I want to talk about let's talk beforehand, because there are sort of three stages to this, before, during and after, the attack. Two weeks ago the Republican chairs of five House committees -- I grapefruit league agree with congressman lynch here -- just the Republicans, not the Democrats, issued an interim report on Benghazi in which they charged that then-Secretary of State Clinton misled Congress when she said that she had never seen any request for more security in Libya. Let's take a look at what she said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: The specific security requests pertaining to Benghazi, you know, were handled by the security professionals in the department. I didn't see those requests. They didn't come to me. I didn't approve them. I didn't deny them. (END VIDEO CLIP) WALLACE: Now, the House report by the five Republicans made a big deal of the fact that in April, after she'd gotten the request, last April, that a cable went out from the State Department under the name of Hillary Clinton, in fact not only not granting more security, but saying the security draw-down would continue. Congressman Chaffetz, it turns out that every cable that goes from the State Department has Hillary Clinton's name -- hundreds of thousands of cables, millions of cables. The Washington Post looked into this and called the allegation by the House Republican chairman a whopper. CHAFFETZ: Well, I would hope that Steve Lynch would join me in calling for the release of this document. It's an unclassified document. My understanding is that Hillary Clinton's name is on that line. (CROSSTALK) CHAFFETZ: Now, hold on here. Hillary Clinton claims to take full responsibility for this, and yet at the same time pleads ignorance. Four months -- WALLACE: No, no, but there were utterly documents to go after the -- LYNCH: Chris, can I get here at some point? WALLACE: nbsp; Yes, sure. Can I get in here at some point? Look, could I, please? Look, these are the same allegations. These are Jason Chaffetz, and the Republican chairs' allegations that she signed off on a reduction in force at Benghazi. It got four Pinocchios from The Washington Post. That's hard to do even in Washington. I mean, you know, people say that Washington is the place where shame goes to die. This is -- this is an exact instance of that. It's shameful. We lost good people in Benghazi. (CROSSTALK) WALLACE: Congressman, may I get a word in here, please? LYNCH: Sure. WALLACE: I want to talk to you about a controversy -- a continuing controversy about the talking points that came out afterwards that led some people say to a lot of disinformation. These are the talking points the administration put out after the attack. Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard reports that the first draft by the CIA on September 14th said this, "The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack." This was the first draft of talking points for the CIA on September 14th. But after objections from State and after the White House had a meeting, you can see the talking points -- a little hard to see on the screen -- there are lots of lines drawn through them. They were heavily edited, and all mentioned Islamic extremists were taken out. Congressman Lynch, weren't the talking points the administration put out in advance of Susan Rice's appearances on those five Sunday shows, weren't those talking points scrubbed? LYNCH: They certainly weren't accurate. I don't know what the process was there, but absolutely they were false, they were wrong. There were no protests outside of Benghazi compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate there. So any statements that this was sort of like the -- you know, the -- the other protests that we saw in Cairo and other embassies, that was not this type of case. WALLACE: So briefly, and we're running out of time, Congressman lynch, how do you explain the fact that that Sunday, U.N. Ambassador Rice came on this show and four other Sunday shows, never mentioned the Al Qaeda extremists, which had been scrubbed from the -- from the talking points, but did mention a reaction to the anti-Islam video which had never been in any of the talking points? LYNCH: Well, it was scrubbed. It was totally inaccurate. You're absolutely right. There's no excuse for that. It was false information. And what they try to do is harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere else across the Middle East. WALLACE: And do you think part of that because -- do you think it was scrubbed because of the fact that that didn't fit into the president's narrative that al Qaeda was on the run? LYNCH: Well, yes, I think it was a victory of hope over reality, to be honest with you. They were hoping that this wasn't the case. WALLACE: Hope over reality? CHAFFETZ: I wouldn't call it a victory of hope over reality. I mean, that's -- look, at the end of the day, we've got four dead Americans. We've got a kid who's still in the hospital. We've got hundreds of embassies and consulates, we've got thousands of people serving overseas. We haven't had the truth 4 1/2 months after the incident. LYNCH: How about we work together on that, then? (CROSSTALK) CHAFFETZ: That would be great. LYNCH: How about we work together? WALLACE: All right. Gentlemen, we're going to give you -- LYNCH: -- twenty-four hours to go to Benghazi, you know? WALLACE: And we're going to give you an opportunity to work together off camera before Wednesday's hearing. Congressman Chaffetz and Congressman Lynch, we want to thank you both for giving us a very spirited preview of Wednesday's hearing. We'll stay on top of this story, gentlemen. Thank you very much. CHAFFETZ: Thank you. WALLACE: Up next, President Obama is rethinking whether to arm the Syrian rebels. Senator John McCain weighs in on that and much more. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) WALLACE: Amateur video out of Syria said to show Israeli airstrikes on military targets near Damascus. If so, it is the second Israeli strike inside Syria in three days. This comes one week after President Obama walked back threats of a red line if the Assad regime used chemical weapons. We wanted to discuss all this with Senator John McCain, one of the GOP's leaders on national security. And, Senator, welcome back. MCCAIN: Thank you, Chris. WALLACE: What can you tell us about the Israeli airstrikes first Thursday night/Friday morning, and a much more extensive airstrike overnight? MCCAIN: Well, apparently, the Syrians and Iranians have crossed a red line for the Israelis. That means that weapons of an advanced nature, probably missiles, have moved from Iran into Syria with intentions of moving them to Hezbollah. The whole thing is escalating. The leader of Hezbollah committed to helping Bashar Assad, the conflict is spilling over into Lebanon and Jordan. MCCAIN: The whole situation is becoming more and more expansive, and fortunately the red line that the president of the United States had written was apparently written in disappearing ink. WALLACE: Well, I was going to ask you -- when you look at this escalation, and the increased involvement, two strikes in three days by Israel, what does that say about what the Obama administration should do? MCCAIN: Well, the Obama administration should be cognizant of what George Shultz, former secretary of state, once told me when he was in the Marines Corps, his drill instructor said, never point a weapon at someone unless you're ready to pull a trigger. So, the President of the United States said there was clear red lines. Those red lines in the view of those have been crossed and he has failed to act. First of all, he shouldn't have drawn the red line. Second of all, the red lines were a green light to Bashar Assad to do anything short of that. Chemical weapons are terrible, but isn't it pretty terrible when you launch Scud missiles against your own people, where you massacre over 70,000 peep, drive a million into refugee camps? Those seemed to have been acceptable to this administration, and it's deplorable. WALLACE: What do you think the message is when Israel is acting and the U.S. is not? MCCAIN: I think that it will probably put more pressure on this administration. But one of the things I worry about is an incremental -- I saw this in the Vietnam War -- incremental escalation. We need to have a game-changing action. And that is no American boots on the ground, establish a safe zone, and to protect it and to supply weapons to the right people in Syria who are fighting for obviously the things we believe in. Every day that goes by, Hezbollah increases their influence and -- excuse me -- the radical jihadist flow into Syria and the situation becomes more and more tenuous. WALLACE: Now, in the wake of the red line and the alleged use of chemical weapons, the administration says it is now rethinking arming the rebels. MCCAIN: Well, I hope they are. I also hope the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has testified repeatedly, these air defenses that the Syrians are so tough, we would have such -- the Israelis seem to be able to penetrate it fairly easily. One thing I've learned about some of our military -- some of our military leaders, they don't want to do something, they can invent lots of ways not to do it. The fact is we are capable of taking out their air on the ground with cruise missiles, cratering their runways, where all of these supplies, by the way, from Iran and Russia are coming in by air, and we could obviously also, with the use of Patriot missiles, defend a certain circumscribed area. And to -- and to allege somehow that the United States of America can't do that, means we've wasted a hell of a lot of taxpayer dollars. WALLACE: Senator, you've just heard our very spirited discussion about Benghazi in the last segments, two months you called this, a, quote -- your words -- "massive cover-up by the Obama administration." My question is, a cover-up of what? Clearly, there were serious misjudgments made particularly about the security situation in Benghazi before the attack, but do you believe that either President Obama or Secretary Clinton, or any of the other top officials, did something wrong? MCCAIN: I think they are guilty of crimes of omission rather than commission. Don't forget, this is in the height of a presidential campaign, and the whole narrative by the Obama campaign was that al Qaeda is done, the war is over, everything is fine, the tide of war is receding. So we start with the talking points that you discussed previously. Obviously, those were not only wrong, now we know recently in the last few days, that recently, in some of those were active members of al Qaeda. Then, of course, you move to the fact that the survivors were moved to Germany and were never interviewed? That could have resolved of these issues as to who was behind it, whether it was a spontaneous demonstration or not, and Secretary Rice may have told you a very different story if they had just gotten the facts from those people who are survivors. We still don't know the names of those people. We still don't know exactly what happened there. There are so many unanswered questions. I say there are errors and sins of omission because the families of those four brave Americans deserve to know. WALLACE: I want to ask you one other aspect of this. This week, eight months after Benghazi, the FBI puts out a notice that shows the pictures -- you can see them right here -- of three people, three men, it says were allegedly in the compound, on the ground in Benghazi during the attack. How do you explain the fact -- and the FBI is asking for information. How do you explain the fact it took eight months? MCCAIN: I don't, I don't. This is another reason why we need, in my view, a select committee to review all of this, Republican and Democrat along the lines of Iran-Contra or others. We need a select committee to get to the bottom of all of this. Whether that will happen or not, I don't know. But isn't this incredible, all this time later, there's so many unanswered questions? WALLACE: I want to ask you about that. You were quoted recently as saying that you called for a select committee both -- I don't know if it's the same or separate ones -- both in Benghazi, and also in the Boston bombings, and -- (CROSSTALK) MCCAIN: I don't -- you know, the Boston bombing, I think we need a full and thorough investigation. I haven't yet called for it, for a select committee on that. Although that certainly might be helpful, because these things are not disconnected, some of these things that are happening. WALLACE: Well, I want to ask you about that, because when you called for that, at least the quote was you had called for Benghazi and Boston, you said, because people do not trust the president. Is that a little harsh? MCCAIN: I think they do not trust the information that they are getting. I think a majority of American people, according to polling, don't believe that. They need to have these answers. How did this young man who supposedly was under humanitarian visa go back to the country that he was supposed to be not able to live in? Why is it that only the Department of Homeland Security knew when he left and nobody seemed to know when he came back because of the, quote, "misspelling". And this whole issue of visas, over staying visas, 40 percent of people in this country illegally, not because they crossed our borders illegally, but because they overstayed their visas. Shouldn't we have procedures, to track down, as we enforce our borders, that we track down those people as well and enforce the laws of when visas expire, people should leave? That whole thing -- by the way, on the immigration reform bill, we should be looking at some of these issues as well, on how we practice our immigration laws as well as pass them. WALLACE: I want to pick up on this question of Boston, and another issue, because as soon as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger brother was arrested in the Boston bombings, you and Lindsey Graham were very clear. You said he needs to be treated as an enemy combatant. He needs not to get his Miranda rights, because we need intelligence on him. But President Obama, and some of these top officials, including secretary of homeland security, have persisted about talking about this as just two brothers acting alone. Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: One of the dangers that we now we face are self-radicalized individuals who are already here in the United States, in some cases may not be part of any kind of network, but because of whatever warped, twisted ideas they may have, may decide to carry out an attack. (END VIDEO CLIP) WALLACE: Senator, why do you think the president and his people are pushing that narrative in advance of the investigation? MCCAIN: I don't know, except that it's unfair to the American people. There are many questions. What did this young man do when he came back -- went back to Russia and was there for an extended period of time? What was the Internet activity? Why didn't we know of his Internet activities? Why did we ignore apparently the warnings of the Russians, even though they didn't repeat the warnings or give us additional information? The fact that they warned us I think that have demanded additional scrutiny. And whether they are -- we should assume nothing. We should assume that we need a thorough and complete investigation. And to say, all of a sudden, just as they did about Benghazi, that this was spontaneous, that to assume that this was all homegrown, is an assumption that I don't think we have the facts to make. WALLACE: Finally, I've got a minute left. The president says he wants to go back to Congress to try to find a way to close Guantanamo. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe. It is expensive. It is inefficient. It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed. (END VIDEO CLIP) WALLACE: Back in 2009, when the president in his first full day signed the bill to close Guantanamo, you supported him in that notion. MCCAIN: I still do. But -- WALLACE: What would it take to get you to -- MCCAIN: There's no plan that they have presented. And, by the way, about a quarter of those who have been released from Guantanamo have gone back into the fight, and in leadership positions. So we really have to be very careful about that. The fact is there's been no coherent plan presented to the congress of the United States as to how we do dispose of these individuals. And one of them is not to send them back into the fight where they can kill more Americans. WALLACE: Senator McCain, we're going to leave it there. Thank you so much for coming in today, sir. Always a pleasure to talk with you. MCCAIN: Thank you. WALLACE: Up next, a reporter asked the president about the first 100 days of his second term. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you still have the juice to get the rest of your agenda through this Congress? PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Well, if you put it that way, Jonathan, maybe I should just pack up and go home. Golly. (END VIDEO CLIP) WALLACE: We'll ask our Sunday panel, does the president still have his mojo? (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I think it's a little -- as Mark Twain said, "The rumors of my demise may be a little exaggerated at this point." (END VIDEO CLIP) WALLACE: President Obama at a White House news conference this week declaring he still has clout despite big setbacks recently to his agenda in Congress. And it's time now for our Sunday group. Nina Easton of Fortune magazine. Julie Pace who covers the White House for the Associated Press. Jennifer Rubin of "The Washington Post" and former Democratic Senator Evan Bayh. Well, for those of us who have been around Washington for a while, you haven't been around, Nina, as long as I have, but you've been around a while ... (LAUGHTER) WALLACE: Mr. Obama's comment, I have to say, reminded me of Bill Clinton's back in 1995, after the Gingrich revolution when he had to declare at a news conference, the president is relevant. How much trouble is this president in right now? NINA EASTON, FORTUNE MAGAZINE: Well, I think back to the White House correspondents dinner where he put - only last Saturday, where he had that self-mocking thing where he put up the Bush library is - H.W. - is W. Bush's legacy, and his legacy would be "The Blame Bush" library. And so he went on in his press conference and I kept thinking, well, his legacy could be the blame congressional Republicans legacy library. I think he is - you know, look, the chattering class will say that he's -- you know, they will paint a death knell for this president. I think it's somewhat exaggerated, but I do think that there's - it's problematic when on the gun control, for example, that you couldn't even deliver the Democrats in the Senate. That strikes me as troublesome. And then the other thing that strikes me, is that - it's so small bore where we are right now with this president, and going into a second term. I mean, you look at this fight over sequestration with Republicans, where's entitlement reform to save Medicare and Medicaid, and Social Security? Where is corporate tax reform, which would bring - we are reminded this week that Apple has $145 billion sitting overseas largely because we have high corporate tax rates. Why aren't we doing something to bring that money home and spur the economy? That's what people are looking for. WALLACE: Julie, how did - you were sitting there on the front row, along with Jonathan Karl of ABC, how did the White House officials feel about Karl's question, the president's golly answer, and how do they explain his inability to work his will on Congress, whether it's on gun control, or the sequester, or even having to swallow and sign this FAA waiver, so flight controllers could go back to work? JULIE PACE, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: Well, I'm sure it wasn't the question that they were hoping to answer. I mean what was interesting about that news conference, is oftentimes when we get this news conferences, there's some reason why the president is holding them, there's an opening statement that's related to something he's pushing on the hill, something he wants to talk to the American people about. We didn't have any of that. So he sort of came out to the briefing room, and was ready to take questions on pretty much anything, which led to, you know, him getting questions about Syria, about healthcare, about whether he's got any juice left. And I think that the concern for the White House is that they do in a second term have a finite period of time where they can actually get something through Congress, and now we're in early May and they haven't had a big victory yet. The calendar is going to start to compress even further. I will say, though, that, you know, the one piece of legislation that they're really going to pin their hopes on is immigration reform. And if he does get a victory on immigration reform, that would be a big success for this White House, really for any White House. WALLACE: I was going to pick up on that, because that certainly is one big reform , if it happens. But Jennifer, what's so interesting, is in terms of its progress through Congress, you know, the Gang of Eight, Republicans, Democrats, everyone is saying the only prospect is for Obama to stay out of it. JENNIFER RUBIN, THE WASHINGTON POST: That's the irony, is that Washington seems to work best without the president, because he's a very divisive figure. You know, in a second term presidents can either make their big stamp on foreign policy or domestic policy or do a little bit of both. Your earlier guests showed that on foreign policy he's in a lot of trouble, too. One of these outstanding takeaways from that press conference was his really miserable handling of the Syria situation. So, he doesn't have a lot of mojo from foreign policy. On domestic policy, you're right. The only thing that could be done is something that he's really attempting not to wade into because he'll ruin it. So, what's he going to do? What's his legacy? Reminds me a little bit of Bush 43 in that right after the election, when he had the most mojo, he went after Social Security and lost. And it kind of dulled his momentum. This president, I wonder if he had not gone after gun control, which probably wasn't gettable in the first place, if he had gone right into entitlement reform, right into corporate tax reform, right into immigration reform, whether he would have been building some more momentum. And now I think he's stuck in a lot of these areas. WALLACE: Senator Bayh, you know, to continue on the comparison to Bill Clinton in '95, and after the terrible defeat in 1994, and he had to declare he was still relevant, the fact is by '96 he wins a landslide re-election and ends up having a very successful second term. What does this president need to do to turn things around? EVAN BAYH, D - IN, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: It's difficult, Chris, because the nation's capital, and our country's politics are more deeply divided today than they were in Bill Clinton's time. And there are deep ideological differences that make compromise that much harder. I think Jennifer is correct. You got to pick your issues carefully. You need to look for the concentric circles overlap. The chances of immigration reform, a lot higher than gun control. Gun control was very hard for Bill Clinton, even when he had large majorities in both houses of Congress. And barely got them across the lines. So, the reality, if you look at most second term presidencies, is that most of the action is in the regulatory area, in this case it will be flushing out ObamaCare, flushing out the financial regulatory bill, dealing with, CO2 emissions through the EPA and that kind of thing, foreign policy as was mentioned. And I think the big things to look for, Chris, are there Supreme Court vacancies he can fill. And one big thing, who is the next chairman of the Federal Reserve going to be, because the Fed is going to have to make some very important decisions. BAYH: Ben Bernanke, in likelihood will be stepping down. That's something the president can take the initiative on his own. WALLACE: So, what happens to the budget? I mean you've got continuing problems on that. You're going to have the debt ceiling come sometime, we're now hearing it might be later in the summer, or early fall. Where is that going to be a grand bargain or not? BAYH: There's good news there that's also bad news. We're sort of taking the European approach to the budget, which is to do just enough to keep the wolf from the door, but not enough to actually solve the problem permanently. The deficit as a percentage of GDP this year is about 4.5 percent, next year it's expected 3.7, in '15, 3.0. So it is gradually coming down. That means the markets aren't likely to pressure Congress and the president to do the things they don't want to do, raise taxes or reform entitlements. The exception, Chris, I think, is the -- let's look at the midterm elections. There will be a window of opportunity there, immediately following the midterm elections if the president is willing to step forward and do more on entitlements, which he's reluctant to do, the Republicans might meet him halfway. I think it's unlikely, but the rest of this two-year period very unlikely. WALLACE: All right. We have to take a break here. But when we come back, the battle over how young is too young to get the Plan B contraceptive. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE TYSON: I don't have a glamorous lifestyle or anything. WALLACE: Tyson is touring the country now in a one-man show, in which he tells his story -- the good, the bad, and the very ugly. TYSON: I'm living life on my terms. WALLACE: Stay tuned. We'll be right back. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I'm very comfortable with the decision they've made right now based on solid scientific evidence for girls 15 and older. PENNY NANCE, PRESIDENT, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: She needs the adult supervision of her parents, she needs a doctor. She makes absolutely no sense. It's purely political. (END VIDEO CLIP) WALLACE: President Obama and a spokesperson for Concerned Women for America disagreeing over what age girls should be able to buy the Plan B contraceptive. And we're back now with our panel. Nina, the Obama administration, had as a policy making the Plan B morning-after pill available for,-you know, they say women, girls, women, 17 and over. They have now changed that to 15 and older. And a federal judge has ruled it should be made available to people of all ages. It's kind of a tough spot for the administration. EASTON: It's a tough spot. I just think there's a case to be made for conservatives or anybody who cares about the rate of abortions in this country, to deregulate birth control more, there's a case we made all the way -- I although understand a need for parents to be involved. One of the things that -- of all of these news, and including the president's speech to Planned Parenthood in his Gosnell case with murdering babies, is we're looking at a culture that produces 1.2 million abortions a year. We're losing sight of that fact. And I would say that in addition to deregulating birth control, another thing we need to do is celebrate young women who bring a baby to term and find an adoptive parent. There's such a stigma today to being an adoptive birth mom, that you're more willing to admit that you've had an abortion than that you're delivering a healthy newborn to a loving family. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with our culture that that's where we are today? So, I would encourage viewers, there's a new campaign out by the National Council for Adoption, it's called And I would say, on the eve of Mother's Day next week, that we should all check that out and start celebrating these young women who choose life for their babies. WALLACE: Well, it is a brave decision. Julie, to get back to Plan B, the administration -- Obama administration, it has to respond by tomorrow to this judge's ruling. And the judge, again, has said that it should be available to people of all ages. I mean, not just 15, 17 -- not just 15, not 13, of all ages. Any idea what they're going to do about that? PACE: Well, if you remember, comments the president made last year when this issue came up, he made a pretty impassioned statement, where he spoke about this issue, not necessarily as a president, but as the father of two young daughters, and talked about how he wouldn't be comfortable, with, for example, an 11-year-old girl being able to walk into a drugstore and be able to buy Plan b on her own. WALLACE: And let me just point out, this is not behind the counter, this is ... PACE: Right. WALLACE: You have to go to the pharmacist. This is on the shelf. PACE: ... out on the shelf. WALLACE: ... with the aspirin. PACE: Absolutely. So that gives us some insight into at least the president's thinking on this. When he talks about, now, 15-year old, he's trying to strike a compromise here, that actually though, it doesn't make anyone happy, because you have women's group that say, that is still restricting access to contraceptives, and then you have other groups who are saying that that is just too young, that how can you say that 15 is any different than 13, for example? WALLACE: So do you expect them to appeal and oppose the federal judges ruling? PACE: Well, there was appeal last week, by DOJ, to basically ask the federal judge to issue a stay on this. WALLACE: Right. But I mean to actually oppose it? PACE: I don't want to speculate on that. (LAUGHTER) WALLACE: This week as was pointed out, Mr. Obama became the first sitting president to address a conference of Planned Parenthood in person, and he repeated his attack from the last campaign, last year, about the GOP's war on women. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: There's still those who want to turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950's than 21st century. And they've been involved in an orchestrated and historic effort to roll back basic rights when it comes to women's health. (END VIDEO CLIP) WALLACE: But Jennifer, prolife groups not only were unhappy that the president addressed Planned Parenthood, they were specifically upset with the fact that he didn't even mention the case of the abortion doctor, Kermit Gosnell, you see him there, a Philadelphia abortion doctor, who's currently on trial, jury considering a number of counts, four counts of first degree murder for allegedly killing babies after they'd been born alive. RUBIN: I find his language so telling. He won't even use the word abortion. He says "women's health." Can he not bring himself to say that we're talking about terminating pregnancies? It's the same president who refused to comment not only on the specifics of Gosnell, but late-term abortions altogether. Talk about creating a culture of life or a culture of adoption -- this president has done more than any one to do the opposite -- to go to Planned Parenthood in the wake of Gosnell -- now, Planned Parenthood takes a very extreme view. They opposed the partial-birth abortion bill, they opposed this infants born alive .... WALLACE: You think that he should have also condemned Gosnell? RUBIN: Yes. To do that, to weigh in in that way sends I think a horrible message. And yes, he could very well have made a comment about Gosnell. He used this ridiculous excuse, I don't comment upon the things that have a legal action. He commented on Aurora, he commented on Newtown, he comments all the time, except on a subject, in which the entire country is revolted by the extremes of the abortion movement. And I think he's responsible in some spot -- in some parts. WALLACE: Senator Bayh, Planned Parenthood is controversial. And there are two sides to this argument, because supporters point out, let's put it up on the screen, the hundreds of thousands of health screenings that they provide, pregnancy tests, HIV tests, breast cancer tests. Opponents point out, as you can see the number there at the bottom, that it is also the nation's largest abortion provider. So, I mean there are two sides to the argument about Planned Parenthood. BAYH: Well, these issues involving reproductive rights and unwanted pregnancies are inherently, intractable, Chris, are very controversial. But Planned Parenthood, the people who believe in women's reproductive rights, part of the Democratic Party base, of course, he's going to speak to that group. And I would encourage you, though, to focus on what he does, not just on what he says. And with regard to Plan B, he's getting fired at from both sides. And the truth of the matter is that that will help to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions, which are tragic no matter what your perspective on that issue ... (CROSSTALK) BAYH: And with regard to Gosnell, that's a murder case. And I think if you took a poll of the American public, the president included, if the facts of that case are true, and the man should be condemned, absolutely. RUBIN: But the murder case also raises the issue that if it's murder a minute after that child comes out of the womb, don't we have to look at late-term abortions? Is there really a biological, is there really a moral difference between a child who is murdered, who has his neck snipped after he comes out and backing it up a few weeks? We have 12 states that have prohibitions on late-term abortions. There's a case from Nebraska that has went its way -- that is at the Supreme Court where we're going to see that. And I think that's something that actually most Americans would agree upon, that these very late-term abortions are gruesome, they're immoral. Can't we not at least agree on that? EASTON: And the fact that he was able to operate as long as he did without being turned in, I mean what does that say about our culture and abortions in this country? BAYH: That I don't know. I'm an example. I voted to support Roe v. Wade, but I also voted to ban late-term abortions. And that raises the issue of when does life begin, which is a very ... RUBIN: Which is ... (CROSSTALK) RUBIN: ... why Evan Bayh is not in the Senate anymore. BAYH: It's got to be the same, that's a minority opinion, Jennifer, but ... WALLACE: Julie, let me ask you, though, there's a political aspect to this, because Republicans lost badly among single women voters in the last election. As we saw the president scores when he talks about the Republicans' war on women, is the issue of women's health. And raised a lot of very troubling issues, but the general issue of women's health, is that a winner or a loser for the Republicans? PACE: Republicans know right now that they have to be very careful in talking about this issue. The RNC review that they did earlier this year singled out single women as one of the groups where the president won overwhelmingly. So, you're going to see some Republican lawmakers who I think are going to try to pull back a little bit in talking about women's health issues, because, you know, they know this is a growing group for political purposes. WALLACE: Thank you, panel. See you next week. And don't forget to check out Panel Plus where our group picks right up with the discussion on our Website, and make sure to follow us on Twitter, @Foxnewsunday. Up next, our Power Player of the week. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) WALLACE: This is going to be a little bit of a stretch. Mike Tyson was in town the other day and for some reason I can't quite explain I've always wanted to sit down with him. So try to suspend judgment and watch what I admit is an unusual "Power Player" of the week. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) TYSON: I can be dead. I'm talking about financially, but I'm spiritually and emotionally, I just couldn't be better. If I was to die today, I was overpaid in life. WALLACE (voice-over): This is a story about survival. Mike Tyson, who came from nothing, was heavyweight champion at 20, was knocked out at 23, spent three years in prison for rape, and has lived to talk about it. (on camera): You're a vegan? TYSON: Yes. WALLACE: You're off drugs. TYSON: Thank God. WALLACE: You're off alcohol. TYSON: Oh, double thank God. WALLACE: So, have you cleaned up your act? TYSON: I'm just -- I'm living life on life's terms. I was a champion of the nation at 14 years old. I was well on my way. WALLACE (voice-over): Tyson is touring the country now in a one- man show, in which he tells his story, the good, the bad, and the very ugly. TYSON: So after I left prison, I have to admit I was scared. WALLACE (on camera): What's the difference between being on stage and being in the ring? TYSON: You don't have to go to the hospital after each show. (LAUGHTER) WALLACE: How much money do you think you made in your career? TYSON: Everyone tells everybody I made $300 million to $400 million. I made a lot of money. WALLACE: All right. How much of it is left? TYSON: None, none. WALLACE: How is that possible? TYSON: I don't care how much money you have, if you don't -- there's an art in how you take care of money. If you don't do that, it just -- it just means nothing. WALLACE (voice-over): Tyson says he's not getting rich off his show, just enough to support his third wife and seven children and pay the IRS a little of the millions he owes the government. TYSON: I don't have a glamorous lifestyle or anything. WALLACE (on camera): Do you miss that? TYSON: No. I'm old, man. WALLACE: Old? What are you, 40-- TYSON: 46, yes. WALLACE: What am I? TYSON: A dinosaur. [LAUGHTER] (CROSSTALK) WALLACE (voice-over): He has some causes now. He started Mike Tyson Cares, which helps disadvantaged kids with food and shelter and support in school. And he's joined the campaign to get a presidential pardon for Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion who was convicted of taking his white girlfriend across state lines. TYSON: In 1910, black people were not even considered human beings. They were really almost still property. So he really deserves a second chance, posthumously. WALLACE: A second chance, or perhaps in Tyson's case a fourth or fifth chance. Looking back, he says the person he hurt worst was himself. TYSON: To me, no, there's no doubt about that. No doubt about that at all. WALLACE (on camera): Evander Holyfield would say you hurt him, too. TYSON: Well, now, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I did hurt him. WALLACE: Why did you do that? Why did you hurt yourself? TYSON: I didn't understand (inaudible), I was a wild, crazy kid at the time. Not doing it now. I think about my mortality a lot now. I'm 46 and I got a 2-year-old. What am I thinking? I'm a former junkie. You know what I mean? I had a bunch of fights where I got hit in the head a lot. What the hell am I thinking about? Hell of a life, huh, Christopher? (END VIDEOTAPE) WALLACE: By the way, after our discussion, Tyson decided to pretend he was going to punch me out. It looks a lot scarier when he's up close. Trust me, it's a unique experience, like the interview, one I will never forget. And that's it for today. Have a great week. And we'll see you next "Fox News Sunday." Content and Programming Copyright 2013 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Obama Wants You to Believe in Him and the Government, Not God and the Constitution Posted on May 22, 2013 RushCOnstitutionNationUnderGod King Obama only wants it his way. Check it out: Obama wants you to change your loyalties, to him and government and give up this Catholic stuff. That’s a loser. You need to be investing in him and government. They can tell you how to better live your life than the church can. The church is a bunch of restrictive moralists, not gonna let you have any fun and that the kind of stuff. The Constitution’s full of it. These guys that wrote it are a bunch of racists themselves, so you’d be wise just to forget those beliefs and channel it somewhere else. That’s what he’s trying to do. Continue Reading on ... Read more: Obama Wants You to Believe in Him and the Government, Not God and the Constitution May 21, 2013 Listen to it Button Windows Icon Windows Media BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: My adopted hometown, Sacramento, California, and Jerry. Thanks for calling, sir. It's great to have you here. CALLER: Well, thank you. Good morning, or afternoon there, I suppose it is. I just wanted to say that, you know, these current scandals going on are merely the bureaucratic bungling of an affirmative action and incompetent president in no way rises to the egregiousness of his telling the church what their convictions have to be. He cannot do that. He is violating his constitutional oath. He's playing God. And my fear is as long as we've got the threat of a president Joe Bite Me we will never get rid of Obama. RUSH: Ah, we're not gonna get rid of Obama anyway. It just isn't gonna happen. CALLER: No. But it needs to. RUSH: No matter what, and I mean no matter what, that's not gonna happen. CALLER: He's got a blank check, especially with the threat of President Bite Me. RUSH: I know. But, you know, you have a good point here. This attack on the Catholic Church, that is an in-your-face flouting of the Constitution. CALLER: Yes. We don't run our lives -- or we don't -- how do I say this? We don't change our lives to meet our business. We change our business to meet our personal convictions. And he wants it the other way around. He wants our convictions to take second base as opposed to our convictions running how we live. RUSH: No, he wants you to change your loyalties, to him and government and give up this Catholic stuff. That's a loser. You need to be investing in him and government. They can tell you how to better live your life than the church can. The church is a bunch of restrictive moralists, not gonna let you have any fun and that the kind of stuff. The Constitution's full of it. These guys that wrote it are a bunch of racists themselves, so you'd be wise just to forget those beliefs and channel it somewhere else. That's what he's trying to do. END TRANSCRIPT
Barack Obama on Homeland Security Democratic incumbent President; IL Senator (2004-2008) Sub-sections under Homeland Security: National Service Nuclear Weapons Terrorism Veterans Voting Record Other issues under Homeland Security Lasting peace does not require perpetual war A decade of war is now ending. We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well. We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully--not because we are na‹ve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. Source: Second Inaugural Address , Jan 21, 2013 Don't give military money that they're not asking for Q: Governor, you say you want a bigger military. Where are you going to get the money? ROMNEY: First of all, we're going to cut about 5% of the discretionary budget excluding military. Q: Can you do this without driving us deeper into debt? OBAMA: Gov. Romney's called for $5 trillion of tax cuts that he says he's going to pay for by closing deductions. He then wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military's not asking for. Now, keep in mind that our military spending has gone up every single year that I've been in office. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined--China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, you name it, next 10. And what I did was work with our Joint Chiefs of Staff to think about what are we going to need in the future to make sure that we are safe? And that's the budget that we've put forward. But what you can't do is spend $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military is not asking for. Source: Third Obama-Romney 2012 Presidential debate , Oct 22, 2012 Take money from war budgets and fund nation-building at home After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today. In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home. There's never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest-hit when the housing bubble burst. Source: 2012 State of the Union speech , Jan 24, 2012 Reduce defense spending 1% in 2013; add 2% per year after According to the first details of the Obama administration's fiscal 2013 defense budget, defense spending in 2013 would be reduced 1% from this year's initial $525 billion request before growing annually 1.8% in 2014, 2.3% in 2015, 1.9% in 2016, and 2.2% in 2017. The administration plans $82 billion in funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars for 2013, according to OMB. The basic defense-only "topline" numbers are currently projected at: $524 billion in 2013; and $533 billion in 2014; $546 billion in 2015; $556 billion in 2016; and $568 billion in 2017. The percentage increases are expressed in "nominal growth," not adjusted for inflation. The 2012-2021 defense plan calls for $5.652 trillion in spending. OMB calculated that the total Budget Control Act- mandated defense cut over those years is $488 billion--or about an 8.5% total decrease. Source: Tony Capaccio in Bloomberg News, "First Budget Numbers" , Jan 11, 2012 New START treaty: more secure & fewer nuclear weapons American leadership can be seen in the effort to secure the worst weapons of war. Because Republicans and Democrats approved the New START treaty, far fewer nuclear weapons and launchers will be deployed. Because we rallied the world, nuclear materials are being locked down on every continent so they never fall into the hands of terrorists. With our European allies, we revitalized NATO and increased our cooperation on everything from counterterrorism to missile defense. Source: 2011 State of the Union speech , Jan 25, 2011 Newsmax Headlines NYT: Obama Team Threatens Press Freedom Trump Draws Record Crowd in Michigan Rep. Chaffetz: If Obama Wants, We'll Do It The Hard Way Secrets to Retire 10 Years Early, Video Shows Plan Do You Favor Immigration Bill? Vote Here What's This? OpEd: On track to spend most on military since WWII For 2008, the US accounted for over 40% of global military expenses, eight times as much as its nearest rival, China. The US is of course alone in having a vast network of military bases around the world and a global surveillance and control system, and in regularly invading other countries (with impunity, given its power). From 1999 to 2008, global military spending increased 45%, with the US accounting for 58% of the total. Obama is on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president in one term of office since World War II, and that's not counting the additional $130 billion the administration is requesting to find the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, with even more war spending slated for future years. In January 2010, Congress passed his Pentagon budget with supplemental funding for Afghanistan pending. The $708.3 billion budget (with another $33 billion expected for Afghanistan) is not only a record, but also amounts to half the deficit. Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 63-64 , Jun 1, 2010 Called for space weapons ban, but with wiggle room A crucial question is what Obama's position will be on "missile defense"--understood on all sides to be, in effect, a first-strike weapon--and militarization of space. On the latter, he was called for "a world-wide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites," which would mean that the US project of the weaponization of space--so far in isolation and over global objections, spearheaded at the UN by China--would remain undisturbed, while there would be a ban on any interference with satellites, including those essential for the militarization of space. He also called for a space weapons ban, a very welcome step, but presented in a way that leaves "a lot of wiggle room." Obama's approach may be an improvement ove Bush, and offers prospects for popular movements that seek to rid the earth of these threats to survival of the species. But a lot of work will be needed. Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 65-66 , Jun 1, 2010 Let gay people serve in military openly My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do. Source: 2010 State of the Union Address , Jan 27, 2010 US has helped underwrite global security for 60 years Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest--because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity. So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another--that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. Source: Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo, Norway , Dec 10, 2009 Promises to close Guantanamo & treat prisoners as POWs The Bush administration argued that because [prisoners at Guantanamo] are not state-sponsored, they are not entitled to the usual protections of the Geneva Convention, and have no rights to our time-honored (and constitutionally guaranteed) principle of habeas corpus. The Bush White House had been staunchly opposed to giving detainees access to civilian courts, later arguing that military tribunals sufficed. Constitutional lawyers argued--and the Supreme Court agreed--that such a position was impermissible and that habeas corpus extends to those captured in a time of war even if they don't fit into traditional categories. President Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and remove the "unlawful enemy combatants" status from those detained. Both charges will accelerate resolution of the basic questions that remain: What is the adjudication process and what is the standard against which their actions will be measured to justify release? Source: The Test of our Times, by Tom Ridge, p.144-145 , Sep 1, 2009 FactCheck: F-22 Raptor costs $140M and has never been used Some claims that made our ears perk up actually checked out OK, like on Cold War Weapons: Obama criticized "Cold War weapons we don't use." That's a reference to the F-22 Raptor, a high-tech fighter plane that has been operational since 2005. It costs about $140 million per plane and has never been used in combat. Source: on 2009 State of the Union address , Feb 24, 2009 Obama Doctrine: moral interest as well as national interest Q: What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the US would send when we don’t have national security issues at stake? OBAMA: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake. If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in? If we could’ve stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act. So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us. And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible. But understand that there’s a lot of cruelty around the world. We’re not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That’s why it’s so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies. Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain , Oct 7, 2008 Inappropriate to lie to public; just don’t answer questions Q: Describe a situation when you think it’s appropriate to lie to the American people. A: I don’t think it’s appropriate to lie to the American people. And I think that one of the things I want to change about the culture of Washington is, not just the “big lie,” but also the “soft lie.” The fudging, the manipulation, the spin. If we can restore a sense of trust between the American people and their government, we’re going to go a long way to changing the country for the better. Q: What about in a national security situation? A: I don’t think it’s appropriate to lie. I mean, you can put together a hypothetical where there is a national security emergency that is imminent. And you don’t want to provide, for example, the location of our troops. You don’t have to lie in those situations. You simply say, “we’re not answering questions.” Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric , Sep 23, 2008 We should have focused on loose nukes & Al Qaeda after 9/11 Obama's July 15 speech on national security: Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11. We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11. We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework. We could have invested in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil. We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity. We could have done that. Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats--all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Source: Obama`s Challenge, by Robert Kuttner, p. 14-15 , Aug 25, 2008 Grandfather served in Patton's tank corps in WWII With the onset of World War II, [Obama's grandfather] Stanley Dunham enlisted in the army and ended up slogging through Europe with General George Patton's tank corps without ever seeing real combat. [His wife, Obama's grandmother] Madelyn worked as a riveter at the Boeing Company's B-29 plant in Wichita. In Nov. 1942, their daughter, Ann Dunham, was born. Stanley Dunham has been described as a kind of Willy Loman, the tragic, broken character in Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman. There are similarities. Returning from war and grasping the promise of the GI Bill, Stanley moved his young family to California, where he enrolled at the University of California-Berkeley. Obama would later recount kindly of his grandfather that "the classroom couldn't contain his ambitions, his restlessness, and so the family moved on." It was the pattern of a lifetime. There was first a return to Kansas and then years of one small Texas town after another, one dusty furniture store after another. Source: The FAITH of Barack Obama, by Stephen Mansfield, chapter 1 , Aug 5, 2008 Colleges must allow military recruiters for ROTC on campus Q: Will you vigorously enforce a statute which says colleges must allow military recruiters on campus and provide ROTC programs? A: Yes. Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas , Jan 15, 2008 Human rights and national security are complementary Q: Is human rights more important than American national security? A: The concepts are not contradictory, but complementary. Pakistan is a great example. We paid $10 billion over the last seven years & we had two goals: deal with terrorism and restore democracy. We’ve gotten neither. Pakistan’s democracy would strengthen our battle against extremists. The more we see repression, the more there are no outlets for how people can express themselves and their aspirations, the worse off we’re going to be, and the more anti-American sentiment there’s going to be in the Middle East. We keep on making this mistake. As president, I will make sure that nuclear weapons don’t fall into the hands of extremists, especially Al Qaida. If we simply prop up anti-democratic practices that feeds the sense that the US is only concerned about us and that our fates are not tied to these other folks. That’s going to make us less safe. That’s something I intend to change. Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada , Nov 15, 2007 Judgment is as important as experience The conservative magazine the Economist said, “Mr. Obama has already shown that he possesses something more important than expertise--judgment. His prediction about the Iraq war back in 2002 has proved strikingly prescient.” In 2002, Obama said: “I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.“ Everything Obama said five years ago has come true. As columnist Margaret Carlson noted, Obama ”was dead-on correct about the seminal issue of our time.“ Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p. 39 , Oct 30, 2007 Repeal Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell Obama believes we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in consultation with military commanders. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure we accomplish our national defense goals. Source: 2008 Presidential campaign website, “Flyers” , Aug 26, 2007 America must practice the patriotism it preaches I think it is unconscionable for us to stand by our troops and hoist the flag and suggest how patriotic we are at the same time as the veterans’ budget is being effectively cut. I’m going to monitor very closely how we are treating 100,000+ veterans wh are coming home, to make sure the VA has the capacity to provide transition services for veterans who are leaving the service and reentering civilian life--particularly the National Guardsman and Reservists who did not expect to be fighting in Iraq. Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p.155 , Mar 27, 2007 Get first responders the healthcare and equipment they need It is a noble calling what you do [as firefighters]. You know that. I know that. This country knows that. But sometimes Washington forgets. They praise your work. But when it’s time for you to get health care or buy the radios and equipment you need, those supporters disappear like a puff of smoke. Instead of making your job easier, they tried to cut funding so that you couldn’t buy the masks and suits you need. They wanted to stop the hiring of 75,000 new firefighters. They wanted to hide the US Fire Administration under layers of bureaucracy at Homeland Security. And 5 years after September 11th, they still won’t give our first responders the health care they earned that day. What keeps Washington from doing all that it needs to do to better protect our firefighters, police officers, and EMT’s--it’s not a lack of ideas and solutions that’s holding us back. It is the smallness of our politics. Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC , Mar 14, 2007 Need to be both strong and smart on national defense Obama takes an unexceptional position on defense spending, i.e., we need to be strong but we need to be smart about it. However, some papers reported the story as “Obama chides other Democrats on defense.” Of course, it is not true. The rumor got started that way, in the lead of an AP article on Obama’s Sept. 18 speech to Iowa Democrats. Six other articles reporting on the same event failed to mention the mythical attack on other Democrats. Source: Should Barack Obama be President, by F. Zimmerman, p. 50 , Oct 17, 2006 Grow size of military to maintain rotation schedules Our most complex military challenge will involve putting boots on the ground in the ungoverned or hostile regions where terrorists thrive. That requires a smarter balance between what we spend on fancy hardware and what we spend on our men and women in uniform. That should mean growing the size of our armed forces to maintain reasonable rotation schedules, keeping our troops properly equipped, and training them in the skills they’ll need to succeed in increasingly complex and difficult missions. Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.307 , Oct 1, 2006 We are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo Q: Name a key vulnerability or weakness that you see in homeland security. A: Our inspections of ports. We are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo. Terrorists could load up a cargo container and drive it straight into the middle of the Loop without significant risk of them being inspected. Our chemical and nuclear plants are still unsecured, despite how vulnerable they are. There are a whole host of domestic priorities that have been neglected by the Bush administration. Source: IL Senate Debate , Oct 26, 2004 Give our soldiers the best equipment and training available [The US should] prepare our military to meet the new threats of the 21st century. We must prepare our military to meet the new threats of the 21st century by making sure that we have sufficient forces and by giving our soldiers the best equipment and training available. We must also ensure that members of our National Guard and reservists have access to affordable, quality health care. Source: Press Release, “Renewal of American Leadership ” , Jul 12, 2004 Barack Obama on National Service Serving America doesn’t mean going out shopping Q: As president, what sacrifices will you ask every American to make, to get out of the economic morass that we’re now in? OBAMA: A lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and how all of the country was ready to come together and make enormous changes to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more unified country. And President Bush did some smart things at the outset, but one of the opportunities that was missed was, when he spoke to the American people, he said, “Go out and shop.“ That wasn’t the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for. I think the young people of America are especially interested in how they can serve, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m interested in doubling the Peac Corps, making sure that we are creating a volunteer corps all across this country that can be involved in their community, involved in military service, so that our troops are not the only ones bearing the burden of renewing America. Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain , Oct 7, 2008 $4,000 tuition tax credit in exchange for community service Our commitment to education cannot end with a high school degree. The chance to get a college education must not be a privilege of the few--it should be a birthright of every single American. Senator McCain is campaigning on a plan to give more tax breaks to corporations. I want to give tax breaks to young people, in the form of an annual $4,000 tax credit that will cover two-thirds of the tuition at an average public college, and make community college completely free. In return, I will ask students to serve, whether it’s by teaching, joining the Peace Corps, or working in your community. And for those who serve in our military, we’ll cover all of your tuition with an even more generous 21st Century GI Bill. The idea is simple--America invests in you, and you invest in America. That’s how we’re going to ensure that America succeeds in this century. Source: Speech in Flint, MI, in Change We Can Believe In, p.251 , Jun 15, 2008 Expand Peace Corps and AmeriCorps to 266,000 slots THE PROBLEM Americans Not Asked to Serve After 9/11: President Bush squandered an opportunity to mobilize the American people following 9/11 when asked Americans only to go shopping. Insufficient Federal Support for Service : While more than 500,000 people have served in AmeriCorps, the program turns away applicants a year because of limited funding. OBAMA’S PLAN Expand National Service: Obama will expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 slots today to 250,000 and he will focus this expansion on addressing the great challenges facing the nation. He will establish a Classroom Corps; a Health Corps; a Clean Energy Corps; a Veterans Corps; and a Homeland Security Corpss. Expand the Peace Corps: Obama will double the Peace Corps to 16,000 by 2011. He will work with the leaders of other countries to build an international network of overseas volunteers so that Americans work side-by-side with volunteers from other countries. Source: Campaign booklet, “Blueprint for Change”, p. 45-46 , Feb 2, 2008 Put forward a national service program The volunteer Army is a way for us to maintain excellence. If we are deploying our military wisely, then a voluntary army is sufficient, although I would call for an increase in our force structure, particularly around the Army and the Marines, because we’ve got to put an end to people going on three, four, five tours of duty and the strain on families is enormous. The obligation to serve exists for everybody. That’s why I’ve put forward a national service program that is tied to my tuition credit for students who want to go to college. You get $4000 every year to help you go to college. In return, you have to engage in some form of national service. Military service has to be an option. We have to have civilian options as well. Not just the Peace Corps, but one of the things that we need desperately are people in our foreign service speaking foreign languages in a lot of work that may not be hand-to-hand combat but just as critical in ensuring our long-term safety & security. Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas , Jan 15, 2008 Give 18-year-old women opportunity to serve Q: Teenage boys must register for selective service at age 18, but not girls. I’m wondering whether this sends the right message about national service? DODD: I don’t see a need for the draft. I don’t believe that is necessary. But if you are going to have one I think it ought to be gender neutral. Q: If it did not necessarily mean military service, should the country examine registering women at 18? CLINTON: Yes. EDWARDS: Yes. But it’s absolutely crucial that we ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war. As with John Kennedy’s call to action, I think we need a president who asks Americans to sacrifice. KUCINICH: We have to say no to a draft. BIDEN: Yes ,and there should be universal service. OBAMA: Yes. Every young person should have that opportunity to serve and do something that is bigger than themselves. RICHARDSON: Yes. And I outlined a plan two years of college tuition paid off by the government, one year of national service Source: 2007 Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum , Dec 1, 2007 Register women for draft, but not for combat Q: Do you think women should register for selective service when they turn 18 like men do currently? A: You know, a while back we had a celebration in the Capitol for the Tuskegee Airmen, and it was extraordinarily powerful because it reminded us, there was a time when African-Americans weren’t allowed to serve in combat. And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we’re equal. And I think that if women are registered for service--not necessarily in combat roles, and I don’t agree with the draft-- I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they’ve got obligations to this great country as well as boys do. Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC , Jul 23, 2007 Barack Obama on Nuclear Weapons Strengthen NPT to have automatic sanctions on Iran [On Iran, Obama called for tough diplomacy "to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior," namely pursuing a nuclear program and supporting terrorism. If Iran abandons its troubling behavior, the US might move toward normal diplomatic and economic relations, Obama proposed, but "if Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation." Furthermore, Obama proceeded, he will strengthen the NPT "so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions." He made no mention of the conclusion of US intelligence that Iran had not had a weapons program for five years, unlike US allies in Israel, Pakistan, and India, the three countries that all maintain extensive nuclear weapons programs (with direct US support), all unmentioned as well. Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.249 , Jun 1, 2010 OpEd: walked away from missile defense of Eastern Europe Russia's burgeoning relationship with Venezuela has purpose beyond energy: anything that diminishes America pleases Putin, both because it weakens a competing power and because it gratifies his personal animus for the US. Russia's resistance to severe sanctioning of North Korea and Iran as they have pursued their nuclear programs are a stick in the eye for the US. So, too, is Russia's insistence that the world replace the dollar as the reserve currency. Putin also bitterly opposes any development that would strengthen the US such as missile defense, particularly in Eastern Europe, and admission of the former Soviet satellites into NATO. Pres. Obama's decision to walk way from our missile defense program in Poland and the Czech Republic was a huge concession to Putin, as is the stalling on admission of Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO. Russia welcomes concessions, and these, like their predecessors, were not repaid in kind. Russia takes, Pres. Obama gives, and Russia demands more. Source: No Apology, by Mitt Romney, p. 18 , Mar 2, 2010 Secure all world's nuclear materials by international treaty Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people--the threat of nuclear weapons. I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. Source: 2010 State of the Union Address , Jan 27, 2010 Reduce US nuclear stockpile & prevent spread of nukes One urgent example [of alternatives to violence] is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles. But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war. Source: Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo, Norway , Dec 10, 2009 Goal is a world without nuclear weapons Without any introduction, Obama begins, "I am the only major candidate to oppose this war from the beginning and, as president, I will end it. "Second," he continues, "I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. "Third," he says, without pausing, "I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a ban on the production of fissile materials. And I will negotiate with Russia to take ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals." Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p. 1-2 , Aug 1, 2008 A New Beginning: seek world with no nuclear weapons On Oct. 2, 2007, Obama declared, "A New Beginning," announcing, "America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons." Obama made clear he did not intend to pursue unilateral disarmament. He promised to work with Russia "to take US & Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert." "We'll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons." Obama stated we would set a goal to expand the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so the agreement is global Obama argued, "We'll be in a better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road if we firmly abide by those rules." This is truly the crux of Obama's argument: because we do not demonstrate moral leadership, other nations have no choice but to proliferate nuclear weapons. At the base of the argument, Obama is saying a world with nuclear weapons is our fault. "It's time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse," he said. "It's time for America to lead." Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.261-262 , Aug 1, 2008 Seek the peace of a world without nuclear weapons This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The Cold War superpowers came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the furthe spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons. Source: Speech in Berlin, in Change We Can Believe In, p.267-8 , Jul 24, 2008 2007: With Hagel, introduced nuclear nonproliferation bill We must once again convince the world that America has the clear intention of fulfilling the nuclear disarmament commitments that we have made. Building a new global nuclear consensus is the only way to achieve lasting solutions to challenges such as Iran's nuclear ambition. Last summer, Senator Barack Obama and I introduced comprehensive nuclear nonproliferation legislation. Among other things, our bill would provide funding for an international fuel bank that would be administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This fuel bank has the potential to be a critical mechanism to help reduce the demand for sensitive nuclear technologies that could be used to produce nuclear weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. Our bill would also provide funding to enable the United States to work with other countries to develop the technology to identify sources of nuclear material. If Iran's nuclear intentions prove to be peaceful, as its leaders claim, this bill can put that to the test. Source: Our Next Chapter, by Chuck Hagel, p. 92-93 , Mar 25, 2008 Pursue goal of a world without nuclear weapons Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop th development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and expand globally the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles. Source: Campaign booklet, “Blueprint for Change”, p. 50-55 , Feb 2, 2008 Rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy I’ve worked on nuclear proliferation in the Senate, to improve interdiction of potentially nuclear materials. It is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy, something that this administration has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job. Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate , Jan 6, 2008 2006: Obama-Lugar bill restricted conventional weapons Obama worked with Richard Lugar (R-IN) to pass legislation to help secure dangerous conventional weapons, especially from the former Soviet Union. In Dec. 2006, the Senate passed the Lugar-Obama bill to restrict the global spread of conventional weapons. Obama noted, “The Lugar-Obama initiative will help other nations find and eliminate the type of conventional weapons that have been used against our own soldiers in Iraq and sought by terrorists all over the world.” Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.160 , Oct 30, 2007 2005: Passed bill to reduce conventional weapon stockpiles Obama’s greatest legislative success was teaming with Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana on a bill that expanded US cooperation to reduce stockpiles of conventional weapons and expanded the State Department’s ability to interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. In the spring of 2005, Obama had traveled to Russia with Lugar to inspect nuclear weapons stockpiles. Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.313 , Aug 14, 2007 Protecting nuclear power plants is of utmost importance We have utterly failed to deal with what may be one of the most significant potential terror threats to this country, and that is how we protect our chemical plants across the nation. These plants are stationary weapons of mass destruction spread across the country. Their security is light, their facilities are easily entered, and their contents are deadly. Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p.160 , Mar 27, 2007 Rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty We would obviously have to retaliate against anybody who struck American soil, whether it was nuclear or not. It would be a much more profound issue if it were nuclear weapons. That’s why it’s so important for us to rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that has fallen apart under this administration. We have not made a commitment to work with the Russians to reduce our own nuclear stockpiles. That has weakened our capacity to pressure other countries to give up nuclear technology. We have not locked down the loose nuclear weapons that are out there right now. These are all things that we should be taking leadership on. Part of what we need to do in changing our foreign policy is not just end the war in Iraq; we have to change the mindset that ignores long-term threats and engages in the sorts of actions that are not making us safe over the long term. Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate , Jan 6, 2006 Increase funding to decommission Russian nukes More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia still has more nearly 20,000 nuclear weapons and enough nuclear material to produce 50,000 more. At the current rate of spending, it will take 13 years to secure all the potential bomb material from the old Soviet Republic. We should increase funding to do it in four years. We must also strengthen the existing Non-Proliferation Treaty, and lead in the efforts to prevent countries with the proven capability to build WMDs from doing so. Source: Press Release, “Renewal of American Leadership ” , Jul 12, 2004 Barack Obama on Terrorism We have brought 9-11 planners to justice ROMNEY: I don't see our influence growing around the world. I see our influence receding, in part because of the failure of the president. OBAMA: Governor, the problem is, on a whole range of issues, you've been all over the map. When it comes to going after Osama bin Laden, you said, "well, any president would make that call." But when you were a candidate in 2008--as I was--I said, "if I got bin Laden in our sights, I would take that shot;" you said "we shouldn't move heaven and earth to get one man," and you said we should ask Pakistan for permission. And if we had asked Pakistan for permission, we would not have gotten it. And it was worth moving heaven and earth to get him. You know, after we killed bin Laden, I was at Ground Zero for a memorial. By finally getting bin Laden, that brought some closure to me. And when we do things like that, when we bring those who have harmed us to justice, that sends a message to the world. Source: Third Obama-Romney 2012 Presidential debate , Oct 22, 2012 Remain vigilant & focus forcefully on groups like al Qaeda Q: The White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Was Iran, or al Qaeda behind organizing the protests [which led to the American embassy attacks]? A: Well, we're still doing an investigation. The natural protests that arose were used as an excuse by extremists to harm US interests. We have to remain vigilant. Look, when I came into office I said I would end the war in Iraq--and I did. I said that we would begin transitioning in Afghanistan. But what I also said was we're going to have to focus narrowly and forcefully on groups like al Qaeda. Those forces have not gone away. We've decimated al Qaeda's top leadership in the border regions around Pakistan, but in Yemen, in Libya--increasingly in places like Syria-- what you see is these elements that don't have the same capacity that a bin Laden or core al Qaeda had, but can still cause a lot of damage, and we've got to make sure that we remain vigilant and are focused on preventing them from doing us any harm. Source: Obama-Romney interviews by Univision Noticias (Spanish News) , Sep 19, 2012 OpEd: Failed promise to close Guantanamo loses left votes Obama won a lot of the Left votes by promising to close Guantanamo and by claiming to be the anti-war candidate. But Guantanamo still operates and the American involvement in wars has escalated in Afghanistan and Libya. Some on the Left are so upset that they want someone with Left credibility to run against Obama in the primaries. If many on the Left abandon Obama, he will lose a lot of fundraising sources. And he might lose enough votes in the swing states and lose the general election. Source: Why She Will Win, by Ron Paul Jones, p. 17 , Jun 8, 2011 OpEd: torture ban just repositions torture to outside US What the Obama [ban on torture] ostensibly knocks off is that small percentage of torture now done by Americans while retaining the overwhelming bulk of the system's torture, which is done by foreigners under US patronage. Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so. Obama did not shut down the practice of torture, but merely repositioned it, restoring it to the norm, a matter of indifference to the victims. Since Vietnam, the US has mainly seen its torture done for it by proxy--paying, arming, training and guiding foreigners doing it, but usually being careful to keep Americas at least one discreet step removed. Obama's band doesn't even prohibit direct torture by Americans outside environments of 'armed conflict,' which is where much torture happens anyway since many repressive regimes aren't in armed conflict. His is a return to the status quo ante, the torture regime of Ford through Clinton. Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p. 260-261 , Jun 1, 2010 No habeas right for detainees outside of US The Boumediene ruling [concluded in 2008] that prisoners in Guantanamo are entitled to the right of habeas corpus. The Bush administration decided to ship prisoners in Guantanamo to Bagram, in Afghanistan, as though it was some sort of a silly game--fly your abducted prisoners to Guantanamo and they have constitutional rights, but fly them instead to Bagram and you can disappear them forever with no judicial process." Obama adopted the Bush position, "filing a brief in federal court that, in two sentences, declared that it embraced the most extremist Bush theory on this issue." Obama's argument amounts to saying that prisoners flown to Bagram from anywhere in the world--in the case in question, Yemenis and Tunisians captured in Thailand and UAE--"can be imprisoned indefinitely with no rights of any kind--as long as they are kept in Bagram rather than Guantanamo.". [This was] in radical violation of Obama's campaign promises and earlier stands." Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.262-263 , Jun 1, 2010 Moving Gitmo to Illinois was logistically & legally complex The real issue [with closing Gitmo] was the difference between a political perspective and a legal one. Why couldn't the legal counsel's office figure out some way to keep those pesky resettlement questions out of Obama's face? The backdrop was the administration's failure to fulfill one of Obama's most widely publicized promises: closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay by Jan. 1, 2010. Early in the transition a group of lawyers wrote a report for Obama explaining how legally and logistically complex shutting the prison would be. After the Inauguration the Pentagon reported that finding a site in the US for the prisoners was difficult. When the government finally settled on an underused federal prison in Thomson, Illinois, planners learned that it would take many months to renovate. Without sustained presidential attention and someone assigned exclusively to Gitmo, closing the prison would be tough. For months, Obama simply let one of his signature campaign promises slip between the cracks. Source: The Promise: Obama Year One, by Jonathan Alter, p.340-341 , May 18, 2010 OpEd: Promised to close Guantanamo but it's still open The litany of broken Obama promises is amazing: He promised to get us out of Iraq. But we're still there. He promised cap and trade. But he hasn't produced. He said he'd end Don't Ask, Don't Tell and allow gays in the military. But he hasn't. He promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. But he has. He said he'd bring down the deficit. But he's tripled it. He promised to close Guantanamo. But it's still open for business. He said he'd fix Social Security. But he hasn't touched it. He promised to preserve Medicare. But he cut it by $500 billion. He said he'd reform immigration law. But it's the same as when he took office. He told Big Labor he'd make it possible to organize new unions without a secret ballot. But that bill died. You may disagree with many of these promises. You're probably glad they failed. But don't let that stop you from using them to defeat Obama. Source: Take Back America, by Dick Morris, p.262 , Apr 13, 2010 Hundreds of al Qaeda have been captured last year We've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships [abroad].. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed--far more than in 2008. Source: 2010 State of the Union Address , Jan 27, 2010 OpEd: accused of palling around with terrorist Bill Ayers I spoke on the trail about Obama's associations with questionable characters, including Obama's long association with Bill Ayers. A student radical and member of the Weather Underground, Ayers had helped bomb New York City police headquarters in 1970, th Capitol Building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. When Ayer's memoir, "Fugitive Days" was published in 2001, he said, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." In a horrible irony, that interview with Ayers hit newsstands on the morning of September 11, 2001. Disgustingly, Ayers posed in the article stomping on our American flag. In relation to the breaking news about the friendship between Obama and the unrepentant domestic terrorist, headquarters issued an approved sound bite about Obama "palling around with terrorists," and I was happy to be the one to deliver it. Obama had kicked off his political career in Ayers's living room; that sound bite was written into a rally speech. Source: Going Rogue, by Sarah Palin, p.306-307 , Nov 17, 2009 Strategic issue is where to send & how to fund our troops McCAIN: Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic & a strategy. Obama, who after promising not to vote to cut off funds for the troops, did the incredible thing of voting to cut off the funds for the troops. OBAMA: McCain opposed funding for troops in legislation that had a timetable, because he didn’t believe in a timetable. I opposed funding a mission that had no timetable, and was open- ended, giving a blank check to George Bush. I understand the difference between tactics & strategy. And the strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether or not we are employing a particular approach in the country once we have made the decision to be there. The question is, was this wise? We have seen Afghanistan deteriorate. We need more troops there. We should end [the Iraq] war responsibly. We should do it in phases. In 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda Source: 2008 first presidential debate, Obama vs. McCain , Sep 26, 2008 Disrupting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan prevented another 9/11 Q: Why do you think there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11? A: Well, I think that the initial invasion into Afghanistan disrupted al Qaeda. And that was the right thing to do. I mean, we had to knock out those safe havens. And that, I think, weakened them. We did some work in strengthening our homeland security apparatus here. Obviously, the average person knows that when they go to the airport, because they are goin’ through taking off their shoes & all that. Q: As president, how would you prevent another 9/11 from happening? A: The problem is when we got distracted by Iraq. We gave al Qaeda time to reconstitute itself. My hope obviously is that we continue to prevent them from being able to move at all out of those safe havens. But our intelligence indicates the likelihood of a potential attack is significantly higher now. And that has been an enormous mistake that I intend to correct when I’m president. Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric , Sep 17, 2008 Islam in 1970s was not opposed to West & rule of law Q: Do you believe that Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the 21st century? A: I think the problems of terrorism and groups that are resisting modernity, whether because of their ethnic identities or religious identities, and the fact that they can be driven into extremist ideologies, is one of the severe threats that we face. I don’t think it’s the only threat that we face. Q: But how do you view the problem within Islam? As somebody who saw it in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world? A: When I lived in Indonesia, in the late ‘60s & early ‘70s, Indonesia was never the same culture as the Arab Middle East. The brand of Islam was always different.But around the world, there was not the sense that Islam was inherently opposed to the West, or inherently opposed to modern life, or inherently opposed to universal traditions like rule of law. And now in Indonesia, you see some of those extremist elements. Source: CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series on Zakaria’s GPS , Jul 13, 2008 Go after al Qaeda but also shrink pool of potential recruits The way we have to approach the problem of Islamic extremism, is we have to hunt down those who would resort to violence to move their ideology forward. We should be going after al Qaeda and those networks fiercely and effectively. But what we also want to do is to shrink the pool of potential recruits. And that involves engaging the Islamic world rather than vilifying it, and making sure that we understand that not only are those in Islam who would resort to violence a tiny fraction of the Islamic world, but that also, the Islamic world itself is diverse. And that lumping together Shia extremists with Sunni extremists, assuming that Persian culture is the same as Arab culture, that those kinds of errors in lumping Islam together result in us not only being less effective in hunting down and isolating terrorists, but also in alienating what need to be our long-term allies on a whole host of issues. Source: CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series on Zakaria’s GPS , Jul 13, 2008 No torture; no renditions; no operating out of fear Q: A disturbing Justice Department memo emerged saying that not even interrogation methods that “shock the conscience” would be considered torture nor would they be considered illegal if they had been authorized by the president. Comments? A: We have to be clear and unequivocal. We do not torture, period. Our government does not torture. That should be our position. That will be my position as president. That includes renditions. We don’t farm out torture. We don’t subcontract torture. Torture does not end up yielding good information--most intelligence officers agree with that--but it is also important for our long-term security to send a message to the world that we will lead not just with our military might but we are going to lead with our values and our ideals. That we are not a nation that gives away our civil liberties simply because we’re scared. We’re always at our worst when we’re fearful. Fear is a bad counsel and I want to operate out of hope and out of faith. Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College , Apr 13, 2008 Al Qaida is stronger now than in 2001 as Iraq distracted us We are seeing Al Qaida stronger now than at any time since 2001. That is a significant threat that has to be dealt with. Because we have been distracted, we have ended up seeing a more dangerous situation, and so we are not--this is not just a matter of who is right and who is wrong about having gone to war or the surge. It’s also, how do we deal with the future threats? And as long as we’re bogged down in Iraq, we are not going to be able to deal with those future threats. Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate , Jan 21, 2008 No presidential power for secret surveillance Q: Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes? A: The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes. Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power , Dec 20, 2007 No holding US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants Q: Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants? A: No. I reject the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants. Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power , Dec 20, 2007 Congress decides what constitutes torture, not president Q: If Congress prohibits a specific interrogation technique, can the president instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute? A: No. The President is not above the law, and not entitled to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions for all US Government personnel and contractors. Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power , Dec 20, 2007 No torture; defiance of FISA; no military commissions Q: Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? A: I reject the view that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority. Some further points: The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional. Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional. The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea. The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea. Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power , Dec 20, 2007 Restore habeas corpus to reach Muslims abroad If you were a Muslim overseas listening to Rudy Giuliani say “they are coming here to try to kill you,” which is the tenor of many of the speeches that are delivered by Republicans, you would get an impression that they are not interested in talking and resolving issues peacefully. Now, what we need to do [to reach Muslims] is we need to close Guantanamo. We need to restore habeas corpus. We need to send a strong signal that we are going to talk directly to not just our friends but also to our enemies. Source: 2007 Democratic radio debate on NPR , Dec 13, 2007 Don’t allow our politics to be driven by fear of terrorism A statement most Democrats will make only in progressive precincts, the one he couldn’t quite get out when asked what he would do if American cities were attacked: “The threat that we face now is nowhere near as dire as it was in the Cold War. We shouldn’t allow our politics to be driven by the fear of terrorism.” Source: The Contenders, by Laura Flanders, p. 82 , Nov 11, 2007 If attacked, first help victims then prevent further attacks At the First Democratic debate on April 26, 2007, the moderator asked how would you change the US military stance overseas if we learned that two US cities were hit by al-Qaeda terrorists. Obama responded, “Well, first thing we’d have to do is make sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response. The second thing is to make sure we’ve got good intelligence, A, to find out that we don’t have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and B, to find out do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.“ Later in the debate, Obama added, ”We have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down; networks have to be dismantled. There is no contradiction between us intelligently using our military and, in some cases, lethal force to take out terrorists and, at the same time, building the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been lacking over the last six years.“ Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p. 40-41 , Oct 30, 2007 America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions America cannot sanction torture. It’s a very straightforward principle, and one that we should abide by. Now, I will do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals & emergency situations & I will make that judgment at that time. But what we cannot do is have the president state, as a matter of policy, that there is a loophole or an exception where we would sanction torture. I think that diminishes us and it sends the wrong message to the world. Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College , Sep 6, 2007 We are no safer now than we were after 9/11 Q: What do you think we’re not prepared for? A: I don’t believe that we are safer now than we were after 9/11 because we have made a series of terrible decisions in our foreign policy. We went into Iraq, a war that we should have never authorized and should not have been waged. It has fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment. It has, more importantly, allowed us to neglect the situation in Afghanistan. We know right now that al Qaeda is hiding in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum , Aug 8, 2007 Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus Why don’t we close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus, because that’s how we lead, not with the might of our military, but the power of our ideals and the power of our values. It’s time to show the world we’re not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. We’re not a country that runs prisons which locks people away without ever telling them why they’re there or what they’re charged with. We’re not a country which preaches compassion to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of major American cities. That’s not who we are. We’re America. We’re a nation that liberated a continent from a mad man, that lifted ourselves from the depths of depression, that won civil rights and women’s rights and voting rights for all our people. We’re the beacon that has led generations of weary travelers to find opportunity and liberty and hope on our doorstep. That’s who we are. Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference , Jun 19, 2007 Homeland security must protect citizens, not intrude on them Every democracy is tested when it is faced with a serious threat. As a nation we have to find the right balance between privacy and security, between executive authority to face threats and uncontrolled power. What protects us are the procedures we put in place to protect that balance, namely judicial warrants and congressional review. These are concrete safeguards to make sure surveillance hasn’t gone too far. Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p. 99 , Mar 27, 2007 Personal privacy must be protected even in terrorism age Americans fought a revolution in part over the right to be free from unreasonable searches, to ensure that our government couldn’t come knocking in the middle of the night for no reason. We need to find a way forward to make sure that we [stop] terrorists while protecting the privacy and liberty of innocent Americans. Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p.132 , Mar 27, 2007 Battling terrorism must go beyond belligerence vs. isolation We know that the battle against terrorism is at once an armed struggle and a contest of ideas, that our long-term security depends on a judicious projection of military power and increased cooperation with other nations, and that addressing the problems of global poverty and failed states is vital to our nation’s interests rather than just a matter of charity. But follow most of our foreign policy debates, and you might believe that we have only two choices--belligerence or isolationism. Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 23 , Oct 1, 2006 Going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion Q: You stand by your statement that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after al Qaeda, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Isn’t that essentially the Bush doctrine? We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis? A: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that. Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate , Jan 6, 2006 Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk [The US should] strengthen and improve intelligence capabilities. We must reform our domestic intelligence capabilities in a manner that balances the risks of impeding on the civil liberties of our citizens and increase international cooperation on all fronts. We should also give the Director of Intelligence the authority he or she needs over budget and personnel to be effective and accountable. Source: Press Release, “Renewal of American Leadership ” , Jul 12, 2004 Barack Obama on Veterans Unacceptable to have veterans drive 250 miles to a hospital The incredible burden that has been placed on the American people, starting with military families, and the fact that we still are not doing right by our veterans, that we still don’t honor their service, that there are still homeless veterans, that we still don’t screen properly for post-traumatic stress disorder and make sure that they’re getting mental services that they need, that we are still having veterans in south Texas have to drive 250 miles to access a veterans hospital. That’s unacceptable. Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin , Feb 21, 2008 Improve veterans’ mental health treatment & PTSD benefits AT A GLANCE Improved Mental Health Treatment: Obama will improve mental health treatment for troops and veterans suffering from combat-related psychological injuries. THE PROBLEM There is a Shortage of Care for PTSD: Veterans are coming home with record levels of combat stress, but we are not adequately providing for them. OBAMA’S PLAN Improve Mental Health Treatment: Obama will improve mental health care at every stage of military service. He will recruit more health professionals, improve screening, offer more support to families and make PTSD benefits claims fairer. OBAMA RECORD Obama led a bipartisan effort in the Senate to try to halt the military’s unfair practice of discharging service members for having a service-connected psychological injury. Obama passed legislation to stop a VA review of closed PTSD cases that could have led to a reduction in veterans’ benefits. Source: Campaign booklet, “Blueprint for Change”, p. 56-57 , Feb 2, 2008 Support veterans via the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act Following reports of neglect at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Obama introduced the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act. The bill improves the condition of troop housing, streamlines the process for seeking care, provides greater information to recovering servicemembers, requires the hiring of more caseworkers, and provides more support to family members who care for injured troops: Sheltering and Rehabilitating Homeless Veterans One in three homeless males is a veteran. Fighting for Disability Benefits Obama forced the VA to notify veterans about their right to review past claims. Treating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) & Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Easing the Transition of Veterans into Civilian Life Obama’s legislation would require that the military provide new veterans with electronic medical and service records & monitor health trends. Source: 2008 Presidential campaign website, “Flyers” , Aug 26, 2007 Address the deficiencies in the VA system We don’t have a full-service VA system, so a lot of troops that have been injured are having to travel elsewhere, and that’s something that we have to address. There are important efficiencies that we can obtain by having a VA hospital system; for example, prescription drugs. But we have to have a VA that serves everybody. In some rural communities that the veterans don’t have access to the services needed, we’ve got to make sure that they do have the option for a private hospital that is close by Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College , Jun 3, 2007 The cost of the Iraq war should not shortchange VA benefits We tried to tell the Bush administration you need an additional $2 billion to provide services to troops who are coming home. They said no. Everything’s covered. Six months through, they had to come back and say, it turns out we did need it after all. Part of the reason is because they have been trying to keep the costs down of this war and have not fully factored in the sacred obligation that we have to make sure that every single veteran has the services that they need. Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College , Jun 3, 2007 Make sure the outpatient facilities work for veterans I visited Walter Reed repeatedly. Typically what would happen is we would go to visit troops in the medical facility, and people will acknowledge that the medical facility at Walter Reed does great work. Unfortunately, it turned out that the outpatient facilities were disastrous. That’s why we now have legislation to make sure not only that we’re just painting over some of the mold in there, but also making it easier for families & veterans to negotiate the system once they’re outpatients. Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College , Jun 3, 2007 Comprehensive plan for our veterans healthcare Washington says that they support the troops. They give long speeches about valor and sacrifice. But when it comes time to sending our troops into battle with the proper equipment and ensure that veterans have what they need when they get home, they don’t do anything except slap a yellow ribbon on the back of their SUV. That’s how come our men and women have to use scrap metal to protect their Humvees. Our veterans end up living among mice and mold. They stare at stacks of paperwork. They thought they left the frontline in Iraq but they came home to a new frontline of red tape and bureaucracy. This is unacceptable. When our veterans come home, I don’t want them crawling around a dumpster for a meal or a box for shelter. I don’t want them drowning in whiskey to silence the PTSD. I don’t want that for our veterans. We know they deserve more. So let’s make a promise today--and say that, right here and right now, is when we begin to put together a comprehensive plan for our veterans. Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC , Mar 14, 2007 Barack Obama on Voting Record FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it Clinton took direct aim at Obama and connects fairly solidly: “You said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it.” Clinton is correct to say that Obama opposed the Patriot Act during his run for the Senate. She’s relying on a 2003 Illinois National Organization for Women questionnaire in which Obama wrote that he would vote to “repeal the Patriot Act” or replace it with a “new, carefully crafted proposal.” When it came time to reauthorize the law in 2005, though, Obama voted in favor of it. He started out opposing it: In Dec. 2005, Obama voted against ending debate--a position equivalent to declaring a lack of support for the measure. Then in February of that year, Obama said on the floor that he would support the Patriot Act’s reauthorization. In March 2006, Obama both voted for cloture and for the Patriot Act reauthorization conference report. Clinton, by the way, followed exactly the same path on the 2005 bill, from speaking in opposition to voting for it. Source: on 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic debate , Jan 5, 2008 Wrote law to secure & destroy world’s deadliest weapons I’ve worked with GOP Sen. Dick Lugar to pass a law that will secure and destroy some of the world’s deadliest, unguarded weapons. We can work together to track terrorists down with a stronger military, we can tighten the net around their finances, and w can improve our intelligence capabilities. But let us also understand that ultimate victory against our enemies will come only by rebuilding our alliances and exporting those ideals that bring hope and opportunity to millions around the globe. Source: Speech in Springfield, in Change We Can Believe In, p.199 , Feb 10, 2007 Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. Vote on passage of S.1927, the Protect America Act: Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to state that nothing under its definition of "electronic surveillance" should encompass surveillance directed at any person reasonably believed to be located outside the US. A modified version, S.2011, failed; it called for amending FISA to provide that a court order is not required for the electronic surveillance of communication between foreign persons who are not located within the US for collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the US or the surveillance device is located within the US. Opponents recommend voting NO because: Sen. LEVIN: Both bills cure the problem that exists: Our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities who are physically located in foreign countries. Now, what are the major differences? Our bill (S2011) is limited to foreign targets limited overseas, unlike the Bond bill (S1927), which does not have that key limitation and which very clearly applies to US citizens overseas. Our bill does not. Now, if there is an incidental access to US citizens, we obviously will permit that. But the Bond bill goes beyond that, citing "any person." It does not say a "foreign person." We avoid getting to the communications of Americans. There you have to go for a warrant. Proponents support voting YES because: Sen. LIEBERMAN: I will vote for the Bond proposal (S1927) because we are at war, & there is increased terrorist activity. We have a crisis. This proposal will allow us to gather intelligence information on that enemy we otherwise would not gather. This is not the time for striving for legislative perfection. Let us not strive for perfection. Let us put national security first. We are going to have 6 months to reason together to find something better. Reference: Protect America Act; Bill S.1927 ; vote number 2007-309 on Aug 3, 2007 Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. Vote on an amendment, SA2032, which amends HR1585, the Defense Authorization bill: To limit the deployment of a unit or individual of the Armed Forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom to no more than 12 consecutive months; and to limit Marine Corps deployment to no more than 7 consecutive months; except in time of national emergency. Proponents support voting YES because: Sen. HAGEL: The war in Iraq has pushed the US Army to the breaking point. When we deploy our military, we have an obligation to ensure that our troops are rested, ready, prepared, fully trained, and fully equipped. Today's Armed Forces are being deployed repeatedly for increasing periods of time. This is quickly wearing down the troops and their families, impacting the mental and physical health of our troops. Further, these deployments are affecting the recruiting and retention rates of the military. For example, the Army reached only a little over 80% of its recruiting goal for June. This is the second month in a row that the Army has failed to recruit the number of new soldiers needed to fill the ranks. And this is with $1 billion in large cash bonus incentives. Opponents recommend voting NO because: Sen. KYL: Time in theater and dwell times should be a goal, rather than an absolute fixed requirement that becomes the policy of the US military determined by congressional action. By mandating a certain policy for deployment time or dwell time, the Congress is engaged in the most explicit micromanaging of what is obviously a function for the Commander in Chief and military commanders to perform. This is not something Members of Congress are knowledgeable about or would have the ability to dictate in any responsible fashion. It also would be unconstitutional. Clearly, the dwell times of troops or the amount of time in theater is an obligation of the Commander in Chief, not something for the Congress to determine. Reference: Hagel Amendment to Defense Authorization Bill; Bill SA2032 to HR1585 ; vote number 2007-243 on Jul 11, 2007 Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. Vote on passage of a bill to implement unfinished recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) to fight the war on terror more effectively: I: Improving Intelligence and Information Sharing within the Federal Government and with State, Local, and Tribal Governments II: Homeland Security Grants III: Communications Operability and Interoperability IV: Emergency Management Performance Grants Program V: Enhancing Security of International Travel VI: Privacy and Civil Liberties Matters VII: Enhanced Defenses Against Weapons of Mass Destruction VIII: Private Sector Preparedness IX: Transportation Security Planning and Information Sharing X: Incident Command System XI: Critical Infrastructure Protection XII: Congressional Oversight of Intelligence XIII: International Cooperation on Antiterrorism Technologies XIV: Transportation and Interoperable Communication XV: Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention XVII: 911 Modernization XIX: Advancement of Democratic Values Opponents recommend voting NO because: One of the authors of the 9/11 Commission report said, the President's announced strategy should be given a chance to succeed. That is what I think we should do, give this plan a chance to succeed. Our troops in theater, our commanders, and the Iraqi leaders all believe they can see early signs of success in this program, even though it has just begun, and they are cautiously optimistic that it can succeed. I think it would be unconscionable for the Congress, seeing the beginnings of success here, to then act in any way that would pull the rug out from under our troops and make it impossible for them to achieve their mission. Reference: Improving America's Security Act; Bill S. 4 ; vote number 2007-073 on Mar 13, 2007 Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. Sen. Specter's amendment would strike the provision regarding habeas review. The underlying bill authorizes trial by military commission for violations of the law of war. Excerpts from the Senate floor debate: Sen. GRAHAM [recommending NO]: The fundamental question for the Senate to answer when it comes to determining enemy combatant status is, Who should make that determination? Should that be a military decision or should it be a judicial decision? That is something our military should do. Sen. SPECTER [recommending YES]: My amendment would retain the constitutional right of habeas corpus for people detained at Guantanamo. The right of habeas corpus was established in the Magna Carta in 1215 when, in England, there was action taken against King John to establish a procedure to prevent illegal detention. What the bill seeks to do is to set back basic rights by some 900 years. This amendment would strike that provision and make certain that the constitutional right of habeas corpus is maintained. GRAHAM: Do we really want enemy prisoners to bring every lawsuit known to man against the people fighting the war and protecting us? No enemy prisoner should have access to Federal courts--a noncitizen, enemy combatant terrorist--to bring a lawsuit against those fighting on our behalf. No judge should have the ability to make a decision that has been historically reserved to the military. That does not make us safer. SPECTER: The US Constitution states that "Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." We do not have either rebellion or invasion, so it is a little hard for me to see, as a basic principle of constitutional law, how the Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus. GRAHAM: If the Supreme Court does say in the next round of legal appeals there is a constitutional right to habeas corpus by those detained at Guantanamo Bay, then Sen. Specter is absolutely right. Reference: Specter Amendment; Bill S.AMDT.5087 to S.3930 ; vote number 2006-255 on Sep 28, 2006 Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. Amendment to provide for congressional oversight of certain Central Intelligence Agency programs. The underlying bill S. 3930 authorizes trial by military commission for violations of the law of war. The amendment requires quarterly reports describing all CIA detention facilities; the name of each detainee; their suspected activities; & each interrogation technique authorized for use and guidelines on the use of each such technique. Opponents recommend voting NO because: I question the need for a very lengthy, detailed report every 3 months. We will probably see those reports leaked to the press. This amendment would spread out for the world--and especially for al-Qaida and its related organizations--precisely what interrogation techniques are going to be used. If we lay out, in an unclassified version, a description of the techniques by the Attorney General, that description will be in al-Qaida and Hezbollah and all of the other terrorist organizations' playbook. They will train their assets that: This is what you must be expected to do, and Allah wants you to resist these techniques. We are passing this bill so that we can detain people. If we catch someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, we have no way to hold him, no way to ask him the questions and get the information we need, because the uncertainty has brought the program to a close. It is vitally important to our security, and unfortunately this amendment would imperil it. Reference: Rockefeller Amendment; Bill S.AMDT.5095 to S.3930 ; vote number 2006-256 on Sep 28, 2006 Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is: A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes. Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because: Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers. The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected. We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents. Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act. Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006 Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. Vote to invoke cloture on a conference report that extends the authority of the FBI to conduct "roving wiretaps" and access business records. Voting YES would recommend, in effect, that the PATRIOT Act be extended through December 31, 2009, and would makes the provisions of the PATRIOT Act permanent. Voting NO would extend debate further, which would have the effect of NOT extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. Reference: Motion for Cloture of PATRIOT Act; Bill HR 3199 ; vote number 2005-358 on Dec 16, 2005 Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. Vote to adopt an amendment that makes US businesses and their subsidiaries liable to prosecution for dealing with foreign businesses which have links to terrorism or whose parent country supports terrorism. Voting YES would: Empower the President under the Trading with the Enemy Act to prohibit US businesses and their subsidiaries from transacting with foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism. Forbid US businesses and their subsidiaries from engaging in transactions with any foreign business whose parent country has been identified as a supporter of international terrorism. Require the President to publish a list of foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism, and bans US ownership or control of foreign businesses engaged in transactions with such businesses. Call for US businesses to disclose in their annual reports any ownership stake of at least 10% in a foreign business that is itself engaging in transactions with a proscribed foreign business. Reference: Stop Business with Terrorists Act of 2005; Bill S AMDT 1351 to S 1042 ; vote number 2005-203 on Jul 26, 2005 Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. Amendment intended to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents. Reference: State Homeland Security Grant Program Amendment; Bill S AMDT 220 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-64 on Mar 17, 2005 Sponsored bill for Iraq budget to be part of defense budget. Obama introduced requiring Iraq War budget be part of regular defense budget Explanation: Since the start of both the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war, expenditures for those war have been voted for in "emergency supplemental spending bills," instead of in the normal defense spending bill. That implies that the expenditures are unexpectedly high, which may have been true in the early years of the war. This amendment requires regular budgeting for the Afghanistan & Iraq wars. OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require regular budgeting for ongoing military operations. EXCERPTS OF BILL: The President's budget for each fiscal year after 2007 shall include-- a request for funds for such fiscal year for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq; an estimate of all funds expected to be required in that fiscal year for such operations; and a detailed justification of the funds requested. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote, 98-0, Vote Number: 170. Source: Defense Authorization Bill (S.AMDT.4242 to S.2766) 06-SP4242 on Jun 14, 2006 Improve mental health care benefits for returning veterans. Obama co-sponsored improving mental health care benefits for returning veterans Honoring Our Nation's Obligation to Returning Warriors Act (HONOR Warriors Act): House version is H.R.6268; Senate versions are S.2963 and S.3008. Legislative Summary: To improve and enhance the mental health care benefits available to members of the Armed Forces and veterans, to enhance counseling and other benefits available to survivors of members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and for other purposes. Scholarship program for education and training of behavioral health care specialists for vet centers. Eligibility of members of the armed forces who serve in operation Iraqi freedom or operation enduring freedom for counseling and services through vets centers. Restoration of authority of vets centers to provide referral and other assistance upon request to former members of the armed forces not authorized counseling. Treatment of suicides of certain former members of the armed forces as deaths in line of duty for purposes of eligibility of survivors for certain benefits. Grants for non-profit organizations for the provision of emotional support services to survivors of members of the armed forces and veterans. Pilot programs on awareness enhancement for members of the army regarding post traumatic stress disorder. Source: HONOR Warriors Act (H.R.6268) 08-H6268 on Jun 12, 2008 Study & address suicides among veterans. Obama co-sponsored studying & addressing suicides among veterans Veterans Suicide Study Act - Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs conduct a study to determine the number of veterans who have committed suicide between January 1, 1997, and the date of the enactment of this Act. Congress makes the following findings: Suicide among the veteran population is a serious problem. There is lack of information on the number of veterans who commit suicide each year. Study Required- The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall conduct a study to determine the number of veterans who have committed suicide between January 1, 1997 and the date of the enactment of this Act. Coordination- In carrying out the study, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall coordinate with the Secretary of Defense; Veterans Service Organizations; and States' public health offices and veterans agencies. Report to Congress- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to Congress a report on the study and the findings of the Secretary. Source: Veterans Suicide Study Act (S.2899/H.R.4204) 08-S2899 on Apr 22, 2008 Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror. Obama co-sponsored restoring habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror A bill to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sen. SPECTER. "I introduce this legislation, denominated the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act. Last year, in the Military Commissions Act, the constitutional right of habeas corpus was attempted to be abrogated. I say "attempted to be abrogated" because, in my legal judgment, that provision in the Act is unconstitutional. "It is hard to see how there can be legislation to eliminate the constitutional right to habeas corpus when the Constitution is explicit that habeas corpus may not be suspended except in time of invasion or rebellion, and we do not have either of those circumstances present, as was conceded by the advocates of the legislation last year to take away the right of habeas corpus. "We have had Supreme Court decisions which have made it plain that habeas corpus is available to non-citizens and that habeas corpus applies to territory controlled by the US, specifically, including Guantanamo. More recently, however, we had a decision in the US District Court applying the habeas corpus jurisdiction stripping provision of the Military Commissions Act, but I believe we will see the appellate courts strike down this legislative provision. "The New York Times had an extensive article on this subject, starting on the front page, last Sunday, and continuing on a full page on the back page about what is happening at Guantanamo. It is hard to see how in America, or in a jurisdiction controlled by the United States, these proceedings could substitute for even rudimentary due process of law." Source: Habeas Corpus Restoration Act (S.185/H.R.2826) 2007-S185 on Jun 22, 2007 Paperback: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney On The Issues Establish global strategy to defeat al Qaeda. Obama co-sponsored establishing global strategy to defeat al Qaeda A bill to require a report setting forth the global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. Directs the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security to jointly submit to Congress a report setting forth U.S. global strategy to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. Source: S.2634 2008-S2634 on Feb 13, 2008 Click here for definitions & background information on Homeland Security. Click here for policy papers on Homeland Security. Click here for a profile of Barack Obama. Click here for Barack Obama on all the issues. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Barack Obama. Click here for AmericansElect responses by Barack Obama. Other candidates on Homeland Security: Barack Obama on other issues: Incumbents: Pres.Barack Obama V.P.Joe Biden GOP Candidates: Gov.Mitt Romney(MA) Rep.Paul Ryan(WI) Third Party Candidates: Mayor Rocky Anderson(J) Roseanne Barr(PF) Rep.Virgil Goode(C) Gov.Gary Johnson(L) Jill Stein(G) Andre Barnett(Ref.) GOP Withdrawals: Rep.Michele Bachmann(MN) Herman Cain(GA) Rep.Newt Gingrich(GA) Gov.Sarah Palin(AK) Rep.Ron Paul(TX) Gov.Tim Pawlenty(MN) Gov.Rick Perry(TX) Gov.Buddy Roemer(LA) Sen.Rick Santorum(PA) Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty Page last updated: Jan 22, 2013