French President Nicolas Sarkozy is very critical of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama's positions on Iran, according to reports that have reached Israel's government. Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content."
Obama visited Paris in July, and the Iranian issue was at the heart of his meeting with Sarkozy. At a joint press conference afterward, Obama urged Iran to accept the West's proposal on its nuclear program, saying that Iran was creating a serious situation that endangered both Israel and the West. According to the reports reaching Israel, Sarkozy told Obama at that meeting that if the new American president elected in November changed his country's policy toward Iran, that would be "very problematic."
Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.
Following their July meeting, Sarkozy repeatedly expressed disappointment with Obama's positions on Iran, concluding that they were "not crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open," the Israeli source said. Advisors to the French president who held separate meetings with Obama's advisors came away with similar impressions and expressed similar disappointment. According to the Israeli source, Sarkozy plans to begin intensive negotiations with the new American administration, regardless of whether it is headed by Obama or Republican Sen. John McCain, even before the new president takes office in January, with the goal of persuading him to continue the current policy on Iran.
But Sarkozy's pessimism does not stem only from Obama's stance; it also stems from the overall behavior of the international community toward Iran's nuclear program, and particularly its inability to agree on a fourth round of Security Council sanctions against the Islamic Republic. This foot-dragging will make it impossible to effect a change in Iran's nuclear policy, Sarkozy believes. The French intelligence community believes that Iran has already obtained about 40 percent of the enriched uranium it would need for its first bomb, and that at its current rate, it will obtain the rest of the uranium it needs in the spring or summer of 2009.
However, French agencies are divided over what Iran is likely to do once it has this uranium. One view is that the Iranians will immediately make a nuclear bomb, in order to demonstrate their capability. The other is that Iran will continue enriching uranium without making a bomb - at least until it has enough enriched uranium for several bombs.
#1
I enjoy pointing out to Europe that despite their oozing love for Obama, if he becomes POTUS, Europe and all the other allies of the US are totally screwed.
Though it would be funny as hell to see the European governments drafting all adults and issuing them pointy sticks to defend to the death their worthless governments.
#5
Crisis, economic or otherwise, tend to focus the mind. That focus is only starting to happen in this country. Sadly, I don't think it is going to happen quickly enough to stop Obambi's election, but it will certainly happen during his presidency. America is about to take a big bite of a shit sandwich that is disguised as the classic American burger. They are not going to enjoy the taste when it actually hits their taste buds.
Ruling takes a first step in resolving the fate of terrorism suspects held without charge at Guantanamo Bay
Reporting from Washington -- Al Qaeda or Taliban supporters who directly assisted in hostile acts against the United States or its allies can be held without charge as enemy combatants, a federal judge ruled Monday. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon takes a first step toward resolving the fate of some of the hundreds of men detained as terrorism suspects -- many without charges for years -- at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It also strikes a compromise between dueling definitions by the government and the detainees over who can be labeled an enemy combatant.
Lawyers for six detainees, all Bosnians, said Monday's ruling limited the government's ability to hold suspects who were not captured on a battlefield. They called it a favorable opinion.
Similarly, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said the government was pleased with Leon's ruling, which relies on the Defense Department's 2004 definition of an enemy combatant.
One of the Bosnians involved in the hearing, Lakhdar Boumediene, won a landmark case in front of the Supreme Court last summer giving detainees the right to challenge their detention in federal court. But first, lower courts were to define the term "enemy combatant" and decide who would qualify as one.
In Monday's order, Leon reached back to the Pentagon's September 2004 definition. "Happily, happily, there is a definition that was crafted by the executive and blessed by the Congress," Leon said.
Wow, a judge who defers to the executive and to the Congress, and interprets law rather than makes his own. He won't last long if The One wins the election ...
He pointed to the 2004 standard, defining an enemy combatant as an individual who was part of supporting Al Qaeda, Taliban or other associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners. The definition includes anyone who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy forces.
That's a pretty good definition, and it should apply to more than just two dozen detainees ...
With the definition in hand, both sides headed into what Leon described as a secret hearing to discuss the evidence against the Bosnians, much of which is classified and cannot be discussed in open court -- or even with the detainees themselves.
The government initially detained Boumediene and the other five men on suspicion of plotting to bomb the U.S. Embassy in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo in October 2001. The Justice Department backed away from those accusations last week.
Leon's definition only applies to the estimated two dozen cases under his jurisdiction. The rest are being reviewed by a different judge, who could set his own definition.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/28/2008 10:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
why have one judge rule on it then have another judge rule in a separate case on the same Question? The definition is pretty clear.
Posted by: chris ||
10/28/2008 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
Islamabad, Oct 28 (PTI) President Asif Ali Zardari has ruled out any cut in Pakistan's defence budget in the face of a reported demand by the IMF for military spending to be slashed by 30 per cent in order for the country to avail of aid to tide over its economic crisis.
"It is neither the subject of the International Monetary Fund nor on its agenda," Zardari said.
Reports have suggested that the IMF wants Pakistan's defence budget to be cut by 30 per cent over the next four years if the country avails of emergency aid to tackle a financial crunch. Pakistan is currently in negotiations with the IMF for funding.
However, Zardari told The News daily that there would be no cut in the defence budget.
Observers believe any pressure from world bodies like the IMF for a cut in Pakistan's defence spending could lead to strains between the powerful military and the civilian government led by Zardari's Pakistan People's Party.
Replying to a question about his expectations on funding from foreign sources and countries in this difficult juncture, Zardari said Pakistan is making concerted efforts to stand on its own feet and not go around asking for charity.
"I intend to take all help from the family of democratic countries as in the new world there is no country which is dependent on its own, but all of them are inter-dependent," he said, adding that he could cooperate with other countries in seeking strategic support.
Posted by: john frum ||
10/28/2008 08:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/28/2008 10:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Silly Syrian boys. It's time for Syria to take its hurt little ego and go home. They say what two blackhawks can do. It would be a bad day to see a company of Apaches crossing the border into Syria. It's best for them to just complain to the corrupt UN and be done with it.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
10/28/2008 10:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Why do I not feel the least bit sorry for them, even though it seems that we may have done what they claim?
I guess criminals are technically civilians. But the era of using borders on a map as safe refuge to commit terrorist and criminal acts seems to be over.
It doesn't work for the PKK any more, it doesn't work for the Pakis, and now it doesn't work for the Syrians. Take a lesson and commit crimes in your own country.
#3
Lots of precedent in the Mexican border conflicts with Pancho Villa. Mexican criminals raided into the US and retreated to safe haven in Mexico, where our troops were forbidden to pursue. Eventually an agreement was reached with the Mexican (quasi-) government and Pershing mounted sanctioned anti-Villa efforts within northern Mexico. But he was forbidden to shoot at Mexican government soldiers - so whenever he got close to Villa he would find Mexican soldiers in the way.
(AKI) - Syria's Foreign Minister, Walid Muallem, on Monday accused the United States of "terrorist aggression" over an alleged weekend raid on a village near the Iraqi border. Speaking in London after talks with British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, Muallem said the attack was in breach of international law.
"We consider this criminal and terrorist aggression. We put the responsibility on the American government," he told a media conference in London. "Killing civilians in international law means a terrorist aggression," he added, in the first comments by a Syrian minister since the reported attack on the village of Al-Sukkariya, eight kilometres from the border.
Earlier on Monday, Iran joined Syria in condemning the alleged US attack.
Asked if Syria would use force if the Americans mounted a similar operation again, he said: "As long as you are saying if, I tell you, if they do it again, we will defend our territories."
Muallem stressed that all the victims were unarmed Syrian civilians who were killed on Syrian territory.
The Syrian minister said that four American helicopters had crossed the border around 5 p.m/ on Sunday local time. Two of them landed at the village site, while the other two aircraft protected them.
In Washington, White House spokeswoman, Dana M. Perino, refused to comment on the reported attack. However, media reports say that an unnamed US military official confirmed the attack.
In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hassan Qashqavi, condemned the attack, saying a violation of the territorial integrity of any sovereign state was unacceptable.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/28/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
Terrorist aggression on our part about 4 years late, Wally. We should have been more aggressive with terrorists, all right.
Like the Russians say, "tough schitskis." Learn to live with it.
Posted by: Alaska Paul in Juneau, AK ||
10/28/2008 0:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Terrorist - I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/28/2008 5:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Are we getting in our "last licks" now before possible change of policy come Jan? It seems we're more aggressive lately inside of Pak and now Syr.. After all, they could always blame it on lame duck, Bush..
Posted by: Tom- Pa ||
10/28/2008 6:24 Comments ||
Top||
Lebanon's Shiite Hezbollah chief Sayed Hassan Nasrallah has met his main political foe, Sunni majority leader Saad al-Hariri, for the first time since the war with Israel in 2006, a statement said on Monday. "There was an affirmation of national unity and civil peace and the need to take all measures to prevent tension ... and to reinforce dialogue and to avoid strife regardless of political differences," a statement issued by both sides said.
Hezbollah's al Manar television aired footage of the meeting which was attended by aides to both leaders. The statement also said that Nasrallah and Hariri would be in "mutual contact".
Sunday's meeting came ahead of a national dialogue session next week set to address issues dividing pro- and anti-Syrian factions, notably the fate of Hezbollah's arsenal.
Statements from Hariri's office and Hezbollah said the meeting stressed the importance of "national unity and civil peace to prevent tensions and reinforce dialogue." They said both sides underlined the importance of maintaining cooperation and described the tone of the meeting as "open and frank."
The Hariri aide said the meeting was held at a secret location for security reasons.
Positive meeting
Hezbollah MP Hassan Hoballah, whose party is backed by Syria and Iran, told AFP that the meeting was "very positive, which helps strengthen national unity and lay the foundations for agreement.
"It promotes a positive climate for legislative elections in (spring) 2009," he added.
A debilitating 18-month long political crisis between Hariri's Western-backed parliamentary majority and the Hezbollah-led opposition took a dangerous turn in May when the Shiite militant group staged a spectacular takeover of mainly Sunni west Beirut. The fighting, which brought the country to the brink of another civil war, left at least 68 people dead.
It ended after a Qatari-brokered accord that led to the formation of a national unity government in which the Hezbollah-headed opposition has a power of veto over major decisions.
The statement said Hariri and Nasrallah were also committed to implementing the Qatari-mediated deal which had called for "national dialogue" talks, the first of which were held last month. The next session is due on Nov. 5.
Central to the dialogue is a discussion on the fate of Hezbollah's weapons. Demands for the disarmament of the Syrian- and Iranian- backed Hezbollah are at the heart of more than three years of political turbulence in Lebanon since the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.
Saad al-Hariri, his father's political heir, has insisted that the issue of Hezbollah's weapons be discussed. Hezbollah says it needs its weapons to defend Lebanon from Israel. The group stood its ground in the 34-day war with Israel in 2006.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/28/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
The Cairo-based Arab League (AL) has strongly denounced a US air strike inside Syria that killed nine Syrian civilians and wounded 14. "Such a violation undermines the efforts to establish regional security and may lead to more tensions in the region," the Arab League said in a statement on Monday.
The statement also noted that the US raid spoils the credibility of peace efforts in Iraq and neighboring countries.
Confirming its solidarity with Damascus, the Arab organization voiced its support for Syria to protect its people and sovereignty. It also called for an investigation to "hold those responsible into account."
US commandoes in four helicopters on Sunday attacked the Syrian village of al-Sukkariya at about 5:45 pm (1445 GMT), some eight kilometers from the Iraqi border killing nine civilians and wounding 14 others.
Damascus officials have been aiming indignant remarks at Washington in succession after the reported incident with the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem saying, "We consider this a criminal and terrorist aggression".
Meanwhile AP quoted from an unnamed US military official as claiming that the US raid targeted a network of al-Qaeda-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/28/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
Syria yesterday condemned the US for launching "criminal and terrorist aggression" on its soil while the Iraqi government defended action against foreign jihadis amid warnings it might complicate plans for a controversial security agreement between Baghdad and Washington.
Walid al-Muallem, Syria's foreign minister, used a visit to London to lambast the US for its "cowboy politics" and hinted that Sunday's raid was designed to halt Syria's gradually improving relations with the EU and Britain. Iran and Russia also condemned the US for aggravating tensions in the region.
Syria reported that US troops, backed by helicopters, launched the attack five miles into its territory, killing eight people, including four children.
Still no word on the number of fluffy bunnies ...
But at the funerals of the victims, where angry crowds chanted anti-American slogans, an Associated Press photographer said he saw the bodies of seven men. Iraqi media were last night reporting that US sources were claiming to have killed the leader of a border-smuggling network.
The US again refused to comment publicly on the attack, despite clear hints from officials in Washington that special forces had indeed targeted al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters moving into Iraq. If confirmed, it would be the first such US strike inside Syria since the 2003 invasion. Muallem, in the first public comments by the Damascus government, warned that if such an attack recurred, Syria would defend its territory. "The Americans know full well that we stand against al-Qaida," he said. "They know full well we are trying to tighten our border with Iraq."
They've been trying for five years now and haven't quite seemed to get the hang of it ...
Muallem had been due to hold a press conference with David Miliband, the foreign secretary, but the event was cancelled by mutual agreement, apparently because Miliband did not want to be questioned about the raid.
Why not? It's not like he had anything to do with it.
Miliband said Britain was concerned about the growth of al-Qaida groups and insurgent networks developing along the Syria-Iraq border. British officials claimed Muallem did not deny the seriousness of the problem and the need for better cooperation with Iraq, but gave no firm commitments. In Baghdad, the Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, appeared to support the US by calling the area of the attack "a staging ground for activities by terrorist organisations hostile to Iraq". He added the US operation "was targeting smugglers who transferred people to Iraq".
The US has steadily been ceding control of the Iraqi armed forces to the Maliki government and has transferred security responsibility for 12 of the country's 18 provinces. But the US still controls Iraqi air space and runs military operations where and when it chooses. "We have been in meetings all day about this," said an Iraqi defence official. "This is not something we can control or respond to."
But Brigadier Fadel al-Sultani, now responsible for security in the Hilla region - which takes in part of the restive Anbar province that stretches towards the Syrian border - told the Guardian the province was no longer a haven for insurgents using the Iraqi border town of Qaim, close to where Sunday's attack took place, as a staging point. "We can say with certainty that al-Qaida are 95 per cent defeated," said Sultani. "They have gone. Five per cent are out there and are robust. We retain a strong interest in them and so do the Americans. They were with us this morning discussing an offensive."
The attack in Syria also provoked new concerns about the agreement extending the legal basis for American forces in Iraq after a UN mandate expires in December, with a prominent Kurdish politician, Mahmoud Othman, claiming the raid was carried out without the Iraqi government's knowledge.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/28/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Bush would undo a fair amount of the good he's done if this were to come to pass.
Several American media outlets reported on Saturday that President George Bush is likely to announce after next month's presidential elections that he intends to restore the diplomatic relations with Iran, almost 30 years after they were suspended.
Not bloody likely ...
Quoting U.S. civil servants, the reports said that Bush's decision to postpone the announcement until after the elections was meant to rid the two presidential candidates of having to deal with the controversial move.
In the first stage, the American administration allegedly seeks to appoint a low-level diplomatic delegation, and has already started the recruitment process.
Tehran has already been informed of the initiative, but its view on the matter remains unclear. Similar reports were published a few months ago, but the plan was then put on hold. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said Tehran would favorably consider such proposal, as long as it was to be carried out bilaterally.
U.S. sources said the purpose of the diplomatic effort is to better communicate American messages to the Iranian people, which are largely hostile to the U.S. They said that it does not signal a conciliatory approach to the Iranian regime or any change of policy vis-à-vis the contentious issues that are on the table, namely Iran's nuclear program.
The United States severed its diplomatic ties with Iran in 1979, in the wake of the Islamic revolution that ousted the Shah and brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. A group of Iranian students, supported by the Islamists, took over the American embassy and held its workers hostage for over a year.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/28/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah. Just what we need. Another embassy to get taken over, and staff to become hostages. It is stupid. I would not be surprised if it happens.
Posted by: Alaska Paul in Juneau, AK ||
10/28/2008 0:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's kind of obvious that Bush wants McCain to lose.
#3
"In the first stage, the American administration allegedly seeks to appoint a low-level diplomatic delegation, and has already started the recruitment process."
Just send Jimmy Carter over .. He's as low level as anyone could get
#8
I almost wonder if Bush is trying to "throw" this election. But think about it, we all know how bad a President Jimmy Carter was and Obama looks to be as bad if not far worse. After Carter we had 12 years of Republican control. Throw the game for some long term agenda? Besides, it's not like McCain is a real Republican anyways? Wishful thinking I am sure, but I need something to give me hope this election season.
#9
Well, I heard from some US civil servants that I know(I won't name them) that Bush intends to bomb Iran on Wednesday at 3:45 pm the day after the election. In fact several media outlets have reported it (I won't name them). Some bureaucrats have been heard to make comments to that effect. Because it is thus written, it MUST be true!
#13
It's not really "diplomatic relations"; it wouldn't be a full-blown diplomatic mission. If it happens, the personnel would likely be attached as an 'interest desk' to another embasssy, such as the Swiss.
#14
Could be that W is setting up Iran to do Obambi's first "test". Yep, redo all of Jimmuh's mistakes in about 6 months then the US will understand how clueless the media kept the masses about Obambi. But maybe I hope too much.
#16
I am the meanest SOB in the valley, and ONLY I get it right here. W is a faith based under thinker, whose alcoholism fried his intellectual capacity. He has been a lousy President because his crippled brain inhibited him from identifying the enemies who should have been killed since 9-11. There has not been enough killing; I would like to see more.
Iran needs to look like the Moon. If the sheep elect a President who can't see that, then the righteous need to rule from below. We need to destroy all the Smart Bombs and dust off the nukes. If you don't get it, then smack yourselves in the head. That is an order, and you are conscripted as soldiers to the necessary slaughter.
This is the latest report from the Harmony Project at West Point's Combating Terrorism Center. The project releases and analyzes previously classified documents re: Al Qaida's inner workings. Source documents linked at the site.
Chapter 1 looks at foreign fighters in Afghanistan during the 80s to provide perspective on Al Qaida in Iraq. Chapter 4 looks at Syria and smuggling. The rest of this report looks at finances, the demographics of suicide bombers and internal management issues within Al Qaida's network.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Ruling takes a first step in resolving the fate of terrorism suspects held without charge at Guantanamo Bay
