Monday, July 14, 2014


News Clips For The Day


Israel says it downed drone fired from Gaza
CBS/AP July 14, 2014

JERUSALEM -- Israel's military said it downed a drone along its southern coastline on Monday, the first time it encountered such a weapon since its campaign against the Gaza Strip militants began last week.

The drone came from Gaza and was shot down near the southern city of Ashdod, the military said. It did not say what the drone was carrying.

Hamas tweeted Monday that it had "deployed a number of pilotless drones into Israel," claiming they had "carried out specific reconnaissance missions" over the War Ministry in Tel Aviv.

Israeli TV was reporting there could have been at least a second drone launched toward the Jewish state.

Since the latest bout of fighting began last Tuesday, militants have fired nearly 1,000 rockets at Israel, causing some injuries and damage to property, but no fatalities among Israelis.

Israel began airstrikes Tuesday against militants in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip in what it says was a response to heavy rocket fire out of the densely populated territory. The military says it has launched more than 1,300 airstrikes since then.

The Israeli military said it hit a weapons storage facility late Sunday night, and targeted 12 Palestinian militants over the last 24 hours, reports CBS News' Holly Williams, but at the al-Sharif Hospital in Gaza on Monday morning, CBS News found not militants, but two brothers -- four-year-old Hamada and two-year-old Hamadan.

They were injured when an airstrike hit their neighbor's house.

Their father, Mohammed, told CBS News the Israeli military telephoned the neighbor to warn them to evacuate, but they only had three minutes and didn't make it out in time.

"I wish it were me lying here wounded, not my boys," the father said.

Officials here said more than 170 people have been killed since Israel's offensive began, many of them civilians.

Thousands of Palestinians have fled northern Gaza, taking refuge in school buildings run by the United Nations.

Though there have been no Israeli fatalities, several people have been wounded, including a teenage boy who was seriously injured by rocket shrapnel on Sunday.

The Israeli military said Monday's drone was launched from Gaza and was shot down in mid-flight by a Patriot surface-to-air missile near Ashdod.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that the current Israeli operation could last for "a long time" and that the military was prepared "for all possibilities." That includes a wide-ranging Gaza ground operation, which would likely cause heavy casualties in the coastal strip. Thousands of Israeli troops have massed along the border in recent days.

The fighting showed no signs of slowing, despite international calls for a cease-fire and growing concerns about the mounting civilian death toll in Gaza.

Netanyahu, in particular, is coming under increasing international pressure to end the Israeli operation soon.

On Sunday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for an immediate cease-fire while U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry voiced American "readiness" to help restore calm. Egypt, a key mediator between Israel and Hamas, continued to work behind the scenes to stop the conflict.

Hamas has sent signals it may be ready to consider a cease-fire but appears to be waiting for some tangible military or diplomatic achievement before moving ahead on that front. For his part, Netanyahu wants to show the Israeli public that he has succeeded in significantly degrading Hamas's ability to strike at its Israeli targets before moving ahead diplomatically.

Israel says its punishing air assault on Hamas militants, their property and their weaponry has delivered a devastating blow to the Islamic militant group. Yet rocket fire at Israel has continued almost unabated.

The military says that, due to years of generous Iranian shipments, thousands of rockets remain in Gaza, and there is no quick way to eliminate the threat.

It says its goal is to inflict so much pain on Hamas that it will be deterred from attacking Israel again -- just like Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon have largely remained on the sidelines for the past eight years.

The military also says it wants to punish Hamas for the violence. But both goals are hard to quantify in the short term. A similar offensive in November 2012 was also deemed a military success, though it left Israel vulnerable to rocket fire. Israel also launched a large offensive in late 2008 that delivered a tenuous cease-fire.

"There is no knockout, it is more complicated," said a senior military official involved in the fighting, who spoke on condition of anonymity under military guidelines. But, he added, "if there is a map of pain that the enemy sees, it will have to think about things."

The rocket threat has been in the making for well over a decade. In the early 2000s, Hamas began firing rudimentary, homegrown rockets that were inaccurate, flew short distances and carried a tiny payload.

Today, the army says the group has an arsenal of some 10,000 rockets, including longer-range, foreign-made weapons capable of reaching virtually anywhere in Israel. The current round of fighting has seen air-raid sirens sound in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, Israel's three-largest cities.




“Today, the army says the group has an arsenal of some 10,000 rockets, including longer-range, foreign-made weapons capable of reaching virtually anywhere in Israel. The current round of fighting has seen air-raid sirens sound in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, Israel's three-largest cities.” I wonder where Hamas got these modern foreign-made rockets – Russia? Iran? Palestine looks like a very poor country, but they do have weapons. Their only goal seems to be to drive Israel from the area, which simply isn't going to happen. Both sides are said to be waiting until they achieve a significant achievement against the other before they go into peace talks. Meanwhile, the US announces that it is “ready” to aid in that process. It's one more sad day in the conflict. Meanwhile people are leaving their homes trying to reach safety. I wonder why they don't see that this is no way to live. They're blinded by hatred to all other considerations. Depressing.







GOP to Obama: It'll take more than money to fix immigration problems
By REBECCA KAPLAN CBS NEWS July 14, 2014

As Congress reconvenes this week focused on dealing with President Obama's $3.7 billion request to handle the influx of unaccompanied children streaming across the U.S.-Mexico border, Republican lawmakers are already signaling they have big changes they want to make.

"Our view I think as House Republicans, is, look, we're not going to write a blank check for $4 billion," said Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said on "Fox News Sunday" echoing comments from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, last week.

McCaul was one of several key Republicans who have indicated they are more interested in targeted spending as well as changes to existing laws that will speed up the process of removing the children from the United States and deterring them from entering in the first place.

"It's going to be a more targeted approach, probably through the end of the fiscal year, but also on the policy side," added McCaul, who is serving on a group of Republican lawmakers tasked with developing responses to the crisis.

McCaul suggested changes to the 2008 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which passed with strong bipartisan support, to protect minors but also prevents U.S. authorities from quickly deporting children from countries that do not share a border with the United States. Instead, these children are taken into U.S. custody and have the opportunity to appear before an immigration judge and are supposed to be handled according to their best interests.

There appears to be widespread support among Republicans for amending that law in order to speed up deportations of Central American children, who are primarily coming from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

"They're caught in the middle between the administration's policies and what the drug traffickers are doing in Central America. So, they have this perilous dangerous journey through Mexico where they're exploited, abused, raped, and in some cases don't make it at all. We think if we change this law as a message of deterrence, we can actually protect and save these children," McCaul said.

Democratic leaders in the Senate have indicated changes to the 2008 law might be negotiable as long as the children's rights are being protected. But they would face steep resistance from Hispanic members of their party.

"The fact is, the children are handing themselves over to the Border Patrol Agents, and under our laws, they must be treated," Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., said on CBS News "Face the Nation" Sunday.

"There's American Exceptionalism, right? I believe in it, and I say we are the strongest, wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world and children are coming into our borders and we should protect them. Now I will say this, follow the law, and the law said that we must put the children's interests first, which is what President Barack Obama is doing."

He stressed that the law passed during "calmer times, [with] right, levelheaded people thinking about the issue."

Others, including Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., have pledged to "fight tooth and nail" against any changes to the law.

But if Republicans were to prevail and Mr. Obama went along with the changes, he would risk the wrath of some prominent Latino advocacy groups who are already angry with him for record levels of deportations during his presidency.

"The United States has been historically a nation that has led efforts on refugee and humanitarian crises, so we expect no less than the same response. Why should children from Central America be treated differently?" said Cristina Jimenez, the co-founder and managing director of United We Dream, a group that advocates for young immigrants.

Jimenez said the Latino community has lost faith in both the White House and Democrats over the failure to slow the deportation rate and will be watching how they confront Republicans during the crisis with the 2014 midterm and 2016 presidential elections in mind.

"This is actually a big opportunity for President Obama to lead, to do the right thing, to be grounded in American values," she said. "I think that's the message that we're sending to Democrats right now. We need them to stand up if they want to regain the confidence of the Latino community."

For their part, despite an effort by GOP leaders to woo Latino voters, the party has struggled to gain much ground when it comes to immigration issues, and advocates say they have been disappointed yet again by the GOP's response.

"I think what's ironic is that it was a law that came about under a Republican administration," Juanita Molina, the executive director of the Border Action Network, told CBS News. "It says something about the Republican Party that they're willing to go back on the law."

Republicans are also taking issue with the percentage of funding in the president's request related to housing the children: $1.8 billion alone would go to the Department of Health and Human Services which is responsible for housing the children once they are transferred out of Customs and Border Patrol custody.

"That, I think, is what the American people don't like to see, because they know that that is not deterrence. And that will result in even more people coming into the country," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said on ABC's "This Week."

He and other Republicans, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry, say the president needs to take more steps to deter children from crossing in the first place, including beefed up security along the U.S. border. Goodlatte said targeted appropriations should be used "to make sure that we are able to detain people and send them back to their countries."

McCaul suggested that instead of building facilities to house the children in the U.S., Congress should consider building those facilities in the countries of origin in Central America. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., suggested in an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" that the U.S. consider increasing resources at embassies and consulates in Central America so children with valid humanitarian claims can apply there and be brought to the U.S. in a manner far safer than the current journey up through Mexico.

"The fact is that we cannot have an unending stream of children, whether it be from Central America or anyplace else, to come into our country, with all of the strains and pressures that is put on our capabilities. It's not acceptable," McCain said.

Decision time will likely come in the near future. McCaul said the crisis "demands action" and said he expected Congress to act before lawmakers leave town for a five-week recess in August.




Republicans are looking for changes to the 2008 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act which in its current form is preventing the US from sending the children immediately back to their homelands. “Democratic leaders in the Senate have indicated changes to the 2008 law might be negotiable as long as the children's rights are being protected. But they would face steep resistance from Hispanic members of their party.... Others, including Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., have pledged to "fight tooth and nail" against any changes to the law.

“McCaul suggested that instead of building facilities to house the children in the U.S., Congress should consider building those facilities in the countries of origin in Central America. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., suggested in an interview on CNN's "State of the Union" that the U.S. consider increasing resources at embassies and consulates in Central America so children with valid humanitarian claims can apply there and be brought to the U.S. in a manner far safer than the current journey up through Mexico. 'The fact is that we cannot have an unending stream of children, whether it be from Central America or anyplace else, to come into our country, with all of the strains and pressures that is put on our capabilities. It's not acceptable,' McCain said.”

I have to agree with Sen. McCain, not because it is “unacceptable,” but because it is unsustainable. I't a poor plan that is doomed to fail, and sooner rather than later. I think McCaul's idea of doing something to intervene in the countries of origin is as important as stopping illegal immigrants at the border. The parents are sending their children up to protect them from gang wars and simple street crime like rape and murder. Their governments need to put out a much greater effort to stop the flow of people, both by intervening locally when people try to leave and working on societal issues.

One TV news report this week was about a particular city where people who want to hook up with a coyote go to meet them, and it's well known across the nation for that activity. People who want to send their children north go there and pay the coyotes to make a deal. Their governments should bring soldiers if necessary to arrest those coyotes and put them in prison for as many years as possible. Without the coyotes most of these children wouldn't make it to the US border. And then, of course, there is the problem of violent crime and, undoubtedly, deep poverty. Perhaps the US could help those governments to resolve their economic and social problems.





Could cataract surgery slow decline from Alzheimer's? – CBS
By ROBERT PREID THEALTHDAY July 14, 2014

Along with improving vision, cataract surgery may slow mental decline in people with Alzheimer's disease and other types of dementia, a new study suggests.

Better eyesight also improves their quality of life, the researchers said.

"These preliminary results indicate that improved vision can have a variety of benefits for people with dementia and their loved ones, both visual and non-visual," said Dr. Alan Lerner, of Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Case Medical Center, in Ohio.

Cataract surgery involves removing the eye's cloudy natural lens and replacing it with a clear artificial lens.

The study included 20 dementia patients who had cataract surgery and a control group of eight patients who did not have the procedure.

Six months after the surgery, the patients in the surgery group had significantly improved vision and quality of life, slower decline in memory and thinking, and greater improvements in behavior than those in the control group, the researchers found.

Improved quality of life was also reported by caregivers of the patients who had cataract surgery, according to the study. The report was scheduled for presentation Sunday at the Alzheimer's Association's annual meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark.

"Our findings need to be verified in a larger study, but they suggest the need to aggressively address dementia co-morbidities such as vision-impairing cataracts, while balancing safety and medical risks," Lerner added in an association news release.

"If the results hold up, it will significantly affect how we treat cataracts in individuals with dementia. Other interventions to offset sensory loss -- including vision and hearing -- may help improve quality of life for people with dementia and their caregivers," Lerner said.

An Alzheimer's Association spokeswoman said the study supports the organization's view that people with dementia benefit from full healthcare treatment.

"Too-common attitudes such as, 'There's no need for extra care' or 'Why put them through all of that,' are not justified and are bad medical practice," said Maria Carrillo, the association's vice president of medical and scientific relations.

"Appropriate thoughtfulness and restraint are necessary when considering surgery or other procedures for people with Alzheimer's or another dementia," Carrillo said. "However, we should not assume that medical procedures cannot be pursued or are too risky."

These results show that improving sensory abilities can provide benefits in a variety of ways -- for people with Alzheimer's and also for their caregivers, she added.

Data and conclusions presented at meetings are typically considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.




"Too-common attitudes such as, 'There's no need for extra care' or 'Why put them through all of that,' are not justified and are bad medical practice," said Maria Carrillo, the association's vice president of medical and scientific relations.” In the 1950s when I was growing up it was assumed that by the age of about 80 most people were due to die soon, and almost certain to be blind, deaf, unable to walk around on their own and very likely to have dementia.

Now, people are not only living longer, their health is better than in those days. Some are able to live independently and do their own cleaning, cooking and gardening. I wouldn't be surprised if dementia were to come at a later age now, especially if their sensory deprivation does not occur so soon. Reading, participating in music and other mental exercise are thought to delay dementia, as does physical exercise. People are less ready to be “put away” into a nursing home now, and are choosing intermediate steps like retirement villages where they can get some services, but live in their own apartments pursuing their activities. That is very expensive, of course, but so is a nursing home. According to the website http://www.seniorhomes.com/p/ccrc-costs/ there are some ways to cut down on the costs. See below.

CCRC Costs: How Much Will You Pay?

Because CCRC costs are not subject to outside regulation, there can be a lot of variation between continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs). A number of factors influence CCRC costs, and understanding these factors can help you determine what you’ll be paying for if you move into a CCRC.

Did you know, for example, that many nonprofit CCRCs provide financial assistance to qualifying individuals to help pay entrance fees and/or monthly fees? Some nonprofit communities will also subsidize residents who run out of money. Providing financial aid helps these communities maintain their tax exempt status as a charitable organization. Ask about these policies if they are not stated in your contract.

CCRC costs can vary greatly depending upon the cost structure. However, most communities, regardless of the type of contract(s) offered, require residents to pay an entrance fee as well as ongoing monthly fees. Monthly fees can be as low as $500 at some communities, escalating up to $3,000 or more depending on your contract type and service plan.

Entrance fees start at as low as $20,000 for a non-purchase (rental) agreement, and buy-in fees weigh in among the most expensive CCRC costs, running up to $500,000 or more depending on the size and location of your unit as well as the community.

Another major factor that affects CCRC costs is health insurance, which can help bring down your share of the costs. Medicare and Medicaid pay for someskilled nursing care and medical costs for eligible residents of certified facilities, for instance.

Before you move in, some communities may stipulate that you agree to apply for Medicaid or SSI in the event that you run through your own resources and need extra help. This is a preventative measure to ensure that the community will still be paid for the services you utilize. You may also be required to enroll in Medicare Part A, Part B and/or have a Medigap policy for supplemental health insurance.

Some CCRCs require applicants to obtain long-term care insurance prior to moving in. If you have an existing policy, check it to see whether it covers some of your CCRC costs. If you buy long-term care insurance through a company recommended by the CCRC, it’s possible that your premiums could be incorporated into your monthly fees.





Obama to turn up heat on Congress over Highway Trust Fund
CBS NEWS July 14, 2014

President Obama will announce executive actions this week during a series of planned events that will put the spotlight on the Highway Trust Fund.

Congress has been debating how best to fund infrastructure improvements as the fund gets closer to running dry next month.

Executive actions by Mr. Obama have angered Republicans, who claim he's doing too much on his own, bypassing lawmakers. But the president says he has to, since congressional Republicans continue to stonewall his initiatives.

A White House official who prefers to remain anonymous tells CBS News, "The president has been very clear that we need to do more to improve our infrastructure in order to create jobs, provide certainty to states and communities, help American businesses, and grow our economy, and he has put forth a proposal that would do just that and pay for it by closing unfair tax loopholes and making commonsense reforms to our business tax system. "The president has acted on his own using his executive authority, including speeding up permitting for priority projects to create more jobs, and the president will announce new executive actions on infrastructure this week."

Mr. Obama has ratcheting up pressure on Congress to take action to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent. Otherwise, many projects already underway at risk.

"This week," said the official, "Congress will consider a solution to avoid that scenario, and the President will continue to urge Republican lawmakers to not block it.

Among other events on tap this week, the White House will release a report Monday from the Council of Economic Advisors and National Economic Council on the long-term economic benefits of transportation investment.

On Tuesday, Mr. Obama will deliver remarks on the importance of investing in infrastructure innovation at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, a leading facility testing new technologies for highway transportation innovations.

And on Thursday, he will visit an infrastructure site in Delaware, where he will announce an executive action designed to increase private sector investment in our nation's infrastructure. Also on Monday, the official says, the White House will release an interactive transportation map that enables Americans to learn more about the condition of their state's roads and bridges -- as well as how many jobs - nearly 700,000 across the nation -- and active highway and transit projects would be jeopardized if Congress fails to pass a new transportation bill before the current one expires Sept. 30.




Another Congressional deadline is coming up – September 30 to pass a bill to finance the Highway Trust Fund. "The president has been very clear that we need to do more to improve our infrastructure in order to create jobs, provide certainty to states and communities, help American businesses, and grow our economy, and he has put forth a proposal that would do just that and pay for it by closing unfair tax loopholes and making commonsense reforms to our business tax system.” He is investigating two centers for technological innovations, and planning to increase private sector investment in the transportation system. I will look for more articles on this subject. We definitely need to work on roads and bridges across the country. Potholes and bridges falling down are in the news too frequently.






First Woman Charged on Controversial Law that Criminalizes Drug Use During Pregnancy-- ABC
By Gillian Mohney via World News
July 13, 2014

A Tennessee woman is the first to be charged under a new state law that specifically makes it a crime to take drugs while pregnant, calling it "assault."

Mallory Loyola, 26, was arrested this week after both she and her newborn infant tested positive for meth, according to ABC News affiliate WATE-TV in Knoxville, Tennessee. Loyola is the first person in the state to prosecuted for the offense.

The law, which just went into effect earlier this month, allows a woman to be "prosecuted for assault for the illegal use of a narcotic drug while pregnant" if her infant is harmed or addicted to the drug.

Monroe County Sheriff Bill Bivens told WATE-TV that the 26-year-old admitted to smoking meth days before giving birth.

"Anytime someone is addicted and they can't get off for their own child, their own flesh and blood, it's sad," he said.

Bivens said he hoped the arrest would deter other pregnant women from drug use.

"Hopefully it will send a signal to other women who are pregnant and have a drug problem to seek help. That's what we want them to do," he said.

The law has come under tremendous opposition from both state and national critics, who say that the law will hinder drug-addicted pregnant women from getting help and treatment.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee is actively seeking to challenge the law, which they describe as raising "serious constitutional concerns regarding equal treatment under the law."

"This dangerous law unconstitutionally singles out new mothers struggling with addiction for criminal assault charges," Thomas Castelli, legal director of the ACLU Tennessee, said in a statement. "By focusing on punishing women rather than promoting healthy pregnancies, the state is only deterring women struggling with alcohol or drug dependency from seeking the pre-natal care they need."

Just before Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam signed the bill in April, Michael Botticelli, acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy at the time, said the federal government didn't want to "criminalize" addiction.

"What's important is that we create environments where we're really diminishing the stigma and the barriers, particularly for pregnant women, who often have a lot of shame and guilt about their substance abuse disorders," Botticelli said, according to The Nashville Tennessean. "We know that it's usually a much more effective treatment and less costly to our taxpayers if we make sure that we're treating folks."

Haslam released a statement after signing the bill saying the intent of the law is to "give law enforcement and district attorneys a tool to address illicit drug use among pregnant women through treatment programs."

Loyola was released on $2,000 bail and was charged with a misdemeanor according to WATE-TV. The law allows anyone charged to use entering a treatment program before birth and successfully completing it afterwards as a defense.

Calls to Loyola's family were not immediately returned.




"Hopefully it will send a signal to other women who are pregnant and have a drug problem to seek help. That's what we want them to do," Sheriff Bill Bivens said. Thomas Castelli of the Tennessee ACLU commented, "This dangerous law unconstitutionally singles out new mothers struggling with addiction for criminal assault charges....By focusing on punishing women rather than promoting healthy pregnancies, the state is only deterring women struggling with alcohol or drug dependency from seeking the pre-natal care they need." Michael Botticelli, acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy stated that the Federal government is against the criminalization of addiction. I do wonder what the penalties will be. A requirement to seek mental health care would be useful. “Haslam released a statement after signing the bill saying the intent of the law is to 'give law enforcement and district attorneys a tool to address illicit drug use among pregnant women through treatment programs.'" I don't really disagree with this policy if the penalty is mandated drug treatment.

“Loyola was released on $2,000 bail and was charged with a misdemeanor according to WATE-TV. The law allows anyone charged to use entering a treatment program before birth and successfully completing it afterwards as a defense.” This is “tough love,” but I think it is love rather than simply narrow minded and harsh treatment of somebody who is not really able to “just say no” and quit the drug habit. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a well-known result of women drinking alcohol while pregnant. Perhaps that should be criminalized, too. Of course this begins to look like a “slippery slope.” Should other medical care be mandated? No, so we need to make strict boundaries. The point is that this is more dangerous to the fetus than simply not taking the right vitamins or deciding to have the baby at home rather than in a hospital. For a parent to endanger their newborn child is illegal, but the status of a fetus is not so clear. I can see why the ACLU has become involved.






When the CIA Keeps the President in the Dark – ABC
By Lee Ferran
July 11, 2014

When President Obama spoke to German Chancellor Angela Merkel about Ukraine last week, there could have been an awkward moment prompted by the arrest the day before of a double agent allegedly working secretly for the CIA within German intelligence. At least there likely would have been, had Obama known about the arrest or the undercover spy to begin with.

But the president went into the call blind and Merkel didn’t bring it up, according to White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden. The incident has left “frustrated” White House officials to question why the CIA didn’t immediately tell the administration about the bungled operation, The New York Times reported.

It’s unclear who is responsible for the breakdown in communication about the arrest -- Hayden and the CIA won’t say -- but two retired senior intelligence officials told ABC News it should not be surprising that most likely the president and his national security advisor all along were not aware of the alleged recruitment of the German agent, as well as that of another recently discovered purported U.S. spy in the German Defense Ministry.

As former White House counter-terrorism advisor and ABC News consultant Richard Clarke put it, “never in a million years” would the president be briefed on what Clarke called such “totally mundane” recruitment targets. A third retired senior CIA covert operations specialist disagreed in this case, saying it was a “real possibility” the White House was aware of the operation.

Either way, all three former senior officials said it’s up to the CIA’s “good judgment” whether to let the White House in on what one called “pure espionage.”

There are times when by law the CIA must not only inform but seek the approval from the president for certain operations -- most notably for covert actions. Covert action is defined by U.S. law as “an activity or activities of the United States government to influence political, economic or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly…” As put more simply by former CIA Inspector General L. Britt Snider, covert action is “doing something in another country merely beyond gathering information.”

Some more recently exposed major covert action programs include the CIA’s targeted killingdrone program, the joint CIA-military mission to kill/capture Osama bin Laden and the reportedStuxnet cyber-attack on the Iranian nuclear program.

Do you have information about this or another story? CLICK HERE to send your tip in to the Investigative Unit.

In his book “Good Hunting,” longtime CIA veteran Jack Devine, who once led the CIA’s largest Cold War-era covert action program assisting the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Russians, emphasizes that all CIA covert action over the years – including the most controversial – were approved or ordered by the president at the time.

“It is true that the CIA’s biggest mistakes involved covert action,” writes Devine, who spent more than 30 years in the shadows for the Agency. “But it is also true that these mistakes, without exception, also involved operations carried out at the behest of presidents pursuing flawed policies. And for every covert action that failed spectacularly, there have been others that enabled presidents and policy makers to achieve ends in the nation’s interest with an unseen hand, which is almost always preferable to a heavy footprint.”

Retired veteran CIA attorney John Rizzo told ABC News, “Covert actions are the ones that have tended to become messy over the years, going back to the days of the wink and nod from the president” and now come with a whole “legal regime” to ensure that all bureaucratic checks are in place, including briefings for the correct members of Congress.

But none of those rules apply to the CIA’s regular intelligence collection, or “pure espionage,” according to Rizzo.

“Unlike covert action, the president does not have to approve intelligence collection operations. That's what CIA does, recruit foreign agents when they can,” said Rizzo, author of "Company Man". “There’d be no reason for [Obama] to have known, for instance, if the CIA has in fact recruited German citizens.”




So the CIA has its powers and the President has his, but in this case it proved embarrassing and made him look foolish. It also ran the risk of an international incident with a nation that we can't afford to lose as a good friend. The feeling that the government is spying on its own citizens is even worse. Apparently Obama knew all about that, though, so we can't just blame the NSA. Thank goodness the way the NSA is allowed to access its treasure trove of data has been changed. I would be more comfortable if everything weren't so complicated and secretive in our government. I don't feel as free to go about my daily business anymore, and the world is becoming ever more dangerous as the Middle East festers with violence, even threatening to come to this country to do their terroristic actions. Hopefully the covert nature of the CIA and NSA will prevent their encroachment here.