Friday, March 13, 2015


News Clips For The Day


FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE – FOUR ARTICLES


http://news.yahoo.com/150-000-sign-treason-petition-us-republican-letter-195011270.html

150,000 sign treason petition on US Republican letter to Iran
AFP March 11, 2015

Washington (AFP) - More than 155,000 people by Wednesday had signed a petition to the White House urging charges be filed against 47 Republican senators who they say committed "treasonous" offenses by writing Iran's leaders about ongoing nuclear negotiations.

Lawmakers caused a political furor with their controversial letter Monday that warned an international nuclear deal with Iran could be scrapped by the next US president, particularly if Congress does not give its seal of approval.

The White House has said it responds to such petitions when they reach the 100,000-signature threshold, providing President Barack Obama's administration with another opportunity to slam a letter that it considers inflammatory.

According to the petition, the 47 senators "committed a treasonous offense when they decided to violate the Logan Act, a 1799 law which forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments."

Critics argue that the lawmakers, including at least three potential Republican 2016 presidential candidates, broke the law, or at least violated the traditions of Congress, by directly engaging a foreign power on US foreign policy.

Obama and Vice President Joe Biden pilloried the letter, as did several Democratic congressional leaders. Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called it "unprecedented and undiplomatic."

With no one indicted under the Logan Act since 1803, and zero successful prosecutions under that law, it is highly unlikely the 47 lawmakers -- who include top Senate Republican leaders -- are going to prison.

But the petition does help highlight the intensely divisive nature of the letter, which some in the Republican Party have acknowledged was not the ideal strategy for confronting Iran.

Negotiations with the Islamic republic "are tough enough here and I didn't think it was appropriate to add another element that makes it more difficult," Senate Republican Jeff Flake told National Public Radio on Tuesday.

Flake is one of seven Republicans who declined to sign on, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker.

The letter could jeopardize the fragile bipartisan coalition of senators seeking to pass two crucial bills on Iran: one that would tighten sanctions on the regime in the event a nuclear deal falls apart, and another that would require congressional approval of any agreement with Tehran.

"My goal is to get 67 or more people on something that will affect the outcome," Corker said, referring to the two-thirds Senate majority needed to overcome a presidential veto.



Logan Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position.[2] The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was last amended in 1994, and violation of the Logan Act is a felony.

In 1798, amid tensions between the U.S. and France, President Adams sent three envoys to France to negotiate. Negotiations were unsuccessful. Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, a state legislator and pacifist, in 1798 engaged in semi-negotiations with France as a private citizen during the Quasi-War.[2][3]

Despite the apparent success of Logan's mission, his activities aroused the opposition of the Federalist Party in Congress, who were resentful of the praise showered on Logan by oppositional Democratic-Republican newspapers.Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, also of Pennsylvania, responded by suggesting that Congress "act to curb the temerity and impudence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States." The result was the Logan Act, which was pushed through by the Federalist majority with a vote 58–36 in the House, and 18–2 in the Senate.[4]

Subsequently, Logan himself was appointed and then elected as a Democratic-Republican to the United States Senatefrom Pennsylvania, and served from July 13, 1801, to March 3, 1807. He was unsuccessful in getting the Logan Act repealed. Despite the Logan Act, he went to England in 1810 on a private diplomatic mission as an emissary of peace in the period before the outbreak of the War of 1812, but was not successful.

Washington has threatened to use the Act to stop Americans from negotiating with foreign governments. For example, in February 1941 Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles told the press that former President Herbert Hoover might be a target for prosecution because of his negotiations with European nations over sending food relief.

The only actual indictment under the Logan Act was one that occurred in 1803 when a grand jury indicted Francis Flournoy, a Kentucky farmer, who had written an article in the Frankfort Guardian of Freedom under the pen name of "A Western American." In the article, Flournoy advocated a separate nation in the western part of the United States that would ally with France. The United States Attorney for Kentucky, an Adams appointee and brother-in-law of Chief JusticeJohn Marshall, went no further than procuring the indictment of Flournoy. The purchase of the Louisiana Territory later that year appeared to cause the separatism issue to become moot.[2][6]

During the 1968 presidential election, Nixon supporter Anna Chennault, told the South Vietnamese government that Nixon would give them a better deal if they waited.[7][8]
In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

he clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba, was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country.

Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn..." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. 

In 1984, President Ronald Reagan stated that the activities of the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who had traveled to Cubaand Nicaragua that year and had returned with several Cuban political prisoners seeking asylum in the United States, may have violated the Logan Act; but Jackson was never indicted.[2]

In 1987 and 1988, President Reagan was furious at what he felt to be House Speaker Jim Wright's "intrusion" into the negotiations between Nicaragua's Sandinista government and the Contras for a cease-fire in the long civil war. TheNational Security Council considered using the Logan Act to muzzle Wright, but nothing ever came of it.

In June 2007, Representative Steve King introduced legislation that would prohibit then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from drawing on Federal funds to travel to foreign states which the U.S. deems to sponsor terrorism. King claimed that Pelosi's dialogue with the Syrian government violated the Logan Act.[10] The amendment was not adopted.

In March 2015, 47 Republican senators sent a letter to the Iranian government regarding President Barack Obama's attempts to broker a nuclear arms agreement between Iran and six major powers (P5+1).[11][12] The letter warns Iran of the limitations of President Obama's term in office and constitutional powers - noting that anything done without the advice and consent of the Senate could be undone by the next President. This prompted some commentators to suggest that the letter may have violated the Logan Act.[8][13][14][15] A petition on the White House's We The People website had accumulated signatures from over 250,000 people requesting the Obama administration to prosecute the 47 senators under the Logan Act.[3]

In 2006, the U.S. House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct warned departing members of the terms of the Act in an official Memorandum. The Committee commented in the Memorandum that the Act, "...has never been the basis of a prosecution, and this Committee has publicly questioned its constitutionality... Members should be aware, however, that the law remains on the books."[16]




“More than 155,000 people by Wednesday had signed a petition to the White House urging charges be filed against 47 Republican senators who they say committed "treasonous" offenses by writing Iran's leaders about ongoing nuclear negotiations..... According to the petition, the 47 senators "committed a treasonous offense when they decided to violate the Logan Act, a 1799 law which forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments."... With no one indicted under the Logan Act since 1803, and zero successful prosecutions under that law, it is highly unlikely the 47 lawmakers -- who include top Senate Republican leaders -- are going to prison. But the petition does help highlight the intensely divisive nature of the letter, which some in the Republican Party have acknowledged was not the ideal strategy for confronting Iran.... Negotiations with the Islamic republic "are tough enough here and I didn't think it was appropriate to add another element that makes it more difficult," Senate Republican Jeff Flake told National Public Radio on Tuesday. Flake is one of seven Republicans who declined to sign on, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker.... "My goal is to get 67 or more people on something that will affect the outcome," Corker said, referring to the two-thirds Senate majority needed to overcome a presidential veto.”

Prosecutions under the Logan Act have been tried down through time, especially in the last hundred years, but have never succeeded. It is encouraging, however, that 250,000 people have signed the petition to President Obama to charge the 47 Senators with treason under that act. I don't know if all those people are Democrats and Independents or not, but the washingtonexaminer poll below says that 42% of Americans polled stated that they were opposed to the letter, 28% say it was appropriate, and 31% are “unsure.” The opinions were divided along party lines – “Surprise! Surprise!” – 71% of Democrats object to it, 53% of Republicans do as well, and 26% think it is “appropriate.” The 250,000 signatures appeared over the Internet within a little more than two days, so somebody is hot under the collar about this abuse of their positions by so many Republicans. This number of signatures means that the President must at least consider it. The prosecution of such a large and unwieldy number is going to be difficult. To me, whether they are charged with treason or not, they should be penalized in some way. Perhaps the votes during future elections will “punish” them.





http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2015/03/sen_tom_cotton_s_letter_to_iran_is_plainly_stupid_the_arkansas_freshman.html

Amateur Hour
By Fred Kaplan
MARCH 10 2015

The letter 47 Republican senators sent to Iran is one of the most plainly stupid things a group of senators has ever done.

It is a useful thing when a political party reveals itself as utterly unsuited for national leadership. This may be the one redeeming feature of Monday’s letter to the Iranian government signed by 47 (or, to put it another way, all but seven) Senate Republicans.

The letter—which encourages Iran’s leaders to dismiss the ongoing nuclear talks with the United States and five other nations—is as brazen, gratuitous, and plainly stupid an act as any committed by the Senate in recent times, and that says a lot. It may also be illegal.

The banalities begin with the greeting: “An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” By custom, a serious letter to foreign leaders would address them by name. Who is it that the senators are seeking to influence: the supreme leader, the Parliament, the Revolutionary Guards? Clearly none of the above, otherwise it wouldn’t be an open letter. Nor, if this were a serious attempt of some sort, would Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (who was among the missive’s signatories) leave the task of organizing it to the likes of Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, an otherwise unknown freshman. As usual, the Republicans’ goal is simple: to embarrass and undermine President Barack Obama.

The idiocies begin with the first sentence: “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.”

First, I’m curious: How has this come to their attention? Second, the letter writers reveal that they don’t understand our constitutional system either. They point out to the Iranians, in the tone of a teacher addressing third-graders, that treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, agreements need majority approval by both houses of Congress, and executive agreements can be overturned by Obama’s successor “with the stroke of a pen.”

Reading this, one can only wonder if these Republicans ever consult their staffs. As the Iranian leaders know, and as the Obama administration and the other P5+1 governments have made clear all along, the deal being negotiated is not a treaty, nor is it an agreement. Rather, it is a nonbinding international arrangement, to be signed (if it is signed) by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, Germany, and Iran.

Did any of these senators, or their staffs, consider the possibility that they may be committing a felony?

Similar agreements have been struck on a host of arms control measures over the years, including President George W. Bush’s Proliferation Security Initiative, President Gerald Ford’s Helsinki Final Act, and several hundred bilateral and multilateral measures, guidelines, and memoranda of understanding struck over the decades.

In other words, contrary to the letter writers, Congress has no legal or constitutional role in the drafting, approval, or modification of this deal. It does, potentially, have one practical role: If the deal calls for the lifting of all sanctions against Iran, in exchange for a cutback in Iran’s nuclear program, Congress could vote down a bill to end the sanctions that it had once voted to impose. This is a small share of the sanctions, compared with those that the president and the European Union could release on their own, but if the deal calls for an end to all sanctions, Congress could throw a wrench into the works. However, this only states the obvious. Congress can insert itself into all executive prerogatives through control of the purse strings. This is very different from the powers that the letter writers pretend to have over the future of this accord.

The letter writers are also wrong in saying that a future president could “revoke” this deal “with the stroke of a pen.” In fact, there’s nothing to revoke. To nullify the accord, the president would have to reimpose the sanctions that this deal would have lifted (assuming that’s part of the deal). Future presidents could do this if they wanted. Presidents can do lots of things if they want. They could also declare a national emergency and suspend habeas corpus if they wanted. Such arbitrary acts would create their own crises; again, the warning has nothing to do with this accord.

The 47 Senate Republicans also expose a tin ear to the political resonances that their letter is likely to set off. As much as their constituents may dislike President Obama, I suspect that they dislike Iran’s mullahs more deeply. Do the senators think they’ll score points by cozying up to Ayatollah Khamenei?

It’s all too clear what they’re trying to accomplish, but it’s puzzling that their techniques are so ham-fisted. The explicitly partisan nature of the letter—all 47 signatories are Republicans—is sure to alienate the considerable number of Democrats who oppose, or at least look skeptically toward, any dealings with Iran. And of course, the letter comes in the wake of—and may have been inspired by—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s provocative speech to Congress, which had the same effect of pushing those Democrats, who were there for the co-opting, to cling more tightly to their president.

It’s also puzzling that the letter was signed by Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who are quick to defend the president’s constitutional right to wage war—yet, in this instance, try to constrain his right, declared in the same Constitution, to wage diplomacy.

Which leads to a final question: Did any of these senators, or their staffs, consider the possibility that, in drafting and signing this letter, they may be committing a felony? Consider 18 U.S. Code, Section 953, “Private Correspondence with Foreign Governments,” also known as the Logan Act. It reads in its entirety:

“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.”

Unless the 47 Senate Republicans view the prospects of an Obama diplomatic triumph as an injury, for which they seek redress from the Iranian mullahs, I suggest that they bone up on the American legal system before lecturing others on its meaning.





“It is a useful thing when a political party reveals itself as utterly unsuited for national leadership. This may be the one redeeming feature of Monday’s letter to the Iranian government signed by 47 (or, to put it another way, all but seven) Senate Republicans. The letter—which encourages Iran’s leaders to dismiss the ongoing nuclear talks with the United States and five other nations—is as brazen, gratuitous, and plainly stupid an act as any committed by the Senate in recent times, and that says a lot. It may also be illegal.... Nor, if this were a serious attempt of some sort, would Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (who was among the missive’s signatories) leave the task of organizing it to the likes of Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, an otherwise unknown freshman. As usual, the Republicans’ goal is simple: to embarrass and undermine President Barack Obama..... Reading this, one can only wonder if these Republicans ever consult their staffs. As the Iranian leaders know, and as the Obama administration and the other P5+1 governments have made clear all along, the deal being negotiated is not a treaty, nor is it an agreement. Rather, it is a nonbinding international arrangement, to be signed (if it is signed) by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, Germany, and Iran.... Congress can insert itself into all executive prerogatives through control of the purse strings. This is very different from the powers that the letter writers pretend to have over the future of this accord.... And of course, the letter comes in the wake of—and may have been inspired by—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s provocative speech to Congress, which had the same effect of pushing those Democrats, who were there for the co-opting, to cling more tightly to their president. It’s also puzzling that the letter was signed by Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who are quick to defend the president’s constitutional right to wage war—yet, in this instance, try to constrain his right, declared in the same Constitution, to wage diplomacy.”

“Unless the 47 Senate Republicans view the prospects of an Obama diplomatic triumph as an injury, for which they seek redress from the Iranian mullahs, I suggest that they bone up on the American legal system before lecturing others on its meaning.” It is so clear from the whole history of the Tea Party-ruled Republican Party with the (infuriatingly) black President Obama, that their only goal is to cause him embarrassment. This hostile action by the right wing elements of Congress is not going to prevent Obama from being respected by Iran or other European powers. It isn't even based on correct legal assumptions. Everyone, including Iranian leaders, have spoken out against the “ham-fisted” letter. See the following articles on the subject.





http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/world/middleeast/ayatollah-ali-khamenei-criticizes-republicans-letter-on-iran-nuclear-talks.html?_r=0

G.O.P. Letter by Republican Senators Is Evidence of ‘Decline,’ Iranian Says
By THOMAS ERDBRINK
MARCH 12, 2015

Photograph – Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday in Tehran. He expressed support for Iran’s negotiators. Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

TEHRAN — Iran’s highest leader issued a sharp response Thursday to a letter to the country’s leadership by Republican lawmakers, deriding it as an indication that Washington is “disintegrating” from within.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, said the letter warning that any nuclear deal could be scrapped by a new president was “a sign of a decline in political ethics and the destruction of the American establishment from within.” The statement was posted on his website.

Ayatollah Khamenei, who will have the final say in Iran over a nuclear deal, characterized the open letter written by 47 Republican senators on Monday as a reflection of Washington’s decadence.

“All countries, according to the international norms, remain faithful to their commitments even after their governments change, but the American senators are officially announcing that at the end of the term of their current government, their commitments will be considered null and void,” Ayatollah Khamenei wrote.

Most surprising perhaps was the fact that Ayatollah Khamenei appeared to continue to support the nuclear talks, despite the Republicans’ threats that they, or a possible Republican president in 2017, would try to undo any deal made.

Ayatollah Khamenei has often expressed doubts about American intentions and sincerity in the negotiations, but on Thursday he supported Iran’s negotiating team, as he has frequently in recent weeks. Speaking to members of the Assembly of Experts, a council that theoretically has the constitutional authority to appoint and dismiss the supreme leader, he called them “good and caring people, who work for the country.”

In Iran, as in the United States, conservatives tend to distrust the other side in the negotiations and are thought to prefer that the whole effort come to nothing. But as long as the supreme leader is voicing support for the talks, criticism from the hard-liners will be muted.

Nevertheless, Ayatollah Khamenei warned that it remains important for Iran’s team to be vigilant, saying that when deadlines in the talks loom, the opponents harden their positions. “Of course, I am worried because the other side is a sneaky and crafty one who stabs with a dagger in your back,” he said.

Ayatollah Khamenei also noted that the recent speech to Congress by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu — whom he referred to as a “Zionist clown” — had led to division in Washington. “Some American officials, who did not want to side with him, made some remarks,” he wrote.

He repeated remarks that the Islamic State militant group, referring to it by its Arabic name, Daesh, is an American invention.

“America and its allies in the region have created the most evil and wicked terrorists like Daesh, but accuse Iran of committing such acts,” he said.




“Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, said the letter warning that any nuclear deal could be scrapped by a new president was “a sign of a decline in political ethics and the destruction of the American establishment from within.” The statement was posted on his website.... Most surprising perhaps was the fact that Ayatollah Khamenei appeared to continue to support the nuclear talks, despite the Republicans’ threats that they, or a possible Republican president in 2017, would try to undo any deal made.... “Of course, I am worried because the other side is a sneaky and crafty one who stabs with a dagger in your back,” he said. Ayatollah Khamenei also noted that the recent speech to Congress by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu — whom he referred to as a “Zionist clown” — had led to division in Washington. “Some American officials, who did not want to side with him, made some remarks,” he wrote.”

“Destruction from within” is an understandable phrase given the clearly uncoordinated appearance that we are now being viewed from, but while parties in Congress down through the years have rarely been this extreme in their actions, the discord is something that we live with by the very nature of our government. Holding elections every few years, with in most cases term limits, keeps the pot stirred up, and prevents some office holders from learning and improving on the job. As long as they please their home audience, which includes a certain number of political radicals and very uneducated voters, they can return for another term. In addition, due to the fact that our elected leaders are not required to have really good qualifications of a predictable sort, they are too often very inept. Teachers in colleges have better backgrounds. Being president of the US does not even require a four year degree from any college, though most of our presidents have had at least that amount of education. Tom Cotton has a high degree of education, and from a prestigious college, but that has not caused him to be a mature and logical human being. He's what I call a “hothead” and a radical, who doesn't believe in the freedom of the press. He is well-educated, but he isn't trustworthy.

See the following quotation about him:
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cotton says of him, “In June 2006, Cotton gained public attention after he wrote an open letter to The New York Times criticizing the paper's publication of an article detailing a Bush administration secret program monitoring terrorists' finances in which he called for three journalists, including the Times' editor, Bill Keller, to be imprisoned for espionage.[9] The article was widely circulated online and reprinted in full in several newspapers.[10].” The American response to the letter so far is outlined clearly in the Washington Examiner article below.

I am of the opinion that we always teeter in this country on the edge of “destruction from within,” but we are protected from a violent revolution largely by our electoral system. Unfortunately those people who can do things as unwise as having the most junior member of the Senate write an inflammatory letter, and then blindly following him across the edge of the precipice, are very unwise and destructive individuals. That's how some prehistoric people used to kill bison. It's safer for the hunters, but it decimates the species over time.





http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-42-percent-of-americans-say-gops-iran-letter-inappropriate/article/2561470

Poll: 42 percent of Americans say the GOP's Iran letter 'inappropriate'
BY  KELLY COHEN
MARCH 13, 2015

When Republicans sent a letter to Iranian leaders this week, "inappropriate" was likely not the word they had in mind.

Forty-two percent of Americans say it was inappropriate for the 47 Senate Republicans to send a letter to Iran's leaders, warning them Congress has to approve of a nuclear deal, according to a new Huff Post/YouGov poll.

Twenty-eight percent say the letter was appropriate, while 31 percent remain unsure.

A clear division down party lines exists about the letter: Democrats are more likely to say the letter was inappropriate (71 percent) than Republicans (53 percent). Thirty-seven percent of Independents thought the letter was inappropriate, compared to 26 percent who thought it was appropriate.

Americans are also divided on who they trust more to handle the Iran situation: 36 percent pick President Obama, compared to 31 percent who pick congressional Republicans. A third (33 percent) are unsure.

The poll of 1,000 U.S. adults was conducted March 10-11, with a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/time-magazine-hillary-clinton-key-word-search-to-decide-emails-to-delete/

How detailed was Clinton's process for deleting emails?
CBS NEWS
March 13, 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton is widely expected to announce her second bid for the White House within the next month, but for now, she's still trying to move past the lingering scrutiny of her email habits as secretary of state.

Clinton is featured on the cover of the latest issue of "Time" magazine, in silhouette and under the headline "The Clinton Way." The article suggests Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, "write their own rules" in the battle that is U.S. politics, and it asks whether the tactics can see the veteran Democrat through the current controversy over the emails.

Alex Altman, Washington D.C. correspondent for "Time," told CBSN on Thursday that, as the magazine's cover story explains, Clinton and her team of lawyers decided which of the more than 60,000 emails on her personal server should be deleted based on simple key-word searches, rather than a detailed inspection of each of the messages.

By law any emails pertaining to Clinton's official work as Secretary of State were supposed to have been copied into government servers for permanent records. An archives expert told "Time" that the methodology used by Clinton's team to determine which emails met the criteria for permanent storage "did not meet best practices."

"She basically looked first at all the emails that included a .gov email address, then she used key words; words like 'Benghazi,' like 'Libya,' the names of particular staff that she was known to have emailed. So rather than go through and look at them one-by-one, she essentially chose some shortcuts, and while they may have made sense, that practice essentially raises the chance that an email that was work-related and therefore had to be public record might have slipped through the cracks," Altman told CBSN's Jeff Glor.

Republicans have demanded a "forensic" examination of the server at Clinton's residence in Chappaqua, New York. But in spite of the unrelenting pressure on the expected two-time presidential candidate, Altman urged caution against counting out the Democratic family which has weathered a storm or two in the past.

"One thing that the Clintons have been very deft at over the years is turning an issue, when they are under scrutiny, against their enemies," Altman told CBSN.

"We saw Hillary Clinton talk about the 'vast right-wing conspiracy,' and I think that one of the tactics that they've used over the years is knowing that, when they're talking about their enemies rather than themselves, it's been a good tool to pull them out of scrapes, and the more Republicans come after her and potentially over-reach, it becomes about them rather than about her own conduct."




“The article suggests Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, "write their own rules" in the battle that is U.S. politics, and it asks whether the tactics can see the veteran Democrat through the current controversy over the emails. Alex Altman, Washington D.C. correspondent for "Time," told CBSN on Thursday that, as the magazine's cover story explains, Clinton and her team of lawyers decided which of the more than 60,000 emails on her personal server should be deleted based on simple key-word searches, rather than a detailed inspection of each of the messages.... "She basically looked first at all the emails that included a .gov email address, then she used key words; words like 'Benghazi,' like 'Libya,' the names of particular staff that she was known to have emailed. So rather than go through and look at them one-by-one, she essentially chose some shortcuts, and while they may have made sense, that practice essentially raises the chance that an email that was work-related and therefore had to be public record might have slipped through the cracks," Altman told CBSN's Jeff Glor.... "We saw Hillary Clinton talk about the 'vast right-wing conspiracy,' and I think that one of the tactics that they've used over the years is knowing that, when they're talking about their enemies rather than themselves, it's been a good tool to pull them out of scrapes, and the more Republicans come after her and potentially over-reach, it becomes about them rather than about her own conduct."

Altman is merely warning Republicans that in threatening Hillary Clinton, they are not dealing with an idiot, and that some of their party members are known to “overreach.” I looked at the process that was used by Clinton above. First, she didn't do it on her own, but with her legal staff. Second, while she “cut corners,” she did it in a fairly reliable and systematic way. Let's face it, how many of us would look individually at 60,000 emails? I think in searching on the .gov email address, she will pull up most or all of the pertinent letters, and by searching then under “Benghazi”, “Libya” and recipients' names she probably got the rest of them and defined the subject as well. It looks to me as though she probably did a good job. Of course the Republicans want to pillory her, so they are demanding that her server be examined by experts. This doesn't destroy my trust in her. It is merely more of the highly predictable behavior that we so commonly see among the modern Republican Party.






http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arrest-in-murder-of-iraqi-man-who-had-recently-arrived-in-united-states/

Arrest in murder of Iraqi man who had recently arrived in U.S.
By CRIMESIDER STAFF CBS NEWS
March 13, 2015

DALLAS - Dallas police have made an arrest in the murder of Ahmed Al-Jumaili, an Iraqi man who was shot and killed while taking pictures of the snow last week, reports CBS DFW.

Al-Jumaili, 36, was shot outside of his Dallas apartment building on March 5.

Authorities released surveillance video, which appeared to show two men who randomly pulled up to the apartment complex and began shooting.

The victim's wife, Zahraa Altaie, told the station they noticed the men that night but paid no attention to them nor did anything to provoke them. She said the shooting appeared to be random.

"I put my hand on his heart. I still feel his heart beating. I tried to stop his bleeding, but I couldn't," said Zahraa.

Al-Jumaili had just moved from his native Iraq to Dallas, where he was reunited with his wife.

"He had a car and was trying to find a decent job to start his life," said Mohammed Altaie, Al-Jumaili's father-in-law. "We're looking for safe place. Well educated, in a good environment. What he got was a bullet in his heart."

Authorities have not been able to establish a motive in the shooting.




“Dallas police have made an arrest in the murder of Ahmed Al-Jumaili, an Iraqi man who was shot and killed while taking pictures of the snow last week, reports CBS DFW. Al-Jumaili, 36, was shot outside of his Dallas apartment building on March 5. Authorities released surveillance video, which appeared to show two men who randomly pulled up to the apartment complex and began shooting.... "He had a car and was trying to find a decent job to start his life," said Mohammed Altaie, Al-Jumaili's father-in-law. "We're looking for safe place. Well educated, in a good environment. What he got was a bullet in his heart."

Pardon me from assuming that this could be a hate crime. There is a great deal of “unrest” among the natives here since ISIS popped up in the news and began to threaten Western culture. The couple saw the two shooters earlier that night and didn't worry about them. Unfortunately, they should have. Luckily there haven't been large numbers of such assaults up to now, and perhaps the average American citizen will not be subject to “fear of the other.”





CAMPUS RACISM CONTINUES – TWO ARTICLES


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-campus-investigating-rumors-of-sae-song-similar-to-oklahoma-university-chant/

Texas school probes report of racist song similar to OU's
CBS NEWS
March 11, 2015

AUSTIN, Texas -- Administrators at the University of Texas at Austin are investigating rumors of a Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity chant at the fraternity's chapter there similar to the racist song at the center of a controversy at the University of Oklahoma.

UT Austin president Bill Powers released a statement Wednesday confirming the investigation.

"Our dean of students said Monday she is looking into this matter as is standard practice in such cases," the statement read.

However, the SAE chapter at UT Austin sent out a strong response distancing itself from its OU counterparts calling the song "vindictive" and saying his fraternity brothers were "appalled" by it.

"I would like to clarify that we do not perform this chant or anything remotely close to it for that matter, nor had I, or any active member in our entire chapter, heard of the chant preceding the release of the video containing racial slurs," said chapter president Luke Cone in a statement to CBS News affiliate KEYE.

SAE members at OU were suspended and the fraternity thrown off campus this week after a video surfaced of a singalong using a racial slur and referencing lynching. University President David Boren said Tuesday two students had been expelled after being identified "as playing a leadership role" in the incident, which he said created a "hostile learning environment for others." He said the university is working to identify other students who were involved and who may also face discipline.

Two former OU students, Parker Rice and Levi Pettit, issued apologies for their roles in leading the chanting, which took place Saturday aboard a bus en route to a fraternity anniversary event.

UT Austin administrators also said the OU incident has raised new questions about the school's response to off campus fraternity Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI), which hosted a party where some guests came in costumes depicting racial stereotypes.

"The FIJIs have apologized, have been fully engaged with the dean of students' efforts," Powers' statement said. " The University of Texas remains committed to creating a diverse campus. I remain committed to a campus that welcomes everyone."




“Administrators at the University of Texas at Austin are investigating rumors of a Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity chant at the fraternity's chapter there similar to the racist song at the center of a controversy at the University of Oklahoma. UT Austin president Bill Powers released a statement Wednesday confirming the investigation. "Our dean of students said Monday she is looking into this matter as is standard practice in such cases," the statement read.... UT Austin administrators also said the OU incident has raised new questions about the school's response to off campus fraternity Phi Gamma Delta (FIJI), which hosted a party where some guests came in costumes depicting racial stereotypes. "The FIJIs have apologized, have been fully engaged with the dean of students' efforts," Powers' statement said. " The University of Texas remains committed to creating a diverse campus. I remain committed to a campus that welcomes everyone."

Teens and young adults of both sexes are prone to engaging in wild forms of “having fun,” such as bungee jumping, playing chicken in cars, pouring whiskey down a pledge's throat, and worst, gang raping a female who made the unwise choice of going to their consarned fraternity party. Fraternities and sororities are made up largely of well-to-do youths rather than those who are well-brought up. Many poor kids are well brought up, though they may not be as socially polished. Frat life is the bottom rung of the “good old boy network.” “Good old boy” is defined on Google as “good old boy, noun – a man who embodies some or all of the qualities considered characteristic of many white men of the southern US, including an unpretentious, convivial manner, conservative or intolerant attitudes, and a strong sense of fellowship with and loyalty to other members of his peer group.” I've been around people like that all my life, being from the South, and they are in many ways, natural enemies to everything I believe in. They're the very root of our racism and classism in the US, and unfortunately due to their close connectedness to others, often become successful in business and politics. To the extent that members of churches behave and believe in the same way, they too are causes of the unfairness that keeps popping up in this country. While I try not to hate them, I hate the results of their actions. They fear free thinkers because they are not free thinkers, and if they become so powerful that they can change our Constitution to take away large parts of the Bill of Rights, as some of them have been proposing, we will no longer be a free country.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/university-of-maryland-and-frat-investigate-racist-sexist-email/5

University of Maryland and frat investigate racist, sexist email
CBS/AP
March 13, 2015

COLLEGE PARK, Md. -- The University of Maryland and Kappa Sigma fraternity say they're investigating an email sent by a student laced with racist and sexist language.

Kappa Sigma fraternity says in a statement posted on its website Friday that the student was a member of the University of Maryland chapter when he sent the email to six others in January 2014. The fraternity says it only recently learned of the email and has suspended the student. Kappa Sigma says the student has since resigned, and its Maryland chapter is working to formally expel him.

According to WTOP, the email includes "racial slurs to refer to black, Indian and Asian women and alludes to raping women during Rush Week."

University President Wallace Loh said in a statement Thursday that the school became aware of the 15-month-old email containing vulgar language and reprehensible views on Tuesday. Loh says officials met with the person involved, and an investigation is underway.

The news comes just days after members of an Oklahoma University fraternity made national headlines after being caught on camera singing a racist chant.

Read Loh's entire statement below:

On Tuesday, March 10, the University of Maryland became aware of an email dated January 2014, 15 months ago. The vulgar language in the email expresses views that are reprehensible to our campus community. We immediately met with the individual involved and a University investigation is currently underway, led by the Office of Civil Rights and Sexual Misconduct. We are in contact with the University chapter of Kappa Sigma and they have taken swift and decisive action in this matter. At their request, the University has committed to provide educational training on diversity and respect for the entire fraternity. The University of Maryland remains committed to our core values of respect for human dignity, diversity, and inclusiveness. We are deeply saddened by the impact this email is having on our community.

Sincerely,
Wallace D. Loh
President
University of Maryland




“The fraternity says it only recently learned of the email and has suspended the student. Kappa Sigma says the student has since resigned, and its Maryland chapter is working to formally expel him.... According to WTOP, the email includes "racial slurs to refer to black, Indian and Asian women and alludes to raping women during Rush Week."... We are in contact with the University chapter of Kappa Sigma and they have taken swift and decisive action in this matter. At their request, the University has committed to provide educational training on diversity and respect for the entire fraternity. The University of Maryland remains committed to our core values of respect for human dignity, diversity, and inclusiveness. We are deeply saddened by the impact this email is having on our community.”

Three different university fraternity houses have come forward and expelled students who did such racist and sexist things. I wish I could say that grown and supposedly mature men don't do the same things. A woman has to be careful what kind of personality she picks for her husband or boyfriend. They can be truly dangerous individuals. Parents don't tend to be as strict on their boys as their girls, and they end up with some very bad behaviors which they consider unfortunately to be completely ethical and fair. It's not that the boys have no conscience, but that they haven't been taught right from wrong. It's not as different as I would like here in the US from those guys in India who were recently on trial for gang raping and killing an Indian woman on a city bus, who was just going home at the end of the day. I believe she had been working. One of the men said, paraphrasing it, “Good women don't go out after dark on their own.” Since in their book she was not a “good” woman, she was fair game. The Indian courts are throwing the book at them over it, thank goodness, but it's an entrenched part of both the Hindu and Islamic turn of mind. Another article on male bad behavior is below.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/prosecutor-sailors-traded-illicit-videos-of-female-officers-like-pokemon-cards/

Prosecutor: Sailors traded illicit videos of female officers like Pokemon cards
CBS/AP
March 12, 2015

MAYPORT NAVAL STATION, Fla. -- A group of male submarine sailors traded illicit videos of female officers in various stages of undress as if they were Pokemon cards, a U.S. Navy prosecutor said Thursday.

Navy prosecutors presented evidence against two of 12 male sailors accused of illegally making and trading videos of female officers aboard a nuclear submarine that was among the first to allow American women to serve alongside men.

The two men in court Thursday, both missile technicians aboard the USS Wyoming nuclear submarine, were accused of trading the videos with other sailors.

Another sailor aboard the Wyoming made the videos with his smartphone and then told others that he had a "gift for them," Navy prosecuting attorney Lt. Cmdr. Lee Marsh said. The Wyoming is based at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia.

Marsh said that once the sailor who took the videos arrived back onshore, he shared them with the others by "bumping" their smartphones together. The videos were not posted online.

"Videos were treated like Pokemon (cards). Something to be collected," Marsh said during the preliminary hearing in the case against two missile technicians charged with conspiracy to distribute recordings of private areas of female officers.

Navy Vice Adm. Michael Connor, commander of the nation's submarine fleet, has characterized the case as a "serious sexual offense, with significant penalties."

The case highlights issues the Navy has faced in switching to coed crews on ballistic-missile submarines. It began the practice in 2011.

According to CBS affiliate WJAX-TV, the USS Wyoming was one of the first submarines to take on female sailors nearly four years ago as part of the Navy's integration plan.

More than 50 women now serve aboard submarines, and Connor has said while the change to coed crews has not been without incident, overall it has been a success.

Navy Lt. Paul Hochmuth, defense attorney for one of the accused missile technicians who was in court on Thursday, said his client didn't know what the files were when he accepted the "gift" on his phone.

He argued that the government was unfairly describing the videos as graphic -- he said they were of poor quality, were only ever viewed on smartphones and showed only partial nudity.

"At no point can you ever see a full length view of the person. ... You might see a face ... then a leg ... or a butt ... but there is no full length view," Hochmuth said.

Marsh said the quality of the videos is irrelevant because they were made without consent and that they were plenty graphic.

"The videos consist of ... undressing for the shower and drying off from the shower," he said.

The hearing was presided over by a Naval officer, who listened to statements from both sides and will issue a recommendation to Rear Adm. Charles Richard, commander of submarine group 10.

Richard will decide whether to pursue courts-martial trials against the defendants, dismiss the charges or use other administrative methods to deal with the cases.




“Navy prosecutors presented evidence against two of 12 male sailors accused of illegally making and trading videos of female officers aboard a nuclear submarine that was among the first to allow American women to serve alongside men.... Navy Vice Adm. Michael Connor, commander of the nation's submarine fleet, has characterized the case as a "serious sexual offense, with significant penalties." The case highlights issues the Navy has faced in switching to coed crews on ballistic-missile submarines. It began the practice in 2011.... Navy Lt. Paul Hochmuth, defense attorney for one of the accused missile technicians who was in court on Thursday, said his client didn't know what the files were when he accepted the "gift" on his phone. He argued that the government was unfairly describing the videos as graphic -- he said they were of poor quality, were only ever viewed on smartphones and showed only partial nudity.... Marsh said the quality of the videos is irrelevant because they were made without consent and that they were plenty graphic. "The videos consist of ... undressing for the shower and drying off from the shower," he said.... Richard will decide whether to pursue courts-martial trials against the defendants, dismiss the charges or use other administrative methods to deal with the cases.”

I hope this doesn't mean there's going to be a whitewash of the matter. “Richard will decide whether to pursue courts martial trials against the defendants, dismiss the charges or use other administrative methods...” Boys will be boys, right??