NATO NO MORE?

July 21, 2016


News and Views


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nice-france-attack-mohamed-bouhlel-accomplices/

Prosecutor: Nice, France, attacker had accomplices
AP July 21, 2016, 12:26 PM

22 Photographs -- Inset of Mohamed Bouhlel, in front of the truck he drove onto a crowded boulevard in Nice, France, on July 14, 2016
Play VIDEO -- Father and son killed in Nice remembered
Play VIDEO -- Bastille Day Tragedy
Play VIDEO -- Evidence shows meticulously planned Nice attack
Play VIDEO -- France's days of mourning for Nice victims
Play VIDEO -- ISIS claims credit for Bastille Day attack in Nice
Play VIDEO -- Friends remember Little Leaguer killed in France attack


PARIS -- The truck driver who killed 84 people on a Nice beachfront had accomplices and appears to have been plotting his attack for months, the Paris prosecutor said Thursday, citing cryptic phone messages, more than 1,000 calls and video of the attack scene on the phone of one of five people facing terror-linked charges.

Prosecutor Francois Molins said the five suspects currently in custody face preliminary terrorism charges for their alleged roles in helping 31-year-old Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel in the July 14 attack in the southern French city.

Molins' office, which oversees terrorism investigations, opened a judicial inquiry Thursday into a battery of charges for the suspects, including complicity to murder and possessing weapons tied to a terrorist enterprise.

The suspects are four men - two Franco-Tunisians, a Tunisian and an Albanian - and one woman of dual French-Albanian nationality, Molins said. The driver was a Tunisian man who had been living in Nice for several years.

People close to Bouhlel said he had shown no signs of radicalization until very recently. But Molins said information from Bouhlel's phone showed searches and photos that suggested he could have been preparing an attack as far back as 2015.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, has claimed credit for the attack, though authorities have said they had not found signs that the extremist group directed it.

The probe, which involves more than 400 investigators, confirms the attack was premediated, the prosecutor said.

At this stage of the investigation, the prosecutor said, Bouhlel "seemed to have envisaged and ripened his criminal project several months before taking action," he said. The probe so far reveals he had "help and complicity" and demonstrates the participating of the five ahead of the attack.

Telephone contents were used to link the five to Bouhlel, and allegedly to support roles in the carnage.

Bouhlel was killed by police after barreling his 20-ton truck down Nice's famed Promenade des Anglais for some two kilometers.

Bouhlel and a 30-year-old French-Tunisian with no previous convictions had phoned each other 1,218 times in a year, Molins said. Four days earlier, the prosecutor said, a text message from the same man found on a phone seized at Bouhlel's said: "I'm not Charlie; I'm happy. They have brought in the soldiers of Allah."

The message was dated three days after the January 2015 newsroom massacre at Charlie Hebdo, the satirical publication, and the worldwide movement of solidarity for the victims and France, "I'm Charlie."

Hours after the attack, the same man filmed the bloody scene on the promenade.

The aftermath of the Nice attack has seen France being torn apart, with finger-pointing and accusations that security was wanting despite the state of emergency that has been in place since the Paris attacks last November.

Earlier Thursday, French officials defended the government's security measures in Nice on the night of the attack, even as the interior minister acknowledged that national police were not, as he had claimed before, stationed at the entrance to the closed-off boulevard during the attack.

Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve's clarification comes after a newspaper accused French authorities of lacking transparency in their handling of the massacre.

Cazeneuve said Thursday that only local police, who are more lightly armed, were guarding the entrance to the Promenade des Anglais when Bouhlel drove a truck onto the sidewalk in Nice before mowing down pedestrians who had gathered to watch a holiday fireworks show.

Cazeneuve then launched an internal police investigation into the handling of the Nice attack.

President Francois Hollande said the conclusions of that investigation will be known next week. He said any police "shortcomings" will be carefully addressed but defended French authorities' actions.

"There's no room for polemics, there's only room for transparency," he said. "The necessary, serious preparations had been made for the July 14 festivities."

Earlier, the French newspaper Liberation said Cazeneuve lied about the whereabouts of the national police officers and cars in Nice that day and accused authorities of lacking transparency. Using witness statements and photos, Liberation showed Thursday that only one local police car was stationed at the entrance to the Nice boulevard on July 14.

The paper quoted Nice police officer Yves Bergerat, who said local police forces' guns and bullets aren't even equipped "to puncture the tires" let alone shatter the windshield of a truck that size.

Cazeneuve accused the paper of conspiracy theories and said several "heroic" national police - who killed the attacker after an exchange of fire - were stationed further down the promenade.

The criticism comes as the National Assembly extended France's state of emergency for six months. The security measure had been in place since the Nov. 13 Paris attacks that killed 130 victims and were claimed by ISIS.



Excerpts -- “The suspects are four men - two Franco-Tunisians, a Tunisian and an Albanian - and one woman of dual French-Albanian nationality, Molins said. The driver was a Tunisian man who had been living in Nice for several years. People close to Bouhlel said he had shown no signs of radicalization until very recently. But Molins said information from Bouhlel's phone showed searches and photos that suggested he could have been preparing an attack as far back as 2015. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, has claimed credit for the attack, though authorities have said they had not found signs that the extremist group directed it. …. The probe so far reveals he had "help and complicity" and demonstrates the participating of the five ahead of the attack. Telephone contents were used to link the five to Bouhlel, and allegedly to support roles in the carnage. …. Bouhlel and a 30-year-old French-Tunisian with no previous convictions had phoned each other 1,218 times in a year, Molins said. Four days earlier, the prosecutor said, a text message from the same man found on a phone seized at Bouhlel's said: "I'm not Charlie; I'm happy. They have brought in the soldiers of Allah." The message was dated three days after the January 2015 newsroom massacre at Charlie Hebdo, the satirical publication, and the worldwide movement of solidarity for the victims and France, "I'm Charlie." …. Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve's clarification comes after a newspaper accused French authorities of lacking transparency in their handling of the massacre. Cazeneuve said Thursday that only local police, who are more lightly armed, were guarding the entrance to the Promenade des Anglais when Bouhlel drove a truck onto the sidewalk in Nice before mowing down pedestrians who had gathered to watch a holiday fireworks show. Cazeneuve then launched an internal police investigation into the handling of the Nice attack. …. Cazeneuve accused the paper of conspiracy theories and said several "heroic" national police - who killed the attacker after an exchange of fire - were stationed further down the promenade.”


These two conspirators whose 2000 plus phone calls had not been traced before, went “under the radar,” apparently. It’s too easy in a large city to blend in by dressing and acting average if not normal, and to put together their plan and supplies slowly; then using the telephone or the Internet, start the action rolling. People with a vicious turn of mind can pick some happy and well-trusted venue to attack, place some associates within the police department to find out what the security plans are, and then attack their weakest link. The fact that everybody who knew him didn’t think he had been radicalized early on was most likely because he had been capable of covering up his thoughts very well. In most of these mass killings, the individual is not suspected beforehand. When asked about him people will usually say “he was very quiet,” or “he wouldn’t hurt a fly.” (Remember the last fantastic scene by Anthony Perkins in Hitchcock’s great film “Psycho”?)

To get to the serious side of this story, I’m glad to see that the network of conspirators is being unraveled, and, hopefully, the French will arrest more suspects who show links with these people. Picking them up before they strike is the best. People in this country don’t like that method often because it does require surveillance, but it’s logical.



DROP NATO ALLIANCE?


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-weighs-in-on-donald-trumps-nato-remarks/

Mitch McConnell weighs in on Donald Trump's NATO remarks
By REBECCA SHABAD
CBS NEWS
July 21, 2016, 3:42 PM


Senate Majority Mitch McConnell said Thursday that he thinks Donald Trump is "wrong" in his comments about the U.S. not immediately defending NATO allies if they are attacked.

"I disagree with that," the Kentucky Republican told Politico during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. "NATO is the most important military alliance in world history. I want to reassure our NATO allies that if any of them get attacked, we'll be there to defend them."

Trump suggested in an interview with The New York Times released Wednesday that he would only have the U.S. defend NATO allies if they had fulfilled their obligations. He made the comment when he was asked whether he would assist Baltic countries that are NATO members if Russia decided to attack them.

"Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes," said Trump, who was then asked what he would do in that scenario if they hadn't fulfilled their obligations to the U.S.

"Well, I'm not saying if not. I'm saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us," Trump said.

"I think he's wrong on that," McConnell told Politico. "I don't think that view would be prevalent or held by anybody he might make secretary of state or secretary of defense."

At the same time, the report said that even though McConnell disagreed with Trump, it doesn't concern him about Trump's fitness to lead the country.

In an interview with CBS News' Norah O'Donnell, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich also weighed in on Trump's NATO comments. He said that he thought Trump "would honor his obligation," but "he might rethink the obligation," and he speculated that Trump might give countries not living up to their obligations a year to comply.

"I'm saying Trump thinks there ought to be a very serious conversation about us, meaning the people, who defend people who won't defend themselves," he told O'Donnell.

Trump has complained before during the GOP primary race about NATO. In March, for example, he suggested that the U.S. should re-evaluate its participation in the alliance.



http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/trump-nato/492341/

NATO Shmato?
Donald Trump’s apparent rejection of the cornerstone of global security after World War II has stunned U.S. partners in the alliance.Updated at 10:21 a.m. ET, July 21, 2016

RELATED STORY -- It's Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin
America’s NATO allies may be on their own after November if Russia attacks them.


Donald Trump, the GOP presidential nominee, appeared to make U.S. military support for NATO member states conditional on whether those states have met their financial obligations to the bloc, which has served as the cornerstone of global security after World War II. The comments, in an interview with The New York Times, represent a marked departure from the security policy of every presidential nominee from either of the two major parties since NATO’s founding in 1949.

The Times asked Trump: “If Russia came over the border into Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania, places that Americans don’t think about all that often, would you come to their immediate military aid?” The full exchange is worth reading:

TRUMP: I don’t want to tell you what I’d do because I don’t want Putin to know what I’d do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I’m not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it.

SANGER: They are NATO members, and we are treaty-obligated ——

TRUMP: We have many NATO members that aren’t paying their bills.

SANGER: That’s true, but we are treaty-obligated under NATO, forget the bills part.

TRUMP: You can’t forget the bills. They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they’re supposed to make. That’s a big thing. You can’t say forget that.

SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations ——

TRUMP: Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.

HABERMAN: And if not?

TRUMP: Well, I’m not saying if not. I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us.

SANGER: You’ve seen several of those countries come under cyberattack, things that are short of war, clearly appear to be coming from Russia.

TRUMP: Well, we’re under cyberattack.

SANGER: We’re under regular cyberattack. Would you use cyberweapons before you used military force?

TRUMP: Cyber is absolutely a thing of the future and the present. Look, we’re under cyberattack, forget about them. And we don’t even know where it’s coming from.

At issue is NATO’s Article 5 on collective defense, which states that an “armed attack against one or more of them [members] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all...” The article was invoked once: by the U.S. after the attacks of September 11, 2001—which explains why NATO was involved in the U.S.-led war on Afghanistan. A NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that after the attacks NATO sent AWACS planes to patrol American skies and deployed a third of the troops in Afghanistan for more than a decade; more than 1,000 soldiers from non-U.S. NATO allies and partners were killed there, the official pointed out.

In a statement, NATO Secretary General‎ Jens Stoltenberg said: “Solidarity among Allies is a key value for NATO. This is good for European security and good for US security. We defend one another. We have seen this in Afghanistan, where tens of thousands of European, Canadian, and partner nation troops have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with US soldiers.”

If Trump is elected in November and is true to his pledge, then few of NATO’s 28 members will qualify for U.S. support in the event of a war. Only the U.S., Greece, the U.K., Estonia, and Poland meet NATO’s guideline that defense spending constitute 2 percent of GDP.

Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the Estonian president, tweeted Thursday morning about his Baltic nation’s commitment to NATO. He did not mention Trump.

Follow
toomas hendrik ilves ✔ @IlvesToomas
Estonia is of 5 NATO allies in Europe to meet its 2% def expenditures commitment. Fought, with no caveats, in NATO's sole Art. 5 op. in Afg.
3:41 AM - 21 Jul 2016
181 181 Retweets 202 202 likes

Follow
Zebulon Carlander @ZCarlander
Estonia also suffered one of the highest casualty rates in Afghanistan on a per capita basis. https://twitter.com/IlvesToomas/status/756031268429656064 …
3:48 AM - 21 Jul 2016
48 48 Retweets 30 30 likes

Follow
toomas hendrik ilves ✔ @IlvesToomas
We are equally committed to a l l our NATO allies, regardless of who they may be. That's what makes them allies.
4:10 AM - 21 Jul 2016
269 269 Retweets 370 370 likes

Follow
toomas hendrik ilves ✔ @IlvesToomas
No reason to read so much into my sentences about Estonia's role in NATO. I'm simply Sgt Joe Friday: "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts"
6:28 AM - 21 Jul 2016
29 29 Retweets 65 65 likes

Estonia, along with its Baltic (and NATO) partners, Lithuania, and Latvia, were until the early 1990s part of the Soviet Union. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania, were, likewise, member of the Soviet-allied Warsaw Pact, NATO’s communist counterpart. When the Soviet Union collapsed, these former communist countries looked to the West for new alliances. All are EU and NATO members. Trump’s remarks are causing jitters because the memory of the Soviet Union is still fresh in these states, and they are increasingly wary at Russia’s muscle-flexing under President Vladimir Putin. (Trump on Putin: “He’s been complimentary of me. I think Putin and I will get along very well.”)

The one NATO ally whom Trump appeared to defend in his interview with the Times was Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish president who survived a coup attempt last week, and, in response, has purged the country’s institutions of those he believes are responsible, and declared a three-month state of emergency.

“The coup never took place—the coup was not successful,” Trump said, “and based on the fact, and I give great credit to him [Erdogan] for being able to turn that around.”

When questioned whether a President Trump would “press him to make sure the rule of law applies?” the GOP nominee replied:

“I think right now when it comes to civil liberties, our country has a lot of problems, and I think it’s very hard for us to get involved in other countries when we don’t know what we are doing and we can’t see straight in our own country. ... We need allies.”

Erdogan, who has been pressed by the EU and the U.S. on respecting the rule of law in the wake of the coup attempt, has yet to respond.



Excerpt -- "Well, I'm not saying if not. I'm saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us," Trump said. "I think he's wrong on that," McConnell told Politico. "I don't think that view would be prevalent or held by anybody he might make secretary of state or secretary of defense." …. "Well, I'm not saying if not. I'm saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us," Trump said. "I think he's wrong on that," McConnell told Politico. "I don't think that view would be prevalent or held by anybody he might make secretary of state or secretary of defense." …. "I'm saying Trump thinks there ought to be a very serious conversation about us, meaning the people, who defend people who won't defend themselves," he told O'Donnell. Trump has complained before during the GOP primary race about NATO. In March, for example, he suggested that the U.S. should re-evaluate its participation in the alliance.”


Well, as people say, “One hand washes the other.” For the Rightist views of nationalism and isolationism to take over again would be tragic. A photograph of a building in France taken after WWII, which was simply crumbled by the bombing, and a young girl with a short cotton dress on standing there looking dazed in front of it, is etched in my memory. That photo needed no explanation.

Trump is very, very untrustworthy to make rational decisions. See the fascinating news article yesterday -- http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-donald-trump-offered-john-kasich-chance-to-be-the-most-powerful-vp-in-history/ -- which states that Trump’s son Donald Jr. sent a message to Kasich to be his VP and cover just about everything for him. Look at this excerpt below:

“Donald Trump Jr. went to a Kasich adviser with an offer, the report in the New York Times Magazine, said: if Kasich joined the ticket, he could be "the most powerful vice president in history." By that, Trump Jr. said he meant Kasich would "be in charge of domestic and foreign policy," according to the Times. When the Kasich adviser asked what Trump would then be in charge of, Trump Jr. simply replied: "Making America great again."

I haven’t liked the things that Trump has had to say at all so far, but this one is giving me a case of butterflies in the stomach! Nausea, even. Trump wants Kasich to do all the work while he takes all the credit. He also is exhibiting the most irrational side that I have seen so far, and that’s saying some. Before I thought he had no conscience and no self-control, but now I think he is outrightly insane. I wonder when the CIA will send out their agents to whack him!



http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/clinton-trump-putin-nato/492332/

It's Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin
Fulfilling what might be the Russian autocrat’s dearest wish, Trump has openly questioned whether the U.S. should keep its commitments to NATO.

RELATED STORY -- Putin Returns Trump's Effusive Praise


The Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, has chosen this week to unmask himself as a de facto agent of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a KGB-trained dictator who seeks to rebuild the Soviet empire by undermining the free nations of Europe, marginalizing NATO, and ending America’s reign as the world’s sole superpower.

I am not suggesting that Donald Trump is employed by Putin—though his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was for many years on the payroll of the Putin-backed former president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. I am arguing that Trump’s understanding of America’s role in the world aligns with Russia’s geostrategic interests; that his critique of American democracy is in accord with the Kremlin’s critique of American democracy; and that he shares numerous ideological and dispositional proclivities with Putin—for one thing, an obsession with the sort of “strength” often associated with dictators. Trump is making it clear that, as president, he would allow Russia to advance its hegemonic interests across Europe and the Middle East. His election would immediately trigger a wave of global instability—much worse than anything we are seeing today—because America’s allies understand that Trump would likely dismantle the post-World War II U.S.-created international order. Many of these countries, feeling abandoned, would likely pursue nuclear weapons programs on their own, leading to a nightmare of proliferation.

Trump’s sympathy for Putin has not been a secret. Trump said he would “get along very well” with Putin, and he has pleased Putin by expressing a comprehensive lack of interest in the future of Ukraine, the domination of which is a core Putinist principle. The Trump movement also agrees with Putin that U.S. democracy is fatally flawed. A Trump adviser, Carter Page, recently denounced—to a Moscow audience—America’s “often-hypocritical focus on democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change.” Earlier this week, Trump’s operatives watered down the Republican Party’s national-security platform position on Ukraine, removing a promise to help the Ukrainians receive lethal aid in their battle to remain free of Russian control.

Now, in an interview with Maggie Haberman and David Sanger of The New York Times, Trump has gone much further, suggesting that he and Putin share a disdain for NATO. Fulfilling what might be Putin’s dearest wish, Trump, in this interview, openly questioned whether the U.S., under his leadership, would keep its commitments to the alliance. According to Haberman and Sanger, Trump “even called into question, whether, as president, he would automatically extend the security guarantees that give the 28 members of NATO the assurance that the full force of the United States military has their back.” Trump told the Times that, should Russia attack a NATO ally, he would first assess whether those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us.” If they have, he said, he would then come to their defense.

Unlike Trump, leaders of countries like Estonia believe that the U.S. still represents the best hope for freedom.

These sorts of equivocating, mercenary statements—unprecedented in the history of Republican foreign policymaking—represent an invitation to Putin to intervene more destructively in non-NATO countries such as Ukraine and Moldova, and also represent an invitation to intervene directly in NATO countries—the Baltic states, first and foremost. This is why the Estonian president tweeted in a cold panic immediately after Trump’s interview appeared online: “Estonia is 1 of 5 NATO allies in Europe to meet its 2% def[ense] expenditures commitment.” The president, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, also noted that Estonia fought “with no caveats” with NATO in Afghanistan.

Unlike Trump, leaders of such countries as Estonia believe that the United States still represents the best hope for freedom. In his interview with Haberman and Sanger, Trump argued, in essence, that there is nothing exceptional about the U.S., and that therefore its leaders have no right to criticize the behavior of other countries: “When the world looks at how bad the United States is, and then we go and talk about civil liberties, I don’t think we’re a very good messenger.”


As someone who has covered President Obama’s foreign policy fairly extensively, I feel confident in stating that he has never expressed such a negative view of the U.S. We are truly in uncharted waters.

Republican Party foreign policy, to date, has been fairly clear on a number of subjects: The United States, Republican foreign-policy thinkers have argued, should help to expand the number of free countries in the world; they believe that the U.S. should come to the defense of free peoples whether or not those peoples can, or will, reimburse the United States for expenditures in pursuit of freedom; that Europe represents the stable platform from which the United States projects its power, and ideas, into the world; that Russian imperial dreams should be countered in a robust fashion by the U.S. and its allies; and that the withdrawal of the U.S. from three key regions of the world—East Asia, Europe, and the Middle East—would create vacuums soon filled by non-democratic regimes that would operate counter to U.S. national-security interests.

Donald Trump, should he be elected president, would bring an end to the postwar international order, and liberate dictators, first and foremost his ally Vladimir Putin, to advance their own interests. The moral arc of the universe is long, and, if Trump is elected, it will bend in the direction of despotism and darkness.


It's time for those who do still have any power in this country, and any common sense, to quietly put cyanide in Trump’s coffee. With some good spices and sugar he wouldn’t notice it.