Due to Sanctions, North Korea Declares Act of War

Posted on July 7, 2016July 8, 2016 by Denise Simon

Counter North Korean ThreatsPress Release 07.08.16

Media Contact 202-225-5021

Washington, D.C. – House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) released the following statement regarding the joint South Korea-U.S. decision to deploy the U.S. Army’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) to defend against North Korean threats:

“The North Korean regime’s continued belligerence is a threat to South Korea and the entire Pacific region. The deployment of the THAAD defensive missile system will help protect against Kim Jong Un’s illicit weapons programs. Along with new sanctions mandated by my North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016, this action demonstrates the strong resolve of the U.S. and South Korea to promote peace, stability, and respect for human rights.”

NKorea: US sanctions tantamount to act of war

SEOUL, South Korea (AP)— North Korea said Thursday that U.S. sanctions on leader Kim Jong Un and other top officials for human rights abuses are tantamount to declaring war.

The country’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency saying the announcement of sanctions on Kim and 10 other officials was “peppered with lies and fabrications” and demanding the sanctions be withdrawn.

“Now that the U.S. declared a war on the DPRK, any problem arising in the relations with the U.S. will be handled under the latter’s wartime law,” the statement says, using the initials of the country’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

North Korea has already been sanctioned heavily because of its nuclear weapons program. However, Wednesday’s action by the Obama administration was the first time Kim has been personally targeted, and the first time that any North Korean official has been blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury in connection with reports of rights abuses.

The North Korean statement called the sanctions a “hideous crime.” It demanded that the sanctions be retracted or else “every lever and channel for diplomatic contact between the DPRK and the U.S. will be cut off at once.”

U.S. and North Korea do not have formal diplomatic relations, although they retain a channel of communication through the North’s diplomatic mission at the United Nations in New York.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said that the U.S. stands by its decision to impose the sanctions.

“We once again call on North Korea to refrain from actions and rhetoric that only further raise tensions in the region. I can’t see how this rhetoric does anything but that,” he told reporters in Washington when asked about the North Korean response.

North Korea frequently uses harsh rhetoric and denunciations of the United States, and threats of hostilities are not uncommon.

On Wednesday, the State Department also released a report, mandated by Congress, on human rights abuses in North Korea. Administration officials said it was intended to name and shame responsible officials in North Korea’s government, and send a message to lower and mid-ranking officials to think twice before engaging in acts of cruelty and oppression.

Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday the new sanctions could cause North Korean officials to think twice before committing rights abuses.

“It is important,” he told reporters during a visit to Ukraine, “that all North Korean officials know and understand going forward that at all levels there are consequences for actions and they hopefully might consider the implications of those actions,” he said.

In addition to blacklisting Kim, the Treasury Department blacklisted officials at the Ministry of State Security — which it said administers political prison camps and is engaged in torture and inhumane treatment of detainees — and the Ministry of People‘s Security which operates a network of police stations, interrogation centers and labor camps.

The State Department said North Korean political prison camps hold between 80,000 to 120,000 prisoners, including children and other family members.

***** Mostly importantly from 6 months ago:

After Bomb Test, North Korea, Iran Continue Illicit Nuke Cooperation

After test explosion, lawmakers, experts warn of illicit nuclear axis

FreeBeacon: One day after North Korea claimed to have successfully tested a miniaturized hydrogen bomb, lawmakers and regional experts are warning that Pyongyang and Tehran are continuing an illicit clandestine partnership enabling the rogue nations to master nuclear technology.

Loopholes in the nuclear pact recently reached between Iran and the international community have allowed the Islamic Republic and North Korea to boost their nuclear cooperation, which includes the exchange of information and technology, according to material provided to Congress over the past year.

Iran is believed to be housing some of its key nuclear weapons-related technology in North Korea in order to avoid detection by international inspectors. Iranian dissidents once tied to the regime have disclosed that both countries have consulted on a nuclear warhead.

Following the test, however, the White House publicly denied that Iran and North Korea are working together, according to multiple statements issued by the administration on Wednesday.

Still, the Iranian-North Korean nuclear axis is coming under renewed scrutiny by lawmakers in light of Pyongyang’s most recent detonation, which is the fourth of its kind in recent years.

Congressional critics now warn that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to clamp down on North Korea given its recent efforts to appease Iran by dropping a new set of sanctions that were meant to target its illicit ballistic weapons program.

Iran, on the other hand, thinks that the bomb test will give it “media breathing space” by drawing attention away from its own nuclear pursuits, according to Persian-language reports carried by state-controlled media outlets closely aligned with the country’s Revolutionary Guards Corps.

“The entire world may well consider North Korea a failed state, but from the view point of the [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps], North Korea is a success story and a role model: A state which remains true to its revolutionary beliefs and defies the Global Arrogance,” said Ali Alfoneh, an expert on the inner workings of the Iranian regime.

Prominent members of Congress are now warning that North Korea’s latest nuclear test is a sign of what could come from Iran, which they claim is closely following the North Korean nuclear playbook.

Rep. Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R, Fla.), chair of House’s foreign relations subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, described North Korea’s latest test as “a precursor to what we can expect from Iran in a few years.”

Iran, Ros-Lehtinen told the Washington Free Beacon, “is following the North Korea playbook” and “stands to be the main beneficiary of Pyongyang’s continued nuclear progress.”

“Iran and North Korea have a history of collaboration on military programs and have long been suspected of collaborating on nuclear related programs,” she said, noting that the Iran deal provides the Islamic Republic with the cash necessary to purchase advanced nuclear technology.

“Iran won’t even need to make any progress on its domestic nuclear program—once it perfects its ballistic missiles it could purchase a weapon from North Korea and all of the conditions and monitoring in the [nuclear deal] would be ineffective in detecting or stopping that,” she said.

“Let’s not forget, Iranians have reportedly been present at each of North Korea’s previous nuclear tests,” Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. “We cannot turn a blind eye to ongoing ties between North Korea and Iran. President Obama must act now to stop these rogue nations from supporting each other’s nuclear weapons efforts aimed at harming America and our allies.”

Rep. Patrick Meehan (R., Pa.) expressed concern that Iran is following in North Korea’s footsteps, and that the nuclear deal will collapse just as Bill Clinton’s agreement with North Korea did in the mid-1990s.

“This test is just the latest sign that North Korea is a regime hell-bent on building and developing a sophisticated nuclear program,” Meehan said. “The passage of the 1995 nuclear deal with [North Korea] came with it promises from the Clinton administration of accountability and transparency for Kim’s regime.”

“Those same sort of assurances are echoed today by the Obama White House as it seeks to assure us that its own deal with Iran will be more successful,” Meehan said. “The Iran deal and the North Korean deal were sold with the same promises, the same assurances, to the American people, sometimes even word-for-word.”

“When you put the rhetoric of the 90’s and the North next to the rhetoric of today and Iran, it’s hard to tell the difference,” he added.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), a chief advocate for increased economic sanctions on Iran, highlighted what he called North Korea’s “alarming record” of “cooperating on missile development with Iran.”

With Iran set to receive billions of dollars in sanctions relief later this month, regional experts have informed Congress that the nuclear deal “creates conditions and incentives that are highly likely to result in the expansion” of Iran and North Korea’s illicit nuclear exchange, according to testimony submitted last year by Claudia Rossett, an expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The deal fails to “cut off the pathways between Iran and nuclear-proliferating North Korea” and even has made “it safer for Iran to cheat,” according to Rossett’s testimony.

Additionally, sanctions relief gives Iran a chance to “go shopping in North Korea,” she said.

The Obama administration denied the ties between Iran and North Korea, telling reporters on Wednesday that “they’re entirely two different issues altogether.”

“We consider the Iran deal as a completely separate issue handled in a completely different manner than were the—than was the Agreed Framework with North Korea,” said John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, echoing similar remarks issued by the White House.

The administration’s hesitance to link the two nuclear issues has angered some critics of the Iran deal.

“This is exactly the kind of dishonest incoherence that the Iran nuclear deal forces its advocates to defend,” said Omri Ceren, the managing director of press and strategy at The Israel Project, a D.C.-based organization that works with journalists on Middle East issues.

“The Obama administration can’t admit that the [deal] provided the Iranians with hundreds of billions of dollars, some of which they’re going to invest in nuclear research beyond their borders, allowing them to get sanctions relief while advancing their program anyway,” Ceren said. “So instead they have to deny that there are links between Iran and North Korea’s nuclear program, even though that’s laughable.”

To POTUS/FBI: Hillary was not Sloppy, She was Calculated

Posted on July 7, 2016July 7, 2016 by Denise Simon

Media preview

If you think the FBI Director Comey’s press conference about Hillary’s server/email system was bad, well his responses to questions before the emergency session of the Oversight Committee was profoundly epic in a full criminal indictment of Hillary and her actions.

There is a schedule where Attorney General, Loretta Lynch is to testify before the same committee next week. Additionally, it was noted that the FBI wont comment if it is investigating the Clinton Foundation.

It came out too that once a lifelong registered Republican, Comey is no longer. Of particular note, during the Saturday session with 6 agents of the FBI, Hillary was not under oath and Director Comey did not participate.

Directly after the question and answer session with James Comey, the hearing continued with Charles McCullough, he is the Intelligence Community (ODNI) Inspector General and with Steve Linik, Inspector General.

Snippets for your review:

Comey Testifies Clinton Email Claims ‘not true’ at Heated Hill Hearing

FNC: FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday that Hillary Clinton’s claims — some made under oath — about her use of a private email server were “not true,” fueling Republican questions about whether in doing so she committed a felony.

Comey was asked about such claims, which she also made publicly, in a pointed exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.

“That’s not true. … There was classified material emailed,” Comey said.

On her claim that she used one device, Comey also said, “She used multiple devices.” More here from FNC

Here is an amazing 6 minute exchange:

Comey: Clinton showed classified intel to people with no security clearance

WashingtonExaminer: FBI Director James Comey said Thursday that Hillary Clinton’s personal server network exposed classified information to people who did not have the security clearances to access that material.

“There’s no doubt that uncleared people had access to the server,” Comey said during a congressional hearing.

While he did not provide an exact number of individuals, he said between two and 10 people with no authority to handle classified information were able to look at classified documents on Clinton’s server.

The exposure occurred when personal attorneys for Clinton were tasked with sifting through the former secretary of state’s emails to select the records that Clinton would turn over to the State Department.

“Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?” asked Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

“Yes,” Comey said.

*****

Chaffetz: We Will Refer Hillary Clinton to the FBI for Perjury

Breitbart: Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), chair of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, told FBI director James Comey during his testimony on Thursday morning that the committee would refer former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for investigation for perjury, given that she lied under oath before the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October.

“You’ll have one,” Chaffetz said, within “a few hours,” after Comey testified that the FBI would need a referral for Congress before investigating.

As Breitbart News detailed earlier this week, Clinton lied under oath to Congress in at least three ways: first, by stating that she had turned over “all my work related emails” from her private email server to the government; second, by insisting there was “nothing marked classified on my e-mails”; and third, by telling the committee that her attorneys “went through every single e-mail.” FBI director James Comey’s statement Tuesday suggested that none of those sworn statements were true.

Bill introduced to take away Hillary Clinton’s security clearance

KRDO: WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) are introducing a bill to revoke Hillary Clinton’s security clearance, as well as the security clearances of Clinton’s colleagues at the State Department.

The bill is called the Taking Responsibility Using Secured Technologies (TRUST) Act of 2016.

This comes after the FBI investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State.

This week, FBI Director James Comey announced that he is not recommending any charges in the case.

“The FBI’s investigation into Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail server confirmed what Americans across the country already know: Secretary Clinton recklessly accessed classified information on an insecure system – establishing a vulnerable and highly desirable target for foreign hackers,” said Gardner. “If the FBI won’t recommend action based on its findings, Congress will. At the very least, Secretary Clinton should not have access to classified information and our bill makes sure of it.”

Lastly:

Willful Blindness and DHS Policy CVE Grant Program

Posted on July 6, 2016July 6, 2016 by Denise Simon

Philip B. Haney, a founding member, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and author of the must-read book See Something, Say Nothing

Last week I testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts at a hearing entitled, “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts To Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism.”

Philip Haney/Breitbart: I am a recently retired Customs & Border Protection (CBP) agent. I was named a Founding Member of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at its inception on March 01, 2003. During my 12 years serving inside DHS under two administrations, I witnessed a series of events which ultimately prompted me to become a whistleblower, releasing critical documents to Members of Congress as I felt necessary to comply with my oath to the Constitution.

First, in January of 2008, I received what is now known as the “Words Matter Memo,” which was circulated internally by the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) division of DHS. The full title of the document was “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims,” and it read in part:

[T]he experts counseled caution in using terms such as, “jihadist,” “Islamic terrorist,” “Islamist,” and “holy warrior” as grandiose descriptions.

Collapsing all terrorist organizations into a single enemy feeds the narrative that al-Qaeda represents Muslims worldwide.

We should not concede the terrorists’ claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam. Therefore, when using the word [Islamic], it may be strategic to emphasize that many so-called “Islamic” terrorist groups twist and exploit the tenets of Islam to justify violence and to serve their own selfish political aims.

Regarding jihad, even if it is accurate to reference the term (putting aside polemics on its true nature), it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have, and damages relations with Muslims around the globe.

I submitted a seven-point response listing serious substantive concerns about this memo, but received no response.

On November 24, 2008, a decision came down in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, the largest terror financing case in American history. During that trial, the federal government had established that a number of organizations were appropriately named as unindicted co-conspirators along with HLF, including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

Specifically, the judge ruled that federal prosecutors had “produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF… and with Hamas.” In addition, the judge ruled that that these organizations had direct links to the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the oldest and largest Islamic fundamentalist organizations in the world, founded in 1928 in Egypt to reestablish the Caliphate, whose motto includes “Jihad is our way, and death in the service of Allah is the loftiest of our wishes.”

I made note of the decision, and explored links between these groups and potential extremist and terrorist activity. But on October 15, 2009, I was ordered by DHS to ‘modify’ linking information in about 820 subject records in the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, or “TECS records” to remove ‘unauthorized references to terrorism.’ I was further ordered not to input any more Memoranda of Information Received, or MOIRs, to create no more TECS records, and to do no further research on the topics I was exploring.

On November 5, 2009, at Ft. Hood, Texas, Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 people, including one who was pregnant, and wounded 32 others, while calling out “Allahu akbar!” meaning “God is great” in Arabic.

Hassan was a U.S. Army major who had exchanged emails with leading al Qaeda figure Anwar Awlaki – which the FBI had seen and decided not to take action – in which he asked whether those attacking fellow U.S. soldiers were martyrs. He had also given a presentation to Army doctors discussing Islam and suicide bombers during which he argued Muslims should be allowed to leave the armed forces as conscientious objectors to avoid “adverse events.” The Pentagon refused for five years to grant victims Purple Hearts, designating the attack “workplace violence.”

On January 27-28, 2010 an ‘Inaugural Meeting’ occurred between American Muslim leaders and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, hosted by DHS CRCL. The Inaugural Meeting created controversy because it included a number of Islamic fundamentalist individuals and organizations.

For instance, the meeting included at least one organization that was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 HLF Trial and established to have associations with the now-shuttered HLF and with Hamas, namely ISNA. According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), the group’s representative who attended the meeting, Ingrid Mattson, has “an established pattern of minimizing the nature of extremist forms of Islam and rationalizing the actions of Islamist terrorist movements.” Another invited group, the Muslim American Society (MAS), was actually formed as the United States chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1993.

Likewise, in the Spring of 2010, the Administration convened the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group under the authority of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC), again raising questions because of those named to it.

They included Omar Alomari, who once wrote that jihad was “the benign pursuit of personal betterment. It may be applied to physical conflict for Muslims, but only in the arena of Muslims defending themselves when attacked or when attempting to overthrow oppression and occupation,” asserting further that “”Jihad as a holy war is a European invention, spread in the West”; Mohamed Elibiary, who has asserted that it was “inevitable that [the] ‘Caliphate’ returns” and ultimately was let go from the HSAC amid charges he misused classified documents; and Dahlia Mogahed, who has decried “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism” and holds that “Islamic terrorism’ is really a contradiction in terms” to mainstream Muslims “because terrorism is not Islamic by definition.”

So by the Spring of 2010, we had come to the point that a CBP Officer was literally removing information connecting the dots on individuals with ties to known terror-linked groups from TECS, while the Administration was bringing the same individuals into positions of influence, to help create and implement our counter-terror policy, in the context of actual terror attacks taking place.

On August 30, 2011, the DHS Chief Council approved a project I initiated looking into Islamic fundamentalist group Tablighi Jamaat (TJ). On November 15, 2011, I began a temporary duty assignment at the National Targeting Center (NTC). A short time later, I was assigned to the Advanced Targeting Team, where I worked exclusively on the TJ Project, which was quickly upgraded to a global-level case.

On March 15, 2012, seven lawyers and three senior executive service (SES) administrators met with management personnel at the NTC to express concern for our focus on TJ, because it is not a designated terrorist group, and therefore the project might be “discriminating” against its members because they are Muslim. On June-July, 2012, the TJ Initiative was ‘taken in another direction,’ (i.e. shut down). The Administration took this action despite the fact that [1] in nine months, we had conducted 1,200 law enforcement actions, [2] I was formally commended for finding 300 individuals with possible connections to terrorism, and [3] 25% of the individuals in Guantanamo Bay had known links to Tablighi Jamaat.

On August 22, 2012, The Institute of Islamic Education (IIE) case that today links both the Darul Uloom Al-Islamiya mosque attended by Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernardino shooters, and the Fort Pierce mosque attended by Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, was entered into TECS. But once again, on September 21, 2012, all 67 records in the IIE case were completely deleted (not just ‘modified’) from TECS.

On September 21, 2014, I was relieved of my service weapon, all access to TECS and other programs was suspended, my Secret Clearance was revoked, and I was sequestered for the last 11 months of my career with no assigned duties.

On December 2, 2015, the San Bernardino shootings occurred, and I immediately linked the mosque in San Bernardino to the IIE case (with the 67 deleted records), and to the Tablighi Jamaat case (which was shut down).

On June 09, 2016, the Homeland Security Advisory Council Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Subcommittee issued an Interim Report and Recommendations. The report recommended in part using American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like “jihad,” “sharia,” “takfir” or “umma.”

On June 12, 2016, the shootings in Orlando occurred, and I linked Omar Mateen’s mosque in Fort Pierce, FL to the IIE & TJ case. And on June 19, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that her Department of Justice would release redacted 9-11 call transcripts for Mr. Mateen.

The threat of Islamic terrorism does not just come from a network of armed organizations such as Hamas and ISIS, who are operating ‘over there’ in the Middle East. In fact, branches of the same global network have been established here in America, and they are operating in plain sight, at least to those of us who have been charged with the duty of protecting our country from threats, both foreign and domestic.

The threat we face today, which continues growing despite the willful blindness of those who insist on pretending otherwise, is not “violent extremism,” “terrorism,” or even “Jihad” alone, but rather, the historical and universally recognized Islamic strategic goal of implementing Shariah law everywhere in the world, so that no other form of government (including the U.S. Constitution) is able to oppose its influence over the lives of those who must either submit to its authority, become second-class citizens, or perish.

Ignoring that reality has arguably cost at least the lives of those in Ft. Hood, San Bernardino and Orlando, and will cost many, many more if it is allowed to continue.

FY 2016 Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Grant Program

Department of Homeland Security: In December, 2015, Congress passed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113). Sec. 543 of the Act and the accompanying Joint Explanatory Statement provided $10 million for a “countering violent extremism (CVE) initiative to help states and local communities prepare for, prevent, and respond to emergent threats from violent extremism.”

The Department of Homeland Security issued a notice of funding opportunity on July 6, 2016 announcing the new Countering Violent Extremism Grant Program, the first federal grant funding available to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and institutions of higher education to carry out countering violent extremism programs.

These new grants will provide state, local and tribal partners and community groups—religious groups, mental health and social service providers, educators and other NGOs—with the ability to build prevention programs that address the root causes of violent extremism and deter individuals who may already be radicalizing to violence.

This initiative builds on Secretary Johnson’s September 2015 announcement of the creation of the Office for Community Partnerships. This Office has worked to take the Department’s CVE mission to the next level and find innovative ways to support local communities and address the evolving threat environment. This grant program supports that line of effort.

For an overview of the program and eligibility, please consult this Fact Sheet.

Interested applicants can view the Notice of Funding Opportunity and begin the application process.

Frequently Asked Questions can be found here.

Kate’s Law Blocked by Senate Democrats

Posted on July 6, 2016July 6, 2016 by Denise Simon

Unfortunately Senator Toomey’s sanctuary city bill (S.3100) failed to receive the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and move forward with debate. From 2015:

The Stop Sanctuary Policies Act, a Republican-backed bill that would withhold some federal funding from so-called “sanctuary cities,” failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to advance beyond a test vote.

“Sanctuary cities,” like Philadelphia, ignore “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests to detain any undocumented immigrant arrested by local law enforcement, claiming the aggressive use of detainers prevents immigrants from reporting crimes to police.

Such policies came under scrutiny in July, when an undocumented immigrant and convicted felon allegedly murdered a woman in San Francisco. Congressional Republicans rallied around the case, passing a similar bill in the House of Representatives, while President Barack Obama vowed to veto such legislation. More here.

Senate Dems block sanctuary city, ‘Kate’s Law’ bills

WashingtonExaminer: Senate lawmakers on Wednesday blocked legislation aimed at stopping violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

The “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act” would revoke federal grants provided to so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with Homeland Security requests to detain illegal immigrants. The bill is meant to put pressure on those cities to cooperate with the federal government on these issues.

The bill is one of the legislative reactions to the death of Kate Steinle, who was killed on a San Francisco pier by an illegal immigrant. After her death, city officials defended their decision not to cooperate with federal authorities on deporting illegal immigrants.

While Republicans say those sorts of incidents show the government needs to put more pressure on sanctuary cities to follow federal guidance, Democrats disagree, and they helped scuttle the bill in the Senate. Republicans needed 60 votes to let the bill advance in a 53-44 vote.

Democrats have said the bill is anti-immigrant and would hurt local communities. Civil rights groups have lobbied Democrats to oppose the bills, arguing they would damage the ability of police to build trust with immigrant communities.

Democrats also blocked a second related bill, the “Stop Illegal Reentry Act,” which would require mandatory minimum sentences standards for those who have been deported and then come back into the United States illegally and are convicted of an aggravated felony.

The bill is named after Steinle, and was introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

“Congress must prevent cities from harboring illegal aliens, and it must hold this administration accountable for its failure, if not its outright refusal, to enforce federal immigration laws and ensure the safety and security of the American people,” Cruz said.

But Democrats disagreed, and again shut down the bill in a procedural vote that failed to get 60 votes, 55-42.

*****

In part from USAToday: Republicans said they were trying to save lives, invoking the one-year anniversary of the shooting of 32-year-old Kate Steinle, who was killed as she walked along a San Francisco pier with her father in July 2015. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, has been charged with Steinle’s murder.

The case sparked national outrage when it was revealed that Sanchez had been deported five times for multiple felonies and was released from a San Francisco County Jail without being turned over to federal immigration authorities.

“The shooter should never have been on the pier that day,” Toomey said.

San Francisco and more than 300 other cities, counties and states have policies against keeping undocumented immigrants in custody for federal agents unless agents have a court order or warrant. Police in cities with large immigrant populations say they cannot convince residents to trust them if police are viewed as immigration agents who will help deport them if they come forward to report crimes.

Toomey’s bill would have barred local governments with sanctuary policies from receiving community development block grants, which are used to create jobs, provide housing to low-income and moderate-income families, and help communities recover from natural disasters.

“Senator Toomey’s bill…aims to prevent more families from experiencing the heartache that Kate Steinle’s family has been forced to endure,” said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Republicans have been candid about the need for Toomey to have a vote on his “message amendment” to help his re-election campaign.

“So this is a political tactic,” Durbin said. “Senator Toomey’s bill will not pass, but it gives him something to talk about when he goes home and something perhaps to give a speech about at the Republican (National) Convention.” More from USAToday

Former UK PM, Blair Under Fire for Iraq War

Posted on July 6, 2016July 6, 2016 by Denise Simon

There have been calls for Blair — who gave evidence to the inquiry twice — to be charged with war crimes over Iraq, but it is considered unlikely that the report will issue a decision on the legality of the war.

The Brits did use cash to pay for destructions of Sarin.

The complete report is available here.

Tony Blair leaves his home in London this morning

Chilcot Report: BBC

Summary

Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq War inquiry report is being published after seven years
Inquiry set up by ex-PM Gordon Brown in June 2009 to look into run-up to US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq and its aftermath
Document is 2.6 million words long, and no redactions will appear in the text
Report is expected to be highly critical of a number of high-ranking officials

‘Military action… was not a last resort’

Sir John Chilcot says the inquiry looked at whether it was “right and necessary” to invade Iraq “and whether the UK could – and should – have been better prepared for what followed”.

We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”

‘Severity of threat posed by WMDs… not justified’

Sir John Chilcot also says:

The judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified.”

Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate.

The government failed to achieve its stated objectives.”

BRIEFING PAPER

Number CBP 6215, 1 July 2016

Chilcot Inquiry

Numbers below provided by Mashable:

7 years

Since the Chilcot Inquiry was launched by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown in order to learn lessons from the Iraq war. The investigation was chaired by Sir John Chilcot.

2.6 million

Number of words in the report, which makes it the longest report in history. It has been calculated that it would take nine days to read it:

£10,375,000 ($13,420,585)

The total cost of the Iraq Inquiry since 2009.

Between 160,400 and 179,312

Number of civilians killed by violence since the invasion, according to Iraq Body Count.

150,000

Documents studied by Sir John Chilcot and his team

2,578

Days passed since the report was announced

179

British servicemen and women that lost their lives in Iraq

129

Witnesses cross-examined by the inquiry

13

Years since the start of the Iraq War

2

Number of times former Prime Minister Tony Blair has been interviewed for the inquiry

Further summary details as delivered orally:

The Chilcot report: A summary

There was “no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein” in March 2003 and military action was “not a last resort”

The UK “chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted”

Tony Blair’s note to George Bush on July 28, 2002, saying UK would be with the US “whatever”, was the moment Britain was set on a path to war

Judgements about the threat posed by Iraq’s WMD “were presented with a certainty that was not justified”

Tony Blair told attorney general Lord Goldsmith Iraq had committed breaches of UN Security Council resolution 1441 without giving evidence to back up his claim

Ministry of Defence was “slow” to react to clear need for better equipment and it was not clear whose job it was to do so

Planning for post-war Iraq was “wholly inadequate”

Blair government “failed to achieve its stated objectives”

The legality of the war can only be decided by an international court

Go here for the most recent results and report