To Move the Gitmo Detainees Stateside, Change the Law

Cuba setting the early stage for Barack Obama’s visit to Cuba?

Reuters: Cuba said, in an editorial published Wednesday, it would welcome President Barack Obama to Havana later this month, but the Communist government had no intention of changing its policies in exchange for normal relations with the U.S. Nathan Frandino reports.

   Video including in this link.

They may be preparing to host U.S. President Obama in a new era of detente, but Cuba has a bristling message for its former Cold War foe. (SOUNDBITE) (Spanish) NEWS PRESENTER, RAUL ISIDRON, SAYING: “Working together does not mean that we have to renounce the ideas we believe in and which have brought us this far – our socialism, our history, our culture.” The editorial was issued by Cuba’s state-controlled media and comes 15 months after Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro agreed to end more than five decades of hostilities and try to normalize relations. But the editorial made clear, strong differences remain… chief among them the U.S. trade embargo, which congressional Republicans have refused to end, and U.S. support for dissidents on the island. Despite the tough words, ordinary Cubans say they’re hopeful that positive changes are on the way. (SOUNDBITE) (Spanish) ACCOUNTANT, GUILLERMO RAMIREZ, SAYING: “This is the beginning, the beginning of a long deal, it is not all done now with a magic wand. We have a long road. We have to be conscious of that.” Obama’s visit on March 20 will be the first by a U.S. president since the 1959 revolution.

Lynch: No Gitmo transfers to US without change in law

TheHill: The Obama administration will not try to transfer detainees from Guantánamo Bay to the United States without a change in law, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Wednesday.

“The law currently prohibits a transfer to U.S. soil, and the president would have to work with Congress,” Lynch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Congress would have to consider any relevant changes that could be made to the law before any transfers could be taken.”

The comments are perhaps the most explicit acknowledgment that the president’s goal of closing the detention facility will not be met while he is in office, given the overwhelming opposition in Congress.

The administration has repeatedly claimed it believes current prohibitions in defense policy law bar the Pentagon from bringing any of the 91 detainees at the camp to the U.S. But Wednesday’s comments, which follow the president’s unveiling of a general strategy for closing the facility last month, make clear that those restrictions will obstruct Obama from fulfilling his long-held promise to close the detention facility.

“The president’s policy indicates a desire to work with Congress to implement any necessary changes that would have to be taken before this could be taken,” Lynch said before the Senate panel on Wednesday. “I believe that is his plan.”

The White House proposal last month, which was demanded by Congress, would send 35 of the remaining Guantánamo Bay detainees who have been cleared for release to foreign countries.

Given this statement by U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, it is no surprise this report came out this week.

More former Gitmo detainees suspected of returning to battlefield

FNC: A dozen former detainees at Guantanamo Bay are suspected of returning to the battlefield on behalf of various militant groups, according to a report released by the Obama administration Monday.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said that seven of the 144 detainees who have been freed since President Barack Obama took office in 2009 have been confirmed to have returned to fighting as of Jan. 15. The ODNI’s previous report, from this past July, said six detainees had gone back to battle.

The number of suspected recidivist detainees was double the number in this past July’s report. The increase is likely to spark new protests by Republicans opposed to President Obama’s plan to shut down the facility and transfer dozens of detainees to prisons in the U.S.

Under Obama’s plan, roughly 35 of the 91 current prisoners will be transferred to other countries in the coming months, leaving up to 60 detainees who are either facing trial by military commission or have been determined to be too dangerous to release but are not facing charges. Those detainees would be relocated to a U.S. facility.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said last month that Republicans are taking legal steps to stop Obama from closing the prison. Ryan told reporters that lawmakers have the votes to block Obama’s plan in Congress and enough votes to override any veto.

“These detainees cannot come to American soil,” Ryan said at the time.

The ODNI report does not specify where or for which groups the former detainees are confirmed or suspected to be fighting.

The report also found that 111 of 532 prisoners released by the George W. Bush administration had returned to the battlefield, while another 74 were suspected of doing so.

Should we be suspect of Barack Obama’s trip to Cuba this month?

The plane is full already:

NYT:  It wasn’t so long ago that a small congressional delegation’s trip to Cuba was a less-than-popular outing. But at least 20 lawmakers will accompany President Obama on his trip to Cuba this month, and many more asked for a seat aboard Air Force One. The group is bipartisan, demonstrating that some Republicans are coming around to the idea of ending a decades-old trade embargo, a policy Mr. Obama and President Raúl Castro of Cuba have pursued.

“We’re getting there,” said Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who has been an early and strong ally of Mr. Obama on the issue and is a sponsor of legislation that would end prohibitions on travel to Cuba. “If we put that bill on the floor tomorrow,” he said, “we’d have north of 60 votes.” Mr. Flake will travel with the White House contingent, as will Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.

The thaw between the United States and Cuba has divided Republicans and become an issue in the race for the White House. Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida, both Republicans, have been sharply critical of the trip as well as Mr. Obama’s use of executive authority to end some economic restrictions on Cuba.

 

 

American fatally stabbed in Israel

TERROR – TEL AVIV: 4 Israelis wounded in an Arab terrorist stabbing attack near Jaffa port, terrorist neutralised.

TRAGIC LOSS: Latest terror victim stabbed to death in Tel Aviv, US Vet Taylor Force who served in Afghanistan & Iraq

1 Israeli died of his wounds, additional 9 wounded in Arab terrorist stabbing attack in Tel Aviv.

(CNN) A former U.S. Army officer who was part of a Vanderbilt University tour group was stabbed to death in a terror attack that left 10 others wounded in an old section of Tel Aviv, officials said Tuesday.

Taylor Force, a first-year student in the graduate school of management, was killed, Vanderbilt chancellor Nicholas S. Zeppos announced.

“This horrific act of violence has robbed our Vanderbilt family of a young hopeful life and all of the bright promise that he held for bettering our greater world,” Zeppos said.

The school said in a separate statement that Force was among 29 students and four staff members who had gone to Israel to study global entrepreneurship. They were in Jaffa by the Mediterranean Sea when they were attacked.

All the other trip participants from Vanderbilt are safe, the Nashville, Tennessee, school said.

 According to Force’s LinkedIn page, he graduated from West Point in 2009 and was a field artillery officer in the U.S. Army until 2014.

Force, 28, started an MBA study in 2015. At the time, he told the website Poets and Quants that he went to Vanderbilt because of the support for veterans, the diversity of students and the quality of education.

Taylor Force

“In addition to learning the skills needed to be successful in business, I want to establish life-long connections and friendships with my fellow students from the U.S. and around the globe,” he said.

The U.S. State Department confirmed Force’s death and condemned the attack.

“We offer our heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Taylor and all those affected by these senseless attacks, and we wish a speedy recovery for the injured,” spokesman John Kirby said. “As we have said many times, there is absolutely no justification for terrorism.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sent his condolences to Force’s family.

“May his memory be a blessing,” Netanyahu said.

Attack was near Biden visit

The stabbing attack occurred along a popular oceanfront boardwalk in southern Tel Aviv not far from where U.S. Vice President Joe Biden was visiting.

“In these moments, terror attacks are taking place in streets adjacent to us,” said former Israeli President and Prime Minister Shimon Peres during a meeting with Biden at the Peres Center for Peace.

Biden “condemned in the strongest possible terms the brutal attack” that took the life of one of his countrymen at the same time, and around the same area, that he was meeting with Peres.

“There is no justification for such acts of terror,” the vice president’s office said in a statement. “(Biden) expressed sorrow at the tragic loss of American life.”

Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld tweeted that the attacker, a Palestinian from the West Bank, was fatally shot by police.

 

Yikes, the IMF is Sounding the Alarm

Deja Vu? Imagine what a new president of the United States is about to inherit? Terrifying…

The IMF Is Sounding the Alarm. Is Anyone Listening?

WSJ: The International Monetary Fund is sounding louder and louder alarms about the state of the global economy. The problem is, few major economies seem to be hearing them.

“The IMF’s latest reading of the global economy shows once again a weakening baseline,” the fund’s No. 2 official, David Lipton, warned Tuesday in a speech to the National Association for Business Economics.

While the world economy is still expanding, he said, “we are clearly at a delicate juncture, where risk of economic derailment has grown.”

The IMF alerted finance ministers and central bank governors from the Group of 20 largest economies gathered in Shanghai late last month, signaling it would likely downgrade its outlook for the global economy in April.

IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said a coordinated effort was needed, urging governments with room in their budgets to ramp up spending and all countries to accelerate delivery of long-promised economic overhauls.

Unlike the G-20’s massive joint-stimulus effort in 2009 to combat the financial meltdown wreaking havoc across the globe, IMF members are at odds about the severity of the problem and how to fix it.

“We are strictly against announcing publicly that the G-20 is preparing a stimulus program,” German officials privately told other countries as the group drafted its joint communiqué.

The IMF fears such an attitude risks jeopardizing the global economic expansion.

Mr. Lipton, at his speech Tuesday, cited a World War II-era quote by Winston Churchill: “I never worry about action, but only inaction.”

Part of the problem is a growing concern that policy makers are running out of ammunition or have lost the resolve to deploy growth-reviving measures.

“For the sake of the global economy, it is imperative that advanced and developing countries dispel this dangerous notion by reviving the bold spirit of action and cooperation that characterized the early years of the recovery effort,” Mr. Lipton said.

The IMF calls come as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said leading indicators already suggest global growth will slow in the coming months. And the Bank for International Settlements cautioned against diminishing returns for central banks as they keep pushing easy-money policies to boost growth, including “great uncertainty” about navigating deeper into uncharted waters of negative interest rates.

There are few signs policy makers are shifting into higher gear. “There’s a great deal of economic uncertainty in the world, but there’s not a crisis and it would not be reasonable to expect a crisis response,” a senior U.S. Treasury official said during the recent meeting.

While the IMF is pushing the G-20 to boost spending, it is not a call to do so at the expense of monetary policy. The fund has long pushed the Federal Reserve to delay its planned rate increases and asked the European Central Bank to rev up its stimulus efforts.

Mr. Lipton worries premature withdrawal of central bank support could pitch the global economy into a deflationary death trap.

Then, “vicious and self-reinforcing dynamics” would plague the world in the form of higher real interest rates, falling output, building debt and higher unemployment, he said.  Such effects are “notoriously difficult to combat once they become entrenched.”

If recent history is any guide, the IMF may once again have to turn its downside scenario for the global economy into its baseline.

 
****
This was also the major topic at DAVOS in January.
Fear, Uncertainty Causing Market Chaos and Davos Isn’t Helping

The trouble with the World Economic Forum is that it has a propensity to become something of an echo chamber. Rather than promoting a plurality of different views, ideas and sentiments, the mood tends to get focused on a single, self-reinforcing consensus which is endlessly repeated and passed around, as if trending on social media. So it is with financial panics, which have an unnerving tendency to coincide with the annual conference in Davos. I’ve seen it happen on a number of occasions, most memorably in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, when the sense of fear for the future among financiers and policymakers was palpable.

It happened again in early 2009, in the depths of the banking crisis, when an end-of-days mentality hung over the conference. Somehow or the other, Davos amplifies these panics rather than calming them. This year threatens to be little different. Nobody here knows quite what to make of the latest stock market sell-off, and that, indeed, is part of the problem, for uncertainty breeds fear of loss and can easily degenerate into a collective dash for the exit. The danger is that we talk ourselves into something a good deal more serious than it should be.

There is no particular trigger for the latest panic. Most of, if not all, the concerns that underlie it have been with us for some time now — the apparent incompetence of once omnipotent Chinese policymakers in the face of a slowing economy, the collapsing oil price and the growing sense of geo-political instability that accompanies it. As for the rise in American interest rates, that happened a month ago, and had been widely signalled by the Federal Reserve for more than a year beforehand. Yet it is only now that this slight tweak to monetary policy has transmogrified in the eyes of investors from a benign and well-flagged response to an accelerating US economy into a grievous policy mistake that threatens to destabilise the world economy.

So what are we dealing with here; a long-overdue adjustment to asset prices unduly inflated by years of central bank money-printing, or a signal of tough times ahead for the real economy? It’s not hard to make the case for financial Armageddon; certainly, there are plenty of people here only too willing to imagine the worst. Start with the plunging oil price, which ought to be positive for the big consumer economies of the West — given that it puts more money in people’s pockets for spending on other things.

One worry, though, is that it is already causing such a hiatus in oil industry investment that today’s glut will in short order turn to famine, causing the price to surge anew. Back in the late Nineties, the Economist ran a cover on why the oil price would remain at $5 a barrel “for ever”. But as everyone knows, nothing is for ever and little more than 10 years later, it had risen to nearly $150.

The same cycle is being repeated today, with investment cut to a level that, in the long term, will leave supply more than a third lower than present demand. Markets are now anticipating the cooling effect of these higher prices to come. Another worry is that the low oil price will end up bankrupting Saudi Arabia, causing further chaos in an unstable region. Isil taking control of some of the world’s biggest oil reserves scarcely bears thinking about.

Meanwhile, a strong dollar in combination with collapsing commodity prices is threatening a wave of corporate bankruptcies in a world awash with dollar debt. To this list of woes must be added continued worries over China’s transition from to a consumer-led economy. Since the financial crisis, China has been the key source of growth in an otherwise stagnant global economy, but now this progress seems to have stalled. Stories abound of extreme unhappiness within the notoriously secretive Chinese high command. There is even talk of attempted coups. These scenarios may seem far-fetched, but what is undeniable is that all these concerns play into a world of extreme flux. Investors may crave stability and predictability. But for now, these are in lamentably short supply.

Whistleblowers, Watch Your Back

This tells me it is official cover for Hillary. What are your thoughts?

U.S. Government Seeking New Top Secret Classification Czar

FreeBeacon: The Obama administration is seeking to hire a new information security director who will be responsible for overseeing the classification and declassification on all sensitive U.S. government information, according to a posting on the government’s jobs website.

The administration wants to fill the post of director in the National Archive’s Information Security Oversight Office. The previous director, John Fitzpatrick, left the job in January.

The director holds one of the most powerful and sensitive national security jobs in the U.S. government. The official has authority over many classification and declassification matters, meaning that he or she could potentially remove classification if it is deemed in violation of policies.

The post is not subject to confirmation by Congress.

The new director can make up to $185,000 a year.

***** Implications already realized?

 

Intel Whistle-Blowers Fear Government Won’t Protect Them

By

Bloomberg: Nearly three years after Edward Snowden bypassed the intelligence community’s own process for reporting wrongdoing and leaked troves of classified documents to Glenn Greenwald, the system for protecting whistle-blowers inside the national security state remains broken.

This is the view of current and former intelligence officials, national security lawyers and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Their message is simple: Whistle-blowers are often too intimidated to take their case to the inspectors general and Congress.

“There is a systemic problem with the whistle-blower process,” Representative Devin Nunes told me. “There is no easy way for them to come forward that doesn’t jeopardize their careers, across the whole defense and intelligence community enterprise.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has in the past two years tried to address this problem, with mixed results at best. Dan Meyer, the executive director of the Intelligence Community’s Whistle-Blowing & Source Protection program, said in a statement that more whistle-blowers were coming forward in the last two years since the intelligence community began implementing a 2012 executive order from President Barack Obama that gave them additional protections. He said his office was also doing more, for example, to educate agencies on the new law and regulation.

Meyer conceded, however, there were holes in the process. “Protections are imperfect given their differences, the most notable being the lack of equivalent laws protecting intelligence community contractors from reprisal actions by the private companies employing them,” he said. He also acknowledged: “There will likely be some reluctance on the part of whistle-blowers to come forward. In our experience, this is understandably a very emotional event in someone’s career given what’s at stake.”

Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer who has represented dozens of whistle-blowers over the last two decades, went further. “I have not seen any noticeable improvement in the ability of a national security whistle-blower to come forward and be confident they will be protected,” he told me.

Snowden himself has said that he went to the press because of the experience of whistle-blowers before him. Specifically, he has talked about Thomas Drake, a former official at the National Security Agency. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Drake tried to warn his superiors and other oversight bodies of what he saw as a wasteful and illegal NSA program, known as “Trailblazer,” to collect personal data from digital networks.

For Drake, the system didn’t work. Out of frustration, he eventually leaked what he has says was unclassified information about the program to the Baltimore Sun. The Justice Department prosecuted him in 2010, but dropped his case the following year. His career was ruined.

A staff member on the House Intelligence Committee who took Drake seriously, Diane Rourke, soon found she too was under investigation. She told me that because of her interest in Drake’s complaints, and lobbying within the system on his behalf, the Justice Department and eventually her own committee put her under the microscope.

“They wanted to ruin our lives and make an example out of us to anyone else in the intelligence community,” she told me, even though she said she never took Drake’s complaints to the press.

Speaking anonymously, other U.S. intelligence officials told me analysts often face milder forms of intimidation if they are suspected of talking to Congress. This includes threats to suspend one’s security clearance, or being deliberately kept out of loop on important programs.

At issue is anonymity. The inspector general for the intelligence community is required by law to tell the Office of the Director of National Intelligence the identities of whistle-blowers that seek to speak with Congress. The DNI office has also bolstered its monitoring of intelligence professionals and their browsing habits on classified computer systems since the first mass disclosures by WikiLeaks in 2010.

Congress and others have adjusted. Nunes told me he has found creative ways for intelligence professionals to get him information. One was through an annual survey provided to intelligence analysts on the integrity of their product.

At a hearing last month Nunes disclosed that 40 percent of analysts at U.S. Central Command, or CentCom, who responded to the survey complained their reports on the Islamic State were skewed by higher-ups to make the U.S.-led campaign seem more effective than it really was. (The Pentagon’s acting inspector general, Glenn Fine, is also looking into these claims).

Nunes said analysts filled out extensive comments in response to the survey describing how their work was politicized, with the intention of getting them to the committee. Yet Nunes is still trying to get those in-depth comments from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

While some analysts at Central Command have gone directly to the inspector general at the Pentagon (who declined to comment for this column), Nunes said there were many more at CentCom who did not want to risk potential retribution and file a formal complaint.

Nunes also said intelligence officials who have helped his investigation into cost-padding for the construction of a new Joint Intelligence Analysis Center in Europe have been too intimidated to go through the formal whistle-blower process.

It’s understandable that lawmakers like Nunes would raise concerns about weak protections for whistle-blowers. His committee is supposed to perform oversight, even though his predecessors have not made this an issue.

But fixing the system is also in the interest of the national security state itself. In the last five years, the intelligence community has invested great resources to protect its secrets from the next mega-leaker. But if whistle-blowers inside the system see no recourse to address legitimate grievances, then the intelligence community should brace itself for more Snowdens.

The Class Act in the NFL, God Bless Football

The professional sport of football never had a better ambassador than Peyton Manning.

Peyton Manning’s handwritten letters to his fellow players left an indelible mark

The letter came in the mail, and London Fletcher separated it from the pile and carried it into his home office.

WaPo: The stationery was distinctive, the name on the return address unmistakable: Peyton Manning. Fletcher, the undersized but overachieving Washington Redskins linebacker, had — after 16 NFL seasons and 215 consecutive starts — announced his retirement shortly after the 2013 season. The following spring, he opened the envelope and began reading.

Congratulations, Manning had handwritten on a single page, on a career well spent, for respecting the game, for leaving such an impression that Manning’s Denver Broncos had named a play for Fletcher’s jersey No. 59.

“One of the classiest things,” the former linebacker said Monday in a telephone interview, “that I’ve ever had displayed to me.”

Fletcher didn’t realize it at the time, but he had joined an exclusive club. Long before Manning himself announced his retirement Monday during an emotional news conference in Denver — “God bless football,” he told reporters — the legendary quarterback spent offseasons making a list of players he had observed and admired. He often wrote to them, usually after they retired or reached a milestone, and scrawled his own memories and best wishes, usually taking note of each recipient’s respect of a game Manning spent decades attempting to master.

Fletcher received one, and so did former defenders Troy Polamalu and Ed Reed. Those players had tormented Manning, and in a strange way, the quarterback appreciated it. Donald Driver, the longtime Green Bay Packers wide receiver, said in an email Monday that he wondered if the handwriting in his own note could really be Manning’s. He found a Colts helmet Manning had signed for Driver at the Pro Bowl and then compared the signature with the one on the letter and, yes, it was legitimate. Shannon Sharpe, the former tight end, wondered how — and, perhaps more revealingly, why — Manning had spent the time writing to Sharpe, then tracking down the address of a player Manning had met no more than a handful of times.

“What a tremendous honor and entirely well-deserved,” the quarterback wrote to Sharpe in March 2011, shortly after Sharpe was selected for entry in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

“I was like: How did he get my address?” Sharpe said Monday. “He thought enough that, I could have my secretary type up something — but that wouldn’t do it justice. To sit down and to put pen to paper, see, that takes time.”

Manning seemed to take particular interest in players who studied the game, sidestepping opponents’ increased attention and finding a way to evolve, survive and succeed in an unforgiving league. Manning, a legendary student of the game whose physical skills had clearly begun deteriorating long before Denver won this past season’s Super Bowl, had reinvented his own approach in recent years, forming an acute appreciation for the players who continued thriving in an unforgiving league.

“It’s one thing to have talent,” Fletcher said. “But it’s another thing to have talent and work ethic and preparation.”
Years earlier, Manning told the Los Angeles Times in 2013, he learned to appreciate the power of a handwritten note. His mother, Olivia, encouraged her three sons to send thank-you cards and to write letters. Manning remembered, according to the Times article, being a teenaged phenom closely inspecting a recruiting letter from former Florida State coach Bobby Bowden, smearing the coach’s signature to make certain the ink was real.

“Boy, it had a big impact on me,” Manning was quoted as saying by the Times. “He took the time to write that letter.”

Manning, even in an age when letters and calls have been replaced by texts, kept writing. He asked his teams’ public relations staffs to contact other franchises to track down other players’ mailing addresses. Sometimes the return address was from Manning’s charitable foundation; other times the notes were sent with the Colts’ or Broncos’ outgoing mail.

He planned in 2013 to write to former offensive lineman Matt Birk and, the Times reported, sent a case of wine along with a note to former Broncos safety John Lynch.
Fletcher said he noticed that Manning had his own stationery, the former linebacker wondering why he had never sprung for such a luxury. Sharpe appreciated the time and sentiment of the pen-to-paper approach, trying to remember the last time he sat and crafted an honest-to-goodness letter. “Thirty years,” Sharpe estimated. “Probably a love letter.”

This past weekend, Manning took a more modern approach. Sharpe, who had Manning’s note framed, said he received a series of text messages from Manning on Sunday morning. The pair had grown closer since Manning joined the Broncos in 2012, and Manning wanted to tell Sharpe — before the news became public — that now it was his turn to walk away.

Sharpe responded, applauding his friend in a text on a legendary career and wishing him a happy retirement. Fletcher, anyway, wondered if something more formal might be more appropriate. Maybe he would get around to ordering that stationery, finally, and sit in his home office and write a note to Manning.

Fletcher wouldn’t say Monday what he might tell the now-former quarterback, saying the message should remain between writer and recipient. But he figured he’d start it the same way his own note began: with congratulations, something as simple as that, on a career well spent.