http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090301/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

Vote date? Afghans accuse Karzai of 'sabotage'
Jason Straziuso, Associated Press Writer – Sun Mar 1, 4:02 am ET AP –

KABUL – Afghan political leaders on Sunday accused President Hamid Karzai of
trying to "sabotage" the country's presidential election after he asked the
election commission to explore moving the vote up four months.

Karzai released a decree Saturday directing the commission to set an election
date that adheres to the Afghan constitution, which calls for a vote 30 to 60
days before May 22, when Karzai's five-year term expires.

The commission previously set the vote for Aug. 20, saying an election could not
be held sooner because of security concerns, heavy spring snows in the Afghan
mountains and ballot distribution issues.

Lawmakers have said they would not recognize Karzai as president after May 21,
meaning the country faces a potential constitutional crisis come spring.

But Afghan political leaders were not happy with Karzai's gambit to move up the
vote, either.

The spokesman for the National Front, a group of opposition lawmakers, said it
would be impossible to hold elections in the spring because of security,
logistical and financial issues, but he called Karzai's move an attempt to
"sabotage" the vote.

"If the president wanted to make this kind of decision, he could have done it
five or six months ago. Why did he wait so long? Everybody knows it's not
possible now," said spokesman Sayyid Agha Hussain Fazel Sancharaki.

Sancharaki noted that Afghan electoral law calls for candidates to declare their
candidacies 75 days before an election, and that moving up the date of the vote
would break that law.

Afghanistan's historic 2004 presidential election saw 18 candidates run, but
many dozens of Afghan powerbrokers have signaled their interest in running this
time around. One declared candidate, Abdul Qadar Emami Ghori, a lawmaker from
Ghor, said Karzai's decree is a way to "cheat" his opponents.

"We don't have enough time to campaign, and some areas are still covered in
snow," he said.

Echoing calls from other lawmakers, Ghori said Karzai should resign in May and
the speaker of the upper house, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, should become caretaker
president until August elections are held.

The election commission said Sunday it had not been officially notified of the
request to explore moving up the vote.

"The commission considered all aspects of conducting free and fair elections in
the country with the participation of a large number of people, and it announced
that the soonest possible date was the 20th of August," Zekria Barakzai, deputy
chairman of the Independent Election Commission, said.

"We are waiting for an official letter from the president's office to react to
this," he said, adding that commission members would discuss the issue in the
coming days.

The U.S. State Department issued a statement Saturday saying it believes August
elections were "the best means to assure every Afghan citizen would be able to
express his or her political preference in a secure environment."

International monitors have said it would be difficult if not impossible to hold
valid elections during the March-April timeframe because of security concerns,
bad weather and logistical issues like the distribution of ballots.

It was not immediately clear if Karzai's decree was political posturing to
counter demands from parliament or if he thought elections would actually be
moved up.

Waheed Omer, a government spokesman, said Karzai's decree asks the electoral
commission to set a new date "that hopefully adheres to the constitution."

Afghanistan continues to be plagued by militant attacks and suicide bombers
since a U.S.-led invasion ousted the Taliban's hard-line Islamist regime from
power in 2001. The Taliban insurgency has strengthened in recent years, gaining
more control over southern regions, and last year was the deadliest for U.S.
troops since the invasion.

Election officials said they agreed to hold the election after additional
international forces arrived. President Barack Obama recently announced that
17,000 additional U.S. troops would deploy to Afghanistan this year, and U.S.
officials have said they would arrive in time to help secure the election.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_re_af/af_guinea_bissau

Soldiers assassinate Guinea-Bissau president
Assimo Balde, Associated Press Writer – 17 mins ago AP –

BISSAU, Guinea-Bissau – Soldiers assassinated the president of Guinea-Bissau
in his palace Monday hours after a bomb blast killed his rival, but the military
insisted no coup was taking place in the West African nation.

A military statement broadcast on state radio attributed President Joao Bernardo
"Nino" Vieira's death to an "isolated" group of unidentified soldiers whom the
military said it was now hunting down.

The capital of Bissau was calm and traffic flowed normally Monday despite the
overnight gunfight at the palace that led to president's death.

The former Portuguese colony has suffered multiple coups and attempted coups
since 1980, when Vieira himself first took power in one. The United Nations says
Guinea-Bissau, an impoverished nation on the Atlantic coast of Africa, has
recently become a key transit point for cocaine smuggled from Latin America to
Europe.

Following an emergency Cabinet meeting on Monday, military spokesman Zamora
Induta said top military brass told government officials "this was not a coup
d'etat."

"We reaffirmed our intention to respect the democratically elected power and the
constitution of the republic," Induta said. "The people who killed President
Vieira have not been arrested, but we are pursuing them. They are an isolated
group. The situation is under control."

The constitution calls for parliament chief Raimundo Pereira to succeed the
president in the event of his death.

Vieira had ruled Guinea-Bissau for 23 of the past 29 years. He came to power in
the 1980 coup, but was forced out 19 years later at the onset of the country's
civil war. He later returned from exile in Portugal to run in the country's 2005
election and won the vote.

The military statement dismissed claims that the military killed Vieira in
retaliation for the assassination late Sunday of his longtime rival, armed
forces chief of staff Gen. Batiste Tagme na Waie, at his headquarters in Bissau.

The two men were considered staunch political and ethnic rivals and both had
survived recent assassination attempts.

Vieira, from the minority Papel ethnic group, once blamed majority ethnic
Balanta officers for attempting a coup against him, condemning several to death
and others to long prison sentences.

Among them was Waie, who in the late 1980s was dropped off on a deserted island
off the coast of Guinea-Bissau, according to Waie's chief of staff, Lt. Col.
Bwam Namtcho. Waie was left there for years before he was allowed to return and
officially pardoned by Vieira.

Namtcho said the bomb that killed Waie had been hidden underneath the staircase
leading to his office.

Hours later, volleys of automatic gunfire rang out for at least two hours before
dawn in Bissau and residents said soldiers had converged on Vieira's palace.

The Portuguese news agency LUSA reported that troops attacked the palace with
rockets and rifles. The president's press chief, Barnabe Gomes, escaped but was
struck by a bullet in his right shoulder, LUSA said.

It was the second attack on Vieira in recent months. In November, Vieira's
residence was attacked by soldiers with automatic weapons who killed at least
one of his guards. The president complained later that the army never
intervened, leaving his presidential guard to fight off the attackers.

In January, Waie received a call from the presidency asking him to come at once,
said Namtcho. But when Waie stepped outside to get into his car, unidentified
gunmen opened fire on the car. Waie narrowly escaped and Namtcho says he assumed
the attack had been ordered by the president.

Luis Sanca, security adviser to Prime Minister Carlos Gomes Jr., confirmed that
the president had died but gave no details.

The African Union condemned the killings, calling them "cowardly and heinous
attacks which have come at a time of renewed efforts by the international
community to support peace-building efforts in Guinea-Bissau."

In Lisbon, the Portuguese Foreign Ministry lamented Vieira's death and said it
was "fundamental that all political and military authorities in the country
respect the constitutional order."

Portugal said it would call an emergency meeting of the Community of
Portuguese-Speaking Countries, an eight-member organization based in Lisbon.

___

Associated Press Writers Todd Pitman and Rukmini Callimachi in Dakar, Senegal
and Daniel Woolls in Madrid contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090302/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_memos

Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos
Devlin Barrett And Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writers – 6 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration threw open the curtain on years of
Bush-era secrets Monday, revealing anti-terror memos that claimed exceptional
search-and-seizure powers and divulging that the CIA destroyed nearly 100
videotapes of interrogations and other treatment of terror suspects.

The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that
certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within
two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S.
conversations without warrants.

The Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions, but
the documents themselves had been closely held. By releasing them, President
Barack Obama continued a house-cleaning of the previous administration's most
contentious policies.

"Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as
a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties," Attorney General Eric Holder said
in a speech a few hours before the documents were released. "Not only is that
school of thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than
good."

The Obama administration also acknowledged in court documents Monday that the
CIA destroyed 92 videos involving terror suspects, including interrogations —
far more than had been known. Congressional Democrats and other critics have
charged that some of the harsh interrogation techniques amounted to torture, a
contention President George W. Bush and other Bush officials rejected.

The new administration pledged on Monday to begin turning over documents related
to the videos to a federal judge and to make as much information public as
possible.

The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel
show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing
world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the
president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.

Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for
instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was
combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the
overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General
John Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may
require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."

On Sept. 25, 2001, Yoo discussed possible changes to the laws governing wiretaps
for intelligence gathering. In that memo, he said the government's interest in
keeping the nation safe following the terrorist attacks might justify
warrantless searches.

That memo did not specifically attempt to justify the government's warrantless
wiretapping program, but it provided part of the foundation.

Yoo, now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law,
did not return messages seeking comment.

The memos reflected a belief within the Bush administration that the president
had broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts. That
stance, in one form or another, became the foundation for many policies: holding
detainees at Guantanamo Bay, eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants,
using tough new CIA interrogation tactics and locking U.S. citizens in military
brigs without charges.

Obama has pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay prison within a year. He halted
the CIA's intensive interrogation program. And last week, prosecutors moved the
terrorism case against U.S. resident Ali Al-Marri, a suspected al-Qaida sleeper
agent held in a military brig, to a civilian courthouse.

A criminal prosecutor is wrapping up an investigation of the destruction of the
tapes of interrogations.

Monday's acknowledgment of videotape destruction, however, involved a civil
lawsuit filed in New York by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The CIA can now identify the number of videotapes that were destroyed," said
the letter submitted in that case by Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin.
"Ninety-two videotapes were destroyed."

It is not clear what exactly was on the recordings. The government's letter
cites interrogation videos, but the lawsuit against the Defense Department also
seeks records related to treatment of detainees, any deaths of detainees and the
CIA's sending of suspects overseas, known as "extraordinary rendition."

At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters he hadn't spoken
to the president about the report, but he called the news about the videotapes
"sad" and said Obama was committed to ending torture while also protecting
American values.

ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said the CIA should be held in contempt of court for
holding back the information for so long.

"The large number of videotapes destroyed confirms that the agency engaged in a
systematic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade
the court's order," Singh said.

CIA spokesman George Little said the agency "has certainly cooperated with the
Department of Justice investigation. If anyone thinks it's agency policy to
impede the enforcement of American law, they simply don't know the facts."

The details of interrogations of terror suspects, and the existence of tapes
documenting those sessions, have become the subject of long fights in a number
of different court cases. In the trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias
Moussaoui, prosecutors initially claimed no such recordings existed, then
acknowledged after the trial was over that two videotapes and one audiotape had
been made.

The Dassin letter, dated March 2 to Judge Alvin Hellerstein, says the CIA is now
gathering more details for the lawsuit, including a list of the destroyed
records, any secondary accounts that describe the destroyed contents and the
identities of those who may have viewed or possessed the recordings before they
were destroyed.

But the lawyers also note that some of that information may be classified, such
as the names of CIA personnel who viewed the tapes.

The separate criminal investigation includes interrogations of al-Qaida
lieutenant Abu Zubaydah and another top al-Qaida leader. Tapes of those
interrogations were destroyed, in part, the Bush administration said, to protect
the identities of the government questioners at a time the Justice Department
was debating whether or not the tactics used during the interrogations were
legal.

Former CIA director Michael Hayden acknowledged that waterboarding — simulated
drowning — was used on three suspects, including the two whose interrogations
were recorded.

John Durham, a senior career prosecutor in Connecticut, is leading the criminal
investigation, out of Virginia, and had asked that he be given until the end of
February to wrap up his work before requests for information in the civil
lawsuit were dealt with.

___

Associated Press Writers Pamela Hess and Philip Elliott contributed to this
report.

http://www.propublica.org/article/stimulus-fixin-to-be-a-fight-in-texas

Stimulus Fixin’ to Be a Fight in Texas
by Michael Grabell, ProPublica - March 3, 2009 11:24 am EST

The White House will release a state-by-state overview of infrastructure
spending this afternoon. But Texas lawmakers are already feuding over how it
will be spent.

House Democratic Leader Jim Dunnam lashed out at Texas Department of
Transportation officials at a hearing Monday, saying that the state might have
violated the law by failing to direct the stimulus money to economically
distressed areas, according to the Associated Press.

TxDOT released a list last week showing how it will spend the first $500 million
in road and bridge projects, and it is expected to vote Thursday on how to
allocate $1.2 billion more.

Under the heading for $27.5 billion in highway funding, the American Recovery
and Reinvestement Act says:

In selecting projects to be carried out with funds apportioned under this
heading, priority shall be given to projects that are projected for completion
within a 3-year time frame, and are located in economically distressed areas...

"I don't know how you give priority on a decision after the fact, which is what
you're telling me y'all are fixing to do," Dunnam told TxDOT officials,
according to The Texas Observer. "And we're going to have egg all over
everyone's faces if the [U.S.] Department of Transportation says they want $500
million back."

But a TxDOT spokesman told the AP that Dunnam may be misunderstanding the law.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, others are complaining that more than $700 million
in stimulus money could go to toll roads, the Houston Chronicle reports.

http://newspapertree.com/opinion/3525

Remember the Alamo! Thoughts on an alternative Texas history.
by Louis Irwin

An alternative history is not inconceivable. Had Mexico tried to subdue without
conquering, then governed its outlying territories more magnanimously and
effectively, a bilingual-bicultural state remaining loyal to a central federated
Mexico is not hard to imagine.

Posted on March 4, 2009
When news that the Alamo had fallen on this date in 1836 reached the Mexican
residents of El Paso del Norte, they cheered. Though long neglected themselves
by the central government in Mexico City, the Texas Revolution far to the east
in their eyes was little more than a land grab by greedy Anglos and illegal
immigrants bent on wresting Texas from their newly independent nation.

Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, a shrewd and vainglorious leader with no obvious
conviction other than the firm belief that might makes right, had brutally
crushed a popular uprising in Zacatecas in 1835, taking no prisoners and letting
his army ransack the city. This would be the template for his suppression of the
revolt by the Texans.

Santa Anna surrounded the Alamo with an army of 2500 on Feb 23, beginning a
13-day siege of the garrison than numbered fewer than 200 defenders. Whatever
had brought them inside the fortress – and greed for land, lust for adventure,
and blind bad luck had played as much a part as ideology among the defenders now
penned inside – there can be no question of the courage it took to remain
behind the walls, watching the red flag of no quarter waving daily from the
church belfry a mile away.

When the end came at dawn on the Sunday morning of March 6, it was ghastly, and
no romantic retelling of the tale can lessen the horror of the massacre that
unfolded in the final 30 minutes. Many, perhaps a third, of the defenders
abandoned their posts in a desperate run for freedom, only to be cut down by
Santa Anna’s lancers. Others, depleted of arms and ammunition, tried to
surrender but were executed on the spot. Mexican soldiers, crazed by the heavy
casualties they had taken, rampaged through the courtyard and into every room
and sinecure, bayoneting to death every defender and, according to some reports,
even the cats in the compound. 182 bodies were counted on the funeral pyre that
Santa Anna ordered, the ashes stirred together and buried in a location never to
be found.

The disaster at the Alamo was compounded three weeks later at Goliad, where 400
Texans had surrendered with assurances of clemency, only to be marched into the
countryside on innocent pretenses, then summarily shot to the disgust of the
professional officers of the Mexican army, who nonetheless carried out Santa
Anna’s order to take no prisoners.

Santa Anna’s intent, above and beyond whatever blood-lust lingered from a
heritage of fighting Moors and the English for a thousand years, appears to have
been to create shock and awe across Texas. In that he succeeded too well. By
giving no quarter at the Alamo or Goliad, Santa Anna had indeed terrorized the
population, but at the same time, had given the Texans nothing to lose by
fighting to the end. News of the fall of the Alamo and the atrocity at Goliad
turned depression in Sam Houston’s Army of Texas to calls for vengeance. When
they finally fell upon the surprised Mexicans at Buffalo Bayou on the San
Jacinto, the Texans tore into their ranks with a score to settle. In less than
20 minutes, Santa Anna’s army was decimated, and for all practical purposes,
Texas independence was won.

The nine year Republic of Texas that ensued has much to do with the boastful
tradition handed down through generations of native-born Texans. But on two
accounts, it was particularly sad. First, the Tejanos (native Texans of Hispanic
descent) who had settled the land first, been there longest, and contributed
significantly to the fight for independence, were marginalized, disenfranchised,
and made into second class citizens by the Anglo majority, creating an enmity
that has taken 170 years to mend. Equally sad is the total eradication of the
peaceful Indians of North Texas, especially the Cherokees, who were well on the
road to peaceful coexistence with the newer immigrants.

Another legacy of the Texas revolution was the Mexican-American War. Still
smarting from the loss of Texas, Mexico went to war valiantly but unwisely over
disputed land in South Texas in 1846. The war went badly for Mexico from the
start, and was quickly though not easily won by the North Americans. By the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico lost over half its national territory –
opening the way for the United States to spread from ocean to ocean.

It is tempting to view the Texas Revolution as a prelude to the Civil War. By
showing that a slave-holding state could successfully break away from a central
government that wished to abolish slavery, Texas set a tragic precedent. The
addition of Texas to the Confederacy in 1861 made secession appear more viable,
and therefore more likely.

Is this the way it all had to happen? What if the Texas Revolution had failed?
What would the world look like today? What if Santa Anna had extended clemency
to the surviving defenders at both the Alamo and Goliad, holding them as
prisoners of war in exchange for peace? The Alamo and Goliad garrisons alone
made up over half of all Texans under arms at the time. It seems highly likely
that their capture would have so demoralized the population of Texas, it would
have given up its rebellion, especially if prisoners of war could have returned
to their farms and families on condition of laying down arms.

Would it really have happened that way? Probably not. Given the ongoing chaos in
Mexico, the cultural clash between two proud peoples, and the aggressive
expansionism of Anglo Americans, eventual separation of Texas in another few
years probably would have occurred anyway.

Yet, an alternative history is not inconceivable. Had Mexico tried to subdue
without conquering, then governed its outlying territories more magnanimously
and effectively, a bilingual-bicultural state remaining loyal to a central
federated Mexico is not hard to imagine. In the best case scenario, a
progressive nation equal in size to the United States, gradually achieving
economic parity with its powerful neighbor to the east, a barrier to
expansionism and a bulwark against the spread of a slave-based economy might
have emerged. And deprived of Texas, the Confederacy may have failed much
faster, or even never come about.

Had Mexico retained the land it lost in the Mexican-American war, it could have
blocked the incursion of English-speaking America onto the northern plains,
preserving that vast land and its game as a sanctuary for the Native Americans
who chose not to adopt the white or brown man’s ways. By the mid-2Oth century,
North America could have been balanced by three equal powers, an English-French
federated Canada in the north, the English speaking United States in the east,
and a Spanish-English federated republic of Mexico to the west and south.
Freedom for African-Americans would hopefully have evolved, with some racial
merging, perhaps, especially in Mexico and the western United States where
slavery had never taken hold, giving those regions a multi-racial character
something like modern-day Brazil.

History, of course, cannot be unwound. Texans today are justly proud of their
state’s heroic struggles, tainted though the motivations of some of their
ancestors may have been. The long sad estrangement between Anglo and Mexican is
almost mended, and Texans feel fortunate to be citizens of a great nation. Had
the tragedy at the Alamo ended differently, however, we might all be proud
citizens of Mexico today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090308/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mexico;_ylt=Ao6Qx8usSfZy0U\
eR.5TuvWKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTIzMGU5bnNzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwMzA4L3VzX21leGljbwRwb3MD\
OARzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNzb3VyY2VtdWxsZW4-

Source: Mullen offers Mexico update to Obama
Anne Gearan, Ap Military Writer – 1 hr 24 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama was briefed Saturday by Joint Chiefs of
Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen about the drug wars in Mexico and wanted to know
how the United States can help.

"Clearly one of the things the president was interested in was the U.S military
capability that may or may not apply to our cooperation with the Mexicans," said
a U.S. military official who requested anonymity because the discussions were
private. "He was very interested in what kind of military capabilities may be
applied."

Mullen briefed Obama Saturday morning about discussions with Mexican military
leaders about the drug wars there.

Mullen, who was in Mexico on Friday, has referred to the recent spike in
violence as a crisis. Mullen has said Mexico could borrow from U.S. tactics in
the fight against terrorism as it battles a crisis of drug-related violence
along the U.S.-Mexico border.

On Saturday, the military official said the additional U.S. help could come in
the form of U.S. equipment and intelligence-sharing.

"We're already sharing information with the Mexican military and have been
looking for ways to expand that particularly in the realm of intelligence," the
official said.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said that during the briefing Obama also
underscored his admiration for the work Mexican President Felipe Calderon was
undertaking to stem violence.

More than 1,000 people have been killed in Mexico in drug-related violence this
year. In 2008, the toll doubled from the previous year to 6,290. Both the U.S.
and Canada have warned that murders related to drug activity in certain parts of
Mexico, particularly along the border with the U.S., raised the level of risk in
visiting the country.

There are signs the violent competition among Mexican drug and smuggling cartels
is spilling across the border, as cities in Arizona report increases in such
crimes as home invasions. More than 700 people were arrested as part of a
wide-ranging crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating inside the United
States, the Justice Department said last month.

Last weekend, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he also saw opportunities for
the U.S. military to help with military training, resources and intelligence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_voting_rights

Court refuses to expand minority voting rights
56 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court limited the reach of the Voting Rights Act on
Monday, a decision that could make it harder for some minority candidates to win
election when voting districts are redrawn.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that the law cannot be used to create
voting districts favorable to the election of minority candidates unless at
least half the population is minority.

The decision could make it more difficult for Democrats, particularly in the
South and Southwest, to draw electoral boundaries friendly to black or Hispanic
candidates following the 2010 Census.

With the court's conservatives in the majority, the court ruled that North
Carolina erred when trying to preserve the influence of African-American voters
even though they made up just 39 percent of the population in a state
legislative district.

While not a majority, the black voters were numerous enough to effectively
determine the outcome of elections, the state argued in urging the court to
extend the civil rights law's provision to the district.

The state said the district should be protected by the section of the law that
bars states from reducing the chance for minorities to "elect representatives of
their choice."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, announcing the court's judgment, said the court had
never extended the law to those so-called crossover districts and would not do
so now. The 50 percent rule "draws clear lines for courts and legislatures
alike," Kennedy said in ruling against the North Carolina district.

In 2007, the North Carolina Supreme Court had struck down the district, saying
the Voting Rights Act applies only to districts with a numerical majority of
minority voters. The district also violated a provision of the state
constitution keeping district boundaries from crossing county lines, the court
said.

Kennedy said that, absent prohibitions like North Carolina's rule against
crossing county lines, "states that wish to draw crossover districts are free to
do so." But they are not required, he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito signed onto Kennedy's
opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of
the case.

The four liberal justices dissented. A district like the one in North Carolina
should be protected by federal law "so long as a cohesive minority population is
large enough to elect its chosen candidate when combined with a reliable number
of crossover voters from an otherwise polarized majority," Justice David Souter
wrote for himself and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul
Stevens.

Ginsburg also suggested that Congress could amend the law to cover districts
like the one in North Carolina.

Civil rights groups that urged the court to uphold the North Carolina plan said
such districts help to diminish racially polarized voting over time because the
candidate who is the choice of black or Hispanic voters must draw some white
support to win election.

In April, the court will hear a more significant challenge to another provision
of the Voting Rights Act, requiring all or parts of 16 states with a history of
racial discrimination to get approval before implementing any changes in how
elections are held.

The court's familiar ideological split in this case strongly suggests that
Kennedy could hold the key to the outcome in the April case as well, said
Nathaniel Persily, an election law expert at Columbia University.

In another election-related case, the court let stand an appeals court decision
that invalidated state laws regulating the ways independent presidential
candidates can get on state ballots.

Arizona, joined by 13 other states, asked the court to hear its challenge to a
ruling throwing out its residency requirement for petition circulators and a
June deadline for submitting signatures for independent candidates in the
November presidential elections.

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued and won a favorable ruling
from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The cases are Bartlett v. Strickland, 07-689, and Brewer v. Nader, 08-648.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090312/ap_on_go_co/border_violence_guns;_ylt=AgsDfI\
2t2PEmwjEWj53riEys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFlMTBvN3VhBHBvcwM4NARzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3BvbGl0\
aWNzBHNsawNtZXhpY292aW9sZW4-

Mexico violence prompts new look at US gun laws
53 mins ago

WASHIHNGTON – A gun control expert says the administration can help control
drug violence in Mexico by enforcing already existing laws.

Expert Tom Diaz says that imports of certain semiautomatic rifles were regulated
under the first Bush and Clinton administrations. But he told a House panel
Wednesday the import rules were relaxed under the most recent Bush
administration.

Diaz also says a 1930s gun law can be used to regulate imports of .50-caliber
rifles also used by the cartels. Federal officials say about 90 percent of guns
seized in Mexican organized crimes came from the U.S.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090312/ap_on_re_us/stimulus_texas

Texas gov. rejects stimulus money for unemployment
Monica Rhor, Associated Press Writer – 13 mins ago AP –

HOUSTON – Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday rejected $555 million in federal
stimulus money that would expand state unemployment benefits, saying the money
would have required the state to keep funding the expanded benefits after the
stimulus money ran out. Perry, an outspoken critic of President Barack Obama's
$787 billion stimulus bill, did accept most of the roughly $17 billion slated
for Texas in the plan.

But he said the requirements attached to the federal stimulus money would
require a change in the state's definition of unemployment, expanding coverage
to more people and placing more of the state's tax burden on employers.

"During these tough times, Texas employers are working harder than ever to move
products to market, make payroll and create jobs," Perry said at a news
conference. "The last thing they need is government burdening them with higher
taxes and expanded obligations."

Perry said such an expansion would counteract the package's objective of job
creation by leading companies to limit hiring and raise prices.

To receive the full amount of stimulus money available, lawmakers would need to
adjust the time period used to determine whether people are eligible for
benefits.

Texas also is being asked to expand eligibility to include thousands of low-wage
workers. Lawmakers have said the change would help part-time employees like
single mothers, college students and senior citizens.

Perry's decision comes despite warnings from Texas Workforce Commission Chairman
Tom Pauken that the state's unemployment compensation trust fund could be
operating at a deficit by October. Pauken told lawmakers recently that
insolvency might not be not far behind.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7945822.stm

Page last updated at 10:59 GMT, Monday, 16 March 2009

Khatami 'pulls out of Iran race'

Iran's former president Mohammad Khatami is to withdraw his candidacy from the
country's June presidential election, the BBC understands.

Mr Khatami was president of Iran from 1997-2005 and was succeeded by Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, a conservative.

Mr Ahmadinejad is expected to stand for re-election.

Mr Khatami's decision to withdraw leaves Mr Ahmadinejad in a stronger position,
says the BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran.

Despite heavy criticism of his management of the economy, among other things, Mr
Ahmadinejad could well win another four years in power, our correspondent says.

Mr Khatami was the most liberal president since the revolution.

But he entered this campaign reluctantly and unenthusiastically, adds our
correspondent, and it soon became clear that many of those in power in Iran did
not want him to return as president. One city prevented Mr Khatami from
campaigning with the excuse that it would cause traffic jams.

His withdrawal therefore comes as no surprise, says our correspondent, and Mr
Khatami is now expected to endorse former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Mr Mousavi held office between 1980 and 1988. He is also a member of Iran's
Expediency Council which is the country's top political arbitration body.

The candidacy of more than one reformist may split voters opposed to Mr
Ahmadinejad.

In this 30th anniversary year of the revolution, June's election will give
Iranians a stark choice over the future of the Islamic Republic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090316/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_politics

Netanyahu in deal with right-wing Israeli party
Amy Teibel, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 35 mins ago

JERUSALEM – Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party has
initialed a coalition agreement with an ultranationalist faction that brings its
leader significantly closer to becoming foreign minister, a Likud party
spokeswoman said Monday.

Avigdor Lieberman, who heads the right-wing Yisrael Beitenu party, has drawn
accusations of racism for proposing that Israel's Arab citizens sign loyalty
oaths or lose their citizenship. Although that plan is not likely to be
implemented, his designation as foreign minister could harm Israel's
international ties.

The European Union urged Netanyahu to craft a government that embraces the
long-standing goal of an independent Palestinian state living side by side with
Israel — signaling that the appointment of Lieberman as foreign minister would
be seen in Europe as a setback to Middle East peace efforts.

"Let me say very clearly that the way the European Union will relate to an
(Israeli) government that is not committed to a two-state solution will be very,
very different," Javier Solana, the EU's foreign and security affairs chief,
said Sunday.

Lieberman's appointment to the post is not yet finalized, however. Likud
spokeswoman Dina Libster said the coalition agreement included a provision that
both sides were prepared to form a government that would include moderate
partners, such as the Kadima Party of the current foreign minister, Tzipi Livni.

That wording leaves open the possibility that Livni might retain her current job
if she were to join such an alliance. Local media reported over the weekend that
Netanyahu has resumed overtures to recruit Livni.

The agreement with Yisrael Beitenu is the first Netanyahu has initialed on his
way toward setting up a coalition of hawkish and Orthodox Jewish parties.

The government taking shape would take a harder line on Palestinian and Arab
issues than the outgoing administration of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Netanyahu has criticized last year's U.S.-sponsored peace talks between Israel
and the Palestinians, aimed at partitioning the land and establishing a
Palestinian state. The talks made little progress, and on Sunday Olmert blamed
the weak Palestinian government for the failure. In turn, Palestinian
negotiators blamed Israel, citing expansion of West Bank settlements and
hundreds of roadblocks in the West Bank.

Netanyahu favors focussing on efforts to bolster the Palestinian economy,
leaving issues like borders, sovereignty and Israeli settlements for a later
stage. In defiance of Israeli commitments to international plans, Netanyahu
favors expanding Israel's West Bank Jewish settlements to allow for "natural
growth," accommodating the growing families in the communities.

Palestinians reject that approach and have the backing of the new Obama
administration. In a recent visit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the
goal of negotiations must be the creation of a Palestinian state living next to
Israel in peace.

Though Lieberman now says he supports Palestinian statehood, he also believes
such a state should include territory inside Israel containing heavily populated
Arab areas. Such a plan could strip hundreds of thousands of Arabs of their
Israeli citizenship, regardless of their feelings on the issue.

Speaking in Brussels, Belgium, before the Likud-Yisrael Beitenu accord was
signed, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki said the emerging government was
"anti-peace," adding, "We have to declare that sadly there is no partner on the
Israeli side to negotiate with."

Netanyahu still needs to add several other parties to reach a majority in the
120-member parliament. In the election last month, his Likud won 27 seats, and
Yisrael Beitenu adds another 15.

Kadima won 28 seats, but Netanyahu was chosen to form a government because a
majority of members of parliament said they favored him over Livni as premier.

Netanyahu's negotiators are set to meet later Monday with a team from Shas, an
ultra-Orthodox Jewish party with 11 seats in the parliament. If Kadima stays
outside, Netanyahu is expected to try to bring in smaller hard-line parties like
Jewish Home, National Union and United Torah Judaism, giving him a majority of
65.

But several of the parties have conflicting claims and agendas, and getting all
of them to agree is not assured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7944899.stm

Page last updated at 06:31 GMT, Monday, 16 March 2009

Left-winger wins El Salvador poll

Leftist Mauricio Funes of El Salvador's former Marxist rebel FMLN party has won
the country's presidential election.

He defeated his conservative rival, the Arena party's Rodrigo Avila, who has
admitted defeat.

Arena had won every presidential election since the end of El Salvador's civil
war 18 years ago.

Addressing jubilant supporters, Mr Funes said it was the happiest day of his
life and the beginning of a new chapter of peace for the country.

Branded by his opponents as a puppet of Venezuala's President Hugo Chavez, Mr
Funes vowed to respect all Salvadorian democratic institutions.

The FMLN won 51.3% of the vote against Arena's 48.7%, Reuters news agency
reported.

Break with tradition

"This is the happiest night of my life, and I want it to be the night of El
Salvador's greatest hope," said Mr Funes.
Mauricio Funes is the first FMLN leader who has not been a combatant

"I want to thank all the people who voted for me and chose that path of hope and
change."

His FMLN (Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front) party was founded by
Marxist guerrilla fighters from the civil war.

The conflict ended in a UN-sponsored peace accord in 1991, after the loss of
some 70,000 lives over less than two decades.

Mr Funes, a former television journalist, marks a break of tradition for the
party as he is the first of its leaders not to have been a combatant in that
war, says the BBC's Stephen Gibbs in El Salvador.

He stressed his moderate policies during his campaign and says he intends to
maintain good relations with the United States.

He strongly rejected suggestions put forward by his political opponents that El
Salvador under his watch would become a Venezuelan satellite state.

Supporters of Mr Avila, a former police chief, dismissed the FMLN as
"communists".

Mr Funes will take over a country plagued with problems, our correspondent
notes.

El Salvador has one of the world's highest murder rates.

It has also been badly hit by the world economic downturn, with remittances from
Salvadorians living abroad falling dramatically.

http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=961014

Madagascar’s president resigns
AFP Published:Mar 17, 2009


Madagascar President Marc resigned on Tuesday, diplomats said, bowing to the
inevitable after the army blasted its way into his offices and let the
opposition leader take control.


Diplomats told AFP on condition of anonymity that the 59-year-old Ravalomanana
signed a document transferring authority over the Indian Ocean island to a board
of high-ranking military officials.


The move marked a dramatic victory for Andry Rajoelina, the sacked mayor of
Antanarivo who has been leading a months-long push to topple Ravalomanana after
seven years as president.


Rajoelina was cheered by thousands of supporters and saluted by the army as he
took over a deserted presidency, while his long-time rival was holed up in the
presidential palace with a handful of diehard loyalists.


"The order signed by Ravalomanana transfers the powers of the president and the
prime minister to a military board," said one diplomat.


A text message sent by the French consulate to the expatriate community read:
"President resigns, risk of demonstrations. Remain cautious and avoid driving
after dark."


The proposed life span of military rule on the island and other details of the
arrangement were not immediately known.


The 34-year-old Rajoelina was already behaving like the country’s new ruler
however when he entered the deserted presidential compound in the city centre in
the wake of a spectacular night-time assault by the army backed by around 100
tanks.


"I solemnly declare that I will not spare any effort," he said, proclaiming that
the transitional authority he set up last month was in charge of the country’s
affairs.


"We are now free but the road ahead remains rough," he added, as Christian
clerics conducted ceremonies in the presidential compound to mark the occasion.


The army’s move on the compound on Monday night effectively sealed the
president’s fate, after a protracted political feud with Rajoelina that flared
up late last year and left around 100 people dead.


Ravalomanana’s whereabouts following his resignation were not immediately
clear but speculation has abounded for days that he might flee into exile.


Most of his family already left when he lost control of the army last week.


The president had been in defiant mood until Monday and attempted to dispel
intense speculation that he would go into exile, according to presidential
spokesman Andry Ralijaona.


"I am staying with you and if I have to die, I will die with you," the spokesman
quoted Ravalomanana as telling his remaining guards in the palace.


"The president is still in Iavoloha. He is saddened by what is happening,"
Ralijaona told AFP.


After the army and part of his own guard turned against him last week,
Ravalomanana proposed a referendum to decide his feud with Rajoelina.


Rajoelina rejected the offer on Monday and the army made it clear which side it
is backing. "We seized the presidency to hasten Ravalomanana’s departure," the
army chief said Monday.


Rajoelina, a 34-year-old DJ-turned-businessman who has led popular opposition to
the government, has urged the country’s security forces to arrest the
president for "high treason".


Rajoelina, accusing his rival of being a dictator starving his people, has used
his charisma and own private television station to mount a brazen challenge on
the country’s top office.


Ravalomanana said in a statement Monday that Rajoelina’s claim to power was
illegitimate and argued that his rejection of a last-ditch offer for a
referendum to decide the outcome was tantamount to "supporting anarchy".


On Monday, the African Union’s Peace and Security Council convened an
emergency meeting over the crisis and warned it would condemn any
unconstitutional change of power.


Another meeting was due to kick off at the continental body’s headquarters in
Addis Ababa at 4:00 pm (1300 GMT).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090317/wl_afp/russianatomilitarynuclear;_ylt=AlODF\
Y5HqX_EQW5_DSm3_tCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFhNnVpZ2VkBHBvcwM4BHNlYwN5bl9tb3N0X3BvcHVsYXI\
Ec2xrA21lZHZlZGV2b3JkZQ--

Medvedev orders large-scale Russian rearmament
Nick Coleman – Tue Mar 17, 1:43 pm ET

MOSCOW (AFP) – President Dmitry Medvedev on Tuesday announced a "large-scale"
rearmament and renewal of Russia's nuclear arsenal, accusing NATO of pushing
ahead with expansion near Russian borders.

Meeting defence chiefs in Moscow, Medvedev said he was determined to implement
reforms to streamline Russia's bloated military and stressed Moscow continued to
face several security threats needing robust defense capacity.

"From 2011, a large-scale rearmament of the army and navy will begin," Medvedev
said.

He called for a renewal of Russia's nuclear weapons arsenal and added that NATO
was pursuing a drive to expand the alliance's physical presence near Russia's
borders.

"Analysis of the military-political situation in the world shows that a serious
conflict potential remains in some regions," Medvedev said.

He listed local crises and international terrorism as security threats and also
stated: "Attempts to expand the military infrastructure of NATO near the borders
of our country are continuing.

"The primary task is to increase the combat readiness of our forces, first of
all our strategic nuclear forces. They must be able to fulfil all tasks
necessary to ensure Russia's security," Medvedev said.

And while he praised Russia's military thrust into Georgia last year in defence
of the rebel region of South Ossetia, he also said the conflict had shown up the
military's failings.

The comments came despite signs of a warming in US-Russian relations since the
inauguration of President Barack Obama in January.

Medvedev, who took office last May and has struggled to escape the shadow of
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, is due to meet Obama for the first time next
month in London.

Some analysts believe the Obama administration is backing away from policies
that angered Moscow under the presidency of George W. Bush.

Those policies included strong US support for expanding the NATO alliance to
include the ex-Soviet republics of Georgia and Ukraine and a plan to build US
missile defence facilities in Eastern Europe.

But even though Medvedev and others have expressed hope for an improvement in
US-Russian ties, there was a combative tone to Tuesday's meeting, intended to
sum up military developments in the last year and to plan ahead.

Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said: "US efforts have been aimed at gaining
access to raw materials, energy and other resources" in the former Soviet Union,
while Washington had "actively supported processes aimed at pushing Russia from
its traditional sphere of interests."

The head of Russia's strategic missile forces, Nikolai Solovtsov, told news
agencies that Russia would start deploying its next-generation RS-24 missiles
after the December 5 expiry of the START-1 treaty with the United States.

Moscow hopes to replace the treaty with a new accord.

Russia says its nuclear-capable, multiple-warhead RS-24 missiles are capable of
overcoming defences such as the US missile shield.

In recent years Russia has been attempting to streamline its military, which
currently numbers over one million personnel and has been burdened by corruption
and bureaucracy.

Moscow-based defence expert Alexander Golts said he detected a contradiction in
Medvedev's rhetoric, arguing that demonising NATO is at odds with Russia's
stated goal of a slimmed down, efficient military.

"There are real threats, notably instability in Central Asia, but Russia can
resist them alongside NATO. In Afghanistan it is clear NATO is also helping to
defend Russia," said Golts.

Another independent expert, Pavel Felgenhauer, said it was unclear if the
Kremlin had the stomach for military reforms likely to involve mass lay-offs in
the current economic crisis.

"There's a lot of opposition in the ranks and this opposition will grow,"
Felgenhauer said. "It's unclear if the Kremlin will stay the course."

At Tuesday's meeting the defence minister, Serdyukov, said non-combat deaths in
the military remained high at 471 last year, describing an "unhealthy moral and
psychological atmosphere in certain military formations."

Serdyukov also said the vast majority of weapons in the Russian military were
out of date. "The share of contemporary arms and military technology is around
10 percent," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090317/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_judges;_ylt=AssROmkcTix\
CLIYMD0JIitCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFlaTk0dWtpBHBvcwM4OARzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3BvbGl0aWNzB\
HNsawN3aXRocGlja29manU-

With pick of judge, Obama begins reshaping bench
Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer – 29 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama nominated a moderate Indiana judge Tuesday
to serve on a Midwestern federal appeals court, his first step toward reshaping
the federal judiciary and preparing for a possible Supreme Court opening.

The White House chose U.S. District Judge David Hamilton of Indiana for the
Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, contending Hamilton was a
mainstream jurist who could overcome the bitter Senate confirmation fights of
the past several years.

Obama has 15 federal appellate vacancies to fill, including the 7th Circuit
court that covers Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois. Since most cases do not reach
the Supreme Court, the 12 geographically based federal appellate circuits often
provide the last word on a variety of issues affecting Americans.

Their decisions cover, among other issues, civil rights and liberties, capital
punishment, abortion, gay rights, corporate wrongdoing, review of federal
regulations and treatment of detainees in terrorism cases.

Three of the appeals courts can gain a majority of Democratic-appointed judges
if Obama's nominees are confirmed for existing vacancies.

The importance of Obama's choices increased last week when Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg told law students there could be an opening on the Supreme Court soon.
Ginsburg, who has cancer, didn't hint at who might be leaving. White House
officials said they were preparing now for any future opening.

The White House acted before Hamilton's nomination to make sure that his
home-state Republican senator, Dick Lugar, was on board. Lugar's office
confirmed that he supports the nomination.

Conservative Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Orrin Hatch of Utah said
they haven't formed an opinion yet on Hamilton, while another GOP conservative,
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said he was troubled by Hamilton's ruling against
a sectarian prayer to open the Indiana House of Representatives.

That ruling was in 2005, when Hamilton banned the practice of opening the
chamber's business with prayers mentioning Jesus Christ or using terms such as
savior. He said that amounted to state endorsement of a religion. If confirmed
by the Senate, Hamilton will serve on the circuit appeals court that overturned
the ruling.

In 2003, he struck down part of an Indiana law on abortion. The law had required
abortion clinics to give women information about alternatives to abortion in the
presence of a physician or nurse, 18 hours before the procedure. The 7th Circuit
court also reversed that decision.

As Obama prepares to send additional nominees to the Senate, the 4th Circuit,
covering Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina,
has six Republican-appointed judges and five appointed by Democrats, with four
vacancies.

The 4th Circuit has been one of the nation's most conservative courts and
supported the Bush administration's policies on treatment of enemy combatants.

The 2nd Circuit, covering Vermont, New York and Connecticut, is 6-to-6 and the
3rd, covering Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the Virgin Islands, also is
6-to-6.

Lugar's support for Hamilton would make it difficult for Republicans to
filibuster his nomination, because Democrats would only need two GOP senators to
stop the delaying tactic. Attorney General Eric Holder and two top deputies had
opposition from Republican conservatives, but they easily won Senate
confirmation with significant Republican backing.

The American Bar Association, resuming its historical role in evaluating
judicial nominees, gave Hamilton a "well qualified" rating. During the Bush
administration, the ABA was not consulted about judicial selections.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama will look for nominees with "the
ability to empathize and walk in someone's shoes."

Hamilton has ruled on issues ranging from pornography to corporate misdeeds. He:

_Upheld an Indianapolis ordinance requiring parental consent for children to
have access to video games with extreme violence, or explicit sexual content.
The video game industry had challenged the law.

_Held white-collar criminals accountable for corporate wrongdoing. He sentenced
a former credit union head teller who embezzled $7 million to eight years and
one month in prison, and ordered restitution. He sentenced a former real estate
executive, who had written $217 in bad checks, to 6 1/2 years in prison.

_Sentenced a child pornographer to 100 years in prison, a penalty upheld by the
7th Circuit.

_Admitted into a case a surveillance video of drug defendants, even though the
police did not have a warrant. The police did, however, have permission from a
person with access to the room.

_Struck down a state provision requiring sex offenders to provide authorities
with personal information.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_re_af/af_madagascar

Madagascar's top court accepts change of president
Lovasa Rabary-rakotondravony, Associated Press Writer – 20 mins ago AP –

ANTANANARIVO, Madagascar – Madagascar's highest court on Wednesday endorsed
the army's move to replace the toppled president with his rival, but the African
Union was considering whether it constituted a coup.

Supporters of opposition leader Andry Rajoelina had approached the
constitutional court to affirm the army's action.

In a radio address Wednesday, the court declared that Rajoelina "is serving as
president of the republic" — even though at 34, Rajoelina is six years too
young to do so under the country's constitution.

The court gave no reasons, saying only that Marc Ravalomanana had vacated his
presidential post and left the military to make the decision on how it would be
filled.

For months, Rajoelina has been leading anti-government rallies and pressing
Ravalomanana to step down so he could replace him. He accused Ravalomanana of
misspending public funds and undermining democracy on this Indian Ocean island
off Africa's southeast coast.

Some of Rajoelina's protests led to deadly clashes. The deaths of at least 25
civilians last month cost Ravalomanana the support of a faction of the military,
and a mutiny spread and gained popular support.

After weeks of insisting he would never resign, Ravalomanana announced Tuesday
afternoon he was ceding control to the military.

Almost as he spoke, Rajoelina was parading triumphantly through the capital
surrounded by armed soldiers and an adoring crowd after seizing control of one
of the city's presidential palaces and taking the oath of office there as
president of what he called a transitional authority. Rajoelina has promised new
presidential elections within two years.

In a ceremony broadcast from a military camp in the capital late Tuesday,
Vice-Admiral Hyppolite Rarison Ramaroson said he and two other generals rejected
Ravalomanana's attempt earlier that day to transfer power to the military.

Ramaroson said the military instead was installing the president's bitter rival
Rajoelina as the country's leader.

The African Union was examining whether what had taken place was a coup, which
would lead to Madagascar's automatic suspension from the continentwide body,
said Bruno Nongoma Zidouemba, temporary chairman of the AU's Peace and Security
Council. He said a meeting on the issue was set for Thursday.

France, Madagascar's former colonial power and current main donor, said Tuesday
that two years was "too long" to wait for elections.

"Our hope is that Madagascar returns quickly to normal constitutional order,"
Foreign Ministry spokesman Eric Chevallier added at a daily media briefing.

Regional power South Africa expressed concern on behalf of the Southern African
Development Community at "unconstitutional attempts undertaken by the opposition
that led to the resignation of the democratically elected president of a SADC
member country."

The streets of the capital were calm Wednesday, but residents were worried.

Tahiana Rakotoniaina, a financial consultant, said he did not believe Rajoelina
was capable of running the country and he did not believe Ravalomanana's
supporters would accept defeat quietly.

"I'm not sure it's really over," said Emeline Raharinandrasana, a retired office
worker. "Is this new authority legal? If not, will the international community
continue to help us? That worries me the most."

But Dieudonne Randriantsoa, a teacher, said the international community would in
the end have to "accept the will of the people ... as happened in 2002."

Ravalomanana clashed with former President Didier Ratsiraka when both claimed
the presidency after a disputed December 2001 election. After low-level fighting
split the country between two governments, two capitals and two presidents,
Ratsiraka fled to France in June 2002.

Ravalomanana won re-election in 2006, though two opposition candidates tried to
challenge the validity of that vote.

"Will we never have democratic change?" asked Antananarivo resident Mirana
Razanaparany. "Why does it always have to come from the streets?"

___

Associated Press Writer Anita Powell in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia contributed to
this report.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11966640

Texas Democrats at crossroads in 2010 elections
By JAY ROOT / Associated Press Writer
Posted: 03/21/2009 09:30:12 AM MDT

AUSTIN -- The once-mighty Texas Democratic Party was essentially broke and
flirting with fringe status when wealthy trial lawyer Fred Baron rescued it in
2005.

Democrats have since come within two seats of a majority in the Texas House,
made a rare net gain in the state Senate and, in 2008, saw the four most
populous Texas counties flip to their column in the presidential contest for the
first time since 1964.

But the election that Baron and his strategists had identified as the dramatic
turning point - next year's 2010 contests - approaches with more than the usual
dose of pre-fight jitters. Baron died unexpectedly of cancer last year, throwing
his 2005 master plan into doubt and raising questions about who will fund and
oversee their comeback efforts.

Perhaps the most telling sign of the uncertainty is the Internet homepage of the
Texas Democratic Trust, the fundraising vehicle Baron used to slowly pull the
party out of oblivion. Pasted prominently on the site is Baron's obituary - it
mentions his modern notoriety as the man who made payments to the mistress of
presidential candidate John Edwards - from last October.

"Fred's death is certainly a challenge to overcome," said Matt Angle, the
strategist who directs the Trust and is credited with engineering the Democrats'
recent advances. "We are working hard and having some success in bringing in
additional people ... that job is ongoing. I don't want to pretend that it's
done."

With his eye on the approaching elections, Angle convened a group of past and
possibly future donors late last month at the Hyatt Regency on Lady Bird Lake.
Several traditional contributors were on hand, including Houston trial lawyer
John Eddie Williams, who has given at least a half million dollars to the
Democratic Trust. Aimee Boone, who has donated at least $250,000 to the
organization, showed up, too, serving both as future donor and official
fundraiser.

No one was surprised to see Lisa Blue at the gathering. Blue is Baron's widow
and a lawyer; she has promised to help pick up where Baron left off. But
strategists acknowledge her support alone won't come anywhere close to bringing
in the kind of dough needed to restore the party of Lyndon Johnson as a major
statewide political force.

No comparably large state, nor any neighboring state for that matter, has seen
its Democratic Party sink so low for so long. Texas Democrats haven't had a
breakthrough year since 1990, when Ann Richards was elected governor, and they
haven't won any statewide contests since 1994, when George W. Bush defeated her
and later helped lead his party to an uninterrupted series of statewide sweeps.

A few months after Bush left for the White House, the Democrats moved their
party headquarters out of an expensive downtown office into a mold-infested
building that sits next door to a beauty shop - appropriately named the Fringe
Salon. A few paces away, party consultants and staffers would gather, and do
still, to reminisce about better times at the Star Bar on 6th Street, observing
what some jokingly call the "Out of Power Happy Hour."

"We were running things on a shoestring, really," said former party director
Mike Lavigne. "We were in the depths of Democratic depression." That's when
Baron, who had observed the stunning Democratic comeback in Dallas County in
2004, stepped in and pulled out his checkbook.

In May 2005, with Baron's blessing and guidance, Angle wrote a confidential memo
to potential donors and party insiders. It laid out a five-year plan to make the
party a competitive statewide force again, first by focusing on state House
races and then on roaring back into power before the Legislature redraws
district boundaries for state lawmakers and members of Congress after the next
Census.

"Most believe it is reasonable to project that by 2010, Democrats could have an
opportunity to seriously contest for statewide offices and for legislative
majorities," the memo said. Like a detailed business plan, Angle's memo spelled
out specific steps that needed to be taken, everything from hiring opposition
researchers to dig up dirt on Republicans to honing a unified communications
strategy.

It all seems a bit prophetic now. The Trust went on to raise over $8 million,
more than half of it from Baron - money that was largely used to rebuild the
Democratic Party infrastructure in Texas. Democrats now have 16 paid employees
in Austin, more than double the full-time political staff in 2005. They've also
nearly doubled their square footage at a new headquarters office near the
Capitol.

Other groups, like Annie's List, pitched in to help Democrats chip away at the
GOP House majority, taking it from 88-62 to near parity - or 76-74 - today.
Two-thirds of the Democratic pickups were female candidates who got financial
help and campaign support from Annie's List, formed to help women Democrats get
elected in Texas.

But the math is what it is: In raw political terms, Democrats are going into the
pivotal 2010 elections with nothing. Not a single statewide office. Neither
chamber of the Legislature. No U.S. Senate seats.

"They have done everything that they could do to put the lipstick on a pig but
the pig is still there," said Eric Opiela, director of the Republican Party of
Texas. "We are and will continue to be the majority party in this state for the
foreseeable future because Texas is a conservative state."

Opiela said Democrats rely far too heavily on mega-donors like Baron. Meanwhile,
he said his party had more identified GOP contributors than any other state and
14 times more yearly donors on average than their rivals - or about 36,000 for
the Republicans and about 2,600 for Democrats between 2006 and mid-2008.

The other potential problem for Democrats: Barack Obama, who ginned up record
turnout, won't be on the ballot.

That hasn't stopped Democrats talking about fulfilling Baron's vision of a
comeback in 2010. High-profile Democratic candidates have turned up for the
Senate seat vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison if she, as expected, challenges Gov.
Rick Perry in the Republican primary. A bloody internecine battle in the GOP
could then open up the way for a Democrat, such as former U.S. Ambassador and
governor wannabe Tom Schieffer - oddly, a close friend of George W. Bush - to
win in the fall. Or at least that's the talk at the Star Bar. Strategist Angle,
not a Star Bar regular, isn't ready to predict anything beyond a tough uphill
climb before Democrats turn around a seemingly endless cycle of failure and
humiliation.

"Do we have the wherewithal to finish this thing out?" he asked. "In politics,
you can do every single thing right and still fall short."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25233524-20142,00.ht\
ml

China urges new global reserve currency
Terence Poon | March 24, 2009
Article from:  The Wall Street Journal

CHINA has called for the creation of a new international reserve currency to
replace the US dollar over time, laying down an unusually direct demand for an
overhaul of global finance ahead of next week's summit to craft a response to
the financial crisis.

"The re-establishment of a new and widely accepted reserve currency with a
stable valuation benchmark may take a long time," People's Bank of China
governor Zhou Xiaochuan said in an essay published on the central bank's
website, titled "Reform of the International Monetary System".

Mr Zhou didn't explicitly mention the role of the US dollar, but said having a
national currency act as an international reserve currency may have outlived its
usefulness and that a desired goal now should be creating an international
reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to
remain stable in the long run.

Beijing also reiterated its call for reform of the International Monetary Fund
but said it would be willing to consider short-term ways of bolstering the IMF's
resources to help it fight the global financial crisis. PBOC vice governor Hu
Xiaolian said Beijing would "actively" consider buying IMF bonds if the
institution decides to issue bonds.

A long-running debate about giving developing nations a bigger say in the IMF in
exchange for more funding has grown more urgent as the financial crisis ensnarls
a growing list of nations, most recently in Eastern Europe. While the US and
some European countries, such as Britain, look to nations like China to bolster
IMF resources, Beijing has linked contributions with increasing the voice of
developing nations and broader IMF reforms.

Beijing also said it will continue to invest in US Treasuries, following Premier
Wen Jiabao's comments this month he is concerned about the safety of China's
assets in the US.

China is the largest creditor nation to the US and holds a large bulk of US
Treasuries through its foreign exchange reserves, which stood at $US1.95
trillion ($2.8 trillion) at the end of last year and are the world's largest.

When asked if Beijing would recapitalise the IMF on the condition that IMF quota
reforms take place, Ms Hu said: "If we want the IMF to play a better role in the
future, then a capital increase based on quota is the most fundamental way to do
so."

Short term, she urged the IMF to consider other ways of financing and said
Beijing is studying plans to boost the IMF's emergency funding under the New
Arrangements to Borrow (NAB).

"We can combine considerations of a long-term and short-term capital increase"
for the IMF, Ms Hu said during a press briefing about next week's meeting by the
Group of 20 industrial and developing nations in London.

The IMF is considering issuing bonds for the first time in its history as it
aims to double its lending ability to about $US500 billion from $US250 billion
amid the global financial crisis. So far, Japan has agreed to lend the IMF
$US100 billion. European Union leaders last week said they are willing to offer
a loan of €75 billion ($145 billion) to expand the fund's resources, but want
to see substantial commitments from the US and China first.

This month, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner proposed that G20 nations
help dramatically expand the NAB, a set of credit arrangements between the IMF
and 26 members and institutions that act as emergency funding. The NAB could be
increased by up to $US500 billion and membership could be expanded to include
more G20 countries, he said.

G20 finance officials meeting earlier this month said that emerging economies
must be given a greater voice in international financial institutions and agreed
to adjust IMF voting quotas by January 2011.

China's position is in line with what Brazil, Russia, India and China
--collectively known as the BRIC economies -- said in a joint statement at that
meeting.

At the briefing yesterday, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said Beijing
hopes the G20 meeting will boost the role of developing nations in the
multilateral lenders. "For this, we need to establish a road map and time line
that is specific and includes goals," he said.

On US Treasuries, Ms Hu said that China pays a great deal of attention to the
"safety and yield" of its foreign-exchange holdings.

"Investment in US T-bonds is an important element of China's investment strategy
of foreign exchange reserves and we will continue this practice," she said. "I
also want to stress, we pay great attention to the fluctuation of the value of
our assets."

Mr Wen's concern about the safety of China's assets in the US had appeared to
rattle bond investors and prompted the Obama administration to say "there's no
safer investment in the world than in the United States".

-J.R. Wu and Denis McMahon contributed to this article.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5963150.ece

March 24, 2009

Western officials in plot to dilute powers of President Karzai

James Bone in New York
The West is considering a plan to undermine President Karzai of Afghanistan by
forcing him to install a powerful chief of staff to run the Government,
diplomats say.

The proposal, being looked at by British and American officials, would leave Mr
Karzai in the presidency, but reduce him to a figurehead role as “father of
the nation”. Day-to-day control of the Afghan Government would pass to a chief
of staff or chief executive with prime ministerial-style powers.

Possible candidates include the well-respected interior, agriculture, defence
and economy ministers.

Mr Karzai, the US-backed candidate installed as President after the 2001
invasion that toppled the Taleban, has disappointed Western governments by
failing to root out corruption and incompetence.

His half-brother, Ahmad Wali Karzai, has been accused of involvement in the
heroin trade — a charge that he strongly denies.

Nevertheless, the Obama Administration believes that it cannot dump Mr Karzai,
who is seen as likely to win re-election in August.

Instead, Western nations, who hold a summit on Afghanistan in The Hague on March
31, are examining ways to transfer some of his powers to a newly appointed chief
of staff.

The Afghan Constitution follows the US model of a strong presidency. The Western
plan would effectively dilute that power by establishing a prime
ministerial-style system — long a demand of the Afghan Opposition — but
without actually creating the role of prime minister.

Diplomats concede that it would be too difficult to rewrite the Constitution to
create the post of prime minister as this would require a Loya Jirga, or
leaders’ assembly, that would take months of organisation.

Islamic groups could also use the occasion to push for removal of constitutional
provisions on democracy and women’s rights, favoured by the West. The
president must endorse all laws under the country’s Constitution, a power that
it seems highly unlikely that Mr Karzai would willingly give up.

Instead prime ministerial-style powers would be exercised by a new chief of
staff — a change that would not require constitutional reform.

The US and Britain have considerable leverage over Mr Karzai because of the
enormous amount of aid that they funnel to Afghanistan.

There is a precedent of sorts: Mr Karzai recently designated his Commerce
Minister, Hedayat Amin Arsala, as Senior Minister in his Cabinet. But Mr Arsala
later stood down to run against Mr Karzai in the August elections.

Leading candidates for the new post include Hanif Atmar, the Interior Minister;
Mohammad Asif Rahimi, the Agriculture Minister; Abdul Rahim Wardak, the Defence
Minister, and Mohammad Jalil Shams, the Economics Minister.

Mr Atmar and Mr Rahimi in particular are considered highly capable, with Mr
Atmar seen as one of the few Afghan political heavyweights who is immune to the
temptations of rampant corruption in the political system.

However, there was concern in the Kabul diplomatic community last night that the
new post would be seen by a sceptical Afghan public as having been dictated by
the West to what is in theory a sovereign nation.

Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, in Brussels
for talks with EU ambassadors, denied yesterday that the United States and its
Nato allies wanted to sideline Mr Karzai.

“It doesn’t reflect any views that I am aware of in the Government I work
for and it’s certainly not a universal Nato plan or anything,” he said.

In Kabul, President Karzai’s spokesman Humayun Hamidzadeh called the proposal
nonsense.

The United States is also pushing to install a new deputy to the United Nations
representative in Afghanistan.

Kai Eide, a Norwegian who is the top UN official in the country, has been
battling behind the scenes to block the appointment of Peter Galbraith, the son
of the economist J. K. Galbraith. But UN sources say that Mr Galbraith, a
trusted Holbrooke ally, will be named as the No 2 UN official in Afghanistan
this week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23krugman.html?emc=eta1

Financial Policy Despair

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 22, 2009

Over the weekend The Times and other newspapers reported leaked details about
the Obama administration’s bank rescue plan, which is to be officially
released this week. If the reports are correct, Tim Geithner, the Treasury
secretary, has persuaded President Obama to recycle Bush administration policy
— specifically, the “cash for trash” plan proposed, then abandoned, six
months ago by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

This is more than disappointing. In fact, it fills me with a sense of despair.

After all, we’ve just been through the firestorm over the A.I.G. bonuses,
during which administration officials claimed that they knew nothing, couldn’t
do anything, and anyway it was someone else’s fault. Meanwhile, the
administration has failed to quell the public’s doubts about what banks are
doing with taxpayer money.

And now Mr. Obama has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence,
assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what they’re
doing.

It’s as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception
that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is
clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street. And by the time Mr. Obama
realizes that he needs to change course, his political capital may be gone.

Let’s talk for a moment about the economics of the situation.

Right now, our economy is being dragged down by our dysfunctional financial
system, which has been crippled by huge losses on mortgage-backed securities and
other assets.

As economic historians can tell you, this is an old story, not that different
from dozens of similar crises over the centuries. And there’s a time-honored
procedure for dealing with the aftermath of widespread financial failure. It
goes like this: the government secures confidence in the system by guaranteeing
many (though not necessarily all) bank debts. At the same time, it takes
temporary control of truly insolvent banks, in order to clean up their books.

That’s what Sweden did in the early 1990s. It’s also what we ourselves did
after the savings and loan debacle of the Reagan years. And there’s no reason
we can’t do the same thing now.

But the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, apparently wants an
easier way out. The common element to the Paulson and Geithner plans is the
insistence that the bad assets on banks’ books are really worth much, much
more than anyone is currently willing to pay for them. In fact, their true value
is so high that if they were properly priced, banks wouldn’t be in trouble.

And so the plan is to use taxpayer funds to drive the prices of bad assets up to
“fair” levels. Mr. Paulson proposed having the government buy the assets
directly. Mr. Geithner instead proposes a complicated scheme in which the
government lends money to private investors, who then use the money to buy the
stuff. The idea, says Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser, is to use “the
expertise of the market” to set the value of toxic assets.

But the Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the
investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their
debt. So this isn’t really about letting markets work. It’s just an
indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets.

The likely cost to taxpayers aside, there’s something strange going on here.
By my count, this is the third time Obama administration officials have floated
a scheme that is essentially a rehash of the Paulson plan, each time adding a
new set of bells and whistles and claiming that they’re doing something
completely different. This is starting to look obsessive.

But the real problem with this plan is that it won’t work. Yes, troubled
assets may be somewhat undervalued. But the fact is that financial executives
literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and
the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem.
They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus — for that is what
the Geithner plan amounts to — will change that fact.

You might say, why not try the plan and see what happens? One answer is that
time is wasting: every month that we fail to come to grips with the economic
crisis another 600,000 jobs are lost.

Even more important, however, is the way Mr. Obama is squandering his
credibility. If this plan fails — as it almost surely will — it’s unlikely
that he’ll be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what
he should have done in the first place.

All is not lost: the public wants Mr. Obama to succeed, which means that he can
still rescue his bank rescue plan. But time is running out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090324/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_politics

Centrist Labor joins new Israeli government
Mark Lavie, Associated Press Writer – 21 mins ago

JERUSALEM – Israel's Labor Party voted Tuesday to join the incoming government
of Benjamin Netanyahu, lending a moderate voice to a coalition dominated by hard
liners and easing concerns of a head-on confrontation with Washington over
Mideast peacemaking.

Chants of "Disgrace! Disgrace!" echoed through the convention hall after Defense
Minister Ehud Barak pushed through the proposal despite angry opposition from
party activists who feared Labor would give only a superficial gloss to a
government little interested in moving toward peace.

Labor's move gives Netanyahu's coalition a majority of 66 in the 120-seat
parliament.

Labor's decision, by a 680-507 vote, paves the way for a broader government than
the narrow and hawkish one Netanyahu would otherwise have had to settle for,
increasing his chances of gaining international acceptance.

Barak was set to remain defense minister, a key position in the new Cabinet,
that could allow Labor to promote peace efforts with the Palestinians.

On the other hand, the expected appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign
minister could overshadow Barak's input. Lieberman is widely perceived as a
racist because of his demands that Israel's minority Arabs take a loyalty oath
or forfeit their citizenship.

On Tuesday, Jewish extremists marched through the northern Israeli-Arab town of
Umm el-Fahm, demanding residents show loyalty to Israel and setting off
stone-throwing protests by Arab youths that police dispersed with stun grenades
and tear gas. No serious injuries were reported, but residents denounced the
march on one of Israel's largest Arab communities.

In Israel, the prime minister sets the tone for his government, and Netanyahu
remains deeply skeptical about negotiations with the Palestinians. The past year
of U.S.-backed talks have produced no discernible results, because the
leadership of both sides appeared too weak to make the necessary concessions on
vital issues like borders, refugees and settlements.

Netanyahu claims the Palestinians are not ready for statehood and suggests
economic development instead. The Palestinians reject that and have received the
backing of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. She emphasized several
times during a visit here this month that the Obama administration's goal is
creation of a Palestinian state that would live in peace next to Israel.

Tuesday's contentious vote drove a wedge through Barak's Labor party, opening
the way for a possible split — if not now, then in the future. At least six of
Labor's 13 legislators were strongly opposed to joining Netanyahu's team, and
some may decide to leave the party and remain in the opposition. That could
force Netanyahu to bring in at least one more hard-line party to cement his
majority.

Former Labor Party leader Amir Peretz stopped just short of declaring a split.
"It will be hard for us to work together, and I assume the government and
Benjamin Netanyahu aren't deluding themselves that they're going to get our
support," he said.

Another option to bolster Netanyahu's majority was that with Labor aboard,
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni might lead her Kadima Party into the new
government, though she has resisted overtures up to now. Kadima won 28 seats in
the Feb. 10 election, one more than Netanyahu's Likud.

A broader coalition would bring stability to the government because it would not
be held hostage to the demands of smaller partners. It also would enjoy more
international credibility with some members committed to peace talks.

Under the proposed coalition deal with Labor, Israel would draft a comprehensive
plan for Mideast peace, resume peace talks and commit itself to existing peace
accords, Labor officials said.

Netanyahu has already signed coalition agreements with Yisrael Beitenu and Shas,
two parties known for their tough policy lines toward the Palestinians, as is
Netanyahu's own Likud Party. Labor, in contrast, has been at the forefront of
Mideast peace efforts.

Barak faced strident heckling during his speech before the vote and was
conspicuously absent from the hall when the results were announced. His case was
that Labor must play a role in determining Israel's future.

"I won't be anyone's fig leaf or anyone's third wheel," Barak told the crowd
ahead of the vote. "We will be the counterweight that will guarantee that we
won't have a narrow right-wing government, but a real government that will take
care of the state of Israel."

Labor, which dominated Israeli politics for three decades from the 1948 founding
of the state, has been in an electoral tailspin for the past decade. The 13
seats Labor won in last month's election are by far its worst showing ever,
dropping from 19 in the previous parliament, which itself was the party's
weakest result until then.

Netanyahu has until April 3 to form his coalition. He hopes to take office next
week, replacing Kadima's Ehud Olmert, who announced in September that he would
resign to battle a series of corruption allegations.

Some analysts saw Barak's charge into Netanyahu's government as a cynical ploy
to retain personal power.

In the Yediot Ahronot daily, columnist Sima Kadmon wrote, "This decision has
nothing to do with the good of the nation. In the best case, it has to do with
the good of the (Labor) Party. In the worst case, it has to do with the good of
a few of its members."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090328/wl_nm/us_spain_usa_torture_1

Spain may open torture probe of six Bush officials
2 hrs 38 mins ago

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A top Spanish court has moved toward starting a probe of
six former Bush administration officials including ex-Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales in connection with alleged torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, The
New York Times said on Saturday.

The criminal investigation would focus on whether they violated international
law by providing a legalistic justification for torture at the U.S. detention
camp in Cuba, the Times said.

The paper said the National Court in Madrid had assigned the case to judge
Baltasar Garzon, known for ordering the arrest of former Chilean dictator
Augusto Pinochet.

Garzon has accepted the case and sent it to the prosecutor's office for review,
the newspaper said, citing an official close to the case.

The complaint, prepared by Spanish lawyers with the help of U.S. and European
legal experts, also names John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who
wrote secret legal opinions saying the president had the authority to circumvent
the Geneva Conventions, and Douglas Feith, the former undersecretary of defense
for policy.

Spain can claim jurisdiction in the case because five Spanish citizens or
residents who were prisoners at Guantanamo Bay say they were tortured there.

The other Americans named are William Haynes II, former general counsel for the
Department of Defense; Jay Bybee, Yoo's former boss at the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel; and David Addington, chief of staff and legal adviser
to ex-Vice President Dick Cheney.

Yoo, already the subject of a Justice Department ethics investigation, declined
to comment to the Times. The others either could not be reached or did not
immediately respond to requests for comment, the Times said.

Gonzalo Boye, a Madrid lawyer who filed the complaint, said the six Americans
had well-documented roles in approving illegal interrogation techniques,
redefining torture and abandoning the definition set by the 1984 Torture
Convention, the newspaper said.

(Editing by Xavier Briand)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090331/ap_on_re_eu/eu_afghan_conference

US, Iranian diplomats break the ice at conference
Arthur Max And Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 6 mins ago

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – In a cautious first step toward unlocking 30 years of
tense relations, senior U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke had a brief but cordial
meeting with Iran's deputy foreign minister Tuesday at an international
conference on Afghanistan.

The rare diplomatic approach was the first official face-to-face interplay
between the Obama administration and the Iranian regime. U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton cautioned that the talks between Holbrooke and Iranian
diplomat Mehdi Akhundzadeh were promising but not "substantive."

"They agreed to stay in touch," Clinton said at the close of a one-day
conference on Afghan security and development that was designed partly to allow
the diplomatic turn with Iran.

The meeting between Holbrooke, President Barack Obama's hand-picked Afghanistan
envoy, and Akhundzadeh came on the sidelines of a session aimed at improving
Afghanistan's future prospects. Akhundzadeh pledged to help the reconstruction
of its neighbor, but he criticized U.S. plans to send more troops into
Afghanistan.

The gathering was being closely watched for signs that the U.S. and Iran can
work together on a common problem after years of hostility. The two countries
cooperated at a distance in 2001 and 2002 after U.S.-led forces ousted
Afghanistan's Taliban government.

The U.S. and Iran have been estranged for 30 years, since young Iranians stormed
the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took more than 50 Americans hostage for 444 days.
Representatives of the two nations are rarely even in the same room with one
another, but they have had accidental-on-purpose public meetings on the
sidelines of other international gatherings.

The face-to-face pleasantries, along with a diplomatic letter hand-delivered to
the Iranian delegation by a U.S. official, were carefully calibrated overtures
from the Obama administration aimed at testing the clerical regime's willingness
to take larger steps.

Afghanistan and Iran share nearly 600 miles of border, and Clinton said the
United States and Afghanistan share concern over the flow of drugs into Iran.

"We will look for ways to cooperate with them and I think the fact that they
came today, that they intervened today, is a promising sign that there will be
future cooperations," she said.

The diplomatic letter, which Clinton and aides would not describe in detail,
asked for Iran's help in releasing or lifting travel restrictions on two
American women in Iran, and information on a man missing for two years since
traveling to Iran on business.

The cases and the American position on them were known. What is different was
the Obama administration's decision to approach Iran directly, instead of using
a go-between.

Information or help from Tehran "would constitute a humanitarian gesture by the
Iranians in keeping with the spirit of renewal and generosity that marks the
Persian new year," Clinton said.

Obama recently sent an unusual video message to mark the Iranian new year in
March.

The conference opens a week of diplomatic gatherings in Europe where Obama is
also expected to try for a fresh start in the bumpy U.S. relationship with
Russia. Numerous U.S. allies have encouraged a better relationship with oil-rich
and strategic Iran.

As a candidate, Obama said he would reach out to Iran, and even hold direct
talks with its leaders, if he decided it would serve U.S. interests. That was a
marked change from the early days of George W. Bush's administration, when Iran
recoiled angrily at being labeled part of an "axis of evil."

Organizers of Tuesday's conference called it a success merely for the range of
nations and organizations attending. Clinton and other diplomats pledged support
for the fragile government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, but avoided the
argument over fighting troops that had put the United States at odds with some
NATO allies.

This week's NATO summit meeting is not expected to raise significant numbers of
fighting forces, despite Obama's decision to add some 21,000 U.S. troops before
the end of summer.

Karzai and Clinton said Afghanistan would welcome Taliban fighters who embrace
peace, reject al-Qaida and pledge to abide by the Afghan constitution.

Clinton said most Taliban fighters have allied with anti-government forces "out
of desperation" rather than commitment, in a country that has barely made
inroads against poverty and lack of development.

"They should be offered an honorable form of reconciliation and reintegration
into a peaceful society" if they abandon violence and break with al-Qaida, she
said.

Akhundzadeh was critical of Obama's plan to add U.S. troops, saying the money
they cost would be better spent on building Afghanistan's own forces. But he
added that "Iran is fully prepared to participate in the projects aimed at
combating drug trafficking and the plans in line with developing and
reconstructing Afghanistan."

In a closing statement, the conference agreed to promote good governance and
stronger institutions in Afghanistan while generating economic growth and
strengthening security.

___

Associated Press writers Arthur Max and Mike Corder contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/g20_protests;_ylt=Aj9nus16U13In6UtpN5_4Kis0NUE;_ylu=X\
3oDMTJkdDNoZWE1BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNDAxL2cyMF9wcm90ZXN0cwRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzcEc2VjA\
3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDcHJvdGVzdGVyc2Ns

Protesters clash with police at Bank of England
Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 7 mins ago

LONDON – Chanting G-20 protesters clashed with riot police in central London
on Wednesday, overwhelming police lines, vandalizing the Bank of England and
smashing windows at the Royal Bank of Scotland. An effigy of a banker was set
ablaze, drawing cheers.

More than 30 people were arrested after some 4,000 anarchists, anti-capitalists,
environmentalists and others clogged London's financial district for what
demonstrators branded "Financial Fool's Day." The protests were called ahead of
Thursday's Group of 20 summit of world leaders, who hope to take concrete steps
to resolve the global financial crisis that has lashed nations and workers
worldwide.

Late in the day, police said a man had been reported to have collapsed near one
of the protest camps and responding officers were unable to resuscitate him. He
was pronounced dead at a hospital. It was unclear if the man was a protester,
and the cause of death was under investigation.

The protests in London's financial district — known as "The City" — began as
Prime Minister Gordon Brown and President Barack Obama held a news conference at
Britain's Foreign Ministry elsewhere in the capital.

A battered effigy of a banker in a bowler's hat hung on a traffic light near the
Bank of England as protesters waved signs saying: "Resistance is Fertile," and
"Make Love not Leverage."

Bankers have been lambasted as being greedy and blamed for the recession that is
making jobless ranks soar. Other banners read "Banks are evil" and "Eat the
bankers," and "0 percent interest in others." Some bankers went to work in
casual wear Wednesday fearing they could be targeted.

Some bolder financial workers leaned out office windows, taunting the
demonstrators and waving 10 pound notes at them. Two men — one wearing a suit
— exchanged punches before police intervened.

Groups of protesters converged on the central bank, with Tibetan, Palestinian,
communist, and anarchist flags poking out from the crowd. Tensions rose as
officers refused to let the protesters leave the small plaza in front of the
bank.

Protesters pelted police standing guard at the Royal Exchange with paint, eggs,
fruit and other projectiles, and a small group of anarchists, skinheads, and
masked protesters repeatedly attacked a police cordon flanking the Bank of
England.

Some in the crowd urinated against the bank and the message "Built on blood" was
scrawled in chalk in front of the building. Police helicopters hovered above.

A particularly ferocious balaclava-wearing mob broke into a closed RBS bank
branch and stole keyboards, using them to break windows. Other protesters
spray-painted graffiti on the RBS building, writing "Class War" and "Thieves."
Mounted riot police eventually pushed them back.

RBS has been the focus of particular anger because it was bailed out by the
British government after a series of disastrous deals brought it to the brink of
bankruptcy. Still, its former chief executive Fred Goodwin — age 50 —
managed to walk off with an annual pension of 703,000 pounds ($1.2 million) even
as unemployment in Britain rises from some 2 million.

"Every job I apply for there's already 150 people who have also applied," said
protester Nathan Dean, 35, who lost his information technology job three weeks
ago. "I have had to sign on to the dole (welfare) for the first time in my life.
You end up having to pay your mortgage on your credit card and you fall into
debt twice over."

There were surreal moments: Earlier in the morning, police impounded an armored
personnel carrier — complete with what looked like a machine-gun turret —
near London's Liverpool Street Station as slack-jawed office workers took
pictures with their cell phones.

Police arrested 11 people aboard for possessing police uniforms, a Scotland Yard
spokeswoman said. She offered no further detail on the incident.

Environmental protesters descended on the area around the European Climate
Exchange around noon, and — in a matter of minutes — turned it into a tent
city, complete with a pedal-powered sound system; a kitchen cooking baked beans;
and compost toilets.

At least one police officer was hurt when a printer and other office equipment
was thrown out of the RBS window. Hundreds cheered as a blue office chair was
used to smash one of the blacked-out branch windows. One protester dressed as
the Easter bunny managed to hop through the police cordon but was stopped before
he could reach the Bank of England. Another black-clad demonstrator waved a
light-saber toy at officers.

Sporadic protests rumbled on into the evening, as the rowdier elements tangled
with riot police, tossing barricades and hurling bottles.

London equity analyst Viktor Gusman, 53, said he understood the protesters'
anger but said it didn't put him off working in finance.

"This is what I do," he said, taking a cigarette break a block down from a
police barricade. "I'm supporting my wife and mother and I don't know that it
hurts anyone."

Anti-war demonstrators descended on the U.S. Embassy bearing signs that put a
pacifist twist on Obama's trademark political message. "Quit Iraq and
Afghanistan: Yes We Can!" one placard read.

Meanwhile, pro-Tibet demonstrators picketed the London hotel of Chinese
President Hu Jintao.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/65284.html

Posted on Wednesday, April 1, 2009
New Israeli foreign minister disavows U.S.-led peace talks

By Dion Nissenbaum | McClatchy Newspapers
JERUSALEM — As foreign diplomats and his predecessor looked on in
astonishment, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman began his new job
Wednesday by declaring the death of U.S.-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian peace
talks.

"Whoever thinks that concessions . . . will achieve something is wrong,"
Lieberman said shortly after being sworn in before a crowded room of diplomats
at the Foreign Ministry. "He will bring pressures and more wars."

The latest round of talks in the 61-year conflict has faltered ever since former
President George W. Bush launched it 16 months ago in Annapolis, Md., but
Lieberman made it clear that he opposes attempts to pressure Israel into rushing
into a deal with a weak Palestinian leadership.

He said the joint statement at Annapolis, which calls for "vigorous, ongoing and
continuous negotiations" with the Palestinians, no longer bound Israel.

"It has no validity," Lieberman said as Tzipi Livni, the outgoing foreign
minister, who led Israel's negotiating team during the Annapolis process,
grimaced by his side.

Lieberman, a Soviet-born former nightclub bouncer, heads the ultranationalist
Israel Is Our Home Party, the second-largest coalition partner in the new
government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

At one point Livni became so angry about Lieberman's speech that she nearly rose
to interrupt him.

"She was infuriated, and it was quite clear on her face," one Foreign Ministry
official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the shifting
political dynamics in the government.

The speech also flew in the face of statements by President Barack Obama, who's
made the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a top priority in his young
administration.

"It's a direct challenge to the Obama administration," said Gershom Gorenberg,
an Israeli political analyst and the author of "The Accidental Empire," a book
on Israel's contentious settlement policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

"He's showing himself to be undiplomatic, to be a bull in a China shop,"
Gorenberg said.

The State Department tried to minimize Lieberman's comments, pointing instead to
Netanyahu's statements this week that he's interested in peace with the
Palestinians.

"We support the two-state solution, and we will continue to work for that,"
State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said, speaking of the creation of a
Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Palestinian political leaders called Lieberman's comments a slap in the face of
diplomacy and a clear sign that the new government isn't serious about resolving
the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

"He's an obstacle to peace," said Yasser Abed Rabbo, a top adviser to
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

While Lieberman supports a two-state deal as necessary to preserve the
predominant Jewish identity of Israel, Netanyahu has avoided endorsing a
creation of a Palestinian state — Obama's goal — or talking publicly about a
"two-state solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Lieberman spoke hours after Netanyahu was sworn in as Israel's prime minister
and the head of a fractious governing coalition that also includes the
center-left Labor Party, which long has favored negotiating a two-state solution
to the impasse.

There's been widespread anxiety about Netanyahu's decision to tap Lieberman, an
international lightning rod for political criticism, as foreign minister.

As a member of the Israeli parliament, Lieberman has suggested that Arab-Israeli
lawmakers who met with the country's Middle East adversaries should be executed
as collaborators. He also suggested that Israel give up Arab villages in
northern Israel in exchange for annexing Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Israeli President Shimon Peres once called Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to
apologize after Lieberman said the Egyptian leader could "go to hell" if he
refused to visit Israel.

Lieberman won over many voters during the recent election by focusing on a
proposal, clearly aimed at Israel's Arab minority, that would strip Israelis of
voting rights if they refused to take a loyalty oath.

His speech Wednesday created an early dilemma for Netanyahu, who's barely had
time to settle into the prime minister's post.

Netanyahu's main spokesman for the international media is Mark Regev, a veteran
government official who served in the same role for Livni and former Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert. Regev had no comment Wednesday on Lieberman's speech.

While Lieberman eschewed the U.S.-led Annapolis negotiations, he said Israel was
still bound by the 2003 "road map" for peace, which outlines the steps that
Israel and the Palestinians need to take to end the conflict with a two-state
solution.

The speech set the Netanyahu government off to a bumpy start.

On Wednesday, Israel's left-leaning daily newspaper Haaretz said in its lead
editorial that Netanyahu's government was "destined to fail."

"Among the new people there is not a single minister of promise; no appointment
arouses expectations," the editorial says. "Amid the foreign and domestic
challenges, Netanyahu has presented a government of paralysis that will have
difficulty functioning and making fateful decisions; a government without vision
or enthusiasm for getting things done and without ministers to lead change."

"Israel sent the world a message last night that it is not headed for peace and
change," the editorial concludes. "All that remains is to hope that Israel's
largest government ever . . . will also be the government that makes way for its
successor with the greatest speed."

(Warren P. Strobel contributed to this report from Washington.)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/02/gingrich-warns-of-third-party-in\
-2012/

April 2, 2009
Gingrich warns of third party in 2012
Posted: 11:56 AM ET

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby

(CNN) — Former House speaker Newt Gingrich is warning of a third party mutiny
in 2012 if Republicans don’t figure out a way to shape up.

“If the Republicans can’t break out of being the right wing party of big
government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012,”
Gingrich said Tuesday. The speech, to a group of students at the College of the
Ozarks in Missouri, was recorded by Springfield TV station KY3.

But Gingrich, bemoaning President Barack Obama’s “monstrosity of a
budget,” acknowledged that Republicans are partially to blame for the
escalation in federal spending.

"Remember, everything Obama’s doing, Bush started last year,” he said. “If
you’re going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush
administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obama’s first
two, three months.”

Gingrich told the students that the current governmental system “is so sick,
so out of touch and so arrogant that you’re going to have a nationwide
rebellion at the polls of people in both parties who are just fed up.”

“You can do a Facebook page, you can Twitter,” he said. “I Twitter right
now and I think we’re at like, I don’t know, 18,000 or 20,000 thousand
people that follow my Twitter, which I have to say I think is nuts. But there
are ways to communicate, you’re not trapped by CBS news.”

Gingrich has repeatedly said that he will decide in early 2011 whether he plans
to seek the White House in 2012.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879435046687885.html

APRIL 4, 2009.
U.S to Lift Some Cuba Travel Curbs
By LAURA MECKLER

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama plans to lift longstanding U.S.
restrictions on Cuba, a senior administration official said, allowing
Cuban-Americans to visit families there as often as they like and to send them
unlimited funds.

The gesture, which could herald more openness with the Castro regime, will
fulfill a campaign promise and follows more modest action in Congress this year
to loosen travel rules.

The president has authority to loosen the restrictions on travel and remittances
to Cuba on his own. The new rules will affect an estimated 1.5 million Americans
who have family members in Cuba. Other Americans are allowed to travel to Cuba
but only if they qualify through certain cultural, educational and other
programs.

President Obama doesn't intend to call for lifting of the trade embargo against
Cuba, which would require congressional action, nor is any specific diplomatic
outreach contemplated, the official said.

Advocates for greater openness with Cuba said the move is significant in itself,
signaling the Obama administration's willingness to take a fresh look at Cuba
policy early in the presidency. However, others argue that overtures to Cuba as
long as the Castros are in charge are not likely to foster democracy on the
island.

The timing of the announcement is unclear, but several Cuba experts have
speculated that it could come ahead of this month's Summit of the Americas in
Trinidad and Tobago.

It will come amid a series of international gestures by President Obama
recently. This week, he moved to improve relations with Russia and told an
audience in France on Friday that he was there to listen. Previously, he made an
outreach to the people of Iran, sending a video message calling for a "new day"
of relations between Washington and Tehran.

Last May in a campaign speech in Miami, Mr. Obama said, "It's time to let
Cuban-Americans see their mothers and their fathers, their sisters and their
brothers. It's time to let Cuban-American money make their families less
dependent on the Castro regime."

The travel and remittance restrictions stem from the embargo, put in place in
1962 after Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba. President Jimmy Carter allowed
the travel ban to lapse.

But President Ronald Reagan reinstituted the travel ban with some exceptions.
Under President Bill Clinton, Cuban-Americans could visit family once a year.
President George W. Bush's policy was at one point even looser, but in 2004, he
tightened the rules, allowing family trips once every three years, and narrowing
the definition of who qualified as family. Sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers
and grandparents qualified, but uncles, aunts and cousins did not.

This year, Congress approved legislation that had the effect of rolling back the
Bush rules. As they now stand, family members -- broadly defined -- may visit
once a year. The rules on how much money family members can send to Cuba, which
date to 1978, have also changed with various administrations, but under Mr.
Bush, funds were limited to a maximum of $300 per quarter for each household in
Cuba receiving them. Remittances from the U.S. to Cuba now amount to around $700
million a year.

The expected action comes as cries grow louder in Congress to open U.S. policy
toward Cuba. A bill introduced this year would allow unlimited travel for any
purpose by Americans. Sen. Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, wrote Mr. Obama this week calling for a change in
U.S. posture toward Cuba and suggested that his administration open a dialogue
about how to bring Cuba into the international community.

Mr. Obama has also been under pressure from Latin leaders to make a gesture
toward Cuba to start rebuilding regional relations.

Reaction to the expected policy shift was mixed. "The status quo has been
unnatural and immoral," said Julia Sweig, a Cuba specialist at the Council on
Foreign Relations. "This will at least allow families to begin to normalize, if
not the two countries."

Some Cuban-American circles have pressed to maintain U.S. restrictions because
of their antipathy for Fidel Castro and his brother, Raul, who replaced him as
leader after Fidel became ill. "How do you help people speak out about human
rights violations if you're basically extending the dictatorship abroad?" said
Mauricio Claver-Carone, director of U.S. Cuba Democracy PAC.

—-- Jose de Cordoba and John Lyons contributed to this article.
Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090409/wl_afp/usattacksintelligence

CIA 'no longer' using secret prisons: director
1 hr 1 min ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The CIA is "no longer" operating secret prisons used by the
intelligence agency to interrogate terror suspects, and plans to shut all
remaining "black sites," the spy agency's director said Thursday.

The statement by the Central Intelligence Agency chief confirmed the spy service
was carrying out an order from President Barack Obama to shut down the secret
prisons that have been condemned at home and abroad as a flagrant violation of
human rights.

"CIA no longer operates detention facilities or black sites and has proposed a
plan to decommission the remaining sites," CIA director Leon Panetta said in a
letter sent to agency employees.

"I have directed our agency personnel to take charge of the decommissioning
process and have further directed that the contracts for site security be
promptly terminated," he said.

Revelations about the "black sites" overseas, including in countries such as
Iraq where there is a risk of torture, caused international outrage during
former president George W. Bush's tenure.

In one of his first decisions after taking office in January, Obama ordered the
closure of the secret prisons as well as the controversial "war on terror"
detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Rights groups and media reports have alleged the secret prisons were located in
Central and Eastern Europe, including Poland, Romania and in former Yugoslavia,
as well as at sites in the Horn of Africa and on US Navy ships.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21053.html

Pentagon preps for economic warfare
By EAMON JAVERS | 4/9/09 4:18 AM EDT

The Pentagon sponsored a first-of-its-kind war game last month focused not on
bullets and bombs — but on how hostile nations might seek to cripple the U.S.
economy, a scenario made all the more real by the global financial crisis.

The two-day event near Ft. Meade, Maryland, had all the earmarks of a regular
war game. Participants sat along a V-shaped set of desks beneath an enormous
wall of video monitors displaying economic data, according to the accounts of
three participants.

“It felt a little bit like Dr. Strangelove,” one person who was at the
previously undisclosed exercise told POLITICO.

But instead of military brass plotting America’s defense, it was hedge-fund
managers, professors and executives from at least one investment bank, UBS –
all invited by the Pentagon to play out global scenarios that could shift the
balance of power between the world’s leading economies.

Their efforts were carefully observed and recorded by uniformed military
officers and members of the U.S. intelligence community.

In the end, there was sobering news for the United States – the savviest
economic warrior proved to be China, a growing economic power that strengthened
its position the most over the course of the war-game.

The United States remained the world’s largest economy but significantly
degraded its standing in a series of financial skirmishes with Russia,
participants said.

The war game demonstrated that in post-Sept. 11 world, the Pentagon is thinking
about a wide range of threats to America’s position in the world, including
some that could come far from the battlefield.

And it’s hardly science fiction. China recently shook the value of the dollar
in global currency markets merely by questioning whether the recession put
China’s $1 trillion in U.S. government bond holdings at risk – forcing
President Barack Obama to issue a hasty defense of the dollar.

“This was an example of the changing nature of conflict,” said Paul Bracken,
a professor and expert in private equity at the Yale School of Management who
attended the sessions. “The purpose of the game is not really to predict the
future, but to discover the issues you need to be thinking about.”

Several participants said the event had been in the planning stages well before
the stock market crash of September, but the real-world market calamity was on
the minds of many in the room. “It loomed large over what everybody was
doing,” said Bracken.

“Why would the military care about global capital flows at all?” asked
another person who was there. “Because as the global financial crisis plays
out, there could be real world consequences, including failed states. We’ve
already seen riots in the United Kingdom and the Balkans.”

The Office of the Secretary of Defense hosted the two-day event March 17 and 18
at the Warfare Analysis Laboratory in Laurel, MD. That facility, run by the
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, typically hosts military
officials planning intricate combat scenarios.

A spokesperson for the Applied Physics Laboratory confirmed the event, and said
it was the first purely economic war game the facility has hosted. All three
participants said they had been told it was the first time the Pentagon hosted a
purely economic war game. A Pentagon spokesman would say only that he was not
aware of the exercise.

The event was unclassified but has not been made public before. It is regarded
as so sensitive that several people who participated declined to discuss the
details with POLITICO. Said Steven Halliwell, managing director of a hedge fund
called River Capital Management, “I’m not prepared to talk about this. I’m
sorry, but I can’t talk to you.”

Officials at UBS also declined to comment.

Participants described the event as a series of simulated global calamities,
including the collapse of North Korea, Russian manipulation of natural gas
prices, and increasing tension between China and Taiwan. “They wanted to see
who makes loans to help out, what does each team do to get the other countries
involved, and who decides to simply let the North Koreans collapse,” said a
participant.

There were five teams: The United States, Russia, China, East Asia and “all
others.” They were overseen by a “White Cell” group that functioned as
referees, who decided the impact of the moves made by each team as they
struggled for economic dominance.

At the end of the two days, the Chinese team emerged as the victors of the
overall game – largely because the Russian and American teams had made so many
moves against each other that they damaged their own standing to the benefit of
the Chinese.

Bracken says he left the event with two important insights – first, that the
United States needs an integrated approach to managing financial and what the
Pentagon calls “kinetic” – or shooting – wars. For example he says, the
U.S. Navy is involved in blockading Iran, and the U.S. is also conducting
economic war against Iran in the form of sanctions. But he argues there isn’t
enough coordination between the two efforts.

And second, Bracken says, the event left him questioning one prevailing
assumption about economic warfare, that the Chinese would never dump dollars on
the global market to attack the US economy because it would harm their own
holdings at the same time. Bracken said the Chinese have a middle option between
dumping and holding US dollars – they could sell dollars in increments,
ratcheting up economic uncertainty in the United States without wiping out their
own savings. “There’s a graduated spectrum of options here,” Bracken said.

For those who hadn’t been to a Pentagon event before, the sheer technological
capacity of the Warfare Analysis Laboratory was impressive. “It was
surprisingly realistic,” said a participant.

Still, the event conjures images of the ultimate Hollywood take on computer
strategizing: the 1983 film “War Games” in which a young computer hacker
nearly triggers a nuclear apocalypse.

The film and the reality had one similarity: The characters in the movie used a
computer called WOPR, or War Operation Plan Response. The computer system used
by the real life war-gamers? It was called WALRUS, or Warfare Analysis
Laboratory Registration and User Website.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090410/pl_politico/21121_2;_ylt=AjtEZJutCtCqL\
xofRhCruE5H2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2OHJkYnRmBHBvcwMxBHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDZXYtb2J\
hbWFyZWxl

Obama releases Reagan records
Josh Gerstein Josh Gerstein – 58 mins ago

President Barack Obama is ordering the release of nearly a quarter of a million
pages of records from the Reagan White House that were kept from the public
during a lengthy review by President George W. Bush.

The Reagan documents – which include presidential briefing papers,
speechwriting research materials and declassified foreign policy records — are
expected to be released Monday.

Officials said the Obama administration’s quick verdict on the documents was
prompted by an executive order Obama signed in January that gives the incumbent
president 30 days to make such a decision, unless he sets a longer period. By
contrast, Bush’s executive order on presidential records set no time limit on
the White House’s review.

“With regard to the Reagan Administration records, I am writing to inform you
that the President has not asserted executive privilege over any of this
material,” White House Counsel Greg Craig wrote in a letter Thursday obtained
by POLITICO.

“Pursuant to the President’s Executive Order, NARA may release these records
— opening close to 250,000 pages of history,” Craig wrote to the director of
the presidential libraries unit at the National Archives and Records
Administration, Nancy Kegan Smith.

A smaller batch of 797 pages from President George H.W. Bush’s presidential
library on the topic of Saudi Arabia also has been cleared for release Monday.

In recent years, historians and open-government groups complained bitterly that
the review process President George W. Bush instituted was causing a backlog
that was stalling the release of tens of thousands of pages of presidential
records. “The cynical view is that the process is deliberately inefficient,”
Thomas Blanton of the National Security Archive testified at a Congressional
hearing on the issue in 2007.

One advocate for greater disclosure hailed Obama's move.

"This is a great development," Scott Nelson of the Public Citizen Litigation
Group said. "It's very encouraging that the Bush order and the burden it imposes
on the White House to do a page-by-page review apparently won't be taking place
under this administration. We won't have this additional layer of delays."

However, there were indications that the most contested presidential records
from the Reagan era might not be among the roughly 250,000 pages cleared for
release by Obama.

Nelson’s group fought a court battle for about a dozen documents, including
memoranda about possible pardons for Iran-Contra figures such as Oliver North
and John Poindexter. Representatives of former President Reagan objected to the
release of those documents and were backed up in almost all instances by lawyers
for President Bush. A federal judge ruled that the requesters’ had no legal
grounds to overcome the incumbent president’s assertion of privilege.

Craig’s letter says Reagan’s representative approved of the release of the
documents the White House cleared on Thursday, making it unlikely the files
contain the same records that led to the court battle. A representative for the
elder Bush also consented to have his documents released, officials said.

Obama’s openness to releasing historical presidential records could put him at
odds with former presidents or their families who seek to block such a release.
But officials said there was no disagreement about the records to be released
next week.