Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

Rappel du premier message :

U.S. clamps down on banking transactions; terror group finds new funding

By Robert Windrem and Garrett Haake
NBC News
updated 7:56 a.m. ET Nov. 14, 2008
Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence officials believe they've won many small victories against al-Qaida's ability to finance its operations, but they remain unable to put a concrete dollar figure on their impact.

That's because they have no reliable estimate of al-Qaida's overall budget, according to current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials, which means the only measures of the organization's economic health are sporadic, anecdotal and fragmentary.

"When you see a cell complaining that it hasn't received its monthly or biannual stipend and it's unable to pay the salaries of the people in the cell, unable to make the support payments to the families of terrorists living or dead, that's a tremendous indicator we have pressured the financial channel," said Adam Szubin, the director of the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and the man in charge of tracking terrorist finance.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27644191

Military Judge Refuses to Halt Trial of USS Cole Bombing Suspect

Military Judge James Pohl has refused the Obama administration's order to delay the arraignment of Abu al-Nashiri, the accused planner of the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen.

FOXNews.com
Thursday, January 29, 2009

A military judge has refused the Obama administration's request to delay the arraignment of Abu al-Nashiri, the accused planner of the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen, FOX News learned Thursday.

Judge James Pohl's ruling throws a wrench in President Obama's plans to suspend the military tribunal process for 120 days while the administration reviews how to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within the year.

Pohl's decision is striking because two other military judges in a Sept. 11 conspiracy case and in the case of Canadian Al Qaeda operative Omar Khadr agreed to suspend proceedings in accordance with Obama's recent executive order, which put a hold on all military tribunals.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Thursday that Pohl would soon be told to comply with Obama's executive order.

"All I can really tell you is that this department will be in full compliance with the president's executive order," Morrell said at a news briefing. "There is no ifs, ands or buts about that."

"The president has signed an executive order and that sort of puts all this on hold as we go about and review a number of things related to Gitmo, our detention operations, our interrogation procedures," he continued.

"And so, while that executive order is in force and effect, trust me that there will be no proceedings continuing down at Gitmo with military commissions," he added.

Al-Nashiri's arraignment is scheduled for Feb. 9 at Guantanamo Bay. A Defense Department spokesman said the only thing now that can stop the court appearance from going forward is a withdrawal of the charges without prejudice by Judge Susan Crawford, head of the convening authority that oversees the entire process at Guantanamo.

If the charges are dropped without prejudice, new charges could be brought in another venue, possibly a military court martial or criminal court.

The October 2000 attack on the USS Cole killed 17 service members and injured 50 others.

FOX News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.Military Judge Refuses

S'il y a 60 ans on avait suivi le même raisonnement passablement tordu de ceux qui aujourdui veulent mettre au vert les terroristes de Guantánamo excipant d'un prétendu vide juridique, et bien, disais-je, on aurait libéré sans procés les pontes du 3ème Reich et Nuremberg n'aurait jamais eu lieu.

Avec un différence : les dignitaires du socialisme-national n'auraient pas recommencé leur aventure, alors que les terroristes fanatisés ne rêvent que de reprendre du service...

Donc bravo au sens moral de l'honnête serviteur de la justice qu'est ce juge !

... et courageux. De nos jours, il ne fait pas bon prendre ce genre de position.

est qu'il en a... (du culot... du culot...)

Mr. Elbaradei, qui etait un des personnages importants dans les mois qui ont precede la reprise de la guerre en Iraq, demande a Obama de parler directement a l'Iran afin d'obtenir qu'elle abandonne son projet d'armement nucleaire (il serait peut-etre temps de s'inquieter). L'ancien gouvernement (Bush evidemment, ayant ete un echec total...).

1) et avant tout: la Constitution Americaine interdit que le gouvernement americain abandonne son independance en soumettant son independance a une autorite a une externe (en l'occurence les Nations Unies - ceux-ci ne peuvent en aucune facon tisser le tissu de notre politique exterieure.)

2) il me semblait que c'etait la responsabilite de l'ONU de s'assurer que l'Iran ne s'arme pas en nucleair; en l'occurence: sa responsabilite celle de monsieur Elbaradei. (il commence a repasser la patate chaude?)

3) le gouvernement Bush n'a recu AUCUN soutien de l'ONU sur cette question

4) pas plus de l'UE qui, comme le fait justement remarquer Mr. Kouchner, a, elle, essaye de palaver avec l'Iran sans resultat aucun!

ElBaradei Urges U.S., Iran to Meet
By MARC CHAMPION

DAVOS, Switzerland -- The United Nations official responsible for keeping tabs on Iran's nuclear program detailed measures he believes the new U.S. administration should take to halt Tehran's nuclear-weapons program, and described previous U.S. efforts as "a total failure."

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in an interview Thursday that those steps should include opening "direct dialog at a high level, with no preconditions" with Tehran. The U.S. should then negotiate a "freeze for freeze" agreement, in which Iran would halt expansion of its nuclear program -- which can be used for civilian or military purposes -- while the U.S. and other nations would stop expansion of U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran.

He said these initial steps would be possible within six months. Previous efforts to negotiate such a deal have failed.
The Obama administration has pledged to engage Iran's leaders directly, although it has declined to set any time target.

Further steps, Mr. ElBaradei acknowledged, would present enormous challenges. Any agreement would have to address Iran's security concerns and its desire to be accepted as a regional player, he said. It would be necessary to change the political atmosphere in the Middle East and persuade other nations, including Iran, that nuclear weapons aren't the ticket to prestige and security.



Mohamed ElBaradei

The IAEA, which Mr. ElBaradei runs, monitors compliance by countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Mr. ElBaradei, an Egyptian national who won a Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the IAEA in 2005, crossed swords with the administration of George W. Bush, which has defended its record on Iran. The U.S. opposed Mr. ElBaradei's appointment to a third four-year term at the agency in 2005.

Mr. ElBaradei said it was "a good question" why Iran would abandon an ambition to obtain nuclear weapons -- an ambition Iran denies, but Western governments are convinced it has. However, the prospect of free access to technology, access to the World Trade Organization, security guarantees and normalized relations with its neighbors and the U.S. could be enough, he said.

The challenges were evident Thursday at a panel discussing global expectations of the Obama administration.
Speaking in Farsi, Iran Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran would want to see the Obama administration change U.S. policies in practice and apologize for acts including the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said European Union nations had for years attempted to negotiate with Iran, offering trade, technology and other benefits. "We were talking and talking, but got nowhere," he said.
Write to Marc Champion at marc.champion@wsj.com

Sylvette a écrit:

Military Judge Refuses to Halt Trial of USS Cole Bombing Suspect

un juge refuse l'ordre du gouvernement Obama d'arreter le proces de l'accuse de l'explosion du USS Cole


Military Judge James Pohl has refused the Obama administration's order to delay the arraignment of Abu al-Nashiri, the accused planner of the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen.

FOXNews.com
Thursday, January 29, 2009

A military judge has refused the Obama administration's request to delay the arraignment of Abu al-Nashiri, the accused planner of the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen, FOX News learned Thursday.
Judge James Pohl's ruling throws a wrench in President Obama's plans to suspend the military tribunal process for 120 days while the administration reviews how to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within the year.

Bonjour Sylvette,

Il me semble que suspend-delay ne veut pas dire arreter. Non ?
Plutot suspendre, reporter........

bonne journee.

Il parait qu'Obama veut le faire taire ? Wow rien que ca ?
Tout ca a cause d'une petite remarque de rien du tout et hop on tire des conclusions a la va vite.

Limbaugh a toujours egalement irrite certains Republicains par ses vues ou ses propos outranciers. Le dernier en date :

House GOP member to Rush: Back off
By JONATHAN MARTIN | 1/27/09 4:13 PM EST Updated: 1/27/09 7:32 PM EST


Rush Limbaugh may command a large following, but his caustic comments Monday about the GOP’s congressional leadership have at least one Republican House member defending his colleagues and offering an unusually candid critique of the talk radio powerhouse and his fellow commentators.

Responding to President Obama’s recommendation to Republican congressional leaders last week that they not follow Limbaugh’s lead, the conservative talkmeister said on his show that Obama is “obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me, than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party."

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., did not take kindly to this assessment in an interview with Politico Tuesday.

“I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey said. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell."

Asked to respond to Gingrey, Limbaugh, in an email to Politico, wrote: “I'm sure he is doing his best but it does not appear to be good enough. He may not have noticed that the number of Republican colleagues he has in the House has dwindled. And they will dwindle more if he and his friends don't show more leadership and effectiveness in battling the most left-wing agenda in modern history. And they won't continue to lose because of me, but because of their relationship with the grassroots, which is hurting. Conservatives want leadership from those who claim to represent them. And we'll know it when we see it.”

The back and forth comes as some on the right speak more openly about what they perceive as the lack of leadership in the Republican Party. Unapologetic conservatives, like Limbaugh would prefer to see elected Republicans confront the new president. But many GOP officials, daunted by the new president’s approval rating and what they believe is fatigue on the part of voters over partisan fighting, are loath to openly criticize Obama.

Rush Limbaugh may command a large following, but his caustic comments Monday about the GOP’s congressional leadership have at least one Republican House member defending his colleagues and offering an unusually candid critique of the talk radio powerhouse and his fellow commentators.

At least one? et tout irait mal pour Rush?

=====

Responding to President Obama’s recommendation to Republican congressional leaders last week that they not follow Limbaugh’s lead, the conservative talkmeister said on his show that Obama is “obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me, than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about our party."

Bien evidemment qu'il inquiete Barack et Nancy.

Je n'ai JAMAIS entendu Pres. Bush faire reference a un Carville ou a un Franken (pas qu'ils soient dans la meme ligne, mais bon) ou demander aux Democrates de ne pas suivre les directives de moveon.org afin de lui apporter leur soutien dans l'interet de tous, bien sur...

Au fait si je comprends bien, les Democrates faisant tout pour bloquer l'ordre du jour de Pres. Bush c'etait pour le bien du pays et la, toujours pour le bien du pays, les Republicains doivent accepter tout ce qu'Obama leur met sous les yeux?

Vision quelque peu arrogante tout de meme. N'oublions pas que meme Colin Powell est contre un Democrat-Republican kumbaya.

=====

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., did not take kindly to this assessment in an interview with Politico Tuesday.

“I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey said. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell."

Asked to respond to Gingrey, Limbaugh, in an email to Politico, wrote: “I'm sure he is doing his best but it does not appear to be good enough. He may not have noticed that the number of Republican colleagues he has in the House has dwindled. And they will dwindle more if he and his friends don't show more leadership and effectiveness in battling the most left-wing agenda in modern history. And they won't continue to lose because of me, but because of their relationship with the grassroots, which is hurting. Conservatives want leadership from those who claim to represent them. And we'll know it when we see it.”

The back and forth comes as some on the right speak more openly about what they perceive as the lack of leadership in the Republican Party. Unapologetic conservatives, like Limbaugh would prefer to see elected Republicans confront the new president. But many GOP officials, daunted by the new president’s approval rating and what they believe is fatigue on the part of voters over partisan fighting, are loath to openly criticize Obama.

Un echange tres poli, Phil Gingrey ne dit pas que Rush Limbaugh ait tort il dit que pour le moment les Republicains font de leur mieux dans une situation difficile. A la limite c'est un peu facile a Rush de commenter, ben tiens, il est la pour ca!

Rush Limbaugh, lui, dit qu'il comprend mais que ce n'est pas ce que la base republicaine souhaite.

Je me demande seulement ce qui dans ce texte merite un titre comme celui-ci: House GOP member to Rush: Back off

Question purement rhetorique

===

Enfin bon, moi je trouve au moins aussi interessant le fait que les Republicains essayent de faire une scission entre les Democrates du Congres et Obama, que l'"affaire Rush".

Shansaa a écrit:

Bonjour Sylvette,

Il me semble que suspend-delay ne veut pas dire arreter. Non ?
Plutot suspendre, reporter........

bonne journee.

Bonjour Shansaa !

Ce serait en effet plus logique.
Libérer sans autre forme de procès, c'est le cas de le dire, des terroristes - présumés, en langage politiquement correct - attrapés les armes à la main, relèverait d'un véritable délit d'incitation au meurtre...

Espérons que cette "suspension" ne soit qu'une astuce politique pour satisfaire un certain public en attendant que l'oubli des promesses électorales fasse son oeuvre.

C'est votre avis aussi ?

President Obama and a key outside ally are stepping up efforts to ensure passage of the massive economic stimulus package, reaching out to Congress with both carrots and sticks.

While the president and his top aides are using all the trappings of the office, courting members through phone calls, cocktail parties, West Wing sit-downs and even a politically mixed Super Bowl party, liberal groups are dispensing with the niceties and seeking to drive a wedge between Republicans and one of the right’s most influential leaders.

Politico has learned that tomorrow Americans United for Change, a liberal group, will begin airing radio ads in three states Obama won — Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada — with a tough question aimed at the GOP senators there: Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?

“Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice,” says the narrator after playing the conservative talk radio giant’s declaration that he hopes Obama “fails.”

“Every Republican voted with Limbaugh — and against creating 4 million new American jobs. We can understand why a extreme partisan like Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama’s Jobs program to fail — but the members of Congress elected to represent the citizens in their districts? That’s another matter. Now the Obama plan goes to the Senate, and the question is: Will our Senator"—here the ad is tailored by state to name George Voinovich in Ohio, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, and John Ensign in Nevada—"side with Rush Limbaugh too?”

Asked to respond, Limbaugh had a message for his party.

“Senate Republicans need to understand this is not about me,” he wrote in an email. “It is about them, about intimidating them, especially after the show of unity in House. It is about the 2010 and 2012 elections. This is an opportunity for Republicans to redefine themselves after a few years of wandering aimlessly looking for a ‘brand’ and identity.”

Brad Woodhouse, the Democratic strategist who is overseeing the ad campaign, said: “The House Republicans put their Senate colleagues in the crosshairs because they decided to play politics rather than do the right thing.”

...

Incroyable d'arrogance! La gauche dans toute sa splendeur. Qu'est-ce que ca peut leur faire que les Republicains votent oui ou non, puisqu'ils sont en majorite au Congres de toute facon. Il faut qu'EN PLUS, Obama passe pour un "rassembleur". Quelle honte!

Je fais tout de meme remarquer que tous les Democrates n'ont pas vote oui au Plan de relance d'Obama, enfin bon de la Chambre. J'espere qu'ils seront mis au pilori ce w.e.!!!

Biloulou a écrit:

Shansaa a écrit:

Bonjour Sylvette,

Il me semble que suspend-delay ne veut pas dire arreter. Non ?
Plutot suspendre, reporter........

bonne journee.

Bonjour Shansaa !

Ce serait en effet plus logique.
Libérer sans autre forme de procès, c'est le cas de le dire, des terroristes - présumés, en langage politiquement correct - attrapés les armes à la main, relèverait d'un véritable délit d'incitation au meurtre...

Espérons que cette "suspension" ne soit qu'une astuce politique pour satisfaire un certain public en attendant que l'oubli des promesses électorales fasse son oeuvre.

C'est votre avis aussi ?

Biloulou , il a ete explique lorsqu'Obama signait ses petits papiers, que les proces ne seraient pas repris avec les memes chefs d'accusation. Conclusion, le terme arrete est la realite des choses

President Obama a change un peu d'avis:

Daschle chief of staff was lobbyist

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN| 1/29/09 9:06 PM EST

The new chief of staff to health reform czar Tom Daschle was a lobbyist through late last year and will have to recuse himself from issues he worked to influence, an administration aide said Thursday. Photo: AP The new chief of staff to health reform czar Tom Daschle was a lobbyist through late last year and will have to recuse himself from issues he worked to influence, an administration aide said Thursday. Daschle adviser Mark B. Childress is the second lobbyist to land in the top ranks of the Health and Human Services Department and joins at least 12 others who have found jobs in the administration — despite the president’s repeated pledges during the campaign to stamp out their influence in Washington. As a partner at the law firm Foley Hoag, Childress represented the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and PanFlu LLC, which sought assistance on mobile health technology issues. He will need to avoid making decisions that affect his former clients or the broader areas they represented, but Childress will not require a waiver because he did not lobby the health and human services department, the aide said. “With broad experience in Congress and in the White House, Mark has the expertise to tackle the challenges facing our health care system,” Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin said in a statement.

He will need to avoid making decisions taht affect his former clients...

On croit rever! Imagine une seule seconde, qu'il s'agisse de Republicains.

Dans ce cas, et sans rien connaître à la justice américaine, il serait logique que toute la procédure doive recommencer à zéro.
Ce serait vraiment étonnant, vu l'allongement de la privation de liberté que ça suppose, mais bon...

C'est vrai que quels que soient les chefs d'accusation, dans la limite du vraisemblable, la perpétuité devrait être la plus légère des peines...

Surtout lorsque l'on sait qu'en plus, une fois sortis les terroristes reprennent du service.

The cost of abdicating to Nancy Pelosi

Barack Obama promised to end the "politics of division," unite Washington's factions and overcome partisanship. And what do you know -- so far he has: The President's stimulus plan generated bipartisan House opposition, with every Republican and 11 Democrats voting against it on Wednesday. It passed 244-188.

The political class is feigning shock that Mr. Obama's stylistic olive branches to the GOP -- cocktail hour at the White House, cutting a line item for shrubbery on the National Mall -- failed to peel off even a single vote across the aisle. The chatter is that Republicans were taking a great political risk to oppose a President with 70%-plus approval ratings on his first piece of legislation.

But the real risk here is to Mr. Obama, and it isn't from Republicans. It's from his fellow Democrats. Given the miserable economy and the Beltway's neo-Keynesian policy consensus, a true compromise would have gathered overwhelming support. But rather than use Mr. Obama's political capital to craft such a deal, the White House abdicated to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. House Democrats proceeded to ignore all GOP suggestions as they wrote the bill, shedding tax cuts while piling on spending for every imaginable interest group. The bipartisan opposition reflects how much the Pelosi bill became a vehicle for partisan social policy rather than economic stimulus.

Genuine bipartisanship means compromises on policy, not photo-ops and hand shakes. The last two Democratic Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, also came to power with big Democratic majorities in Congress, veered far to the left on policy, and quickly came undone. To adapt White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's now famous line, a 70% approval rating is a terrible thing to waste on the ideas of Henry Waxman and Pete Stark.

Faire preuve de son identite avant de passer dans l'isoloir, c'est quand meme la moindre des choses! les Democrates y etaient opposes.

Voter ID Was a Success in November

By HANS VON SPAKOVSKY

Remember the storm that arose on the political left after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Indiana's voter ID law last April? According to the left, voter ID was a dastardly Republican plot to prevent Democrats from winning elections by suppressing the votes of minorities, particularly African-Americans.

Since the election of Barack Obama, we haven't heard a word about such claims. On Jan. 14, the federal appeals court in Atlanta upheld Georgia's voter ID law.

The reasons for the silence about alleged voter suppression is plain. In the first place, numerous academic studies show that voter ID had no effect on the turnout of voters in prior elections. The plaintiffs in every unsuccessful lawsuit filed against such state requirements could not produce a single individual who didn't either already have an ID or couldn't easily get one.

Second are the figures emerging from the November election. If what liberals claimed was true, Democratic voters in states with strict photo ID requirements would presumably have had a much more difficult time voting, and their turnout dampened in comparison to other states. Well, that myth can finally be laid to rest.
...

En attendant il ne manquerait plus qu'il depose nos cheques tous en meme temps...

========

Castro Throws First Punch at Obama, Demands Return of Gitmo

Friday, January 30, 2009



Ca n'a pas l'air d'etre la grande forme...
Republic of Argentina

Jan. 21: Fidel Castro meets with Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Havana.

HAVANA — Fidel Castro on Thursday threw his first punch at President Obama after several weeks of praise for the new leader, demanding the U.S. return Guantanamo Bay military base to Cuba and criticizing the U.S. defense of Israel.

Castro's latest essay, published on an official Web site, came one week after he called Obama "intelligent and noble" and said he would cut back on his writings to prevent interfering with Cuban government decisions.

The missive Thursday raised new questions about what role he maintains in policy-making, especially coming while his brother, President Raul Castro, was in Moscow on an official visit.

The ailing 82-year-old former president wrote that if the U.S. doesn't give the U.S. base at Guantanamo back to Cuba, it will be a violation of international law and an abuse of American power against a small country.

The U.S. president must "respect this norm without any condition," Castro wrote.

...

Ca tombe comme a Gravelotte!

Bonsoir Sylvette,

Qui a donc dit que tout irait mal pour Limbaugh ? c'etait simplement l'avis d'un elu Republicain. Limbaugh est outrancier, certains republicains preferent s'en distancer, ce n'est pas nouveau. Dernierement il y en a quelques uns qui n'ont pas du tout apprecie son voeu de voir Obama se planter, puisqu'en toute logique cela signifierait un echec des US.

De la a dire qu'il inquiete Obama ? Ou le dragon Pelosi ? ce n'est pas serieux tout de meme.

Je n'ai JAMAIS entendu Pres. Bush faire reference a un Carville ou a un Franken (pas qu'ils soient dans la meme ligne, mais bon) ou demander aux Democrates de ne pas suivre les directives de moveon.org afin de lui apporter leur soutien dans l'interet de tous, bien sur...

Moi non plus mais je ne vois pas le probleme. Si Bush avait dit "Stop listening to MoveOn if you want to get the job done", quelle aurait ete votre reaction ? Amusee peut-etre ?. En tous cas c'est la mienne. Mais bon je concois que vous n'appreciez pas.

Au fait si je comprends bien, les Democrates faisant tout pour bloquer l'ordre du jour de Pres. Bush c'etait pour le bien du pays et la, toujours pour le bien du pays, les Republicains doivent accepter tout ce qu'Obama leur met sous les yeux?

Ah mais ca c'est l'eternelle rengaine de tous les partis politiques de la planete.Par contre je suppose que les vetos de Bush sur des propositions adoptees par le pouvoir legislatif ne vous ont pas genee. Si ce n'est pas du blocage, comment faut-il l'appeler ? C'etait pour le bien du pays, evidemment

Je me demande seulement ce qui dans ce texte merite un titre comme celui-ci: House GOP member to Rush: Back off

C'est tout Politico ca. Souvent des titres sans grande soutenance dans le texte. Mais je pense que pour eux ce paragraphe justifiait le titre.

Gingrey said. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush
Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw
bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and
your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living
well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and
that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that
these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in
that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell."

Biloulou a écrit:

Shansaa a écrit:

Bonjour Sylvette,

Il me semble que suspend-delay ne veut pas dire arreter. Non ?
Plutot suspendre, reporter........

bonne journee.

Bonjour Shansaa !

Ce serait en effet plus logique.
Libérer sans autre forme de procès, c'est le cas de le dire, des terroristes - présumés, en langage politiquement correct - attrapés les armes à la main, relèverait d'un véritable délit d'incitation au meurtre...

Espérons que cette "suspension" ne soit qu'une astuce politique pour satisfaire un certain public en attendant que l'oubli des promesses électorales fasse son oeuvre.

C'est votre avis aussi ?

Bonsoir Biloulou,

Il n'a jamais ete question de liberer des terroristes presumes, (c'est le terme, aucune charge officielle n'ayant ete prononcee contre eux car il n' ya pas eu de proces) et les laisser divaguer dans la nature. Il s'agit de mettre fin a un vide juridique et humain, car nous sommes parait-il des gens civilises, et de les juger (je l'espere) conformement a nos lois avant de les mettre a l'ombre pour longtemps. Les conditions de detention de ces hommes sont indignes de ce que nous voulons representer ou alors nous ne valons guere mieux qu'eux.
Reste a trouver les modalites et les lieux et je doute fort que d'ici la on leur accorde la moindre autorisation de sortie .

Ca c'est mon avis

Sylvette a écrit:

President Obama and a key outside ally are stepping up efforts to ensure passage of the massive economic stimulus package, reaching out to Congress with both carrots and sticks.

While the president and his top aides are using all the trappings of the office, courting members through phone calls, cocktail parties, West Wing sit-downs and even a politically mixed Super Bowl party, liberal groups are dispensing with the niceties and seeking to drive a wedge between Republicans and one of the right’s most influential leaders.

Politico has learned that tomorrow Americans United for Change, a liberal group, will begin airing radio ads in three states Obama won — Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada — with a tough question aimed at the GOP senators there: Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?

“Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice,” says the narrator after playing the conservative talk radio giant’s declaration that he hopes Obama “fails.”

“Every Republican voted with Limbaugh — and against creating 4 million new American jobs. We can understand why a extreme partisan like Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama’s Jobs program to fail — but the members of Congress elected to represent the citizens in their districts? That’s another matter. Now the Obama plan goes to the Senate, and the question is: Will our Senator"—here the ad is tailored by state to name George Voinovich in Ohio, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, and John Ensign in Nevada—"side with Rush Limbaugh too?”

Asked to respond, Limbaugh had a message for his party.

“Senate Republicans need to understand this is not about me,” he wrote in an email. “It is about them, about intimidating them, especially after the show of unity in House. It is about the 2010 and 2012 elections. This is an opportunity for Republicans to redefine themselves after a few years of wandering aimlessly looking for a ‘brand’ and identity.”

Brad Woodhouse, the Democratic strategist who is overseeing the ad campaign, said: “The House Republicans put their Senate colleagues in the crosshairs because they decided to play politics rather than do the right thing.”

...

Incroyable d'arrogance! La gauche dans toute sa splendeur. Qu'est-ce que ca peut leur faire que les Republicains votent oui ou non, puisqu'ils sont en majorite au Congres de toute facon. Il faut qu'EN PLUS, Obama passe pour un "rassembleur". Quelle honte!

Je fais tout de meme remarquer que tous les Democrates n'ont pas vote oui au Plan de relance d'Obama, enfin bon de la Chambre. J'espere qu'ils seront mis au pilori ce w.e.!!!

Ce n'est pas "la gauche dans toute sa splendeur" (vous me faites toujours rire quand vous parlez de la gauche aux US. Si seulement la gauche en France pouvait en prendre de la graine ) c'est une organisation qui s'appelle Americans United for Change qui a decide de faire son show. Point. Faut pas tout confondre.

Cela etant precise, je trouve cette initiative d'une inutilite et d'une betise absolues. Et ca va couter cher en plus, pour rien.

pense tellement que Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity et d'autres ne sont pas un probleme qu'elle veut reinstituer le Fairness Doctrine* qui permettra de faire passer le message de la gauche (Elle est convaincue que les ondes radio sont trop monopolisees par la droite.)*

Aux Etats Unis, il existe une droite (La fameuse "right wing conspiracy" clintonienne) mais il n'y a pas de gauche ou si peu...

Obama serait contre l'idee, (quoi qu'il demande aux Republicains de ne pas ecouter Rush Limbaugh,) encore un endroit ou ils ne sont pas d'accord.

On peut minimiser la petite phrase d'Obama, tant qu'on veut, c'etait la meilleure promotion que Rush ait jamais recue! De plus, tout ce que dit un president est important. La gauche a assez repris la moindre parole ou action de Pres. Bush. (Sean faisait remarquer l'autre jour le nombre de fois ou on nous avait montre Pres. Bush essayant d'ouvrir une porte fermee apres une conference de presse. C'etait tres drole. Dernierement notre nouveau president s'est dirige vers une fenetre pensant que c'etait une porte. En avez-vous entendu parler? Non, on n'oserait pas se moquer d'Obama, cette periode la est terminee. Nous devons nous rassembler, faire bloc pour le bien du pays meme si ce qu'il veut instaurer est en opposition avec nos idees.)

------

* ... In the wake of the pending final demise of bankrupt and scandal-plagued Air America, the Left continues to be frustrated by the fact that America simply isn’t tuning in to their propaganda. So, according to reports from various news outlets, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Steny Hoyer, Dennis Kucinich, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein are joining their friends at the far-left Center for American Progress to cook up a new plan: force radio stations to accept unwanted programming in the name of “fairness” and “balance.” ...

... In a free market, the listeners decide which radio programs live and which die. Forcing stations to operate not on the basis of ratings and ad revenue, but in an ideological and multi-cultural affirmative-action system that dictates “fairness,” is not only unconstitutional – it’s downright Soviet. It’s offensive to the economic marketplace; it’s suffocating to the vital marketplace of ideas.
But, of course, that persnickety First ...


Pelosi: I Want to Bring Back 'Fairness Doctrine'

=========

Je change de sujet: a l'instant, une conseillere d'Obama, representante a Davos, expliquait que les banques n'auront pas le droit de preter, l'economie etant incertaine. (Donc 10% de chomage, ca veut dire qu'on empeche 90% du reste de la population d'emprunter pour acheter une maison, demarrer un business qui pourra creer de l'emploi, etc.. etc..)

Mais elle est de Berkeley, hein, des lors...

Shansaa en 316 a écrit:

Il n'a jamais ete question de liberer des terroristes presumes, (c'est le terme, aucune charge officielle n'ayant ete prononcee contre eux car il n' ya pas eu de proces) et les laisser divaguer dans la nature. Il s'agit de mettre fin a un vide juridique et humain, car nous sommes parait-il des gens civilises, et de les juger (je l'espere) conformement a nos lois avant de les mettre a l'ombre pour longtemps. Les conditions de detention de ces hommes sont indignes de ce que nous voulons representer ou alors nous ne valons guere mieux qu'eux.
Reste a trouver les modalites et les lieux et je doute fort que d'ici la on leur accorde la moindre autorisation de sortie)
Ca c'est mon avis

Bonjour Shansaa !

J'espère bien qu'il ne soit pas question de les libérer sans procès.

Quant au terme officiel, du moins en France, de "présumé", c'est un langage juridique et précautionneux qui n'est pas le mien quand je parle d'hommes attrapés au combat, ou les armes à la main, ou dans des centres d'entaînement. C'est, bien sûr, une option de franchise et de clarté qui n'engage que moi.

Si vide juridique il y a car le statut de civils combattants dont ils se réclament n'entre pas dans nos chefs d'inculpation... eh bien, il faut combler ce vide juridique comme cela a été fait à Nuremberg ou alors utiliser le plus rapproché. Et comme ils se proclament des combattants d'une milice religieuse, la justice militaire me semble plus appropriée que la justice civile. C'est en tout cas probablement plus rapide que d'établir un nouveau système judiciaie fait sur mesure, il me semble.

Quand aux conditions de détention, il me semble évident que vu le type de détenus particulièrement dangereux qu'ils représentent une prison civile est tout à fait inappropriée pour leur sécurité comme pour celle des détenus "clasiques".

Une sénatrice socialiste belge et bourgmentre de la ville de Huy, Anne-Marie Lizin, a été chargée de 2005 à 2007 par l'OSCE d'enquêter sur le centre de détention de Guantánamo y compris par des inspections sur place.

Voici un résumé de ses connclusions :

Mme Anne-Marie Lizin, Présidente du Sénat, a ensuite été invitée à présenter son rapport en tant que Représentant spécial sur Guantanamo (le texte intégral est annexé au présent rapport (*)). Mme Lizin (PS) a rappelé qu'elle avait eu l'occasion de visiter le camp de détention de Guantanamo à deux reprises et qu'elle avait eu de longs entretiens avec les responsables du Département de la Défense et du Département d'État. Dans le peu de temps qui lui fut imparti, elle mit l'accent sur les points suivants et se référa à son texte détaillé pour le reste:

1º aux États-Unis les débats sont très vifs sur la question, notamment dans le monde judiciaire, le choix sur la technique des procès n'est pas encore opéré, c'est une question qui doit être tranchée au niveau des États-Unis (commissions militaires ou tribunaux civils), quel que soit le choix posé les procès doivent se dérouler de manière équitable.

2º depuis sa visite de mars 2006, on peut constater une baisse significative du nombre des détenus.

3º au Département d'État, les négociations de transfert des détenus sont manifestement devenues une priorité.

4º quelque 80 détenus sont considérés comme transférables immédiatement mais n'ont pas de pays d'accueil pour différentes raisons: la situation de leur pays d'origine ou les modalités imposées par les États-Unis en matière de sécurité d'une part et de respect des droits de l'homme, d'autre part.

5º certains détenus ont été transférés vers Guantanamo provenant des prisons de la CIA (leurs noms et ce dont on les soupçonne est repris dans le rapport). Ces détenus sont considérés comme très dangereux. Leur arrivée à Guantanamo parallèllement au départ de Guantanamo de détenus considérés comme les moins dangereux change profondément le profil général de la prison et il peut y avoir une volonté politique sous-jacente de démontrer la nécessité du maintien d'un tel camp de détention.

La rapporteuse a écrit à tous les États participants de l'OSCE pour leur demander s'ils accepteraient d'accueillir certains des détenus transférables non nationaux et moyennant quelles conditions. Peu de pays ont répondu et les attitudes ne sont guère à la coopération. Seule l'Albanie a déjà accueilli des non nationaux et est prête à l'envisager encore. Pour la rapporteuse, certains pays partenaires seraient peut-être plus enclins à répondre positivement. Elle suggère que les détenus soient pris en charge par une organisation internationale qui au cas par cas, en fonction de leur profil individuel, négocie leur transfert vers l'un ou l'autre pays. Elle évoque notamment le cas de ce cameraman d'Al Jazira de nationalité soudanaise mais résidant au Quatar actuellement détenu à Guantanamo: elle pense qu'une équipe restreinte internationale indépendante pourrait l'aider.

6º La rapporteuse rappelle sa précédente recommandation: faire mener une réflexion par des spécialistes du droit international visant à une modernidsation et une adaptation des Conventions de Genève aux guerres modernes.

7º La rapporteuse indique encore que des interrogatoires des détenus ont toujours lieu, que les procédures sont contrôlées et qu'elle estime que les interrogatoires se font dans le respect de l'interrogé mais elle se demande ce que rapportent ces interrogatoires qui selon les spécialistes rencontrés sur place permettent toutefois encore de collecter des renseignements utiles pour les opérations en cours.

En conclusion, Mme Lizin plaide une nouvelle fois pour la fermeture du centre de détention dont elle souligne l'impact très négatif sur l'image des États-Unis.

(*) - J'ai mis le texte intégral dans "Dossiers utiles"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Je note que, en gros, les constatations et recommandations de ce rapport correspondent à ce que l'Administration Bush avait déjà mis en route, après les tâtonnements que cette situation nouvelle et urgente posait...

JANUARY 31, 2009

By JONATHAN WEISMAN
Tom Daschle, President Barack Obama's choice for secretary of Health and Human Services, paid about $140,000 in back taxes and interest after questions surfaced during the vetting of his nomination, according to documents being prepared by the Senate Finance Committee. (See full Senate Finance Committee statement.)

Mr. Daschle made the payments to cover a luxury car and driver provided to him by an investment firm where he was an adviser after leaving the U.S. Senate in 2005, but which he didn't report as income, people familiar with the report said. The payments also covered unreported consulting income and unwarranted charitable deductions. The tax period covered 2005 through 2007.

Mr. Daschle told committee staff that he had grown used to having a car and driver as Senate majority leader and didn't think to report the perquisite on his taxes, according to staff members.

It isn't clear whether the tax issue will affect the Senate confirmation prospects of the former South Dakota senator. Mr. Daschle is one of the few Obama cabinet choices who hasn't yet completed his confirmation hearings. Most of Mr. Obama's cabinet choices were confirmed shortly after he was inaugurated on Jan. 20.

"The president has confidence that Sen. Daschle is the right person to lead the fight for health-care reform," said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs in response to the revelations, adding: "We are confident the committee is going to schedule a hearing for him very soon and he will be confirmed."

...

Ben, tiens donc...

oui, je comprends bien mais, que voulez-vous, en cliquant sur ce fil, on sait a quoi s'attendre..

====

Obama a decide de ne pas ecouter sa conseillere, qui l'avait represente a Davos.

Apres avoir verifie aupres de famille/amis Bank of AMerica par example qui refusait de preter a moins de 10% il y a deux semaines, a descendu son pourcentage a 4%.

Tout de meme!

Obama Promises Lower Mortgage Costs, New Loans

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Saturday promised to lower mortgage costs, offer job-creating loans for small businesses, get credit flowing and rein in free-spending executives as he readies a new road map for spending billions from the second installment of the financial rescue plan.

The White House is deciding how to structure the remaining half of the $700 billion that Congress approved last year to save financial institutions and lenders. An announcement was possible as early as this coming week on an approach that would use a range of tools to unfreeze credit, helping families and businesses.

At the end of a week that saw hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs, Mr. Obama also used his Saturday radio and Internet address to tell that nation that "no one bill, no matter how comprehensive, can cure what ails our economy."