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

Le conseil d'Etat était saisi par le tribunal administratif de Paris du cas de la fille d’un déporté, qui demandait 200.000 euros au titre du préjudice subi par son père.

Le Conseil d’Etat a fermé un peu plus la porte lundi aux demandes individuelles de réparations formulées par des descendants de déportés juifs, affirmant que «la responsabilité» de l’Etat était certes engagée mais qu’il avait depuis fait «autant qu'il était possible» pour réparer les préjudices.

Le Conseil avait été saisi par le tribunal administratif de Paris du cas de la fille d’un déporté, qui demandait 200.000 euros au titre du préjudice subi par son père, arrêté sous ses yeux à Paris en mai 1941 puis déporté à Auschwitz via le camp de transit français de Drancy, sous la responsabilité du régime de Vichy.

Dans son avis, la plus haute juridiction administrative affirme d’abord que la «responsabilité» de l’Etat est «engagée en raison des dommages causés par les agissements qui, ne résultant pas d’une contrainte directe de l’occupant, ont permis ou facilité la déportation à partir de la France de personnes victimes de persécutions antisémites», en tout près de 76.000, dont 2.566 seulement ont survécu.

Le Conseil cite l’exemple «des arrestations, internements et convoiements à destination des camps de transit, qui ont été, durant la Seconde guerre mondiale, la première étape de la déportation de ces personnes vers des camps dans lesquels la plupart d’entre elles ont été exterminées».

400 demandes d'indemnisations individuelles

Ce n’est pas la première fois qu’il admet cette responsabilité dans les actions du régime de Vichy. Dans un avis du 5 avril 2002, le Conseil avait même ordonné à l’Etat de prendre à sa charge la moitié des 720.000 euros que Maurice Papon avait été condamné à verser aux parties civiles, la juridiction coupant la poire en deux entre «faute personnelle» et faute «imputable à l’administration».

Pour autant, c’est la première fois que le Conseil pose le principe de cette «responsabilité» de l’Etat de manière aussi solennelle, dans un avis qui sera publié au Journal officiel. Mais c’est pour mieux fermer la porte aux quelque 400 demandes d’indemnisations individuelles actuellement déposées auprès des tribunaux administratifs par des descendants.

L’Etat, estime la haute juridiction, a pris depuis des mesures d’indemnisation qui «doivent être regardées comme ayant permis, autant qu’il a été possible, l’indemnisation (…) des préjudices de toute nature». Et ce, «dans le respect» de la Convention des droits de l’Homme, et de manière «comparable» aux autres pays européens dans la même situation.

De plus, l’Etat a entrepris des «actes et initiatives» pour exprimer «la reconnaissance solennelle» de sa responsabilité dans ses «souffrances exceptionnelles», souligne le Conseil qui cite l’imprescriptibilité des crimes contre l’Humanité ou le discours du président Chirac de juillet 1995 pour la commémoration de la rafle du vélodrome d’hiver en juillet 1942.

Cette fin de non recevoir n’a pas été du goût de Me Anne-Laure Archambault, avocate de la fille de déportée, dont le cas va maintenant retourner devant le tribunal administratif: «je suis extrêmement déçue, chagrinée», a-t-elle confié à l’AFP, se disant prête à recourir à la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme.

En décembre 2007, c’est la famille du député européen Alain Lipietz, demandant la reconnaissance de la responsabilité de la SNCF dans la déportation des Juifs, qui avait subi un revers devant le Conseil d’Etat, celui-ci renvoyant le dossier devant les juridictions judiciaires, ce qui posait un problème de prescription.

(dont la majorite des media) qui a tout fait pour l'elire et qui attend donc qu'il lui renvoie l'ascenceur.

Mais bon, le candidat qui entre dans le bureau oval devient president, il n'a plus les memes soucis. Il doit penser au pays avant ses propres interets ou du moins c'est ainsi que ca doit etre. Une fois encore, la premiere preoccupation d'un president est et demeure la securite du pays or ce que demande la gauche risquerait de devoiler des informations trop importantes.

Voyons ce qui va se passer.

Obama administration defending Bush secrets

Justice Department seeks to hold back lawsuits as FOIA rules rewritten
updated 4:21 p.m. ET Feb. 16, 2009

WASHINGTON - Despite President Barack Obama's vow to open government more than ever, the Justice Department is defending Bush administration decisions to keep secret many documents about domestic wiretapping, data collection on travelers and U.S. citizens, and interrogation of suspected terrorists.

In half a dozen lawsuits, Justice lawyers have opposed formal motions or spurned out-of-court offers to delay court action until the new administration rewrites Freedom of Information Act guidelines and decides whether the new rules might allow the public to see more.

In only one case has the Justice Department agreed to suspend a FOIA lawsuit until the disputed documents can be re-evaluated under the yet-to-be-written guidelines. That case involves negotiations on an anti-counterfeiting treaty, not the more controversial, secret anti-terrorism tactics that spawned the other lawsuits as well as Obama's promises of greater openness.

"The signs in the last few days are not entirely encouraging," said Jameel Jaffer, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed several lawsuits seeking the Bush administration's legal rationales for warrantless domestic wiretapping and for its treatment of terrorism detainees.

The documents sought in these lawsuits "are in many cases the documents that the public most needs to see," Jaffer said. "It makes no sense to say that these documents are somehow exempt from President Obama's directives."

Groups that advocate open government, civil liberties and privacy were overjoyed that Obama on his first day in office reversed the FOIA policy imposed by Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft. The Bush Justice Department said it would use any legitimate legal basis to defend withholding records from the public. Obama pledged "an unprecedented level of openness in government" and ordered new FOIA guidelines written with a "presumption in favor of disclosure."

But Justice's actions in courts since then have cast doubt on how far the new administration will go.

Justice: FBI did enough
...

A savoir tout-de-meme, s'ils etaient des eleves exemplaires ou non, car n'oublions pas qu'a la question:

Comment appelez-vous la personne derniere de sa promotion a l'ecole de medecine

on repond par: ... "Docteur"

(celle-la, c'est ma fille qui la raconte tous les ans a ses gamins! afin qu'ils reflechissent et n'acceptent pas tout tout se qu'on leur dit sans verifier! )

mais bon

Cream of the Crop Gone Sour: America's Troubled CEOs

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

It isn't all in the pedigree.

The men who ran the nation's biggest banks and corporations were trained at some of the country's top universities — but that's been no guarantee of success.

From John Thain, the ousted head of Merrill Lynch, to Circuit City's Philip Schoonover, who drove the electronics retailer into bankruptcy, these crown jewels of corporate America haven't looked so resplendent in recent months.

FOX News compiled a list of the schools where America's captains of industry got their training before they ran their corporate ships aground -- and community college is looking better by the minute. Don't forget to check below to see a scorecard of the schools and programs that have won the dubious distinction of having these troubled alumni.

JPMorgan Chase
• James L. Dimon, CEO and Chairman: Harvard Business School (1982), Tufts University (1978)
• Barry L. Zubrow, Executive VP: University of Chicago Law School (1980), University of Chicago Business School (1979), Haverford College (1975)
• Frank Bisignano, CAO: Newport University

Citigroup
• Vikram Pandit, CEO: Columbia Business School (1986); Columbia University MBA (1980), M.S. (1977), B.S. (1976)
• Lewis Kaden, Vice-Chairman and CAO: Harvard Law School (1967), Harvard University (1963),
• Stephen Volk, Vice-Chairman: Harvard Law School (1960), Dartmouth College (1957)
• John Havens: Harvard (1979)

Bank of America

• Kenneth D. Lewis, Chairman, CEO and President: Executive Program at Stanford University, Mack Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University (1969)

Morgan Stanley
• John Mack, Chairman and CEO: Duke University (1968)
• Walid Chammah, Co-President: American Graduate School of International Management (1977), American University of Beirut (1976)
• James P. Gorman, Co-President: MBA Columbia University (1987); BA, JD University of Melbourne

Wells Fargo
• John Stumpf, President and CEO: MBA University of Minnesota, BA St. Cloud State University
• Richard M. Kovacevich, Chairman: MBA Stanford University (1967), BA Stanford (1965)

Goldman Sachs
• Lloyd Blankfein, Chairman and CEO: Harvard Law School (1978), Harvard University (1975)
• Jon Winkelried, President and Co-COO: University of Chicago Booth School of Business (1982), University of Chicago (1981)
• Gary Cohn, President and Co-COO: American University (1982)

...

La guerre contre la terreur d'Obama pourrait ressembler a celle de Bush! la ou je ris moins, c'est au sujet de sa politique interieure. mais bon...

Obama's war on terror may resemble Bush's

Administration quietly signals continued support for some approaches

By Charlie Savage


updated 12:02 a.m. ET Feb. 18, 2009

UpdateTimeStamp('633705301334970000');

WASHINGTON - Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush ’s “war on terrorism,” the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda .

In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A. ’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.

The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.

And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the United States in declining to release information about the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration issued a statement thanking the British government “for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information.”

These and other signs suggest that the administration’s changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared — prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies. *

In an interview, the White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig , asserted that the administration was not embracing Mr. Bush’s approach to the world. But Mr. Craig also said President Obama intended to avoid any “shoot from the hip” and “bumper sticker slogans” approaches to deciding what to do with the counterterrorism policies he inherited.

“We are charting a new way forward, taking into account both the security of the American people and the need to obey the rule of law,” Mr. Craig said. “That is a message we would give to the civil liberties people as well as to the Bush people.”

Within days of his inauguration, Mr. Obama thrilled civil liberties groups when he issued executive orders promising less secrecy, restricting C.I.A. interrogators to Army Field Manual techniques, shuttering the agency’s secret prisons, ordering the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, closed within a year and halting military commission trials.

But in more recent weeks, things have become murkier.

During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan , the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.

...

* ben oui quand meme!

5 tons of Israeli bombs stolen in Gaza

U.N. says unexploded bombs were under Hamas guard waiting for disposal

A Palestinian boy in front of a mosque in Beit Lahiya, northern Gaza Strip, on Tuesday. * J'espere qu'il n'arrivera rien a ce petit garcon, pour lui bien evidemment. Politiquement parlant, Israel serait encore certainement blamee.

updated 6:14 p.m. ET Feb. 17, 2009

UpdateTimeStamp('633705092787630000');

JERUSALEM - Five tons of unexploded Israeli bombs stored in the Gaza Strip under Hamas police guard have been stolen, U.N. officials said Tuesday.

U.N. spokesman Richard Miron said the explosives were being stored in Gaza until a U.N. team of disposal experts could disarm them, but they disappeared.

The bombs were dropped on Gaza during Israel's offensive there last month, according to another U.N. official. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said three one-ton bombs and eight quarter-ton bombs were taken from the warehouse in northern Gaza.

"It's clearly extremely dangerous and needs to be disposed of in a safe manner," Miron said. The material was under guard by Hamas police between Feb. 4 and 14 when it was stolen, he said.

Israel blames Hamas

Israeli military spokesman Peter Lerner told The Associated Press that the explosives were probably taken by Hamas. He said Israel had been informed by the U.N. about the missing ordnance.

Hamas officials in Gaza contacted by the AP said they had no knowledge of the matter.

The Israeli Haaretz daily reported that a U.N. bomb disposal team has been working in Gaza for the past three weeks, but it has been hindered by Israeli refusal to allow some of its equipment into Gaza or approve an area for neutralizing the explosives.
...

Pour vous c'est le dernier message de la page precedente!

OLA,



Everyone has his own way, but does it take 5 years and more ?
(I mean in a civilized country)...

Sylvette a écrit:

La guerre contre la terreur d'Obama pourrait ressembler a celle de Bush! la ou je ris moins, c'est au sujet de sa politique interieure. mais bon...

Obama's war on terror may resemble Bush's

Administration quietly signals continued support for some approaches

By Charlie Savage


updated 12:02 a.m. ET Feb. 18, 2009

UpdateTimeStamp('633705301334970000');

WASHINGTON - Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush ’s “war on terrorism,” the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda .

In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A. ’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.

The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.

And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the United States in declining to release information about the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration issued a statement thanking the British government “for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information.”

These and other signs suggest that the administration’s changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared — prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies. *

In an interview, the White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig , asserted that the administration was not embracing Mr. Bush’s approach to the world. But Mr. Craig also said President Obama intended to avoid any “shoot from the hip” and “bumper sticker slogans” approaches to deciding what to do with the counterterrorism policies he inherited.

“We are charting a new way forward, taking into account both the security of the American people and the need to obey the rule of law,” Mr. Craig said. “That is a message we would give to the civil liberties people as well as to the Bush people.”

Within days of his inauguration, Mr. Obama thrilled civil liberties groups when he issued executive orders promising less secrecy, restricting C.I.A. interrogators to Army Field Manual techniques, shuttering the agency’s secret prisons, ordering the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, closed within a year and halting military commission trials.

But in more recent weeks, things have become murkier.

During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan , the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.

...

* ben oui quand meme!

what else is new?

Vous avez soutenu (vous et tant d'autres a travers le monde qui etiez certains que Pres. Bush etait le pire des hommes et que NNP, lui, qui est juste saurait redresser le mal. Apparemment, ca n'est pas le cas, parce qu'apparemment, NNP ne peut pas, bien evidemment, il adorerait faire plaisir a ceux qui l'ont fait elire.

Je repondrai tout de meme a votre question.

Apparemment, oui et de tous evidence, et meme plus.... car si les documents officiels de la fermeture de Guantanamo sont signes, ca n'a pas change grand chose pour les ceusses qui y sont en villegiature.

Alors, Pres. Bush n'est plus l'horreur decrite pendant toutes ces annees ou bien NNP n'a rien a envier a son predecesseur.

Je n'attends pas de reponse... j'ai l'habitude.

62-

Chère Sylvette,



je pense un jour avoir dit que les États Unis d'Amérique garderont toujours (à quelques nuances près) la même politique et c'est encore le cas.
Le président importe peu finalement.... de plus est il le décideur ???
Je ne le crois pas....

Sylvette a écrit:

what else is new?

Vous avez soutenu (vous et tant d'autres a travers le monde qui etiez certains que Pres. Bush etait le pire des hommes et que NNP, lui, qui est juste saurait redresser le mal. Apparemment, ca n'est pas le cas, parce qu'apparemment, NNP ne peut pas, bien evidemment, il adorerait faire plaisir a ceux qui l'ont fait elire.

Je repondrai tout de meme a votre question.

Apparemment, oui et de tous evidence, et meme plus.... car si les documents officiels de la fermeture de Guantanamo sont signes, ca n'a pas change grand chose pour les ceusses qui y sont en villegiature.

Alors, Pres. Bush n'est plus l'horreur decrite pendant toutes ces annees ou bien NNP n'a rien a envier a son predecesseur.

Je n'attends pas de reponse... j'ai l'habitude.

.. que vous l'ayez APRES qu'il ait ete elu, apres la fameuse interview du dimanche matin. Une telle reaction chez la gauche l'a d'ailleurs vite decide (le lendemain!) a signer l'ordre de fermeture de Guantanamo. Je n'ai pas l'air comme ca, mais je vous lis de tres pres.

Alors UNE question a laquelle j'aimerais VRAIMENT une reponse:

Pourquoi avez-vous ainsi soutenu NNP dans une election ou vous ne pouviez pas voter, ou seule la politique exterieure peut A LA RIGUEUR avoir un minimum de consequence sur votre vie, si vous etiez convaincu que sa politique etrangere serait a peu pres la meme que celle de Pres. Bush et de John McCaine*

Je ne demande qu'a comprendre!

* (ce qui est drole, d'ailleurs, est que John McCaine aurait (vu son experience de prisonnier de guerre torture et son opposition totale a tout ce qui peut s'approcher de la torture) agi plus dans le sens des Liberaux que ne le fait Obama! Chat alors!

S'il en est un qui c'est ce que c'est et a qui ca a coute tres cher avec le GOP, c'est John McCain or:

McCain's Vote Should Trouble Obama

By the president's own standard of bipartisanship, he has failed.

"John McCain Was Right."
That's one headline we ought to see when President Barack Obama puts his name to the stimulus bill in Denver later today. But we won't. And the reason points to a glaring double standard on bipartisanship.
AP



The Arizona senator is a bellwether of 'bipartisanship.'


When Mr. McCain accepted the Republican nomination for president, he noted that while he and his opponent both spoke about moving beyond partisan divisions, only one of them had a history of working with members of both parties to get things done. "I have that record and the scars to prove it," he said. "Senator Obama does not."

Only a month ago, with Mr. Obama holding a dinner in Mr. McCain's honor, it wasn't hard to imagine the two coming together on the big challenges facing our nation. But now Mr. McCain has come out strongly against the stimulus in a spirited dissent suggesting that the whole process was a "bad beginning" for someone who promised a new spirit of bipartisanship. That ought to give White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel pause, if only because it wasn't all that long ago that Barack Obama was speaking the same way.

In a passage from his 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope," he sounds like a Republican complaining about the stimulus. "Genuine bipartisanship," he wrote, "assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained -- by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate -- to negotiate in good faith.

...

65-

Dear Sylvette,

The style my dear, the style.....

Sylvette a écrit:

.. que vous l'ayez APRES qu'il ait ete elu, apres la fameuse interview du dimanche matin. Une telle reaction chez la gauche l'a d'ailleurs vite decide (le lendemain!) a signer l'ordre de fermeture de Guantanamo. Je n'ai pas l'air comme ca, mais je vous lis de tres pres.

Alors UNE question a laquelle j'aimerais VRAIMENT une reponse:

Pourquoi avez-vous ainsi soutenu NNP dans une election ou vous ne pouviez pas voter, ou seule la politique exterieure peut A LA RIGUEUR avoir un minimum de consequence sur votre vie, si vous etiez convaincu que sa politique etrangere serait a peu pres la meme que celle de Pres. Bush et de John McCaine*

Je ne demande qu'a comprendre!

* (ce qui est drole, d'ailleurs, est que John McCaine aurait (vu son experience de prisonnier de guerre torture et son opposition totale a tout ce qui peut s'approcher de la torture) agi plus dans le sens des Liberaux que ne le fait Obama! Chat alors!

The style, dites-vous

Je crois bien que c'est encore pire que ce que je croyais, alors.

Vous,

- qui vous dites

1 "apolitique" (alors que vous ne cessez de prendre position sur tout ce qui se passe sur la scene politique mondiale),

2 "sans nation" (alors que nous n'avez de cesse de glorifier le Liban et le Sud de l'Espagne),

- qui dites n'avoir jamais vote,

(tout ca de tete, je ne sais plus ou est votre message - mais dans l'ensemble c'est dans ces eaux-la)

vous nous avez pendant des mois relate avec une sauce des plus partiales et partisanes reprenant/traduisant (? - difficile a dire, la pluspart du temps les sources n'etaient pas donnees), des articles toujours ou presque favorables a Obamaet avez a ce point soutenu un candidat a la presidentielle...

dans un pays dans lequel vous ne votez pas et vous ne vivez pas,

et avez apres son eletion ponctue vos messages par des

a cause de son style!


(Juste un echelon au dessus du "look"!)

Mais c'est tout simplement ahurissant!

68-

That's the way I like it !

Sylvette a écrit:

The style, dites-vous

Je crois bien que c'est encore pire que ce que je croyais, alors.

Vous,

- qui vous dites

1 "apolitique" (alors que vous ne cessez de prendre position sur tout ce qui se passe sur la scene politique mondiale),

2 "sans nation" (alors que nous n'avez de cesse de glorifier le Liban et le Sud de l'Espagne),

- qui n'avez jamais vote",

(tout ca de tete, je ne sais plus ou est votre message - mais dans l'ensemble c'est dans ces eaux-la)

vous nous avez pendant des mois relate avec une sauce des plus partiales et partisanes, la campagne electorale americaine et avez a ce point soutenu un candidat a la presidentielle


dans un pays dans lequel vous ne votez pas et vous ne vivez pas,
et avez apres son eletion ponctue vos messages par des

a cause de son style! (Juste un echelon au dessus du "look"!)

Mais c'est tout simplement ahurissant!

..

Au moins fg, elle, avait l'excuse de la conviction

=====

Vu que j'y ai apporte des modificaions n'ayant pas realise que vous avez poste un nouveau message, je replace ici le 67:

67 - Mais c'est incroyable!

par Sylvette Aujourd'hui à 17:59
The style, dites-vous

Je crois bien que c'est encore pire que ce que je croyais, alors.

Vous,

- qui vous dites

1 "apolitique" (alors que vous ne cessez de prendre position sur tout ce qui se passe sur la scene politique mondiale),

2 "sans nation" (alors que nous n'avez de cesse de glorifier le Liban et le Sud de l'Espagne),

- qui dites n'avoir jamais vote,

(tout ca de tete, je ne sais plus ou est votre message - mais dans l'ensemble c'est dans ces eaux-la)

vous nous avez pendant des mois relate avec une sauce des plus partiales et partisanes reprenant/traduisant (? - difficile a dire, la pluspart du temps les sources n'etaient pas donnees), des articles toujours ou presque favorables a Obamaet avez a ce point soutenu un candidat a la presidentielle...

dans un pays dans lequel vous ne votez pas et vous ne vivez pas,

et avez apres son eletion ponctue vos messages par des

a cause de son style!


(Juste un echelon au dessus du "look"!)

Mais c'est tout simplement ahurissant!

71-

Mais ne perd jamais le nord......

¥_zed_¥ a écrit:

Ce qu'il faut savoir dame Sylvette, c'est que le caractère de Lawrence est pour et contre tout, une genre de girouette.
Il indique la direction du vent, mais pas forcément la sienne

... et ca n'est pas du pay-for-play, ca?

Dem exclusive? Reporters jump ship

By MICHAEL CALDERONE | 2/18/09 4:35 AM EST Updated: 2/18/09 6:43 PM EST

In three months since Election Day, at least a half-dozen prominent journalists have taken jobs working for the federal government.

Journalists, including some of those who’ve jumped ship, say it’s better to have a solid job in government than a shaky job — or none at all — in an industry that’s fading fast.

But conservative critics answer with a question: Would journalists be making the same career choices if John McCain had beaten Barack Obama in November?

“Obama bails out more media water-carriers,” conservative blogger Michelle Malkin wrote upon hearing that the Chicago Tribune’s Jill Zuckman is taking a job with the Obama administration.

Blogs at both the Weekly Standard and the National Review are pointing to a “revolving door” that spins between the media and the Obama administration. And while Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, acknowledges that financial troubles may be forcing reporters out of newsrooms, he thinks it’s worth noting where they’re going.

“When some leave journalism because of a reduction in staff, what’s the natural landing spot?” The Obama administration,” Bozell charged.

Zuckman says it’s not so.

In an interview, she said that she began looking around for a new job last month, motivated by the grim state of the industry — her employer, the Tribune Co., recently slashed its D.C. bureau — and also by her own feeling that she’d accomplished what she’d set out to do covering politics.

C'est a dire? Faire elire NNP? Non, non, je dois me tromper.


...

Une question tout de meme: lorsqu'un president Republicain sera a nouveau a la Maison Blanche, ces gentes personnes reprendront-elles du service dans les media? et tout compte fait, ca ne fait meme pas scandale.

Ce sont ces dirigeants europeens qui ne vont pas en revenir..

Iran ready to build nuclear weapon analysts say

Même moi je dois me pincer - mais peut-être Sylvette voudra s'en charger - pour être sûr que je ne rêve pas !

Non, alors l'Iran serait en mesure de fabriquer des armes nucléaires ? Quelle surprise !

(Et c'est IKEA IAEA qui le dit ! Ils sont fous, ces Suédois ! )

Biloulou a écrit:

Même moi je dois me pincer - mais peut-être Sylvette voudra s'en charger - pour être sûr que je ne rêve pas !

Non, alors l'Iran serait en mesure de fabriquer des armes nucléaires ? Quelle surprise !

(Et c'est IKEA IAEA qui le dit ! Ils sont fous, ces Suédois ! )

Moa, faire une chose pareille? Douce comme je le suis!

=====

Serieusement, c'est vrai que c'est assez incroyable cette histoire, tout-de-meme!

Obama Administration Affirms BUsh Policy on Detainee Rights

Justice Department lawyers filed court papers agreeing that detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detentions
AP

Friday, February 20, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's Justice Department sided with the former Bush administration on Friday, saying detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights.

In a two-sentence court filing, department lawyers said the Obama administration agreed that detainees at Bagram Air Base cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detentions. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.

"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Air Base. "We all expected better."

In midyear last year, the Supreme Court gave al-Qaida and Taliban suspects held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and thousands more held in Iraq, courts are grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released.

Three months after the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay, four Afghan citizens being detained at Bagram tried to challenge their detentions in U.S. District Court in Washington. Court filings alleged that the U.S. military had held them without charges, repeatedly interrogating them without any means to contact an attorney. Their petition was filed for them by relatives since they had no way of getting access to the legal system.

The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation.

After Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.
"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of a continuing military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.

The government also said that if the Bagram detainees had access to the courts, it would allow all foreigners captured by the United States in conflicts worldwide to do the same.

It Is not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.

The same day, however, civil division attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a lawsuit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them.

Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.