Obama's Missile Defense Plan Does Not Address Middle East

/PRNewswire/ -- Riki Ellison, Founder and Chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA), www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org, explains why and how the President's missile defense plan does not address the Middle East. Ellison is one of the foremost lay experts in the field of missile defense. Ellison's comments include the following:

"President Obama's missile defense plan is primarily focused on a four phase timeline approach starting in 2013 and ending in 2020 to protect Europe and US deployed forces needs to adequately address the Middle East Region first as well as increase the urgency to ensure that timelines are met to protect Europe and a significant hedge to deploy missile defenses quicker if required. The Middle East region has not been directly addressed by the President's Plan and would require at least 2 or more forward-based sensors, as well as a complete deployment of a fully layered missile defense of the current systems to be able to handle loft, minimum energy and depressed trajectories of incoming missiles towards the Middle East and Europe."

"There are serious challenges both politically and technically that have to be overcome. The foremost being placement of forward-based sensors whether air, land, space or air around the periphery of Iran and the full integration of their information into the overall missile defense system to enable both engage and intercept by using remote forward-based sensors. If the system cannot see, detect, track and confirm a missile intercept, it doesn't matter how many defensive interceptors you have, they are simply ineffective without sensors. Without this integrated sensor capability, the system cannot provide adequate coverage nor can it handle the volume of missiles which the President's plan is directed to do."

"To date the country of Turkey, which is the ideal location for forward-based sensors, is rebuking any form of missile defense on their soil as reported last week by the local Milliyet. Both Russia and Iran will perceive that [deployment] as a threat ... such technology will turn Turkey into a legitimate target for Iran's medium and shorter range missiles. Turkey opposes the location of US missile defense in its territory. A second resort, to place US Ships deployed in the Black Sea, is restricted by international treaty. Deployment of sensors in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, UAE, or Balkan States such as Greece, Romania or Bulgaria will likely result in similar feelings as Turkey, and if deployed in the Balkans, would further reduce valuable time needed to track the missile effectively and reduces the missile coverage of Iran because of the further distance. If deployed only in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or UAE, there would be inadequate coverage of Iranian threats to Europe, as well as possible sharing of the information. Additionally, a mutual agreement with Russia on the use of its sensors near Iran seems nearly impossible to obtain and would not provide the full coverage necessary to protect all of Europe and the Middle East."

Ellison closed his remarks with: "There needs to be a much greater sense of urgency within our government to adequately deploy these current and new systems as well as provide a test bed in Hawaii to prove out the system that looks to be the cornerstone of the President's missile defense plan to protect Europe. The test bed in Hawaii is currently being held for four to six months or more as military requirements have not been set even though funds have been set aside for the test bed."

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Continuation of the national emergency with respect to Sudan

(APO)/ -- On November 3, 1997, by Executive Order 13067, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Sudan, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Sudan. On April 26, 2006, in Executive Order 13400, the President determined that the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region posed an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, expanded the scope of the national emergency to deal with that threat, and ordered the blocking of property of certain persons connected to the conflict. On October 13, 2006, the President issued Executive Order 13412 to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency and to implement the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-344).

Because the actions and policies of the Government of Sudan continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, the national emergency declared on November 3, 1997, as expanded on April 26, 2006, and with respect to which additional steps were taken on October 13, 2006, must continue in effect beyond November 3, 2009. Therefore, consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Sudan.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

BARACK OBAMA

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage

Israel's Protection from Iran Rests With President Obama

/PRNewswire/ -- Riki Ellison, Chairman and Founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA), www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org, has analyzed the current situation with Iran and given his comments below. Ellison is one of the top lay experts in missile defense in the world:

A momentous week of unveiling Iran's second nuclear site, which confirmed their intention to disperse and protect non-civilian nuclear development, coupled with their ballistic missile launches over the weekend from 90 miles to 1,200 miles requires close examination of President Obama's new direction of our nation's missile defense. Iran has not invested nor demonstrated interest in developing or deploying large scale aircraft further exemplifying its intent to project power beyond its borders with ballistic missiles and progress down an aggressive path to become a new nuclear power that will threaten its national security interests. The overall intelligence assessment of Iran has not changed from previous National Intelligence Estimates of years past, as Iran steadily maintains its development to have ballistic capability by 2015 or earlier to strike Europe and the United States. President Obama's new missile defense architecture has its core component of Aegis Ashore (land based SM3) to be deployed at the earliest by 2018 and a long range SM3 Block II deployed missile to protect the US and Europe from long range missiles by 2020. The previous Administration missile defense plan had deployments in place to protect Europe and the US by 2015, three to five years earlier than the current plan. This Administration is betting the security of our nation, our 80,000 deployed men and women deployed in Europe and our allies, to be unprotected and not be threatened by Iran, on a shift in their perception of an intelligence estimate by the Department of Defense that shows that Iran has slowed down its development and deployment of ballistic missiles. Our nation will put forward an estimated minimum of 3.5 billion to 4 billion U.S. tax dollars and another 1 billion dollars (if you include the cost of the Aegis ships) for a total of around 5 billion U.S. tax dollars to protect our troops, allies and friends in Europe. For the state of Israel, the ballistic missile threat from Iran is here today - as demonstrated by the Iranian missiles fired this weekend that went beyond the range of Israel. Added to this reality, the two Iranian nuclear sites hidden and well-protected deep underground pose an excruciating national security issue for Israel and for the Middle East region. If Israel is not protected nor has adequate missile defense to prevent zero leakage from ballistic missiles on its major cities, it will be provoked to unilaterally protect itself and use pre-emptive military action. This becomes a considerable challenge when the Iranian nuclear facilities are heavily fortified underground, bunker buster bombs and air re-fuelers for Israel aircraft have to be provided by the United States with President Obama's permission, as well as the potential of a retaliatory ballistic missile strike by Iran whether Israel succeeds or not.

Israel today does not have the missile defense protection it needs as it is reliant on old, antiquated explosive technology in its Arrow program and does not have midcourse interceptors to provide a layered defense that would give an additional option to the government there. It is paramount that the United States provide elements of our current missile defense systems such as the Patriot, the THAAD, the Aegis and the future Aegis Ashore to Israel as well as support Israel's own domestic developments of missile defense as a first priority in President Obama's new missile defense architecture. This Administration not only needs to support in resources all of what it has announced, President Obama needs to accelerate with urgency its development and deployment of his new missile defense architecture to meet the threat or face the grave consequences of putting Israel, our troops, our allies and our nation at high and unnecessary risk. This is too high of a gamble to bet the national security of our nation and others with a positive diplomatic outcome that has a history of failures on US and international persuasion and influence of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Smoke and mirrors, political posturing and appeasement is not the right course of action to have confidence to protect our people and those of the world from a real and present danger.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Department of Justice Withdraws 'Enemy Combatant' Definition for Guantanamo Detainees

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the government's authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress's specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase "enemy combatant."

The Department also submitted a declaration by Attorney General Eric Holder stating that, under executive orders issued by President Obama, the government is undertaking an interagency review of detention policy for individuals captured in armed conflicts or counterterrorism operations as well as a review of the status of each detainee held at Guantanamo. The outcome of those reviews may lead to further refinements of the government's position as it develops a comprehensive policy.

"As we work towards developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," said Attorney General Holder. "The change we've made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger."

In its filing today, the government bases its authority to hold detainees at Guantanamo on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in September 2001, and which authorized the use of force against nations, organizations, or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons. The government's new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the President's authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The brief was filed in habeas litigation brought by numerous detainees at Guantanamo who are challenging their detention under the Supreme Court's decision last summer in Boumediene v. Bush.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Clinton Doubtful Iran Will Respond to U.S. Diplomacy

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed doubt Monday that Iran would respond to the Obama administration's diplomatic initiatives toward Tehran on nuclear and other issues, a senior State Department official said.

Clinton made the statement in a private meeting with the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who had expressed to Clinton a concern among Persian Gulf nations that Obama might make a deal.....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/clinton-doubtful-iran-respond-diplomacy/

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Former FBI Director, General, Diplomat, Clergy Call for Presidential Commission on Detention, Treatment and Transfer of Detainees

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Leading experts, including a former FBI director, an Army general who investigated detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, and a former Under Secretary of State, today called upon President Obama to appoint a non-partisan commission to fully investigate and examine the detention, treatment, and transfer of detainees following the September 11th terrorist attacks.

The commission's proposed mandate would allow it to identify detainee policy failures and their causes in order to formulate recommendations to address problems identified in the report.

The group issued the following statement detailing their call to action:

"We urge President Obama to appoint a non-partisan commission of distinguished Americans to examine, and provide a comprehensive report on, policies and actions related to the detention, treatment, and transfer of detainees after 9/11 and the consequences of those actions, and to make recommendations for future policy in this area."

The statement was signed by: Juan E. Mendez, President of the International Center for Transitional Justice; Thomas Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; Judge William Sessions, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Major General Antonio M. Taguba, USA (Ret.); and Rev. Dr. John H. Thomas, General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ. In addition, 18 leading human rights organizations have endorsed the statement.

"The president has a responsibility to protect and defend Americans and unfortunately, many questions remain unanswered as to whether the detention, transfer, and treatment of detainees following the September 11th attacks were in the country's best interest," said Sessions, the former FBI director. "We need to understand what happened and how to prevent any illegal actions from taking place in the future."

Pickering, the former Under Secretary of State said, "the new administration cannot be effective in looking forward without a full accounting and understanding of how American policy got to where we are today." He added, "a non-partisan commission, removed from the burdensome barriers of politics, is a well proven method of accomplishing these goals."

The organizations endorsing this effort are: Amnesty International USA; the Brennan Center for Justice; the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, New York University, School of Law; the Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas, University of California, Davis; the Center for Victims of Torture; the Constitution Project; the Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley; Human Rights First; Human Rights Watch; the International Center for Transitional Justice; the International Justice Network; the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights; the Jewish Council for Public Affairs; the National Institute of Military Justice; the National Religious Campaign Against Torture; the Open Society Institute; Physicians for Human Rights; and the Rutherford Institute.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page