| French jets and American missiles began the international war on Col. Muammar Qadhafi Saturday with a pinpoint allied fusillade against Libyan air defense targets, but the mission’s explosive initial salvo did little to make clearer its actual goal - or how it ends. The first strikes, by air and sea, reflected the overwhelming military mismatch, as an international coalition appeared to dominate the skies over Libya’s Mediterranean coast. French and British planes are expected to take the lead in enforcing a no-fly zone and other measures, even as Qadhafi’s forces attempt to crush an opposition that had – before the United Nations-sanctioned intervention – been hard-pressed. But the first shots fired didn’t appear to produce an immediate collapse in the rule of Qadhafi, who has surprised his enemies with his resilience. Qadhafi’s tenacity, both in his present circumstance and as evidenced over decades of survival in a very tough neighborhood, begs the question of what happens if this self-consciously limited allied response does not succeed in chasing him from power. Allied leaders so far haven’t provided defining answers; in fact, quite the contrary. In a series of comments and communiques over the weekend, American, British, and French officials stressed that they aren’t attacking Qadhafi’s forces to achieve “regime change” – while at the same time maintaining, as British Prime Minister David Cameron insisted, that Qadhafi “needs to go.” President Barack Obama’s remarks Saturday seemed carefully calibrated. “I am deeply aware of the risks of any military action, no matter what limits we place on it,” he said. “But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.” Analysts said the overwhelming military superiority enjoyed by allied forces makes Qadhafi’s ouster reasonably likely, but they also voiced concern about the Libyan leader’s proven ability to hang on. “There are expectations about how quickly this moves that are out of line with reality,” said Heather Hurlburt, who heads the National Security Network, a group allied with the White House, and who said she expects that “this is going to be more like Kosovo than like Baghdad in 2003.” National Security Advisor Tom Donilon has had his staff review the history of American intervention in civil conflicts, and while American’s memory of the Balkans may be hazy, the White House is full of Democrats with painful recollections of the excruciating months of bombing, and then the year between the end of Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic’s massacres and the moment his domestic rivals finally forced him aside. “The endgame is not any time soon,” Hurlburt said, adding that Western leaders have a good reason not to telegraph that expectation. “The problem is if Obama goes out and says to the public this may take months and months, you’re also saying to Qadhafi that we know we can’t come get you. You don’t want to convey to the target that we think this is difficult and may take a while.” And yet Obama, if only by implication, does appear to be committed to whatever it takes to push Qadhafi aside. “Given what the president has said in recent weeks – I don’t see how we can get ourselves out of this without Qadhafi going,” said Jamie Fly, the executive director of the right-leaning Foreign Policy Initiative, which lobbied for American action. “The one concern I have about [Obama’s] statement yesterday is that his endgame or his goal seems to be more limited than his rhetoric.” What the Western powers and other Arab leaders hope for is clear: A show of force, followed by a swift collapse in Qadhafi’s inner circle. “The best case scenario [is that] you see the forces loyal to Qadhafi continue to abandon him and eventually give him up,” said Stephen McInerney, the executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy in Washington. And analysts said that best-case outcome could still be in the cards. Other Middle Eastern regimes have proven shockingly brittle in the “Arab Spring,” with military leaders in Egypt and Tunisia abruptly turning away from their longtime dictators. But Libya’s inner leadership, far more than those regimes, has been a black box to its Western enemies, and who could lead a coup against Qadhafi remains unclear. “Nobody believes – at least among the people who planned it – that it’s going to be a prolonged affair,” said Aaron David Miller, a former State Department official now at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. “They intend shock and awe in an effort to strike so persistently and in such a sustained fashion that the regime cracks.” Miller said the limited language of official communiques likely masked an informal understanding among the powers leading the mission. “It’s hard for me to believe that the French or the Brits would have signed up for something that could end up being a prolonged, sustained stalemate with the coalition of the willing having to enforce, for a long period of time, military sanctions,” he said. The White House flatly rejects any suggestion of a tension between a limited mission of protecting civilians and demands that Qadhafi step aside. “We still believe that Qaddafi has lost his legitimacy to lead and must go,” White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told POLITICO. “However the goal of this resolution is not regime change. Rather it authorizes the use of force with an explicit commitment to pursue all necessary measures to stop the killing.” “These two things aren’t contradictory,” he said. Obama has also been at great pains to avoid the appearance of American leadership, which could limit American exposure to a stalemate, but also limits American control of a mission whose face is primarily French President Nicolas Sarkozy - a Gallic image that has done little to quiet nerves within the Pentagon and State Department, where many veterans remember France’s lack of constancy in previous conflicts. Other observers worry about something else: that the U.S. – which faced broad domestic and international pressure to intervene – could find itself with no obvious exit. “I don’t suspect that there is an easy way out of it – unless you get a miracle in which part of Qadhafi’s command staff turns on him further,” said Steve Clemons, a fellow at the New America Foundation. “We’re in a situation now where I see a lot of downside risk, and the chances of it going badly are high.” | |
 © 2011 Capitol News Company |
Sunday, March 20, 2011
What is the Libya endgame?
Health Law Waivers Draw Kudos, and Criticism
WASHINGTON — Obama administration officials say they were expecting praise from critics of the new health care law when they offered to exempt selected employers and labor unions from a requirement to provide at least $750,000 in coverage to each person in their health insurance plans this year.
By ROBERT PEAR NYTimes
Instead, Republicans have seized on the waivers as just more evidence that the law is fundamentally flawed because, they say, it requires so many exceptions. To date, for example, the administration has relaxed the $750,000 standard for more than 1,000 health plans covering 2.6 million people.
The waivers have become a flash point as supporters and opponents try to shape public perceptions of the law, the Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama last March 23.
Administration officials, labor unions and consumer advocates plan to celebrate the first anniversary with a week of events highlighting benefits of the law to consumers. But Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, the senior Republican on the Senate health committee, asked, “If the law is so good, why are so many waivers needed?”
Waivers are usually seen as a way to deal with exceptional circumstances in which the enforcement of a law or policy might cause hardship. But with the new health care law, exceptions like these have become increasingly common. They provide wiggle room in a law originally thought to be strict and demanding.
Maine has just won a three-year reprieve from a provision of the law stipulating that insurers selling coverage to individuals and families must spend at least 80 percent of premium revenues on medical care and efforts to improve it. The White House had described this as one of the law’s most beneficial provisions, guaranteeing that consumers would get “more value for your dollars.”
The Obama administration lowered the requirement to 65 percent for Maine, after finding “a reasonable likelihood” that the tougher standard would drive one big carrier out of the market for individuals, leaving thousands without insurance.
Five other states — Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada and New Hampshire — have requested similar waivers, and at least a dozen other states are considering whether to apply.
President Obama recently embraced legislation that would let states opt out of the law’s most contentious provisions, including a requirement for most Americans to carry insurance, if the states come up with alternatives that cover at least as many people.
And Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, has introduced a bill that would allow people to seek exemptions from major provisions of the law if they could show they would be harmed.
Under the law and rules issued by the administration, health plans this year must generally provide at least $750,000 in annual coverage for essential benefits like hospital care, doctors’ services and prescription drugs. The government may grant a one-year exemption from the requirement if it is shown that compliance would cause a significant increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to benefits.
Such waivers have gone to entities as diverse as the Waffle House and Ruby Tuesday, health plans run by Aetna and Cigna, and labor unions representing Teamsters, electrical workers, plumbers, carpenters and food and commercial workers.
Administration officials said the waivers showed a pragmatic, flexible approach to carrying out the law. Without the waivers, said Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, many employers would have increased premiums, and some would have dropped coverage altogether.
Edmund F. Haislmaier, a health policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the waivers “result in unequal application of the law and create a temptation to engage in political favoritism.”
Republicans like Representative Darrell Issa of California said that in granting waivers, the administration had favored political allies, including labor unions.
Tom Leibfried, a lobbyist for the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said: “This is just union bashing. The numbers do not show a pro-union bias.”
Mr. Leibfried said some union health plans had a legitimate need for waivers because they had annual coverage limits lower than $750,000. If they had to increase coverage to that level, he said, they would incur significant new costs. But, Mr. Leibfried said, the main source of financing for such health plans — employer contributions — will not immediately increase because they are set by collective bargaining agreements, which are typically in effect for several years.
Steven B. Larsen, director of the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, which carries out many of the health law’s provisions, said the waivers provided a “bridge to 2014,” when more affordable insurance options should be available. He denied that unions had received “special treatment.” Indeed, he said, the center has granted waivers to 94 percent of all applicants.
“That strikes me as a very high percentage,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa. He suggested that the waivers were meant to limit political damage — “the amount of griping and complaining” about the law — before the 2012 elections.
The need for waivers is likely to continue. Federal rules require health plans to provide at least $1.25 million in coverage next year and $2 million in 2013. After that, the law generally prohibits annual dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits.
In issuing the rules, the administration estimated that 18 million people were in health plans with annual limits.
Consumers have indisputably benefited from some provisions of the law. But for Democrats, the political benefits have been less than they expected.
“A lot of Americans just don’t know about some of the benefits,” said Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, who helped write the law as chairman of the Finance Committee.
A poll conducted this month by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 42 percent of Americans had favorable views of the law while 46 percent viewed it unfavorably. Public perceptions of the law were slightly more negative than when it was passed. People most likely to benefit from the law — the uninsured and low-income households — were more likely to say they had too little information to know how it would affect them.
Under one of the law’s more popular provisions, young adults can stay on their parents’ insurance policies to age 26. Insurers generally cannot charge co-payments for preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies; cannot rescind coverage after a person becomes ill; and cannot deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
Medicare beneficiaries who use large amounts of prescription drugs can get discounts on their medicines. And some small businesses can obtain tax credits to help them pay premiums.
The biggest changes, including the requirement for people to carry insurance, take effect in 2014, when each state is supposed to have an insurance exchange, or market, where consumers can compare policies and buy coverage.
Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, said the law had already produced “miracles in the lives of people all over America,” enabling them to obtain health care that would otherwise have been out of reach.
At the same time, the State of Nevada has asked the Obama administration to relax the provision requiring insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on health care. Brett J. Barratt, the state’s insurance commissioner, said that several carriers were likely to withdraw from Nevada’s individual insurance market if the federal government did not grant such relief.
The waivers have become a flash point as supporters and opponents try to shape public perceptions of the law, the Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama last March 23.
Administration officials, labor unions and consumer advocates plan to celebrate the first anniversary with a week of events highlighting benefits of the law to consumers. But Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, the senior Republican on the Senate health committee, asked, “If the law is so good, why are so many waivers needed?”
Waivers are usually seen as a way to deal with exceptional circumstances in which the enforcement of a law or policy might cause hardship. But with the new health care law, exceptions like these have become increasingly common. They provide wiggle room in a law originally thought to be strict and demanding.
Maine has just won a three-year reprieve from a provision of the law stipulating that insurers selling coverage to individuals and families must spend at least 80 percent of premium revenues on medical care and efforts to improve it. The White House had described this as one of the law’s most beneficial provisions, guaranteeing that consumers would get “more value for your dollars.”
The Obama administration lowered the requirement to 65 percent for Maine, after finding “a reasonable likelihood” that the tougher standard would drive one big carrier out of the market for individuals, leaving thousands without insurance.
Five other states — Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada and New Hampshire — have requested similar waivers, and at least a dozen other states are considering whether to apply.
President Obama recently embraced legislation that would let states opt out of the law’s most contentious provisions, including a requirement for most Americans to carry insurance, if the states come up with alternatives that cover at least as many people.
And Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, has introduced a bill that would allow people to seek exemptions from major provisions of the law if they could show they would be harmed.
Under the law and rules issued by the administration, health plans this year must generally provide at least $750,000 in annual coverage for essential benefits like hospital care, doctors’ services and prescription drugs. The government may grant a one-year exemption from the requirement if it is shown that compliance would cause a significant increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to benefits.
Such waivers have gone to entities as diverse as the Waffle House and Ruby Tuesday, health plans run by Aetna and Cigna, and labor unions representing Teamsters, electrical workers, plumbers, carpenters and food and commercial workers.
Administration officials said the waivers showed a pragmatic, flexible approach to carrying out the law. Without the waivers, said Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, many employers would have increased premiums, and some would have dropped coverage altogether.
Edmund F. Haislmaier, a health policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the waivers “result in unequal application of the law and create a temptation to engage in political favoritism.”
Republicans like Representative Darrell Issa of California said that in granting waivers, the administration had favored political allies, including labor unions.
Tom Leibfried, a lobbyist for the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said: “This is just union bashing. The numbers do not show a pro-union bias.”
Mr. Leibfried said some union health plans had a legitimate need for waivers because they had annual coverage limits lower than $750,000. If they had to increase coverage to that level, he said, they would incur significant new costs. But, Mr. Leibfried said, the main source of financing for such health plans — employer contributions — will not immediately increase because they are set by collective bargaining agreements, which are typically in effect for several years.
Steven B. Larsen, director of the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, which carries out many of the health law’s provisions, said the waivers provided a “bridge to 2014,” when more affordable insurance options should be available. He denied that unions had received “special treatment.” Indeed, he said, the center has granted waivers to 94 percent of all applicants.
“That strikes me as a very high percentage,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa. He suggested that the waivers were meant to limit political damage — “the amount of griping and complaining” about the law — before the 2012 elections.
The need for waivers is likely to continue. Federal rules require health plans to provide at least $1.25 million in coverage next year and $2 million in 2013. After that, the law generally prohibits annual dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits.
In issuing the rules, the administration estimated that 18 million people were in health plans with annual limits.
Consumers have indisputably benefited from some provisions of the law. But for Democrats, the political benefits have been less than they expected.
“A lot of Americans just don’t know about some of the benefits,” said Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, who helped write the law as chairman of the Finance Committee.
A poll conducted this month by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 42 percent of Americans had favorable views of the law while 46 percent viewed it unfavorably. Public perceptions of the law were slightly more negative than when it was passed. People most likely to benefit from the law — the uninsured and low-income households — were more likely to say they had too little information to know how it would affect them.
Under one of the law’s more popular provisions, young adults can stay on their parents’ insurance policies to age 26. Insurers generally cannot charge co-payments for preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies; cannot rescind coverage after a person becomes ill; and cannot deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
Medicare beneficiaries who use large amounts of prescription drugs can get discounts on their medicines. And some small businesses can obtain tax credits to help them pay premiums.
The biggest changes, including the requirement for people to carry insurance, take effect in 2014, when each state is supposed to have an insurance exchange, or market, where consumers can compare policies and buy coverage.
Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, said the law had already produced “miracles in the lives of people all over America,” enabling them to obtain health care that would otherwise have been out of reach.
At the same time, the State of Nevada has asked the Obama administration to relax the provision requiring insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on health care. Brett J. Barratt, the state’s insurance commissioner, said that several carriers were likely to withdraw from Nevada’s individual insurance market if the federal government did not grant such relief.
By ROBERT PEAR NYTimes
"I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice, and it's not a choice that I make lightly. But we can't stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy."
PRESIDENT OBAMA, on the American decision to use military force against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
What's a Tomahawk missile? Tomahawk cruise missiles cost $500,000 each - feel better now that YOU don't have a job?
The Tomahawk cruise missiles that were launched Saturday against Libya are unmanned, single-use, programmable jet-engine missiles used only by the U.S. and British navies.
They fly very close to the ground, steering around natural and man-made obstacles to hit a target that is programmed into them before launch. Newer versions can be reprogrammed in flight but in this case that was not done, at least not yet.
They are different from other unmanned aerial vehicles in that they can only be used once – they are fired, they fly to the target and blow up. End of missile. A Predator and some other unmanned aerial vehicles can carry missiles, hit a target, then continue flying.
Tomahawk missiles normally carry a 1,000-pound conventional warhead. They can also carry 166 combined-effects bomblets, or mini bombs that spread out over a larger area. They can also carry nuclear warheads.
Tomahawks, developed in the 1970s, were first launched operationally by the United States during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. They are about 18 feet long with a wing span of nearly 9 feet, and they can fly at about 550 mph. Regarding Saturday's strikes against Libya, Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, director of the Joint Staff, said the missiles were in flight for about an hour, so they were likely fired several hundred miles from their targets.
USA TAXPAYERS just $56 million to blow holes in the sand! Plus we'll spend another $56 million the replace the ones shot off!! AND we have not countered the money used to deplay and fire etc... FEEL BETTER NOW?
They fly very close to the ground, steering around natural and man-made obstacles to hit a target that is programmed into them before launch. Newer versions can be reprogrammed in flight but in this case that was not done, at least not yet.
They are different from other unmanned aerial vehicles in that they can only be used once – they are fired, they fly to the target and blow up. End of missile. A Predator and some other unmanned aerial vehicles can carry missiles, hit a target, then continue flying.
Tomahawk missiles normally carry a 1,000-pound conventional warhead. They can also carry 166 combined-effects bomblets, or mini bombs that spread out over a larger area. They can also carry nuclear warheads.
Tomahawks, developed in the 1970s, were first launched operationally by the United States during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. They are about 18 feet long with a wing span of nearly 9 feet, and they can fly at about 550 mph. Regarding Saturday's strikes against Libya, Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, director of the Joint Staff, said the missiles were in flight for about an hour, so they were likely fired several hundred miles from their targets.
USA TAXPAYERS just $56 million to blow holes in the sand! Plus we'll spend another $56 million the replace the ones shot off!! AND we have not countered the money used to deplay and fire etc... FEEL BETTER NOW?
"Huckleberry Finn" and the N-word debate
Should a publisher replace the N-word with "slave" in Mark Twain's classic novel?
- Should the N-word be replaced by the word "slave" in "Huckleberry Finn"? Byron Pitts reports on the debate Sunday, March 20 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
(CBS News) Expunging the N-word from "Huckleberry Finn" deprives students of the "teachable moment" its presence in the novel creates says a black scholar. But retaining it deprives others of experiencing the novel in school at all says a white publisher of a sanitized version catering to school districts that have banned the book because of the word.
Byron Pitts talks to both men, as well as teachers and students for a "60 Minutes" story about the N-word in American society, to be broadcast Sunday, March 20 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Randall Williams, co-owner and editor of NewSouth Books, republished "Huckleberry Finn" with "slave" replacing over 200 appearances of the N-word. He believes the new edition can still offer a teachable moment as well as an alternative for school districts unwilling to inject the word into their classrooms.
Prof. David Bradley of the University of Oregon uses the word in classroom and disagrees with the use of the new edition, telling Pitts, "You use the term 'teachable moment' and that's what [n*&^%$] gives you.
That's why it's important to keep it in there," says the author and Mark Twain scholar. "I call "Huckleberry Finn" a power tool when it comes to education," says Bradley. "There are so many things [in it] that pry things open...That teachable moment is when that word hits the table in a classroom. Everybody goes 'wooh' Okay, let's talk about it."
But some teachers will not utter the word in their classrooms even if it's in the book. Pitts talks to teachers in Minneapolis who are discussing the traditional novel in class. One will say the N-word in class and the other will not. Their students also had divided opinions about saying the word in class; a black student said it made him uncomfortable. That's why his version is needed says Williams. "It is the word itself that is the problem...all these repetitive instances of the offensive N-word in there," he tells Pitts. "Is the argument that these kids should be subjected to pain?" he asks. Williams feels it is better to replace the N-word with "slave" and avoiding any pain and giving those who would not get a chance to study it at all an opportunity to experience what many feel is one of the greatest pieces of American literature.
"It's not 'Huckleberry Finn" anymore,'" counters Bradley. "What are we teaching them [by removing the N-word]? This may be their first encounter with slavery." He says that to withhold the N-word is to avoid an integral reality. "'Slave' is a condition...nothing for anybody to be ashamed of," says Bradley, "But [n*&^%$] has to do with shame...calling somebody something. [N*&^%$] is what made slavery possible."
For more on the reporting of this story and a frank discussion about it between Editor Ann Silvio and Pitts, go to our Webcast at 60MinutesOvertime.com on Sunday.
Byron Pitts talks to both men, as well as teachers and students for a "60 Minutes" story about the N-word in American society, to be broadcast Sunday, March 20 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Randall Williams, co-owner and editor of NewSouth Books, republished "Huckleberry Finn" with "slave" replacing over 200 appearances of the N-word. He believes the new edition can still offer a teachable moment as well as an alternative for school districts unwilling to inject the word into their classrooms.
Prof. David Bradley of the University of Oregon uses the word in classroom and disagrees with the use of the new edition, telling Pitts, "You use the term 'teachable moment' and that's what [n*&^%$] gives you.
That's why it's important to keep it in there," says the author and Mark Twain scholar. "I call "Huckleberry Finn" a power tool when it comes to education," says Bradley. "There are so many things [in it] that pry things open...That teachable moment is when that word hits the table in a classroom. Everybody goes 'wooh' Okay, let's talk about it."
But some teachers will not utter the word in their classrooms even if it's in the book. Pitts talks to teachers in Minneapolis who are discussing the traditional novel in class. One will say the N-word in class and the other will not. Their students also had divided opinions about saying the word in class; a black student said it made him uncomfortable. That's why his version is needed says Williams. "It is the word itself that is the problem...all these repetitive instances of the offensive N-word in there," he tells Pitts. "Is the argument that these kids should be subjected to pain?" he asks. Williams feels it is better to replace the N-word with "slave" and avoiding any pain and giving those who would not get a chance to study it at all an opportunity to experience what many feel is one of the greatest pieces of American literature.
"It's not 'Huckleberry Finn" anymore,'" counters Bradley. "What are we teaching them [by removing the N-word]? This may be their first encounter with slavery." He says that to withhold the N-word is to avoid an integral reality. "'Slave' is a condition...nothing for anybody to be ashamed of," says Bradley, "But [n*&^%$] has to do with shame...calling somebody something. [N*&^%$] is what made slavery possible."
For more on the reporting of this story and a frank discussion about it between Editor Ann Silvio and Pitts, go to our Webcast at 60MinutesOvertime.com on Sunday.
© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc..
Friday, March 18, 2011
Obama Warns Libya on Allied Action
WASHINGTON — President Obama ordered Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi on Friday to implement a cease-fire immediately and stop all attacks on Libyan civilians or face military action from the United States and its allies in Europe and the Arab world.
Doug Mills/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Obama ordered Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi on Friday to implement a cease-fire immediately and stop all attacks on Libyan civilians or face military action from the United States and its allies in Europe and the Arab world.
In one of the most forceful statements he has issued from the White House Mr. Obama said that his demands were not negotiable: Colonel Qaddafi had to pull his forces back from major cities in Libya or the United States and its allies would stop him. The president said that he was forced to act because Colonel Qaddafi had turned on his own people and had shown, Mr. Obama said, “no mercy on his own citizens.”
The president said that with the passage on Thursday night of a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing military action against Colonel Qadaffi to protect Libyan civilians, the United States would not act alone, and in fact that France, Britain and Arab nations would take the lead. That is the clear desire of the Pentagon, which has been strongly resistant to another American war in the Middle East. Mr. Obama said flatly that American ground forces would not enter Libya.
“Muammar Qaddafi has a choice,” he said. “The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop.”
“Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable — these terms are not negotiable,” Mr. Obama said in the East Room of the White House. “If Colonel Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences. The resolution will be enforced through miitary action.”
He set no deadline and gave no hint when the military action would commence, but said that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would travel to Paris on Saturday to consult with allies on further action. An allied military strike against Libya did not appear to be imminent.
Specifically, Mr. Obama said, Colonel Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing against the town of Benghazi and pull them back from other cities, and water, electricity and gas supplies must be allowed in, as well as other humanitarian aid.
He spoke as the United States, Britain and France pushed forward against Libya on Friday as they declared that a cease-fire abruptly announced by Colonel Qaddafi’s government was not enough, and as reports came in from the region of continuing attacks in some places.
Mrs. Clinton, echoing remarks hours earlier by Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, said in Washington on Friday morning that the United States would be “not responsive or impressed by words.”‘ She said that the allies would “have to see actions on the ground, and that is not yet at all clear.”
Those actions included, she said, a clear move by Colonel Qaddafi’s forces away from the east, where they were threatening a final assault on the rebels’ stronghold in Benghazi.
Only hours after the United Nations Security Council voted late Thursday to authorize military action and a no-fly zone, Libya executed a remarkable about-face on Friday, saying it would call an “immediate cease-fire and the stoppage of all military operations” against rebels seeking to oust Colonel Qaddafi.
But people fleeing the eastern city of Ajdabiya said government forces were still bombing and conducting other assaults at 4 p.m. local time.
A spokesman for the rebels, Mustafa Gheriani, said that attacks continued against both that city and Misurata, in the west, according to news agency reports. “He’s bombing Misurata and Ajdabiya from 7 a.m. this morning until now,” Mr. Gehriani said, according to The Associated Press.
The announcement of cease-fire came from Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa after Western powers said they were preparing imminent airstrikes to prevent Libyan forces from launching a threatened final assault on Benghazi.
In London, Mr. Cameron told the BBC of Colonel Qaddafi: “We will judge him by his actions, not his words.”
Mr. Cameron told the House of Commons that the British Air Force would deploy Tornado jets and Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes, “as well as air-to-air refueling and surveillance aircraft.”
“Preparations to deploy these have already started, and in the coming hours they will move to airbases from where they can take the necessary action,” Mr. Cameron said.
The Typhoon is a fighter jet armed with air-to-air missiles for shooting down airplanes, as well as laser-guided bombs for targets on the ground. The Tornado is especially well suited for attacking runways — that was its first combat mission, in the Persian Gulf war, when the planes swooped in to bomb runways in Iraq, facing thick anti-aircraft defenses that shot down several of the planes.
In Paris the French foreign ministry spokesman, Bernard Valero, said that Colonel Qaddafi “begins to be afraid, but on the ground, the threat hasn’t changed.” He added, “We have to be very cautious.”
Earlier François Baroin, a French government spokesman, told RTL radio that action would come “rapidly,” perhaps within hours, after the United Nations resolution authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.
But he insisted the military action was “not an occupation of Libyan territory.” Rather, he said, it was intended to protect the Libyan people and “allow them to go all the way in their drive, which means bringing down the Qaddafi regime.”
Other French officials said that Mr. Baroin was speaking to heighten the warning to Colonel Qaddafi, and that in fact any military action was not that imminent, but was still being coordinated with allies including Britain and the United States.
Obama administration officials said that allied action against Libya had to include the participation of Arab countries and were insistent, as one senior official put it, that the red, green and black of Arab nations’ flags be prominent in military operations. As of Thursday night, the United States said it had firm commitments from both Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to contribute fighter jets to the effort, and that Jordan had also agreed to take part, although to what extent was not yet clear by Friday.
The administration also spoke to Egyptian officials about taking part but Egypt — the leading military power of the Arab world — was concerned that air strikes could endanger some million Egyptians who live in Libya. In addition, protesters only last month toppled the 30-year regime of President Hosni Mubarak and Egypt’s transitional military government remains fragile.
Administration officials said it remained unclear on Friday morning which country would take the lead as the air traffic controller of an operation that might involve waves of fighter jets from multiple countries in the skies above Libya, taking turns or at the same time. But the United States was expected to play a major role, as were Britain and France.
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Mr. Cameron will attend the meeting in Paris on Saturday with European, European Union, African Union and Arab League officials to discuss Libya, Mr. Sarkozy’s office announced. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations will also take part, his office said.
Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, which had supported the no-fly proposal, told Reuters on Friday: “‘The goal is to protect civilians first of all, and not to invade or occupy.”
Apparently pulling back from the increasingly bellicose statements that came as recently as Thursday from Colonel Qaddafi and his son Seif al-Islam, Mr. Koussa — his hands shaking as he read a statement at a news conference in Tripoli on Friday afternoon — said the Qaddafi government would comply with the United Nations resolution by halting combat operations.
“Libya has decided an immediate cease-fire and the stoppage of all military operations,” Mr. Koussa said. He did not take questions.
It was not immediately possible to confirm that military action. Mr. Koussa did not say whether the Libyan government intended to restore water, electricity and telecommunications to Misurata.
He expressed “our sadness” that the imposition of a no-fly zone would also stop commercial and civilian aircraft, saying such measures “will have a negative impact on the general life of the Libyan people.”
And he called it “strange and unreasonable” that the resolution authorized the use of force against the Qaddafi government, “and there are signs that this may indeed take place.” Mr. Koussa called the resolution a violation of Libyan sovereignty as well as of the United Nations charter, and repeated a call for a “fact-finding mission” to evaluate the situation on the ground.
Government minders told journalists in Tripoli on Friday that they could not leave their hotel for their own safety, saying that in the aftermath of the United Nations vote, residents might attack or even shoot foreigners. The extent of the danger was unclear.
Shortly before Mr. Koussa spoke Mr. Cameron told Parliament in London: “This is about protecting the Libyan people and saving lives. The world has watched Qaddafi brutally crushing his own people. We expect brutal attacks. Qaddafi is preparing for a violent assault on Benghazi.”
“Any decision to put the men and women of our armed forces into harm’s way should only be taken when absolutely necessary,” he said. “But I believe that we cannot stand back and let a dictator whose people have rejected him kill his people indiscriminately. To do so would send a chilling signal to others.”
“The clock is now ticking,” Mr. Cameron said. “We need a sense of urgency because we don’t want to see a bloodbath in Benghazi.” Responding to criticism from members of Parliament about getting Britain involved militarily, Mr. Cameron retorted: “To pass a resolution like this and then just stand back and hope someone in the region would enforce it is wrong.”
Before the cease-fire was announced, the Libyan leader signaled his intentions in Benghazi.
“We will come house by house, room by room,” Colonel Qaddafi said Thursday on a radio call-in show before the United Nations vote. It’s over. The issue has been decided.” To those who continued to resist, he vowed: “We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity.”
In a television broadcast later, he added: “The world is crazy, and we will be crazy, too.”
Before Mr. Koussa’s announcement of a cease-fire, forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi unleashed a barrage of fire against Misurata, news reports said, while his son was quoted as saying government forces would encircle Benghazi. Eurocontrol, Europe’s air traffic control agency, said in Brussels on Friday that Libya had closed its airspace. It was not immediately clear whether loyalist troops had begun honoring the cease-fire.
The Security Council vote seemed to have divided Europeans, with Germany saying it would not take part while Norway was reported as saying it would. In the region, Turkey was reported to have registered opposition, but Qatar said it would support the operation.
On Thursday night in New York, after days of often acrimonious debate played out against a desperate clock, and with Colonel Qaddafi’s troops within 100 miles of Benghazi, the Security Council authorized member nations to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, diplomatic code words calling for military action.
Diplomats said the resolution — which passed with 10 votes, including that of the United States, and abstentions from Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India — was written in sweeping terms to allow for a wide range of actions, including strikes on air-defense systems and missile attacks from ships.
Benghazi erupted in celebration at news of the resolution’s passage. “We are embracing each other,” said Imam Bugaighis, spokeswoman for the rebel council in Benghazi. “The people are euphoric. Although a bit late, the international society did not let us down.”
A Pentagon official said Thursday that decisions were still being made about what kind of military action, if any, the United States might take with the allies against Libya. The official said that contingency planning continued across a full range of operations, including a no-fly zone, but that it was unclear how much the United States would become involved beyond providing support.
That support is likely to consist of much of what the United States already has in the region — Awacs radar planes to help with air traffic control should there be airstrikes, other surveillance aircraft and about 400 Marines aboard two amphibious assault ships in the region, the Kearsarge and the Ponce.
The Americans could also provide signal-jamming aircraft in international airspace to muddle Libyan government communications with its military units.
The president said that with the passage on Thursday night of a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing military action against Colonel Qadaffi to protect Libyan civilians, the United States would not act alone, and in fact that France, Britain and Arab nations would take the lead. That is the clear desire of the Pentagon, which has been strongly resistant to another American war in the Middle East. Mr. Obama said flatly that American ground forces would not enter Libya.
“Muammar Qaddafi has a choice,” he said. “The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop.”
“Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable — these terms are not negotiable,” Mr. Obama said in the East Room of the White House. “If Colonel Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences. The resolution will be enforced through miitary action.”
He set no deadline and gave no hint when the military action would commence, but said that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would travel to Paris on Saturday to consult with allies on further action. An allied military strike against Libya did not appear to be imminent.
Specifically, Mr. Obama said, Colonel Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing against the town of Benghazi and pull them back from other cities, and water, electricity and gas supplies must be allowed in, as well as other humanitarian aid.
He spoke as the United States, Britain and France pushed forward against Libya on Friday as they declared that a cease-fire abruptly announced by Colonel Qaddafi’s government was not enough, and as reports came in from the region of continuing attacks in some places.
Mrs. Clinton, echoing remarks hours earlier by Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, said in Washington on Friday morning that the United States would be “not responsive or impressed by words.”‘ She said that the allies would “have to see actions on the ground, and that is not yet at all clear.”
Those actions included, she said, a clear move by Colonel Qaddafi’s forces away from the east, where they were threatening a final assault on the rebels’ stronghold in Benghazi.
Only hours after the United Nations Security Council voted late Thursday to authorize military action and a no-fly zone, Libya executed a remarkable about-face on Friday, saying it would call an “immediate cease-fire and the stoppage of all military operations” against rebels seeking to oust Colonel Qaddafi.
But people fleeing the eastern city of Ajdabiya said government forces were still bombing and conducting other assaults at 4 p.m. local time.
A spokesman for the rebels, Mustafa Gheriani, said that attacks continued against both that city and Misurata, in the west, according to news agency reports. “He’s bombing Misurata and Ajdabiya from 7 a.m. this morning until now,” Mr. Gehriani said, according to The Associated Press.
The announcement of cease-fire came from Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa after Western powers said they were preparing imminent airstrikes to prevent Libyan forces from launching a threatened final assault on Benghazi.
In London, Mr. Cameron told the BBC of Colonel Qaddafi: “We will judge him by his actions, not his words.”
Mr. Cameron told the House of Commons that the British Air Force would deploy Tornado jets and Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes, “as well as air-to-air refueling and surveillance aircraft.”
“Preparations to deploy these have already started, and in the coming hours they will move to airbases from where they can take the necessary action,” Mr. Cameron said.
The Typhoon is a fighter jet armed with air-to-air missiles for shooting down airplanes, as well as laser-guided bombs for targets on the ground. The Tornado is especially well suited for attacking runways — that was its first combat mission, in the Persian Gulf war, when the planes swooped in to bomb runways in Iraq, facing thick anti-aircraft defenses that shot down several of the planes.
In Paris the French foreign ministry spokesman, Bernard Valero, said that Colonel Qaddafi “begins to be afraid, but on the ground, the threat hasn’t changed.” He added, “We have to be very cautious.”
Earlier François Baroin, a French government spokesman, told RTL radio that action would come “rapidly,” perhaps within hours, after the United Nations resolution authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.
But he insisted the military action was “not an occupation of Libyan territory.” Rather, he said, it was intended to protect the Libyan people and “allow them to go all the way in their drive, which means bringing down the Qaddafi regime.”
Other French officials said that Mr. Baroin was speaking to heighten the warning to Colonel Qaddafi, and that in fact any military action was not that imminent, but was still being coordinated with allies including Britain and the United States.
Obama administration officials said that allied action against Libya had to include the participation of Arab countries and were insistent, as one senior official put it, that the red, green and black of Arab nations’ flags be prominent in military operations. As of Thursday night, the United States said it had firm commitments from both Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to contribute fighter jets to the effort, and that Jordan had also agreed to take part, although to what extent was not yet clear by Friday.
The administration also spoke to Egyptian officials about taking part but Egypt — the leading military power of the Arab world — was concerned that air strikes could endanger some million Egyptians who live in Libya. In addition, protesters only last month toppled the 30-year regime of President Hosni Mubarak and Egypt’s transitional military government remains fragile.
Administration officials said it remained unclear on Friday morning which country would take the lead as the air traffic controller of an operation that might involve waves of fighter jets from multiple countries in the skies above Libya, taking turns or at the same time. But the United States was expected to play a major role, as were Britain and France.
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Mr. Cameron will attend the meeting in Paris on Saturday with European, European Union, African Union and Arab League officials to discuss Libya, Mr. Sarkozy’s office announced. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations will also take part, his office said.
Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, which had supported the no-fly proposal, told Reuters on Friday: “‘The goal is to protect civilians first of all, and not to invade or occupy.”
Apparently pulling back from the increasingly bellicose statements that came as recently as Thursday from Colonel Qaddafi and his son Seif al-Islam, Mr. Koussa — his hands shaking as he read a statement at a news conference in Tripoli on Friday afternoon — said the Qaddafi government would comply with the United Nations resolution by halting combat operations.
“Libya has decided an immediate cease-fire and the stoppage of all military operations,” Mr. Koussa said. He did not take questions.
It was not immediately possible to confirm that military action. Mr. Koussa did not say whether the Libyan government intended to restore water, electricity and telecommunications to Misurata.
He expressed “our sadness” that the imposition of a no-fly zone would also stop commercial and civilian aircraft, saying such measures “will have a negative impact on the general life of the Libyan people.”
And he called it “strange and unreasonable” that the resolution authorized the use of force against the Qaddafi government, “and there are signs that this may indeed take place.” Mr. Koussa called the resolution a violation of Libyan sovereignty as well as of the United Nations charter, and repeated a call for a “fact-finding mission” to evaluate the situation on the ground.
Government minders told journalists in Tripoli on Friday that they could not leave their hotel for their own safety, saying that in the aftermath of the United Nations vote, residents might attack or even shoot foreigners. The extent of the danger was unclear.
Shortly before Mr. Koussa spoke Mr. Cameron told Parliament in London: “This is about protecting the Libyan people and saving lives. The world has watched Qaddafi brutally crushing his own people. We expect brutal attacks. Qaddafi is preparing for a violent assault on Benghazi.”
“Any decision to put the men and women of our armed forces into harm’s way should only be taken when absolutely necessary,” he said. “But I believe that we cannot stand back and let a dictator whose people have rejected him kill his people indiscriminately. To do so would send a chilling signal to others.”
“The clock is now ticking,” Mr. Cameron said. “We need a sense of urgency because we don’t want to see a bloodbath in Benghazi.” Responding to criticism from members of Parliament about getting Britain involved militarily, Mr. Cameron retorted: “To pass a resolution like this and then just stand back and hope someone in the region would enforce it is wrong.”
Before the cease-fire was announced, the Libyan leader signaled his intentions in Benghazi.
“We will come house by house, room by room,” Colonel Qaddafi said Thursday on a radio call-in show before the United Nations vote. It’s over. The issue has been decided.” To those who continued to resist, he vowed: “We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity.”
In a television broadcast later, he added: “The world is crazy, and we will be crazy, too.”
Before Mr. Koussa’s announcement of a cease-fire, forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi unleashed a barrage of fire against Misurata, news reports said, while his son was quoted as saying government forces would encircle Benghazi. Eurocontrol, Europe’s air traffic control agency, said in Brussels on Friday that Libya had closed its airspace. It was not immediately clear whether loyalist troops had begun honoring the cease-fire.
The Security Council vote seemed to have divided Europeans, with Germany saying it would not take part while Norway was reported as saying it would. In the region, Turkey was reported to have registered opposition, but Qatar said it would support the operation.
On Thursday night in New York, after days of often acrimonious debate played out against a desperate clock, and with Colonel Qaddafi’s troops within 100 miles of Benghazi, the Security Council authorized member nations to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, diplomatic code words calling for military action.
Diplomats said the resolution — which passed with 10 votes, including that of the United States, and abstentions from Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India — was written in sweeping terms to allow for a wide range of actions, including strikes on air-defense systems and missile attacks from ships.
Benghazi erupted in celebration at news of the resolution’s passage. “We are embracing each other,” said Imam Bugaighis, spokeswoman for the rebel council in Benghazi. “The people are euphoric. Although a bit late, the international society did not let us down.”
A Pentagon official said Thursday that decisions were still being made about what kind of military action, if any, the United States might take with the allies against Libya. The official said that contingency planning continued across a full range of operations, including a no-fly zone, but that it was unclear how much the United States would become involved beyond providing support.
That support is likely to consist of much of what the United States already has in the region — Awacs radar planes to help with air traffic control should there be airstrikes, other surveillance aircraft and about 400 Marines aboard two amphibious assault ships in the region, the Kearsarge and the Ponce.
The Americans could also provide signal-jamming aircraft in international airspace to muddle Libyan government communications with its military units.
Japan Raises Severity of Nuclear Accident ARE we being told how bad it really is?
Updated: Mar 18, 2011 4:18 AM PDT
TOKYO -- Japan's nuclear safety agency raised the severity rating of the country's nuclear crisis Friday from Level 4 to Level 5 on a seven-level international scale, putting it on par with the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979.
Ryohei Shiomi, a spokesman for the nuclear safety agency, said Friday that the agency raised the rating of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear crisis on the International Nuclear Event Scale. The scale defines a Level 4 incident as having local consequences and a Level 5 incident as having wider consequences. The hallmarks of a Level 5 emergency are severe damage to a reactor core, release of large quantities of radiation with a high probability of "significant" public exposure or several deaths from radiation.
A partial meltdown at Three Mile Island also was ranked a Level 5. The Chernobyl accident of 1986, which killed at least 31 people with radiation sickness, raised long-term cancer rates, and spewed radiation for hundreds of miles (kilometers), was ranked a Level 7. France's Nuclear Safety Authority has been saying since Tuesday that the crisis in northeastern Japan should be ranked Level 6 on the scale.
Ryohei Shiomi, a spokesman for the nuclear safety agency, said Friday that the agency raised the rating of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear crisis on the International Nuclear Event Scale. The scale defines a Level 4 incident as having local consequences and a Level 5 incident as having wider consequences. The hallmarks of a Level 5 emergency are severe damage to a reactor core, release of large quantities of radiation with a high probability of "significant" public exposure or several deaths from radiation.
A partial meltdown at Three Mile Island also was ranked a Level 5. The Chernobyl accident of 1986, which killed at least 31 people with radiation sickness, raised long-term cancer rates, and spewed radiation for hundreds of miles (kilometers), was ranked a Level 7. France's Nuclear Safety Authority has been saying since Tuesday that the crisis in northeastern Japan should be ranked Level 6 on the scale.
U.N. authorizes ‘all necessary measures’ to protect civilians in Libya
The United Nations on Thursday authorized the use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya, opening the door to air and naval attacks against the forces of leader Moammar Gaddafi as he vowed to level the city of Benghazi, the last major rebel stronghold.
In a 10 to 0 vote, with five abstentions, the Security Council called for an immediate cease-fire in Libya and approved the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory and the interdiction of ships carrying supplies to Gaddafi’s government. In broad language, the council approved the use of any means short of “foreign occupation” to end strikes against “civilian populated areas under threat of attack . . . including Benghazi.”The vote marked a dramatic turn in the world’s response to the Libyan crisis after weeks of debate and reluctance by many to intervene, and it comes as rebel forces were said to be on the brink of defeat.
Celebrations erupted across Benghazi as word of the vote reached the rebels. Clerics chanted “God is great” over mosque loudspeakers, and the streets were filled with celebratory gunfire and people waving the pre-Gaddafi Libyan flag adopted by the rebels.
France said it was prepared to launch attacks within hours, and Britain also indicated that it was prepared to act quickly. Initial strikes are likely to target air defense systems and runways; it was unclear whether plans were also in motion to strike at tank columns and other government ground forces headed east.
U.S. officials said that it would probably take several days for a full operation to be undertaken and that President Obama had not yet approved the use of U.S. military assets. Obama has preferred to let other nations publicly lead the response to the Libyan crisis, and White House officials said he would not appear on camera Thursday night to speak about the U.N. vote.
In a measured response to the vote that contrasted with threats earlier in the day by Gaddafi to “show no mercy” to the rebels, Libya’s deputy foreign minister, Khaled Kaim, told reporters in Tripoli that Libya welcomed clauses in the resolution calling for protection of civilians.
But he cautioned the international community against arming the opposition, saying it would be tantamount to “inviting Libyans to kill each other.” The intention of the Libyan armed forces, he said, was “to protect civilians and guarantee food and medical supplies.”
Adoption of the resolution was seen as the last major hurdle to implementing plans drawn up by NATO in recent weeks that include unspecified participation by U.S. warships stationed off the Libyan coast or U.S. aircraft.
Shortly after the vote, Obama called British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the White House said in a statement. The leaders “agreed that Libya must immediately comply with terms of the resolution” and said they would “coordinate closely on next steps,” including working with “Arab and other international partners” to ensure enforcement of the resolution.
“There is no justification for [Gaddafi’s] continued leadership now,” Ambassador Susan E. Rice said after casting the U.S. vote in favor of the resolution. Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India — all of whom expressed reservations about the move — abstained.
Earlier Thursday, Gaddafi had warned Benghazi that “we are coming tonight and there will be no mercy.” In an audio address delivered on state television, he promised to hunt down opposition “traitors . . . in the alleyways, house to house, room to room. . . . The whole world will watch Benghazi and see what will happen in it.”
Libya’s Defense Ministry threatened swift retaliation against any outside attack. “Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean to danger, and civilian and military facilities will become targets,” the Defense Ministry said in a statement distributed by the state news agency.
Thursday’s vote came only after the Arab League agreed Saturday to support a no-fly zone over Libya. The resolution “requests” Arab League members to cooperate with other U.N. members in implementing its terms, and U.S. officials said they expected that several Arab governments would help fund the operation or contribute military assets.
Lebanon’s U.N. ambassador, Nawaf Salam, provided no details on what role Arab countries would play in the military operation, saying that participants would make their own announcements. But he insisted that “there would be no forces on the ground in any form or in any part of Libya.”
In addition to a specific “ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” and use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, the resolution authorizes interdiction and inspection “on the high seas” of all vessels and aircraft bound to or from Libya provided there are “reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items” prohibited under a previously adopted arms embargo and other sanctions.
It also calls on all U.N. members to stop the flow of “armed mercenary personnel” to Libya.
Among the five governments that abstained in the vote, Brazil’s U.N. ambassador, Maria Luiza Riberio Viotti, voiced concern that military action in Libya would “exacerbate tensions on the ground and cause more harm than good to the same civilians we are committed to protect.”
She also warned that military action would undermine the “spontaneous homegrown nature’’ of popular uprisings spreading through the Arab world and threatened to “change that narrative in ways that would have serious repercussions” for Libya and the rest of the region.
Libya’s renegade U.N.-based diplomat, Ibrahim Dabbashi, praised the council’s action and urged outside powers to move “immediately” to halt Gaddafi’s military offensive. The vote, Dabbashi said, sent a clear message to the Libyan people that they “are not alone. We are glad that Benghazi will now be safe.’’
In a statement earlier Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that establishment of a no-fly zone would require “bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems.”
U.S. military officials said Libya has more than 30 surface-to-air missile installations, largely positioned along its Mediterranean coast, where most of the population resides. Its arsenal also includes an unknown number of long-range missiles that can reach as far as 180 miles off the coast. Libya also operates more than 15 early-warning radar sites along the coast, a Defense Department spokesman said.
At a Senate hearing Thursday, Undersecretary of State William J. Burns confronted
sharply differing views about the Libyan crisis that crossed party lines. Some, led by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), said the administration has been too cautious in its response. “Time is running out for the Libyan people,” Kerry said.
But Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), along with several Democrats, warned of the “risk that our involvement would escalate” and said the administration should “seek congressional debate on a declaration of war” against Libya before U.S. forces participate in any action.
Karen DeYoung and Colum Lynch Washington Post
Immigrant Detentions Draw International Fire
The group, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, issued those findings in a report that also took aim at a federal program that allows county and state law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration laws. The report said the government had failed to ensure that local police were not singling out people by race or detaining illegal immigrants on the pretext of investigating crimes.
The commission recommended that the federal government cancel the program, known as 287(g).
While many of the findings reiterated criticisms that have been made before by immigrant advocates and others, the report appeared to be the first comprehensive review of American immigration enforcement in recent years by an international body of the organization’s stature.
The commission, based in Washington, has no enforcement powers, but it has considerable moral authority and a record of cooperation by member countries, including the United States.
The 155-page report was based on hearings and research that began in 2008, including visits in July 2009 by a team of investigators to six American detention centers in Arizona and Texas.
Since much of the research was completed, however, the Obama administration has begun a major overhaul of the detention system. A month after the commission’s visits, immigration officials announced a sweeping plan to establish more centralized authority over the system and to renovate centers designed for penal detention to make them more appropriate for detainees facing deportation, particularly those accused of administrative violations.
The administration said it would also close centers that were rarely used or failed to meet its standards, and would consolidate the nation’s patchwork of detention centers to meet increasing demand in specific areas, especially near big cities. It also said it would explore alternatives to detention.
Felipe González, president of the commission, acknowledged those plans but said the commission would withhold judgment on the efficacy of the reforms. “According to the information that we have so far, it’s not clear that it’s been implemented or will satisfy the international standards” of human rights, he said in an interview.
The commission will continue monitoring immigration enforcement to ensure that its grievances were addressed, Mr. González added.
A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees enforcement, said Thursday that the department would review the report, and made no further comment.
Earlier, however, the Obama administration was given a draft. In their response, according to the report, administration officials pointed out that they had conducted their own comprehensive review of immigration enforcement and made “important changes.”
Still, the commission said it was “deeply troubled by the continual and widespread use of detention in immigration cases,” the report said.
“The Inter-American Commission is convinced that in many if not the majority of cases, detention is a disproportionate measure and the alternatives to detention programs would be a more balanced means of serving the State’s legitimate interest in ensuring compliance with immigration laws,” the report said.
Mr. González also expressed skepticism that the administration would provide less penal settings for immigrants held on administrative, rather than criminal, charges. “It’s not clear to us whether the new system will really mean that the facility will provide migrants in detention with a system that is fully respectful of human rights,” he said.
Mr. González said his commission was inspired to investigate the system after receiving numerous requests from human rights advocates and civil society organizations. The group, he added, is now planning to investigate other immigration detention systems in the hemisphere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)