The Murder of Mexico’s Free Press Sunday August 16th, 2015 at 9:45 AM
- Get link
- Other Apps
The day before the Mexican photojournalist Rubén Espinosa was murdered in Mexico City in late July, the governor of Veracruz, the province Mr. Espinosa had fled fearing for his life, gave other journalists a warning.
“Behave,” Javier Duarte, the governor of Veracruz, urged reporters. “We’re going to shake the tree and a lot of rotten apples will fall.”
Mr. Duarte said that his warning was meant to deter journalists who are sympathetic to drug traffickers and other criminals. But many Mexican journalists understandably saw it as a threat to journalists who produce critical coverage of local officials.
Since 2010, at least 41 journalists have been killed in Mexico. Roughly 20 have disappeared. Mexican journalists are targeted by powerful criminal organizations and in some instances by government officials who don’t want their misdeeds exposed. The majority of cases remain unsolved, leaving journalists in many parts of the country with a terrible choice: they censor themselves or get silenced by a bullet.
The government of President Enrique Peña Nieto has not done enough to protect journalists or fight this culture of impunity.
“An attempt on the life of a journalist is an attack on society’s very right to be informed,” a group of prominent journalists and press advocates wrote in a letter to Mr. Peña Nieto, expressing outrage over the latest killing.
They demanded that his administration carry out a credible investigation into the slaying of Mr. Espinosa, a 31-year-old photojournalist, and examine the involvement of local officials who may have been complicit in the killing of journalists.
Crimes against journalists are not the only ones that routinely go unpunished in Mexico. The country’s criminal justice system is notoriously weak, susceptible to political meddling and corruption. This is most acute in parts of the country wracked by violence fueled by the drug trade. The authorities were deeply embarrassed last month when the country’s highest profile prisoner, the drug kingpin Joaquín Guzmán Loera, escaped from prison for the second time.
Mr. Espinosa left Veracruz, a southeast coastal state, shortly after he photographed student activists who were beaten by masked men. When he arrived in Mexico City, he told friends he felt unsafe because strangers had asked him if he was the photographer who had fled Veracruz. Mr. Espinosa was shot in a friend’s apartment on July 31, along with four women. Prosecutors detained a suspect and have sought to portray the crime as a robbery, but many Mexicans find that account dubious.
Since Mr. Duarte assumed office in 2010, intimidation and crimes against journalists in Veracruz have soared, according to press freedom advocates. Fourteen have been killed and at least three have disappeared. In most cases, local officials have tried to play down the idea that the journalists were murdered to silence them.
Ending these assaults on the press requires forceful action by Mr. Peña Nieto. He should repudiate Mr. Duarte’s warning — the two men belong to the same party. And beyond investigating and prosecuting past crimes, he and local officials must take concrete steps to protect journalists who risk their lives doing their jobs.
Read the whole story
· ·
To the Editor:
Re “Police Depts. Using ID Tool Honed in War” (front page, Aug. 13):
I would like to clarify several points about the F.B.I.’s Next Generation Identification technology’s use of facial recognition analysis.
While the Next Generation Identification technology could theoretically be used to search a wide range of photos, in practice it searches only against a pool of existing mug shots. The database is not a repository for Department of Motor Vehicle photographs or surveillance photos.
Furthermore, the F.B.I.’s Next Generation Identification system does not use facial recognition analysis to positively identify individuals. Rather, the technology applies an algorithm to compile an array of photographs with physical characteristics similar to those of the suspect in the submitted photo. Investigators may then take logical investigative steps, under proper legal authorities, to generate and pursue leads based upon the results.
The F.B.I. is committed to the protection of individual privacy rights and civil liberties. There are many important discussions that have taken place, and will continue to take place, about government surveillance and investigative authority.
AMY HESS
Washington
The writer is executive assistant director of the F.B.I.’s Science and Technology Branch.
The Department of Homeland Security is creating a new committee dedicated to boosting digital defenses for utilities.
In a notice published in Friday’s Federal Register, the department announced that the Homeland Security Advisory Council will form a cybersecurity subcommittee as part of efforts to prevent a deadly attack on power plants or the electric grid that some have deemed a “cyber Pearl Harbor.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Experts
say
such critical infrastructure sites are increasingly at risk as electric grids get “smarter.”
National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers told lawmakers last fall that China and “one or two” other countries would be able to shut down portions of critical U.S. infrastructure with a cyberattack. Researchers suspect Iran to be on that list.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson is calling for the new panel to identify how well the department’s “lifeline sectors” are prepared to meet threats and recover from a “significant cyber event.”
The committee is also tasked with providing recommendations for a more unified approach to state and local cybersecurity.
In November, the DHS warned that “numerous” critical industries might have been compromised by Russian hackers, though officials said they did not see any attempts to “damage, modify, or otherwise disrupt” any networks. Researchers say the country is testing U.S. networks for vulnerabilities.
Although there was no evidence that the Russian hackers intended to attack infrastructure, experts expressed concern that the malware went undetected for so long. ABC reported that it might have infected U.S. systems three years before it was discovered.
“There is a great deal that has been done and is being done now to secure our networks,” Johnson told the House Judiciary Committee in July. “There is more to do."
Liberal watchdog group Bridge Project last month released a report, “The Koch Brothers’ Criminal Justice Pump-Fake,” attacking their work on criminal justice issues, saying the Kochs’ interest in reform stems from a 97-count indictment and prosecution charging the Koch Petroleum Group and several employees with violating the Clean Air Act at its refinery in Corpus Christi, Tex.
David Uhlmann — the federal prosecutor who was head of the environmental crimes section of the Justice Department — described the lawsuit as “a classic case of environmental crime: illegal emissions of benzene — a known carcinogen — at levels 15 times greater than those allowed under federal law.”
“Koch pleaded guilty and admitted that its employees engaged in an orchestrated scheme to conceal the benzene violations from state regulators and the Corpus Christi community,” said Uhlmann, now a law professor at the University of Michigan Law School.
Uhlmann, along with other critics, are reluctant to accept the Kochs’ support for criminal justice reform at face value, and believe there must be a deeper political agenda — possibly to include the later pursuit of legal reforms that will benefit corporations.
“Their advocacy for less draconian drug laws could prove to be a stalking horse for their long-standing efforts to protect corporate criminals and roll back environmental, health and safety laws,” he said.
Koch Petroleum was fined $10 million in the Corpus Christi case and ordered to pay another $10 million to fund environmental projects. In a plea agreement, the charges were dropped against the four employees.
In Charles Koch’s opinion, the federal case was unjust.
“We had four innocent employees indicted,” he said. “Okay, the company can handle it. Okay, we pay a fine and so on. What’s so upsetting is seeing what it did to them personally and their families.”
And Mark Holden, Koch Industries’ general counsel and senior vice president, said the company “was railroaded” and its experience in the Corpus Christi case “is what really started us working on criminal justice issues.”
Of the skeptics, Holden said, “People are going to believe what they want to believe. We’ve been working on these issues for 12 years now. Charles has had these views his whole life, by and large. Just judge us by our actions. We’re in this for the long haul.”
In a nod to the moment, Holden has a T-shirt in his office with the words: “Koch. Not Entirely Awful,” playing off the words of a recent article.
Van Jones, the president of #Cut50, a group seeking to cut the incarcerated population by 50 percent over the next 10 years, and the former special adviser on Obama’s Council on Environmental Quality, defends the Kochs.
“In a democracy, when you disagree with somebody, you should really work hard against them,” Jones said. “We oppose the Koch agenda when it comes to their pro-polluter, extremist agenda for the environment, and we fight real hard. But when you agree with them, you should work really hard alongside them. On criminal justice reform, we’re very proud to work alongside them.”
“And,” Jones added, “I never met a single person in prison who said, ‘I sure hope the Republicans and the Koch brothers don’t help me.’ ”
Read the whole story
· ·
Sasha Bak, 7th company’s commander, tours the trenches at one of his platoon’s positions in Pisky, Ukraine. Point 18 is the only place where Bak’s men live above ground; the rest live in trenches like this. (Thomas Gibbons-Neff/The Washington Post)
PISKY, Ukraine — The staccato of machine-gun fire begins at dusk, just as the sunflower fields here turn orange with the setting sun.
A Ukrainian army company of 110 soldiers defends the right flank of this largely deserted village, less than a mile outside of separatist-controlled Donetsk in eastern Ukraine and close to the city’s strategically key airport.
The unit — 7th Company of the 93rd Brigade — is headquartered in a partially destroyed two-story house known only as Point 18. In the front yard are Point 18’s defenses, a series of trenches and firing positions that start at the house’s garage and extend a hundred yards into the farmland beyond. The trenches are six feet deep and shored with felled birch trees and wood panels to keep them from turning into a morass when it rains.
“In May, the trenches were a meter deep,” explained Sasha Bak, the company’s 21-year-old commander. “And after we lost a soldier to shelling, then we dug them deeper.”
During the day, when the shelling is sporadic, the company goes about improving Point 18’s defenses. Some soldiers fill fertilizer bags with dirt and replace those damaged from the night before. Others dig the company’s new living quarters — an underground dugout they will inhabit in the coming months. Point 18, Bak says, cannot suffer many more direct hits before it collapses.
Now in its second year, the conflict in eastern Ukraine has claimed more than 6,000 lives as government forces battle Russian-backed separatists; 7th Company has lost 9 men and had 26 wounded this year — all since a cease-fire was signed in February and was almost immediately breached.
At night, as the temperature drops, the fighting begins in earnest. The air is filled with the snap of bullets and the low whistle of mortar rounds. Ukrainian and separatist tanks exchange fire from pre-dug positions, the sound of their massive guns distinct over the din of small-arms fire and mortar impacts.
Inside Point 18, plaster falls from the ceiling and the structure hums when rounds skip off the exposed steel of its frame. Some soldiers prepare ammunition for the automatic grenade-launchers and machine guns in the trenches; others smoke and watch Russian TV on their lone 20-inch set.
Though some nights are quieter than others, on average, 7th Company expends more than 20,000 rounds of ammunition a week — from weapons including Kalashnikovs and the 30mm cannons fired by its armored personnel carriers.
One of the hallmarks of Point 18’s defenses is what the men call “the museum.” In the trench closest to the separatists’ positions is a Russian heavy machine gun made in the 1930s. It is a massive antique the company keeps operational through constant maintenance.
The old machine gun is an apt metaphor for how 7th Company wages war. Almost everything in the company’s arsenal is either aging and Soviet or captured from the better-equipped separatists.
Soldiers from 7th company relax inside Point 18, while the company’s cook prepares dinner in Pisky, Ukraine. (Thomas Gibbons-Neff/The Washington Post)
The men fight from trenches, and some live in them — their underground quarters a throwback to World War I. Important information for other commanders is sent by messenger, because separatists frequently listen to their unsecure radios. And 7th Company has only four night-
vision devices for its 110 men.
vision devices for its 110 men.
At night, the separatists fly drones, a capability mostly unmatched by the Ukrainian forces. Most of them are of the cheaper quadcopter variety, though Bak says he has seen bigger ones — much like the U.S.-made Predator. The drones, equipped with thermal and night vision, are used to spot Bak’s positions and help guide separatist artillery, he says.
Although the Ukrainians have air support, they haven’t used it since the government in Kiev signed a cease-fire agreement in 2014, leaving the skies to the lawn-mower whine of separatist drones. The separatists also have radio-jamming equipment and better tanks than the Ukrainian army. At least 10 T-72 tanks are housed in a nearby abandoned chemical factory, Bak said.
“The only reason we’re alive,” he said, “is because those tanks don’t have any trained drivers for them.”
Bak knows that his company couldn’t hold out for long against a full-scale attack, particularly if it included Russian forces, but his defenses are ready. Antitank mines litter approach routes and heavy weapons are concealed in hedgerows.
In March 2014, the United States began sending the first of $244 million in non-lethal aid and training to the Ukrainian military to help counter its Russian-supplied foe. Pentagon spokeswoman Laura Seal said in an e-mail that the aid has included radio equipment, Humvees, counter-artillery radar, night-
vision and thermal-imaging gear, body armor and various other supplies.
vision and thermal-imaging gear, body armor and various other supplies.
The only U.S. aid 7th Company has received is one night-vision device. One of the press officers for the 93rd Brigade, which includes 7th Company, has a U.S.-supplied bullet-proof vest. The vest, an older version last used in the Iraq war in the mid-2000s, still had the previous owner’s Bible in one of its pockets.
“America can send everything,” said a soldier who goes by the nickname Ruby. “Javelins [antitank missiles], Humvees, dried food, whatever [the United States] has, we’ll take it.”
But the Obama administration has refused entreaties from the Kiev government to send even defensive weaponry, fearing that it could provoke Russia into escalating the conflict and seizing Ukrainian territory, as it did in annexing Crimea.
It’s also unclear whether Ukrainian units such as 7th Company could handle high-end U.S. equipment. The troops here are a mixed bunch of professional soldiers and volunteers. When the company arrived on the front in March, 18 soldiers deserted when the fighting started. The initial desertions, Bak said, were a sort of “natural selection.” Those who remain listen and fight well.
Prof, a 55-year-old volunteer who served with the Soviet army in Mongolia, is a former coal miner. The only payment he receives while he fights is his miner’s pension. He shuffles around the trenches — his back crooked from years in the mines — wearing denimshorts, kneepads and a light machine gun.
“I have no problem fighting the army I once fought for,” said Prof, who would give only his nickname. “They took our Crimea, and now they want to take the Donbas.”
Bak, one of the youngest soldiers in the company, has been in the army for nearly seven years. When he was 15, he attended the elite Suvorov military academy in Kiev.
“My neighbor fought for the Soviets in Afghanistan,” Bak said. “His stories made me want to join.”
At Point 18, Bak doesn’t sleep much, and the burden of command has crept into the corners of his eyes. The young lieutenant’s couch is usually occupied by 7th Company’s stray kitten, Wendy, as Bak is either on the line or checking on the rest of the company entrenched in the fields outside the village. He moves his hands constantly when he talks, and when he’s not fighting the war, he is fielding calls from the worried relatives of the men under him.
“Most of the mothers of the soldiers have my phone number and call me to see how they’re doing,” Bak said, laughing. “They think I’m the company’s secretary.”
Wounded twice since March, Bak prides himself on his combat skills. Unlike many of his Western counterparts, he leads most of his company’s patrols himself.
The patrols usually are made up of a handful of soldiers who go deep into “the neutral zone” — the 1,000-meter-wide no-man’s land between Ukrainian and separatist forces, where patrols from both sides often meet and clash in gun battles.
“Many of my soldiers are not as well-trained as I am,” Bak said. “That is why I go; I have to do it myself.”
On June 24, Bak’s armored personnel carrier struck an antitank mine, sending four pieces of shrapnel into his left shoulder. After being treated at the hospital, he was given 30 days’ leave to recuperate at home. Much to the dismay of his girlfriend and family, he returned to the front after spending just one morning in his own bed. The men of 7th Company, he said, cried when he returned.
Bak was wounded again — hit in the foot by shrapnel — during the last week of July. He was treated at the front.
Before returning to Point 18 in June, Bak called childhood friends who were out having drinks. He remembers them asking if the front was dangerous and if people were dying there.
“It was then that I realized,” Bak recalled, “that I had nothing in common with them anymore.”
Alexander Pustovit contributed to this report.
Thomas Gibbons-Neff is a staff writer and a former Marine infantryman.
Get the Checkpoint Newsletter
Free twice-weekly updates delivered just for you.
Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:
Please enter a valid email address
Sign up for email updates from the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.
You have signed up for the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.
✕
Thank you for signing up
You'll receive e-mail when new stories are published in this series.
Success! Check your inbox for details.
Please enter a valid email address
You might also like:
To keep reading, please enter your email address.
You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
- A free 6-week digital subscription
- Our daily newsletter in your inbox
Thank you.
Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Hamid Gul, an influential and contentious three-star general who served as the head of the Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s spy agency, from 1987 to 1989 and was deeply involved in the country’s policy toward neighboring Afghanistan when Soviet troops were withdrawing, has died at age 78.
General Gul never relinquished his public role, remaining closely tied to regional politics and supporting Islamic militancy against Western powers.
He died of a brain hemorrhage on Saturday evening in Murree, a picturesque hill station near Islamabad, the capital, according to Uzma Gul, his daughter.
General Gul was born in Sargodha in Punjab Province on Nov. 20, 1936, and was commissioned into the army in 1956. He fought in two wars against India.
A vocal and staunch critic of the United States, he often said proudly that he was hated by the Americans. During his tenure as ISI chief, he helped the United States and Saudi Arabia funnel money and weapons to Afghan fighters. But he later had a falling-out with the Americans and with Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, who accused him of supporting the most hard-line fighters. He was replaced as head of the ISI in 1989 and retired from military service in 1992.
Earlier, General Gul helped to cobble together an alliance of right-wing political parties in the 1988 general elections. While the powerful Pakistani military has a history of meddling in politics, he was the first general to publicly admit his role in political wheeling and dealing.
Never known to mince words, he saw himself as an ideologue and geostrategist who believed in pan-Islamism and supported Muslim separatist movements, especially in neighboring India. He also supported Kashmiri militant separatists and once described the heavily militarized boundary in the disputed Kashmir region as “worse than the Berlin Wall.”
General Gul was deeply sympathetic to the Afghan guerrillas who fought against the Soviets and later to the Afghan Taliban. He boasted of close ties to Osama bin Laden and to the Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar as well as to several other militant leaders like Jalaluddin Haqqani andGulbuddin Hekmatyar. His pronouncements led to his sometimes being referred to as the godfather of the Taliban, and he was accused of abetting the Taliban insurgency against the American presence in Afghanistan. But he described charges that he was a supporter of terrorism as “fiction.”
General Gul also refused to acknowledge that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were the handiwork of Al Qaeda. Instead, he referred to them as an “inside job” and a “Jewish conspiracy.”
He bitterly criticized the decision of the former Pakistani president and army chief Pervez Musharraf to side with the Americans after the 2001 attacks. In 2007, when a political movement to oppose Mr. Musharraf’s rule gained momentum, General Gul became a prominent participant and took part in countrywide rallies against the military ruler.
While some members of Pakistani liberal circles reviled General Gul, holding him responsible for following and advocating self-destructive geopolitical policies, many right-wing politicians and nationalists hailed him and regarded him as an inspiration.
He was a frequent presence at political rallies of Islamist hard-line politicians. He was eloquent and engaging in conversation and appeared regularly on political talk shows, often promulgating what critics termed fantastical conspiracy theories. His house, in a military compound in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, was visited regularly by journalists, politicians and Islamic leaders.
Despite the plethora of political and terror-related controversies surrounding him, he was never tainted by any charges of financial or moral corruption.
Read the whole story
· ·
President Obama’s golf habit on Martha’s Vineyard is so frequent that locals shrug it off. But there was nothing routine about his Saturday foursome, which included former President Bill Clinton, the civil rights activist Vernon E. Jordan Jr. and Ron Kirk, America’s former trade representative.
The high-profile golf partners were all slated to attend Mr. Jordan’s 80th birthday party Saturday night at the Farm Neck Golf Club. But they arrived early to get in a round of golf first. Mr. Jordan, a towering figure in the Democratic Party, was a top adviser to Mr. Clinton and is close to Mr. Obama, too.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is running to replace Mr. Obama in the Oval Office, was also expected to attend the party on Saturday night, officials said.
The White House allowed reporters a two-minute, 30-second glimpse of the golfers on the first hole. Mr. Jordan shot first, followed by Mr. Obama, who took a couple of practice swings before appearing to putt the ball into the hole. Mr. Clinton putted next, also with apparent success.
Mr. Jordan’s birthday party was to be off-limits to coverage. Last year, the Obamas and the Clintons joined a celebration at the club to honor Mr. Jordan’s wife, Ann, on her 80th birthday. Afterward, White House officials revealed that the Obamas had “danced every song” and dined on “surf and turf and pasta.”
The 2014 party — which came amid racial unrest in Ferguson, Mo., and tensions in the Middle East after the beheading of an American journalist — also served as a moment for Mrs. Clinton to smooth over criticisms she had made to a reporter about Mr. Obama’s Syria policy.
The September vote on the Iran nuclear deal is billed as a titanic standoff between President Barack Obama and Congress. Yet even if lawmakers reject the agreement, it's not game-over for the White House.
A congressional vote of disapproval would not prevent Obama from acting on his own to start putting the accord in place. While he probably would take some heavy criticism, this course would let him add the foreign policy breakthrough to his second-term list of accomplishments.
Obama doesn't need a congressional OK to give Iran most of the billions of dollars in relief from economic sanctions that it would get under the agreement, as long as Tehran honors its commitments to curb its nuclear program — at least for now.
"A resolution to disapprove the Iran agreement may have substantial political reverberations, but limited practical impact," says Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "It would not override President Obama's authority to enter into the agreement."
Lawmakers on their summer break are deciding how to vote. A look at the current state of play:
———
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN SEPTEMBER?
With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, the House and Senate are expected to turn down the deal.
Obama has pledged to veto such a resolution of disapproval, so the question has turned to whether Congress could muster the votes to override him, in what would be a stinging, bipartisan vote of no-confidence against the president. And Obama would forfeit the authority he now enjoys to waive sanctions that Congress has imposed.
But Democrats and Republicans have predicted that his expected veto will be sustained — that opponents lack the votes to one-up Obama. More than half of the Senate Democrats and Independents of the 34 needed to sustain a veto are backing the deal. There is one notable defection so far — New York's Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate and the party leader-in-waiting.
In the House, more than 45 Democrats have expressed support. Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California has spoken confidently about rounding up the votes to save the deal. Ten House Democrats have announced their opposition.
———
WHAT CAN OBAMA DO ON HIS OWN?
The president could suspend some U.S. sanctions. He could issue new orders to permit financial transactions that otherwise are banned now. On the financial sector, Obama could use executive orders to remove certain Iranians and entities, including nearly two dozen Iranian banks, from U.S. lists, meaning they no longer would be subject to economic penalties.
Only Congress can terminate legislative sanctions, and they're some of the toughest, aimed at Iran's energy sector, central bank and essential parts of its economy. Still, experts say Obama, on his own, can neutralize the effect of some of those sanctions, too, and work with the Europeans on softening others.
"Obama can give most of the sanctions relief under the agreement through executive order," said Mark Dubowitz, a leading sanctions proponent with the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
If Obama and the Europeans erase the Iranian banks from the sanctions list, those institutions would regain access to the global financial system.
———
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS BEING DISCUSSED IN CONGRESS?
The September votes won't be the final word.
One looming question is whether Congress should try to reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act, which authorizes many of the congressional sanctions.
Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., have introduced legislation to renew it. Menendez says that if administration is serious about reimposing sanctions if Iran cheats, there has to be something to "snap back to."
Iran could interpret a U.S. move to reauthorize the law as a breach of the nuclear agreement. Administration officials won't say whether it is or isn't, only that it's premature to address it.
Should Congress push for a different deal? The administration says renegotiating the agreement is a nonstarter.
In a webcast, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told members of the Jewish Federations across North America and the Jewish Council of Public Affairs that trying to renegotiate the deal was "about the riskiest strategy" he could imagine. "I just don't think that's a credible Plan B."
Schumer and others opponents think the administration should go back to the bargaining table.
Over history, Congress has rejected outright or demanded changes to more than 200 treaties and international agreements, including 80 that were multilateral.
Read the whole story
· · · ·
The September vote on the Iran nuclear deal is billed as a titanic standoff between President Barack Obama and Congress. Yet even if lawmakers reject the agreement, it's not game-over for the White House.
A congressional vote of disapproval would not prevent Obama from acting on his own to start putting the accord in place. While he probably would take some heavy criticism, this course would let him add the foreign policy breakthrough to his second-term list of accomplishments.
Obama doesn't need a congressional OK to give Iran most of the billions of dollars in relief from economic sanctions that it would get under the agreement, as long as Tehran honors its commitments to curb its nuclear program — at least for now.
"A resolution to disapprove the Iran agreement may have substantial political reverberations, but limited practical impact," says Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "It would not override President Obama's authority to enter into the agreement."
Lawmakers on their summer break are deciding how to vote. A look at the current state of play:
———
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN SEPTEMBER?
With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, the House and Senate are expected to turn down the deal.
Obama has pledged to veto such a resolution of disapproval, so the question has turned to whether Congress could muster the votes to override him, in what would be a stinging, bipartisan vote of no-confidence against the president. And Obama would forfeit the authority he now enjoys to waive sanctions that Congress has imposed.
But Democrats and Republicans have predicted that his expected veto will be sustained — that opponents lack the votes to one-up Obama. More than half of the Senate Democrats and Independents of the 34 needed to sustain a veto are backing the deal. There is one notable defection so far — New York's Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate and the party leader-in-waiting.
In the House, more than 45 Democrats have expressed support. Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California has spoken confidently about rounding up the votes to save the deal. Ten House Democrats have announced their opposition.
———
WHAT CAN OBAMA DO ON HIS OWN?
The president could suspend some U.S. sanctions. He could issue new orders to permit financial transactions that otherwise are banned now. On the financial sector, Obama could use executive orders to remove certain Iranians and entities, including nearly two dozen Iranian banks, from U.S. lists, meaning they no longer would be subject to economic penalties.
Only Congress can terminate legislative sanctions, and they're some of the toughest, aimed at Iran's energy sector, central bank and essential parts of its economy. Still, experts say Obama, on his own, can neutralize the effect of some of those sanctions, too, and work with the Europeans on softening others.
"Obama can give most of the sanctions relief under the agreement through executive order," said Mark Dubowitz, a leading sanctions proponent with the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
If Obama and the Europeans erase the Iranian banks from the sanctions list, those institutions would regain access to the global financial system.
———
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS BEING DISCUSSED IN CONGRESS?
The September votes won't be the final word.
Read the whole story
· · ·
Ring of Fire |
Patriot Militia Shown to be Criminal Drug Thugs: FBI Sting
Ring of Fire The anti-Muslim support militia known as the Arizona Special Operations Group has been revealed by an FBI sting to be little more than a front for peddling drugs. On July 22nd, Parris Frazier, Robert Deatherage, and Erik Foster were arrested after ... Vigilante border militiamen busted after 'stealing cocaine from fake drug cartel'Daily Mail all 2 news articles » |
The Weed Blog (blog) |
Michigan House Unveils Brand-New Medical Marijuana Provisioning Centers Act
The Weed Blog (blog) On Tuesday a new version of those bills will be presented to the House Judiciary Committeethat look almost nothing like the proposals that had the support of the medical marijuana community. Although there exists no public copies of the newest drafts ... |
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 3
On a gray and rainy Saturday, Chattanooga gathered once more to honor its five slain servicemen and their grieving families, and acknowledge a community forever changed by a lone gunman one month ago.
A witness says Islamic State fighters have consolidated their hold over the city of Sirte in central Libya, calling on residents to pledge allegiance over loudspeakers from its main mosque and desecrating bodies of their adversaries.
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment