Obama faces political puzzle in naming Scalia successor - AP | And other stories
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Obama faces political puzzle in naming Scalia successorby By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY and MARK SHERMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) -- For most presidents, choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a puzzle. For President Barack Obama, the chance to pick a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia is more like a Gordian Knot....
Uncertainty, Intrigue Surround US Supreme Court Vacancyby webdesk@voanews.com (Michael Bowman)
Two days after the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the path to installing a successor remains murky and a topic of intense intrigue in a nation where political divisions and polarization are magnified by a fierce presidential campaign. The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama has started preliminary discussions about a nominee. Spokesman Eric Schultz said Obama would look for a nominee who understands that justice is something that affects...
Hospitals lack basic medications and birth control is scarce as the country reels from an economic crisis.
Read the whole story
· · ·
 ТАСС |
Премьер Турции заявил, что Крым - это не Россия
ТАСС КИЕВ, 15 февраля. /ТАСС/. Премьер-министр Турции Ахмет Давутоглу, находящийся с визитом в Киеве, заявил, что не считает Крым частью России. "Для нас является фундаментальной ценностью территориальная целостность и независимость Украины, поэтому Крым мы ... Премьер Турции обещает поддерживать позицию Украины по КрымуРосбалт.RU Премьер Турции отказался признавать Крым российскимВзгляд Премьер Турции назвал Крым "неотъемлемой частью Украины"Московский комсомолец Эксперт Online -Федеральное агентство новостей No.1 -Slon.ru - Редакция деловых новостей Все похожие статьи: 168 » |
RT |
Did the pope just kiss Putin's ring?
The Economist But after his meeting with the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill on February 12th, some were left wondering whether the pontiff had rushed in where angels fear to tread. The meeting with hisRussian counterpart drew Francis deep into geopolitics, and ... 'We need to do everything to avert major war' – Russian Patriarch Kirill to RTRT Unity call as Pope Francis holds historic talks with Russian Orthodox PatriarchBBC News Pope meets Russian Orthodox leader 1000 years after Christianity splitFox News New York Times -The Guardian all 5,525 news articles » |
 Reuters |
Russia reports first case of person infected with Zika virus
Reuters This is a 36-year old Russian woman who was in the Dominican Republic and came back to theRussian Federation in February," Skvortsova told reporters at a UN briefing on Russia's Ebola vaccine. Skvortsova said the unnamed woman's family were ... First case of Zika virus reported in Russia – consumer protection agencyRT all 45 news articles » |
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2
 Росбалт.RU |
США возглавили рейтинг военной мощи, Россия оказалась на втором месте
Росбалт.RU Эксперты портала Global Firepower отдали России второе место в глобальном индексе военной мощи. Согласно ежегодному отчету компании, первое место в рейтинге заняли США, третья позиция досталась Китаю. В десятку также вошли Индия, Великобритания, Франция, Южная ... РФ заняла 2-ое место в мировом рейтинге военной мощиНовости 24 часа - MyNewsOnline24.ru Россия вошла в тройку мощнейших военных державРИА Свежий Ветер Россия стала одним из лидеров Глобального рейтинга военной мощи в 2016 годуHB Daily Новости России -Корреспондент.net Все похожие статьи: 83 » |
Putin’s Selective Revival of Soviet Past Throwing Russia Out of Europe and Back into Asia, Inozemtsev Saysby paul goble (noreply@blogger.com)
Paul Goble
Staunton, February 15 – Vladimir Putin in his celebration of the Soviet past wants to strip it of its revolutionary core, a highly selective approach that calls into question his right to claim that Russia is the Soviet Union of today and Russia’s close relationship with Europe, something the Bolshevik revolution reaffirmed, according to Vladislav Inozemtsev.
In a commentary for the Intersection Project, the Moscow economist points out that there is ever more officially promoted nostalgia for the Soviet Union and that it is increasingly linked to ideology and not just to the sense of loss of geopolitical status engendered by the disintegration of the USSR (intersectionproject.eu/node/330).
But suggesting, as Putin has, that the Soviet Union was Russia “only called by a different name,” is simply wrong, Inozemtsev says. “It was in the first instance a country based on ideas and goals and not by history or national identity.” The conflict between the USSR and the US was one between two super powers “whose very names pointed to their non-national and extra-historical nature.”
The Russian economist suggests that there were “three fundamental aspects of the Soviet mentality” – “a justification for change, a promotion of equality, and the assertion of internationalism.” In this essay, he says, he won’t deal with the second or third, especially because they are at odds with a country like Russia today with its thieving bureaucracy.
Inozemtsev insists that the 1917 Bolshevik revolution “confirmed the European nature of Russia” because “the invention of revolutions … made Europe a center of world civilization.” Other countries had revolts and pogroms, but Europe was the first to have revolutions, from Magna Carta to the East European revolutions of 1989.
“The Soviet Union, including both its ruling party and its ‘armed detachment,’ was born in the fires of one of the most dramatic revolutions in history,” one that on the basis of Marxist ideology rejected private property, social strata and privileges and “proclaimed the construction of a society of equality and justice.”
“The new republic legitimated the Soviets,” it promoted “an extraordinarily harsh secularization,” and it although “organized as a spontaneous federation marched into the world having overthrown the ‘sacred’ ideas of sovereignty in the name of being effective to the greatest degree possible of effectively advancing the world revolution.”
The USSR, Inozemtsev says, “became the most important transforming force on the global periphery having promoted the destruction of the system of colonial dependency and in this way making an exceptional contribution to present-day globalization.” The country “even died as it had lived” by declaring “’perestroika’ to be a continuation of the revolution.”
“Many elements of the Soviet experiment are impossible to celebrate,” but if one is asked to celebrate the Soviet system, one should only do so by accepting all of its aspects, including its revolutionary nature. In Soviet times, Moscow would have accepted the various “springs” around the world as revolutions and would have seen governments which had lost the support of their populations as illegitimate.
In short, “the Soviet Union (with the possible exception of the Brezhnev period) was undoubtedly a revolutionary force.” Indeed, Inozemtsev says, “the history of the Soviet Union is inseparable from the revolutionary idea … ‘Stability’ and ‘conservatism’ are concepts incompatible with ‘the nature of ‘Sovietism.’”
If one understands that, the Moscow analyst continues, it becomes clear that Putin’s Russia is not the Soviet Union of today. Instead, if there is such a country out there, one committed to revolution rather that stability and to being part of Europe rather than an outlier, it is Ukraine.
Because it is in Ukraine where a revolution is making Ukraine ever more part of Europe and not in Russia where opposition to revolutionary change is “throwing it back to Asia.” And because that is so, Inozemtsev says, “those unknown activists” who paint Soviet symbols with Ukrainian colors are fundamentally right, however much they may not recognize that fact.
Read the whole story
· · ·
The Kremlin’s sharks are circling, likely because at the moment there are large pools of blood spilling into the water.
Vladimir Putin’s strategy to break the West and expand Russia’s power has perfectly exploited current events and the lack of resolve of his chief opponents. As Ukraine faces a major political crisis, Russian troops are once again surging across eastern Ukraine’s borders. As Syrian refugees are fueling anti-Europeanism closer to home, Russian airstrikes are devastating Western-backed rebels and civilians alike — driving more refugees to Europe and empowering the pro-Putin far-right. Meanwhile, the West has never been weaker. Allies of the United States believe that they have beenbetrayed by American policy. Europe is on the verge of fracturing, and not only could Russia be the main benefactor, it is also playing a major role as one of the catalysts of that destruction.
Ukraine’s crisis has once again spread to the political sphere and there are two major points of contention which, some are warning, could rip apart the current government. The first and perhaps most immediate was catalyzed two weeks ago by the resignation of economic minister Aivaras Abromavicius who angrily announced that he was fed up with rampant corruption and the lack of governmental reform.
The crisis has divided Ukraine’s politicians further and has shaken the confidence of foreign investors and governments. Abromavicius was well respected in the international community, both by Western officials and by foreign investors, and was brought into the Poroshenko administration in December 2014 to cut government spending, increase privatization, and fulfill Ukraine’s requirements for receiving its loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). When Abromavicius quit, he did so loudly, calling out specific officials and practices that he said were corrupt. The next day, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called an unprecedented emergency meeting of the ambassadors of the G7 nations, who had sent a clear message themselves — they were “deeply disappointed” in Abromavicius’s resignation as he had made important strides in “implementing tough but necessary economic reforms to help stabilize Ukraine’s economy, root out endemic corruption, bring Ukraine into compliance with its IMF program obligations, and promote more openness and transparency in government.”
Their statement continued:
Ukraine’s stable, secure and prosperous future will require the sustained efforts of a broad and inclusive team of dedicated professionals who put the Ukrainian peoples’ interests above their own. It is important that Ukraine’s leaders set aside their parochial differences, put the vested interests that have hindered the country’s progress for decades squarely in the past, and press forward on vital reforms.
On February 11, US Vice President Joe Bidden spoke with Poroshenko over the phone. About two-thirds of The White House’s readout of that conversation focused on the political crisis and Ukraine’s need to reform. The message could not be more clear — according to Kiev’s allies, this is Ukraine’s last chance at reform.
Perhaps the most central complaint of the Euromaidan protests was the rampant corruption within the government. After the Yanukovych administration fled to Russia two years ago this month, there was a window of opportunity due to the post-revolution euphoria, similar to the “first 100 days” that many political scientists say new presidents enjoy. This chance for massive reform, however, was derailed as the central focus of the new government became keeping the country intact and defending against foreign invaders. Just days after Yanukovych reached Rostov-on-Don, Russian troops spread out across the Crimean peninsula. Weeks after this, Russian-backed separatists began to capture government buildings in the Donbass. Soon, not only were government officials focused more on Russia than on reform, but even leading Euromaidan activist groups were almost entirely focused on the war in the east. By focusing on military mobilization, and policies that ensured that Ukraine’s powerful oligarchs did not betray the fledgling government, Kiev was able to avoid losing even more territory, but for a price which has now become due.
This brings us to the second major fault-line in Ukrainian politics — what to do with eastern Ukraine. According to the Minsk agreements which are supposed to provide the roadmap for a more permanent resolution to the crisis, the Ukrainian government is supposed to grant the territories of Donestk and Lugansk, both currently occupied by Russian troops and proxies, more autonomy. This has not yet happened, as many in Ukraine feel that President Poroshenko has already given too many concessions to the Russian-backed separatists despite the lack of reciprocity. Poroshenko would like to see constitutional amendments pass that would grant this “special status” to the east so that his government can say that they have held up their end of the bargain, but so far this has been a tough sell to Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada. At the moment, Poroshenko’s offer is conditional — if Russian-backed fighters stop violating the ceasefire then greater autonomy can be granted — but even this has yet to pass.
Since the most basic step called for by the Minsk protocol — a ceasefire — has never really come to pass, it’s easy to forget that Russian-backed separatists have broken every other provision of the deal. The separatists have made no attempt to hold local elections, according to Ukrainian law, despite the fact that multiple election cycles have come and gone. The border is still controlled by Russian proxies. Russian military hardware has not been withdrawn across the border. Russia’s proxies still hold 133 Ukrainian soldiers as prisoners, but Ukraine’s top negotiator nowfears that many of the soldiers have been executed because the self-declared governments of eastern Ukraine have failed to even provide Ukraine or the international community with proof that they are alive.
Russia is taking full advantage of this situation. In the last two months, ceasefire violations have steadily increased. Friday, February 5, just two days after the resignation of Abramovicius, the Ukrainian military reported the highest level of fighting since August, right before the newest iteration of the ceasefire went into effect. That same day, alarming amounts of Russian armor were spottedmoving through Shakhtyorsk on their way to the western capital of the Russian-backed fighters in Donetsk. Large military convoys have also been spotted on the move in Russian-occupied Crimea last weekend, and last week the Russian military began unannounced snap drills in the Southern Military District which abuts Ukraine’s eastern border. This past weekend, fighting exploded, and the Ukrainian military claimed that Russian military intervention has expanded greatly recently and six Russian military officers were killednear the front lines. Lamberto Zannier, the Secretary-General of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), now says that there is “circumstantial evidence” that Russia is once again directly supplying the Donbass militants with military equipment, but the OSCE monitors have been systematically blocked from confirming these reports. “Why are they blocking us so systematically? But of course we cannot… report on anything specific because we are not there,” he told the press.
The strategy employed here seems to be to either force Ukraine’s government to respond militarily, which will make Kiev look like the aggressor to the international community, or to make the Poroshenko administration, and the West, look impotent if they do not act. Vladimir Putin knows that if Ukraine ratchets up the violence enough, then Moscow could raise the alarm and directly intervene like it did in the fall of 2014 under the false clarion call of “protecting ethnic Russians.” Short of that, however, every civilian who is killed on either side of the line of demarcation makes reuniting the east with the west — the stated goal of the Minsk agreements which all parties have signed — harder to realize.
Either way, Russia wins. It is now clear that Vladimir Putin has decided that his country cannot compete against 21st century democratic and open societies by playing by their rules. He has rejected freedom of speech, government transparency, and international law while embracing a legacy of militarism, dictatorship and corruption. As a result he is waging an imperialist zero-sum game. It is also clear that Russia’s moves in Ukraine and Syria have more to do with crushing popular pro-democratic uprisings than geopolitics or regional security.
To this end, Russia is seeing its second great victory, this time over the West itself. Beyond Ukraine’s borders, Europe is falling apart. The economic downturn is just the latest bad news for the EU. As a reaction to German-directed austerity measures, the people of Europe are electing anti-EU populist politicians, isolationist reactionaries who reject any involvement in the international arena. Thanks to the tidal wave of refugees fleeing war-torn countries in the Middle East and Africa, this upswell in populism is also nationalist, often disturbingly xenophobic, in nature. Vladimir Putin’s propaganda wing has spent years warning that Western intervention in the Middle East would cause a surge in terrorism and the flood of refugees.
The anti-EU movement in the Netherlands has petitioned and successfully forced the Dutch government to hold a referendum that would reject Ukraine’s association agreement with the European Union. Though the vote is non-binding, it puts the Dutch government in an awkward position. If it passes it could jeopardize Ukraine’s goal of joining the EU, a move which would renege on promises made to Kiev and would leave the eastern European country on its own, sandwiched between the EU which it cannot join and Russia which is openly hostile.
Ironically, this is a crisis of Moscow’s making. Ignore for a moment that Russia, since day one of the Syrian crisis, has provided all the weapons that have killed nearly all of both combatants and civilians alike, and has propped up the mass-murdering Assad regime. Ignore the fact that Russia is still not focusing its attacks on ISIS but is rather destroying Western-backed rebel units. Ignore that the majority of refugees who speak to reporters say that they are fleeing Russian bombs, not terrorism or Western-backed rebels. Ignore reality because the European people are increasingly ignoring it. Just as the populist politicians — in France and Greece, Hungary and Poland, the Netherlands and the UK — are anti-EU, they are simultaneously pro-Putin. In fact, as Alina Polyakova, deputy director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council, argues in a new paper, the Kremlin has covertly and overtly helped fostered Euroskeptic political parties, anti-Western politicians, and anti-immigrant xenophobia, both at home and across the world. The Russian state media has also fueled racism and fear. Perhaps the most iconic example of this occurred last month in Germany, where the Kremlin’s premier propagandist Dmitry Kisilyev spread a fake-and-thoroughly-debunked story about a 13 year-old girl who was allegedly kidnapped and raped by a gang of immigrants. As Anton Shekhovtsov, an expert on Russian neo-Nazis and global far-right movements, has pointed out now numerous times, the Kremlin media supports and promotes ultranationalist publications, politicians and news stories. Some of Putin’s key advisors are neo-Eurasianists who have played a vital role ingetting ultranationalists to fight in the Donbass against Ukraine, and Russian fascists have evengiven money to European far-right parties(just to link to a few examples). Is it any surprise, then, that Putin is both directly supporting Europe’s far right while bombing the Syrian people into fleeing to Europe and providing them more fuel for their xenophobic fire?
Furthermore, the Russian state-controlled media outlets are pushing the UK towards a “Brexit,” a development which could drive one after another major player out of the economic union which Russia so forcefully opposes.
Just as corruption was the central complaint of the Euromaidan Revolution, EU membership was the central goal. If the Ukrainian government does not collapse under the weight of its internal political struggles, it could be frozen out of the central aims of its revolutions. Either way Putin wins, as Moscow continues to point to Kiev, and to Syria, as examples of popular unrest that destroy nations. While the Putin regime destroys its political opponents at home, it is running up the scoreboard in Ukraine and within the European Union.
No matter what happens in Kiev, or the Donbass, or Crimea, or Syria, Putin should be confident that there will be no backlash from the West. Europe shows no appetite for new sanctions, and many EU observers have been surprised that current sanctions against Russia have not already been rolled back. Russian troops and airstrikes have been able to wage a successful military campaign in Syria, and the world is sitting back and watching a complete disaster unfold as a result. In fact, already today Russia has destroyed five hospitals and two schools across Syria in an apparently-systematic effort to drive the populace from northern Syria. The more who flee Syria, the fewer people left who oppose Assad, the worse the humanitarian crisis becomes, and larger the flood of refugees which are fueling the ultranationalist parties in Europe which could split the EU apart.
Yet somehow the international community speaks about Russia’s role in the Middle East as if it were the peacemaker, not the primary arms dealer, and now murderer.
There is also no sign that this is changing as most yet-to-be-elected political candidates in both Europe and the United States appear to favor rapprochement with the Kremlin. In the United States, even if the new president were to take a harder line on Russian aggression, they will not take power for another year. As long as the current Western leadership is willing to accept this, what will be left of Syria, Ukraine, or the European Union by then?
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · ·
О суде над Синявским и Даниэлем - Владимир Буковский, Александр Даниэль, Алексей Макаров
Forbes |
Signs Of Patience Running Thin In Russia
Forbes People cross a road in central Moscow, with the buildings of the Moscow International Business Center seen in the background, on February 12, 2016. A number of Levada Center polls, backed by government data from Rosstat, show a population growing ... |
The 89-year-old former Cuban president is seen for the first time since September in meeting with Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill
Read the whole story
· ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 3
Counter-Terrorism by fredslibrary
Title: Counter-Terrorism
Author: Ana Maria Salinas De Frias
De Frias, Ana Maria Salinas (2012), Katja LH Samuel, and Nigel D. White, eds. Counter-Terrorism : International Law And Practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
LCCN: 2011939970
Contents
- The Rule of Law framework and its lacunae—normative, interpretative, and/or policy created / Katja Samuel — United Nations and counter-terrorism—multilateral and executive law-making / Nigel D. White — Counter-terrorism and the Rule of Law—issues of judicial control / Allan Rosas — States’ obligations under international refugee law—issues of judicial control / Ana-Maria Salinas de Frias — Criminality and terrorism / Ben Saul — Armed conflict and terrorism–there is a (big) difference / Jelena Pejic — Executive power and the use of the state of emergency / Cesar Landa Arroyo — Impunity and the emerging patterns of international justice / Tassaduq Hussein Jillani — Beyond radicalization—towards an integrated anti-violence rule of law strategy / Colm Campbell — The Role of the lawyer in shaping responses to the security imperative / Hans Corell — Counter-terrorism policy-making from the perspective of a diplomat / Fernando Perpina-Robert — Counter-terrorism policing and the rule of law—the best of friends / Keith Weston — Intelligence and counter-terrorism—towards a human rights and accountability framework / Gerald Staberock — The Military and the role of law in counter-terrorism / Thomas R Mockaitis, Charles Tucker Jr., and Augustus Invictus — Fair process and the Security Council—a case for the Office of the Ombudsperson / Kimberly Prost — Classification, administration, and treatment of battlefield detainees / David Turns — Detention as a response to terrorism / Nigel S. Rodley — Treatment in detention / Silvia Casale — Torture, interrogation, counter-terrorism, and the Rule of Law / Richard Pregent — Extraordinary rendition / Helen Duffy and Stephen A. Kostas — Reconciling national security and non-refoulement–exceptions, exclusion, and diplomatic assurances / Cornelis (Kees) Wouters — Anti-terrorism laws, terrorist profiling, and the right to non-discrimination / Daniel Moeckli — Use of lethal force against suspected terrorists / David Kretzmer — The “push-pull” of the law of war—the Rule of Law and military commissions / Chris Kannady, Peter Masciola, and Michel Paradis — The role of military courts in a counter-terrorism framework—trends in international human rights jurisprudence and practice / Claudia Martin — Restricted immigration procedures in national security cases and the rule of law—an uncomfortable relationship / Nuala Mole — Human rights and the fight against terrorism—some comments on the case law and the European Court of Human Rights / Egbert Myjer — The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ perspective on terrorism / Sergio Garcia Ramirez — The role and legal framework of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in securing justice for victims / Christina M. Cerna — Reconciling the protection of human rights and the fight against terrorism in Africa / Ibrahima Kane — Terrorism and counter-terroist responses—the role of international criminal jurisdictions / Rod Rastan and Olympia Bekou — Realizing the right to redress for victims of terrorist attacks / Ilaria Bottigliero — Parliamentary oversight of counter-terrorism policies / Jarmo Oikarinen — Strengthening interstate cooperation—the Eurojust experience / Michele Coninsx — Criminal justice responses to terrorism in Africa—the role of the African Union and Sub-Regional Organizations / Anton du Plessis and Martin Ewi — Implementing human rights and rule of law aspects of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy—the UNODC/TPB experience / Nicole el-Khoury
Subjects
- Terrorism (International law)
- Terrorism–Prevention–International cooperation.
- Terrorism–Prevention–Law and legislation.
Date Posted: February 15, 2016
Reviewed by Joshua Sinai[1]
The articles and essays in this authoritative volume discuss the subject of international terrorism from an international legal perspective. These subjects include the dilemma of how to reach agreement on a definition of what constitutes terrorism, the different legal responses to terrorism by states and international organizations) and the role of the United Nations Security Council in developing legal regimes to combat terrorism, such as the use of targeted sanctions or by general Iegislative measures.
[1] Sinai, Joshua, PhD. in The Intelligencer: Journal of U. S. Intelligence Studies (19, 1, Winter/Spring, 2013, p. 108). Dr. Joshua Sinai is a Washington-based educator and consultant on terrorism and counterterrorism studies. He has provided capsule reviews of important books recently published on terrorism and counter-terrorism-related topics. He can be reached at: Joshua.sinai@comcast.net.
Read the whole story
· · ·
The Hill |
Republicans stand down for FBI investigation of Clinton server
The Hill The FBI has possession of Clinton's server, and for more than six months has been conducting an investigation related to the possible mishandling of classified information. Concerns about the situation have only risen with a slow but steady drip of ... |
Welcome to Cold War 2.0 by 20committee
The risk of the Kremlin rolling the dice against NATO is real.
Nearly two years ago, following the Russian seizure of Crimea, I explained that the West was in a new Cold War with the Kremlin, whether we like it or not. The aggressive moves of President Vladimir Putin, particularly in Ukraine, in the early spring of 2014 created a situation of hostility short of all-out conflict, rather a semi-war, something I’ve termed Special War. The good news for us is that Russia, an intrinsically weak state, is eminently able to be deterred by a far stronger NATO.
However, that analysis was rejected by the White House, as well as most Western foreign policy mavens, as alarmist, and none of my recommendations on how to prevent Cold War 2.0 from going hot were implemented by the Obama administration. As a result, Russia has been anything but deterred, as their military intervention in Syria’s terrible civil war last year demonstrated, to say nothing of Mr. Putin’s saber-rattling in Eastern Europe.
Yet my view is now officially the Kremlin’s too (it’s been Moscow’s unofficial take far longer) as evidenced by a series of alarming statements by top Russian officials in recent days. Over the weekend, Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev explained, “we have slid back to a new Cold War”—of course he blamed the West for this—to the shock of attendees at Munich’s annual security conference, Europe’s premier event of this kind. Mr. Medvedev has long been viewed by optimistic Westerners as the Kremlin’s gentler “good cop” compared to President Putin’s rougher-hewn KGB ways but that illusion, like so many others, has now evaporated.
Read the rest at the New York Observer ….
Filed under: Counterintelligence, Espionage, Strategy, USG
Moscow joined the fight in Syria to return to relevance in international diplomacy. It has succeeded by anyone's measure - and Russia hopes to use its air power to dictate the terms of a cease-fire and prospective peace talks.
By Frederic C. Hof 3:32 p.m. EST February 15, 2016
Commentary(Photo: Staff Illustration)
Any doubts about whose interests are served by ISIL in Syria have been eliminated. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have all stated their willingness to send ground forces to Syria to fight ISIL as part of a global coalition led by the United States.
Syria and Iran have reacted with menacing negativity. So much for the fiction that Iran, its Syrian client, and, for that matter, Russia see ISIL in Syria as an enemy. For all three it is a gift that keeps on giving.
For Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, ISIL is the evil foil serving the purpose of making him and his regime look good by comparison. As qualified as he is for war crimes prosecution, he has avoided public beheadings and burnings.
For the Syrian regime and the self-proclaimed ISIL “caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the relationship is largely one of live-and-let live. When ISIL sees something it wants — an airbase filled with weaponry, a city featuring priceless antiquities, or an oil field — it sweeps away Assad regime forces in its path.
But the two supposed enemies really have much in common. Each seeks militarily to eliminate all Syrian nationalist alternatives to the other. Each sees value — Assad for a ticket back to polite society, Baghdadi for recruiting worldwide in Sunni Muslim communities — in the other being one of the two only political figures left standing in Syria.
ISIL’s value to the Assad regime skyrocketed on Sept. 30, when Russia intervened militarily. Moscow proclaimed it was deploying combat aircraft to Syria to fight ISIL. It then proceeded to do almost anything but. Aside from an occasional bombing run for appearances sake, or to help out a regime unit sitting atop something desired by ISIL, Russia’s bombing campaign is clearly designed to help the Assad regime, and by extension ISIL, eliminate Syrian nationalist alternatives to Assad family rule.
Washington tried to play diplomatic judo with Russia’s intervention. With a straight face, Secretary of State John Kerry tried to codify Moscow’s anti-ISIL pretension. Characterizing ISIL as the common enemy of the civilized world, he devised a diplomatic process he hoped would ultimately sideline Bashar al-Assad for the sake of a unified Syrian ground force (Army and rebels together) against ISIL.
Kerry’s initiative has fallen on hard times. A Geneva peace conference was convened and almost instantly suspended. Russia, notwithstanding its status as “co-convener” of the diplomatic initiative, escalated its pro-regime air campaign: not against ISIL, but against Syrian rebels holding parts of Aleppo. Targeted Russian airstrikes against civilian residential areas combined with fears of regime ground forces surrounding the city have produced yet another wave of terrified refugees headed for NATO’s southern flank: Turkey.
Despite the combined effects of Russian aircraft, the Syrian Army and Iranian-assembled foreign fighter militias against Syrian rebels in western Syria, three Gulf states in succession announced their readiness to dispatch ground forces to eastern Syria to fight neither the regime, nor Russia, nor Iran, but ISIL. US Defense Secretary Ash Carter reacted quickly: “That kind of news is very welcome.”
Indeed it is. What the war against ISIL in Syria has lacked is a ground combat component large enough and professional enough to close with and kill ISIL. Air attacks have had some success. A Kurdish militia seeking to establish an autonomous zone along the border with Turkey has done some good. Much more, however, would be required to eliminate ISIL’s safe haven in Syria.
Is the Gulf offer real? Do the three states have ground force capabilities that can contribute to a decisive campaign against ISIL in Syria? These questions are, no doubt, being probed carefully by DoD.
What is on the record, however, is Russian behavior and regime and Iranian reactions. According to al-Assad’s foreign minister, any such anti-ISIL coalition “will be considered aggression,” and its participants “will return home in wooden coffins.”
The leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps opined that if the Saudis “send troops, they would be definitely defeated ... it would be suicide.” So much for ISIL the enemy.
Kerry’s diplomacy and good intentions notwithstanding, what we are seeing in Syria is a collaborative military effort embracing Russia, Iran, ISIL and the Assad regime. If all four succeed in eliminating Syrian nationalist alternatives to al-Assad and ISIL, will Assad and his allies then turn against the “caliph?” Or will Syria slip into an uneasy, unstable partition between two violently criminal entities?
Either way Moscow hopes to force Washington to crawl back into the good graces of its Syrian client: a prospective victory for Russia and humiliation for the United States.
The fiction of ISIL as a common enemy had diplomatic utility for John Kerry. Russian actions and the reactions of Iran and the Assad regime to the Gulf ground force offer have killed it. Facts, now being created by Russia, must, for better or worse, govern Syria-and ISIL-related policy.
Ambassador Frederic C. Hof is an Atlantic Council Senior Fellow, a Vietnam veteran, and a former State Department official.
Read or Share this story: <a href="http://defnews.ly/1Tm5i65" rel="nofollow">http://defnews.ly/1Tm5i65</a>
Read the whole story
· · · ·
Any doubts about whose interests are served by ISIL (ISIS, Daesh, Islamic State) in Syria have been eliminated.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 4
Fox News |
Man who struck Ohio diners with machete was from Guinea, FBI says
Fox News A police spokesman said information connected to the registration of the car Barry drove triggered an alert that required contacting the local terrorism task force, which contacted the FBI. The Columbus police chief has said Barry wasn't known to police. and more » |
In a departure from the policies of a general he replaced in August, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said last week that he's embracing the National Guard and Army reserve to fill in for an active-duty force that's in the midst of losing 70,000 troops to budget cuts.
 ABC News |
Car Bomb Kills 2 Police, Wounds 19 in Russia's Dagestan
ABC News The wreckage of a suicide bomber car is seen near a traffic police check point near a village of Dzhemikent in Russian northern Caucasus region of Dagestan on Monday, Feb. 15, 2016. A powerful car bomb exploded Monday at a police checkpoint in ... Car Blast Kills Two in Russia as Dagestan Head Vows to Fight TerrorismNewsweek Islamic State says behind Dagestan bomb blast that killed two policemenReuters Suicide bomb kills two police officers, injures 14 in Dagestan, RussiaUPI.com all 161 news articles » |
 CBS Local |
Slain Colorado Deputy Remembered as Family Man
ABC News Law enforcement colleagues gathered in western Colorado on Monday to mourn a sheriff's deputy who was shot and killed by a suspect whom prosecutors have described as a teen drifter who used drugs and stole guns. Friends, relatives and strangers ... The Latest: Funeral held for Colorado deputy shot by teen Appeal-Democrat all 137 news articles » |
Prosecutors say the killing of 13 people along a roadside in northern Mexico was the result of a fight between rival gangs.
Computer systems at a Hollywood medical centre have been offline for more than a week following a "ransomware" attack.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 5
The dangers that Syria’s proxy war could trigger a bigger conflict have never been more apparent than now.
Read the whole story
· · ·
Russia presses air blitz in Syria to dictate peace termsby Vladimir Isachenkov | AP
Moscow joined the fight in Syria to return to relevance in international diplomacy. It has succeeded by anyone’s measure — and Russia hopes to use its air power to dictate the terms of a cease-fire and prospective peace talks.
Read the whole story
· · ·
On Feb. 13, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev sat down for an interview with TIME on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, an annual gathering of military and political leaders from around the world, to discuss Russia’s role in the Syrian conflict, its tense relations with the West and a range of other issues.
The interview took place one day after top-ranking diplomats from Russia, the U.S. and 15 other countries reached a U.N.-brokered deal in Munich to end the hostilities in Syria. In his interview with TIME, Medvedev left little room to hope that the peace deal would actually take hold.
Below are excerpts from that conversation.
TIME: Thank you very much for agreeing to the interview, and for your remarks today at the conference. You made a very interesting statement regarding a new Cold War, which became a hotly debated subject here in Munich. But I’d like to start with a different question, one that’s been dominating the news. I’m talking about Syria. Yesterday, President Bashar Assad said in an interviewthat his final objective was to return all Syrian territory to his control. My question is whether Russia is ready to support him in achieving this objective, including by military means?
Medvedev: Russia doesn’t intend to stay in Syria forever. We are there to fulfill a limited, specific mission that is related to protecting our national interests, albeit at the request of President Assad. Therefore, he’s not the one who will determine the extent of the Russian military’s presence over there, but rather it will be the Russian authorities, the Commander-in-Chief [President Vladimir Putin] and all those involved in this process. This is my first point.
The second point is that, of course, we would like Syria to stay within its historic borders as a unified country. I think that everyone shares this idea in Russia, as well as in Europe and the United States. None of us need another Libya, which broke up into several pieces, nor do we need the kind of chaos in which various territories are under the control of field commanders or, to put it plainly, bandits, regardless what religious rhetoric they use as cover. So that is what we will proceed from.
But, of course, we will remain in touch with our partners in this process. No matter how difficult this dialogue is, it continued in Munich and it gained traction. This at least gives us grounds for some cautious optimism in the hope that we will be able to reach an agreement about the future, about the way the resolution process in Syria will go, about intra-Syrian dialogue, its principles, its participants. And about a ceasefire.
TIME: Assad’s troops have been on the offensive lately, backed by the Russian air force, which stands in the way of the negotiating process. When will the offensive stop?
Medvedev: In my personal opinion, I think it all has to stop when peace arrives. If with our help or with the help of the United States or the Europeans, President Assad sits down at the negotiating table with the people capable of reaching an agreement – that circle of people still has to be determined – and agrees on the future political structure of Syria, democratic reforms and probably his own role and place in this process – because otherwise it would be strange – at that moment everything should come to an end.
Although, of course, we are not indifferent observers here. On the contrary, we are involved in a military campaign that we undertook to protect our national interests. What does this mean? It means that we must prevent extremists and terrorists from getting to Russia from Syria. This is an obvious thing. When you have thousands of militants from Russia and Central Asia fighting in Syria, this is a real threat to us. That is why we made this decision.
TIME: I often hear this logic, this argument, but I don’t quite understand it. How do airstrikes stop terrorists from going back to Russia? There were no ISIS terrorist attacks in Russia before September, when the airstrikes started. But there was an attack a month later, when the Russian airplane blew up over Sinai. So I don’t understand the logic.
Medvedev: I’ll try to explain. I’ll even go a bit further. Can you actually tell an ISIS or Daesh member from Jaysh al-Islam or Jabhat al-Nusra members? Can you tell them apart from the way they look? By their ideology? They can’t even tell each other apart. I just discussed this with my colleague – French Prime Minister [Manuel] Valls. They are all bandits and terrorists. This is this first thing.
Second, the extent of their religious differences is very, very tentative. They move around amongst themselves for various reasons: They get paid more somewhere else, or somebody has a falling out with somebody else. So it is very difficult for us to tell the difference between the very moderate ones and the not-so-moderate ones, the good from the bad. Yes, there is an ideological opposition to Assad. It’s necessary to come to terms with these people. They are part of the Syrian elite. They represent another part of the religious spectrum, the Sunni part. But those who run around with automatic weapons, these are definitely people who earn their living in a totally different way and have other plans.
So when I’m told that there is ISIS here but no ISIS there… We remember very well how the Taliban transformed into Al-Qaeda and how Al-Qaeda transformed into something else and how all of this together transformed into the Islamic State. This is the way these people live.
And another thing. You asked a question about the Cold War. You know, maybe this is a construction that has been wafting around in the air. But I never said that a new Cold War has begun. I said that NATO’s decisions are pushing us toward a new Cold War. I said this and I will again confirm it. Because before me, my former counterpart Mr. [Jens] Stoltenberg – he is now the NATO secretary general – spoke [at the Munich conference], but what did he say? He said Russia should be contained; [military] contingents should be beefed up and defenses mounted along the borders in all areas. If this isn’t preparing for another Cold War, what is it for then? For a hot war? Such is the reality.
TIME: When you talk about or conjure up this possible new Cold War, what scenarios worry you the most? What areas of confrontation between Russia and NATO worry you the most? The Baltic countries? Turkey?
Medvedev: We wouldn’t like any confrontation. God forbid. What do we need confrontation for? Not in the Baltics, not in Turkey – nowhere. We need to develop. You know, we have a lot of economic problems to deal with. We need to channel our resources and funds there, although of course we also need a strong army and navy. So we don’t need any confrontation anywhere.
But what Turkey cooked up [by shooting down a Russian fighter jet in late November], that is of course extremely dangerous behavior, it is irresponsible behavior. Turkey has not just exposed itself. It exposed the entire North Atlantic alliance.
I’ll be blunt. If something like this happened, for instance, in Soviet times, there would have been a real mess – if not, God forbid, a serious war, then definitely a real mess. There would have been a retaliatory strike and so on. It’s simply that now different decisions were made. In this respect, Russia’s approach is absolutely peaceful, and even though it was a clear provocation – when the plane flew in for a few seconds and flew out, and was shot down already in Syrian airspace – Russia did not retaliate militarily. However, we were forced to respond by cutting back political and economic cooperation.
A lot depends on the decisiveness of the leadership of the North Atlantic alliance in terms of cleaning out the brains of the more anxious members of NATO, who are provoking conflict with other countries. Ultimately it’s a question of discipline within the alliance. We understand perfectly well how such things end.
TIME: Several days ago, in an interview with a German newspaper, you mentioned, or rather, you warned certain NATO members, about a “permanent war” if some of Assad’s foreign opponents start a ground operation in Syria. This idea of a permanent war – is Russia prepared to participate in such a scenario? Or is there a point where Russia tells itself, ‘No, this is too hot, the escalation has gone too far, so we’ll back off?’
Medvedev: We don’t need a permanent war, and Russia would not want to become involved in anything of the kind. I only said that if military operations go from the sky to the ground, where soldiers appear on the ground, first in the form of special forces and then in the form of armed formations, the situation will drag on… Remember what happened in Afghanistan to US troops. They still can’t leave. So, as soon as a conflict moves to the point of ground operations, it becomes endless. This is what’s dangerous. So don’t do it. Don’t even use it as a scare tactic. Today I heard [U.S. Secretary of State] John Kerry say that if Russia and Iran do not facilitate reconciliation, they, along with their Arab friends will launch a ground operation. This is wrong. What is he, trying scare us, his partners, with that? Does he want the United States of America to get bogged down, this time in Syria?
TIME: This week, the UN released a report on an investigation that accuses the Assad government of heinous crimes against humanity, including the systematic killings of detainees in Syrian prisons. What does Russia think about having an ally like this in Syria? Do you see why the Western countries find it difficult to form any kind of alliance with Assad in light of such crimes?
Medvedev: First, we must carefully study this report and the evidence it brings to bear. Second, if it contains solid proof, it must receive an international legal assessment. Third, regarding allies: allies can differ in nature. Saudi Arabia and Turkey had excellent relations with Syria (they are brothers and they mentioned this all the time), France, too, as well as some other countries. They helped Syria develop, and then reversed their positions overnight. Now compare that to the situation in Libya. Who was among the closest friends of the beleaguered [Libyan dictator] Muammar Gaddafi? We know who. And then the situation changed in no time. So, the question now is not about who we call an ally, but about responsible behavior.
TIME: Simply put, you’re saying Russia, unlike Western countries, doesn’t abandon its friends when they’re in trouble?
Medvedev: No, it’s not that simple. You are twisting my words a bit. … Our relations [with Syria] were good, but nothing like an alliance. Of course, we do our best to honor our contractual obligations. If someone asks us for help, we try to assist. Do we use the famous formula of the United States, about“our son of a bitch?” Not always. That’s an American idea.
TIME: In your speech today, you talked a great deal about the Western sanctions imposed against Russia over the crisis in Ukraine, and how they are harmful to Russian relations with the West. How did your European colleagues react – perhaps during informal conversations – to this call to lift the sanctions? What’s standing in the way?
Medvedev: You know, it so happens that whoever I discuss these sanctions with, for some reason, everyone looks down, at the floor, as if they have nothing to do with it, and say: “Well, they were imposed over there. We’re against it of course. Actually, this is bad, bad for business…” But this position is not quite honest. This was the consolidated decision of all our European friends. They all voted for this. Nobody blocked or opposed the vote. Therefore, it’s a consolidated position. And there’s no need to be ashamed of it. Say it openly: “We wanted to punish you.”
The next question is whether they really punished us. Perhaps they gave us some uncomfortable moments. Bad? Not really. We are developing. We live and, naturally, we’ll survive. Have the Russian authorities changed their political position? They have not. Are they supported by the Russian people? You know very well that they are. They have support that no other political authority has, because nobody likes it when their country is pushed around.
Therefore, responsibility for these sanctions is borne by the entire European Union and other countries that supported them. Naturally, also the United States and Canada – all those who subscribed to this. We are discussing all of this, but our position is simple. I’ve repeatedly laid it out: We will not ask for anything. You know our literature very well. There is a wonderful quote from Mikhail Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita, when Woland says: “Never ask for anything. They’ll make the offer themselves, and give everything themselves.” And we, too, will never ask for these sanctions to be lifted. They’ll come themselves and say: “Let’s finally put an end to this, because nobody is better off for it; everyone is only the worse off.”
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · ·
 Los Angeles Times |
Scalia spent his last day relaxed at a storied Texas ranch steeped in Southwest history
Los Angeles Times When Texas millionaire John Poindexter invited Justice Antonin Scalia to his remote ranch near the Mexican border, it was for a private party with about 35 other guests, a weekend of hunting and sightseeing on his painstakingly restored and cultivated ... Ranch owner: Justice Antonin Scalia's death was 'peaceful'USA TODAY Texas Ranch Owner Describes Justice Scalia's Last Night610kvnu Scalia was in good spirits during last hours of his lifeSan Antonio Express-News (subscription) KTAL all 22 news articles » |
 Financial Times |
EU Lifts Sanctions on 170 Belarusian Officials
New York Times BRUSSELS — The European Union lifted most sanctions against Belarus' authoritarian president and scores of other officials to reward the east European nation for a more constructive role in a region still under Russia's influence. Asset freezes and ... Europe ends sanctions on Belarus, seeks better tiesReuters Europe's Last Dictator Back in Favor as EU Courts BelarusBloomberg EU Lifts Sanctions on 170 Belarus OfficialsABC News all 72 Europe ends sanctions on Belarus, seeks better tiesGlobalPost Fox News all 61 news articles » |
Scalia's body being flown back; he died of natural causesby By LAURIE KELLMAN and DAVID WARREN
WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died of natural causes and no autopsy was necessary, a judge has told The Associated Press....
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 6
Justice Antonin Scalia said to have died of 'natural causes'by By LAURIE KELLMAN and DAVID WARREN
WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died of natural causes and no autopsy was necessary, a judge has told The Associated Press....
Russia presses air blitz in Syria to dictate peace termsby By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
MOSCOW (AP) -- Moscow joined the fight in Syria to return to relevance in international diplomacy. It has succeeded by anyone's measure - and Russia hopes to use its air power to dictate the terms of a cease-fire and prospective peace talks....
The inside track on Washington politics.
Be the first to know about new stories from PowerPost. Sign up to follow, and we’ll e-mail you free updates as they’re published.
You’ll receive free e-mail news updates each time a new story is published.
You’re all set!
The "El Presidente" suite at Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Tex., where Justice Antonin Scalia’s body was discovered. (Matthew Busch/Getty Images)
MARFA, Tex. — In the cloistered chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia’s days were highly regulated and predictable. He met with clerks, wrote opinions and appeared for arguments in the august courtroom on a schedule set months in advance.
Yet as details of Scalia’s sudden death trickled in Sunday, it appeared that the hours afterward were anything but orderly. The man known for his elegant legal opinions and profound intellect was found dead in his room at a hunting resort by the resort’s owner, who grew worried when Scalia didn’t appear at breakfast Saturday morning.
It then took hours for authorities in remote West Texas to find a justice of the peace, officials said Sunday. When they did, she pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body and without ordering an autopsy. A second justice of the peace, who was called but couldn’t get to Scalia’s body in time, said she would have made a different decision.
Campaign 2016 Email Updates
Get the best analysis of the presidential race.
You’ve signed up for email updates on this story.
Please provide a valid email address.
“If it had been me . . . I would want to know,” Juanita Bishop, a justice of the peace in Presidio, Tex., said in an interview Sunday of the chaotic hours after Scalia’s death at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a luxury compound less than an hour from the Mexican border and about 40 miles south of Marfa.
As official Washington tried to process what his demise means for politics and the law, some details of his final hours remained opaque. As late as Sunday afternoon, for example, there were conflicting reports about whether an autopsy should have been performed. A manager at the El Paso funeral home where Scalia’s body was taken said his family made it clear that they did not want one.
Washington Post reporter Robert Barnes explains where the Supreme Court stands after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and how the vacant seat will impact the presidential election. (Whitney Leaming/The Washington Post)
Meanwhile, Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara acknowledged that she pronounced Scalia dead by phone, without seeing his body. Instead, she spoke to law enforcement officials at the scene — who assured her “there were no signs of foul play” — and Scalia’s physician in Washington, who said that the 79-year-old justice suffered from a host of chronic conditions.
“He was having health issues,’’ Guevara said, adding that she is awaiting a statement from Scalia’s doctor that will be added to his death certificate when it is issued later this week.
Guevara also rebutted a report by a Dallas TV station that quoted her as saying that Scalia had died of “myocardial infarction.” In an interview with The Washington Post, she said she meant only that his heart had stopped.
“It wasn’t a heart attack,” Guevara said. “He died of natural causes.”
In a statement Sunday, the U.S. Marshals Service, which provides security for Supreme Court justices, said Scalia had declined a security detail while at the ranch, so marshals were not present when he died. “Deputy U.S. Marshals from the Western District of Texas responded immediately upon notification of Justice Scalia’s passing,” the statement said.
One thing was clear: Scalia died in his element, doing what he loved, at a luxury resort that has played host to movie stars and European royalty, and is famous for bird hunts and bigger game, such as bison and mountain lions.
“Other than being with his family or in church, there’s no place he’d rather be than on a hunt,” said Houston lawyer Mark Lanier, who took Scalia hunting for wild boar, deer and even alligators. Lanier said he first learned of Scalia’s love for hunting through former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor. “He’ll do anything if you take him hunting,” Lanier recalled O’Connor saying.
Full Screen
Autoplay
Close
The life of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
View Photos
Antonin Scalia, the influential and most provocative member of the Supreme Court, has died. He was 79.
Caption
Antonin Scalia, the influential and most provocative member of the Supreme Court, has died. He was 79.
Oct. 8, 2010 Justice Antonin Scalia at the Supreme Court. Larry Downing/Reuters
Buy Photo
Wait 1 second to continue.
Scalia had recently returned from a trip to Asia, where his last public event was a book signing in Hong Kong. John Poindexter, the Houston businessman who owns the Cibolo Creek Ranch, said Sunday that Scalia and a friend arrived Friday by chartered aircraft, traveling through Houston. At the ranch, Scalia joined about 35 other people invited by Poindexter, who declined to name the other guests.
Later that day, Scalia went out with the group to hunt blue quail. But “he did not exert himself,” Poindexter said. “He got out of the hunting vehicle, and walked around some.’’
Law enforcement officials said Scalia attended a private party that night with the other guests, and left to go to bed early. But Poindexter said that didn’t seem unusual: All of the guests were tired from traveling to the remote ranch, as well as the day’s other activities. Everyone was in bed by 10 p.m., he said.
Scalia’s behavior, Poindexter said, “was entirely natural and normal.’’
The next morning, Scalia did not show up for breakfast. Poindexter at first thought he might be sleeping late, but eventually grew concerned. Late Saturday morning, he and one other person knocked on the door to Scalia’s room, an expansive suite called the “El Presidente.” When there was no answer, they went inside.
“Everything was in perfect order. He was in his pajamas, peacefully, in bed,” Poindexter said.
Emergency personnel and officials from the U.S. Marshals Service were called to the scene, then two local judges who also serve as justices of the peace, Guevara said. Both were out of town, she said — not unusual in a remote region where municipalities are miles apart.
Guevara also was out of town, but she said she agreed to declare Scalia dead based on the information from law enforcement officials and Scalia’s doctor, citing Texas laws that permit a justice of the peace to declare someone dead without seeing the body.
On Saturday evening, Scalia’s body was loaded into a hearse and escorted to the Sunset Funeral Home in El Pasoby a procession of about 20 law enforcement officers. It arrived there about 2:30 a.m. Sunday, according to funeral home manager Chris Lujan. The funeral home is about 31/2 hours from the ranch where Scalia died.
About 3:30 a.m. Sunday, Scalia’s family declined to have an autopsy performed, Lujan said, so the body was being prepared for funeral and was expected to be transported back to Washington on Monday. Late Sunday, it was under guard by six law enforcement officials, including U.S. marshals and Texas state troopers, he said.
Funeral arrangements for Scalia — a devoted Catholic who was given the last rites by a Catholic priest — were unclear Sunday.
Horwitz and Markon reported from Washington. Lana Straub, a freelance writer in Marfa, Tex., and Alice Crites and Robert Barnes in Washington contributed to his report.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment