~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From LA Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama vows to break Taliban

President Obama orders 30,000 more troops into the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda but pledges to begin bringing them home in 18 months.

by Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes and Christi Parsons

December 2, 2009

Reporting from Washington and West Point, N.Y.

President Obama ordered 30,000 more troops into the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda on Tuesday, but warned that the United States could not afford an open-ended war and pledged to begin bringing home U.S. forces in 18 months.

Speaking to cadets at West Point, some of whom have fought in Afghanistan and others who may soon be deployed there, Obama said the administration would rush all the additional combat troops into the country by next summer. But those forces would not stay any longer than necessary to ensure U.S. security, Obama said, noting that the cost of the decade's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now approaches $1 trillion.

"I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan," Obama said. "This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by Al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak."

But he refused to commit to a prolonged engagement.

"I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interest," he said.

Based on Obama's schedule, the war would begin to wind down nearly 10 years after it began -- and as the 2012 presidential campaign begins to heat up.

The timetable may please members of Obama's own party, who have pushed him to set a clear exit strategy for the war. But others expressed alarm that Obama had signaled an unraveling of the troop buildup even before it has begun.

"A date for withdrawal sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies -- in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the entire region -- all of whom currently doubt whether America is committed to winning this war," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). "A withdrawal date only emboldens Al Qaeda and the Taliban, while dispiriting our Afghan partners and making it less likely that they will risk their lives to take our side in this fight."

Conflicting opinions about the merits of setting a timetable for withdrawal extended to American forces already deployed in Afghanistan's Helmand province, the Taliban heartland, where Marines and sailors watched the speech on a small television in a tent given over to weight-lifting and aerobics equipment.

"We need a timetable, it's been eight years and we're still here," said sailor Travis Engebretson, 22, of Missoula, Mont. "I think it's doable if we press hard."

But sailor Travis Love, 19, of New Bremen, Ohio, was dubious about the 18-month deadline.

"He thinks we're fighting a set war -- you go, win and then go home," Love said. "But it isn't like that here. This is an unconventional war being fought by unconventional people."

Many Afghan civilians appreciate the increased security brought by foreign forces, and fear a Taliban resurgence once the American troops leave. But they balk at the idea of an open-ended presence.

Across the border in Pakistan, officials worry that a sharp increase in troop levels will only push the Taliban out of Afghanistan and into the wild tribal areas along their border.

In a briefing with news columnists before his speech, Obama dismissed concerns that signaling a withdrawal date would encourage the enemy to wait for U.S. forces to leave.

"If you follow the logic of this argument then you would never leave," Obama said. "Essentially, you'd be signing on to have Afghanistan as a protectorate of the United States indefinitely."

Beyond that, Obama said, without a timetable the United States would have "very little leverage" to push the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai to prepare for the day when it would have to handle security and fend off the Taliban on its own.

But even with the timetable, Obama left himself ample room to keep tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan for years to come. Administration officials said the pace of the withdrawal had not been decided, and would be determined by conditions on the ground.

While committing to when the withdrawal would begin, Obama said, "I will not make a definitive decision at this point about the slope of the drawdown."

Obama's decision came after months of deliberation -- described by detractors as "dithering" -- over the course of a war that has already claimed the lives of 929 U.S. troops. The president appeared sensitive to the charge of indecisiveness, assuring those who will be doing the fighting that his lengthy policy review allowed him to "ask the hard questions and explore all the different options."

The coming increase will bring the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to nearly 100,000, triple the number when the president was sworn in.

Obama emphasized that the troop increase was part of a broader strategy that would involve expanded collaboration with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But his speech offered few specifics on how it would achieve the overall goal of defeating Al Qaeda, which has taken sanctuary in Pakistan since fleeing U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2001.

Although Obama delivered his speech to Army cadets, his words were crafted to reach an array of audiences around the world.

Among them are U.S. voters increasingly impatient with the 8-year-old war; anxious allies in Islamabad and Kabul, the Pakistani and Afghan capitals; and Taliban commanders searching for signs of wavering U.S. resolve.

Obama has spent much of the first year of his presidency searching for a suitable strategy in Afghanistan. It is a conflict he inherited from the Bush administration, but Obama's order to ramp up the U.S. military presence in the country is certain to be one of his defining decisions as commander in chief.

In his speech, Obama outlined a series of ambitious military objectives, saying the troop increase was designed to provide better protection to ordinary Afghans in the most densely populated districts, to provide time to build up beleaguered Afghan security forces and to reverse recent Taliban territorial gains across the country.

The overriding goal, Obama administration officials said, was to move as swiftly as possible toward a "strategic inflection point" at which the United States could begin to withdraw.

"Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards," Obama said. "Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border."

Obama said the 30,000 troops being sent would be in place by next summer under a deployment schedule described by administration officials as the most accelerated the military could manage.

The decision will give Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. and allied commander in Afghanistan, as many as four additional combat brigades, officials said.

One of those will be assigned to serve as trainers working with Afghan units. One brigade will be sent to Khowst province in eastern Afghanistan. The other two would go to southern Afghanistan, to Helmand province and the city of Kandahar.

The Pentagon is particularly focused on securing Kandahar, the spiritual home of the Taliban movement.

Although the commitment falls somewhat short of the 40,000 troops McChrystal had requested, he said that Obama's decision had "provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task."

McChrystal briefed his staff and commanders by teleconference after the speech, which was delivered before dawn today Afghanistan time.

The Obama administration is hoping that North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies will contribute as many as 5,000 additional troops. NATO defense ministers are to meet next week to discuss that request for additional forces. There are 39,000 non-U.S. allied troops in Afghanistan.

The swift deployment schedule is crucial because of Obama's decision to begin a drawdown in July 2011. Imposing that timeline serves two aims for the administration: assuaging members of the president's own Democratic Party who have been pushing him to articulate an exit strategy, while also putting pressure on Afghanistan and Pakistan to address their security problems.

With a date set for beginning the withdrawal and a need to focus on transferring responsibility to Afghan forces, a Defense official said, it becomes all the more urgent for the military to show progress by fall.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-obama-afghan2-2009dec02,0,798132,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seattle police say friends helped shooting suspect

Maurice Clemmons, wanted in the deaths of four police officers, is fatally shot. A network of friends and family helped him evade capture, authorities say.

by Kim Murphy

December 2, 2009

Reporting from Tacoma, Wash.

Hours after the man suspected of killing four Seattle-area police officers was shot to death Tuesday, prosecutors said they had evidence of an extensive network of friends and relatives who helped him evade a massive manhunt.

Two friends of Maurice Clemmons, who was killed in the predawn hours after a Seattle officer recognized him, were arraigned in Pierce County Superior Court on charges of rendering criminal assistance. Authorities said at least three other people, including a driver who allegedly helped Clemmons flee the suburban coffee shop where the ambush occurred, soon could be charged.

According to court documents, friends and family helped Clemmons, 37, dress his gunshot wound and provided him with a cellphone, transportation and shelter as he sought to evade the dragnet laid across western Washington.

Prosecutors said that on Saturday, Clemmons had boasted to brothers Douglas and Eddie Davis of his plan to go out and kill police officers, showing them two handguns. Clemmons returned to their home the next day and announced he had "taken care of his business," the brothers told detectives.

The two were charged Tuesday with a Class C felony. Douglas Davis was detained on $500,000 bail; his brother's bail was set at $700,000. A third man, Rickey Hinton, was ordered held for an additional 72 hours until prosecutors could prepare charges against him.

Officers from the Lakewood Police Department supported relatives of their fallen colleagues as they left the courtroom. The slain officers were Sgt. Mark Renninger and Officers Ronald Owens, Tina Griswold and Greg Richards.

"We are all relieved to have Maurice Clemmons off the street, but there's still work to be done here. We're not going to rest until everyone involved in this murder in any way is brought to justice," Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Lindquist told reporters. "When you help a criminal, you become a criminal."

Clemmons was spotted about 2:45 a.m. Tuesday when a veteran Seattle officer noticed a car idling on the side of the road in the Rainier Valley area, its hood up. When he stopped to check, the officer discovered the car had been reported stolen hours earlier. The officer then detected movement behind him.

"He recognized the person who was approaching him to be looking . . . just like the person that has been broadcast as the possible suspect in the tragic homicide in Lakewood," Seattle Assistant Police Chief Jim Pugel said.

The officer ordered Clemmons to stop and show his hands. Instead, the suspect began running around the disabled car. The officer fired several rounds.

"It was all over in 15 seconds," Pierce County sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said.

After he was killed, Clemmons was found to have one of the slain officers' guns, authorities said.

According to court documents, Clemmons apparently arrived at the coffee shop in Parkland on Sunday morning with two handguns -- a .38-caliber revolver later found with six spent shell casings and a 9-millimeter handgun. It had one spent casing.

Two baristas said they fled out a back door and got into their car as soon as Clemmons began firing. They saw him struggling with one of the officers at the front door of the coffee shop as they drove down the street. Clemmons was shot in the abdomen.

"The medics . . . were shaking their heads when they saw that the suspect had been shot directly in the middle . . . and the guy managed to leave a scene -- let alone walk around for a couple days," Troyer said. "He had gauze and cotton stuffed in the hole with duct tape over it. If we hadn't have gotten him, that wound would have eventually taken care of it."

Prosecutors said they were interviewing a purported getaway driver to determine how much he had known in advance of Clemmons' plans before deciding whether to charge him with murder.

As for Hinton, his involvement allegedly began Saturday night, when Clemmons asked him for the keys to his pickup, saying he "needed it the next morning," the court documents said.

Hinton told officers that Clemmons showed up on foot Sunday morning, bleeding. Hinton gave Eddie Davis the keys to his Pontiac and told both brothers to "get Clemmons out of there." He instructed one of his relatives to delete Clemmons' numbers from his cellphone.

At Clemmons' request, Douglas Davis said, he made two phone calls to a number the fugitive gave him before dropping Clemmons off at a female relative's home.

According to authorities, the relative helped Clemmons clean his wound and change clothes. Then she took him to the Auburn Super Mall parking lot, where another woman in a small white car picked him up.

Prosecutors said Tuesday that they had interviewed a woman who identified herself as a friend of Clemmons, and who admitted she had picked him up in a Seattle parking lot and taken him to her home.

After Clemmons told her he had killed the police officers, the woman bought medical supplies, helped treat his wound and allowed him to change clothes and do a load of laundry. She then dropped him off near a house in Seattle's Leschi neighborhood that police subsequently surrounded Sunday night.

Clemmons had telephoned residents of that house to tell him he was coming, but they reported it to authorities, who apparently arrived two or three minutes after he left.

Troyer said detectives had not come up with a motive for the police killings, "other than the fact [Clemmons] was locked up in jail, and the night before, he told a group of friends: 'Watch the news,' and he was going to go out and kill some cops."

Clemmons had a history of violent crime. He would have been serving a 108-year prison term in Arkansas, but his sentence -- for crimes including aggravated robbery and illegal possession of a firearm -- was commuted in 2000. Last week, Clemmons made bail in Washington after being charged with assault on a police officer and second-degree rape.

On Tuesday, Lakewood Police Chief Bret Farrar said: "I just want to thank all my brothers and sisters in law enforcement for the hours and hours of tireless work. . . . I knew that they would bring this to a resolution -- they would find this person."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-police-shooting2-2009dec02,0,6934333,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDITORIAL

AB 1455: the wrong remedy for meth labs

A California database designed to track purchases of cold and allergy medicine would be unlikely to achieve enough benefits to make its downsides worthwhile.

December 2, 2009

Each time a proposal comes along that would diminish our privacy to further a social good, society's job is to ask whether that good outweighs another stricture on our lives. A proposed state database to track our purchases of various cold and allergy remedies is designed to cut down on illegal methamphetamine manufacture -- a well-intentioned attempt to fight back at a drug that has become a law enforcement nightmare. But this legislation is unlikely to achieve enough benefits to make its downsides worthwhile.

Assembly Bill 1455 would require people to sign an electronic log and provide identification each time they want to buy pseudoephedrine or any of a host of other medications that can be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Stores would receive instant alerts on customers who already had purchased their legal limit and would be prohibited from selling them more.

Pseudoephedrine, better known by the brand name Sudafed, already is kept behind the drugstore counter in California, though no prescription is required for it. Pharmacists are supposed to keep a written record of transactions, including buyers' identifying information, but not all of them do. And meth lab operators have skirted the law by sending crews of buyers to different stores to stock up on the medications.

AB 1455 would make things harder for clandestine meth manufacturers, but just as they have with the current law, many would find ways around this one. They might recruit a larger network of buyers or buy from contacts in areas where laws are looser. Worse, they might expand into identity theft so that each buyer could make more purchases. It's also unclear to what extent law enforcement would track the purchases of law-abiding citizens and whether and when they might find themselves being questioned about their pseudoephedrine consumption. That's not a trivial worry: An Indiana woman was arrested in July after she legitimately bought two different cold medications within a week for her husband and adult daughter. The potential for hacking of the database is another concern.

The number of meth superlabs -- dangerous operations that use barrels of toxic materials -- has fallen dramatically nationwide in recent years. Most of the illegal methamphetamine sold in this country is manufactured in Mexico. AB 1455 targets the "one-pot" operations in which people make small amounts of the highly addictive drug for personal consumption or sale to a few others. Tighter restrictions might somewhat reduce the number of small operators, but would not significantly reduce methamphetamine use. The potential downsides for law-abiding consumers outweigh the theoretical advantages of the proposed database.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-sudafed2-2009dec02,0,1893909,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Washington Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nurse: Kidnapping suspect faked illness

by Jennifer Dobner ASSOCIATED PRESS

SALT LAKE CITY | A psychiatric nurse who observed the man charged with abducting Elizabeth Smart said Tuesday that she believes he faked psychiatric symptoms and behaviors to avoid prosecution and to remain at a state hospital.

Leslie Miles, a former employee of Utah State Hospital, took the witness stand during the second day of the competency hearing for Brian David Mitchell, 56, who faces federal charges of kidnapping and unlawful transportation of a minor across state lines.

Mr. Mitchell was able to take care of himself and ask for things while in the hospital's forensic unit but refused to participate in any treatments or therapies, Miss Miles said.

"It was the refusal that was a big red flag that he was faking," said Miss Miles, who worked at the hospital for 13 years and was the nursing supervisor of the forensic unit. "He wouldn't engage in any way to move himself along."

Mr. Mitchell has been diagnosed with a rare delusional disorder and was twice deemed incompetent for trial in a state criminal case. A state judge ordered him held at the hospital in 2005 because the facility works to restore the competency of mentally ill defendants.

Mr. Mitchell was moved to the Salt Lake County jail last year after his prosecution began in federal court.

The 10-day hearing in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City will determine whether he is mentally competent to stand trial. A ruling from Judge Dale Kimball was not expected immediately.

If convicted, Mr. Mitchell could spend the rest of his life in prison.

Mr. Mitchell's defense attorneys asked Miss Miles, who now teaches nursing at Brigham Young University, whether his mental illness could be "encapsulated," meaning symptoms or delusions could show up in one area of his life while he was high-functioning in other areas.

Miss Miles said that could be the case.

Defense attorney Robert Steele also asked whether Mr. Mitchell's habit of hymn singing could be a coping mechanism to soothe himself in stressful situations.

"He wouldn't talk about what was going on, so it's difficult to make assumptions," Miss Miles said.

Mr. Mitchell has been removed from court on both days of the hearing for the disruptive singing. He also broke into song at the hospital, but Miss Miles and other staffers testified that Mr. Mitchell stopped or started the behavior to control uncomfortable situations.

The same was true of Mr. Mitchell's so-called word fasts - periods when he refused to speak to staff members or other patients, Miss Miles said. Instead, he wrote notes or gestured to indicate what he needed.

Miss Miles said she "highly" questions whether Mr. Mitchell is mentally ill because he doesn't exhibit other associated symptoms such as depression or anxiety.

Garth Rosenlund, who supervised Mr. Mitchell at the O.C. Tanner manufacturing company for about six years, said the former tool and die cutter also sang at work when he became agitated or wanted to "go outta touch."

Mr. Rosenlund said Mr. Mitchell also read out loud from the Book of Mormon and talked to co-workers about his "off the wall" religious beliefs.

In 2000, Mr. Mitchell asked a woman who worked at a downtown Salt Lake City shoe store to become his plural wife, testimony showed.

Witness Julia Adkison said she met Mr. Mitchell and his wife, Wanda Eileen Barzee, at the mall where they panhandled and preached. Miss Adkison said the couple asked her to sell her engagement ring and join their family during a four-hour meeting in a city park.

"Personally to me, he was just another religious fanatic," said Miss Adkison, who was then 19 and had grown up in a polygamous sect.

Miss Smart was 14 on June 5, 2002, when she was taken from her home at knifepoint. She was found in March 2003 after motorists saw her walking along a suburban street with Mr. Mitchell and Barzee, his now-estranged wife.

Barzee pleaded guilty to kidnapping as part of a plea deal that calls for her to cooperate with authorities.

Miss Smart, now 22, gave her testimony in October, saying she was raped after a marriage ceremony staged by Mr. Mitchell.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/02/nurse-kidnapping-suspect-faked-illness//print/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public health threat plans under review

by Ann Geracimos

On a day when the government announced it had made available less than half the hoped-for number of H1N1 vaccine doses, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said her department would undertake a thorough review of policies affecting all of the country's public health emergencies.

The plan goes beyond longstanding problems associated with the swine flu vaccine program to include what she called "countermeasures" against disasters, both natural and manmade.

"Today, we face a wider range of public health threats than ever before in our history," she told the American Medical Association's Congress on Health System Readiness. "It could be anthrax delivered in an envelope. It could be a dirty bomb set off in a subway car. It could be a new strain of flu that our bodies have no immunity to."

Speaking to the AMA group in Washington, Mrs. Sebelius admitted the "challenges" involved in the government's billion-dollar campaign to protect the population against the current pandemic, but she concentrated on obstacles beyond development of better vaccines. An old-fashioned egg-based method of vaccine production, among other matters, has slowed the ambitious program.

"We don't just need 21st-century technology. We also need 21st-century financial, legal, and regulatory frameworks that create incentives for companies to build these advanced countermeasures."

A new system is needed, she said, "that is so dependable and comprehensive that it deters potential bioterrorism attacks and makes our enemies say: 'It's not worth the effort.' "

The review, to be completed in the first quarter of the new year by the HHS Office of Preparedness and Response, will center on improving medical response to a wide range of threats and include long-term investments in research and the production of improved vaccines.

Being able to handle such threats, Mrs. Sebelius noted, "depends on the strength and numbers of our health care work force. It depends on whether we have enough hospital beds and working emergency rooms. It depends on our ability to coordinate across government agencies and how well we can execute a national response strategy on the local level."

This isn't first time that HHS has undertaken such a review, according to a department spokesman, but it is the first one to be undertaken by the Obama administration.

The department's investment in an advanced flu-vaccine technology that uses a dead virus, incubated in insect cells rather than chicken eggs, was expected to grow faster and easier. But the project suffered a recent setback when a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel ruled that the company had not yet shown the vaccine was safe enough for full approval.

Novartis opened the first American plant for another advanced method in North Carolina last week but that factory is not expected to be fully operational for two years, unless the president declares a national emergency, according to Robin Robinson, a virologist who heads HHS' Biomedical Advanced Research Development Authority.

He said in an interview that Congress had appropriated $5.6 billion in pandemic preparedness funds for a five-year program now in its third year.

The "money that goes into more than vaccines and includes antivirals and state planning and establishing stockpiles ahead," Mr. Robinson said, adding that he expects the number of advanced vaccine-manufacturing facilities on U.S. soil to double.

Nearly 70 million out of an original goal of some 160 million doses of vaccine have either been distributed or are on order, Dr. Thomas Frieden, head of the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, said in a media conference Tuesday.

Emphasizing that the novel H1N1 flu was "unpredictable" and still widespread in 32 states, down from a high of 48, he said it was slowing down.

In a poll of "about a dozen" of world influenza experts, CDC found half thought another wave, or surge, could be expected before the Northern Hemisphere flu season ends in May, and half thought not.

"And one said, flip a coin," Dr. Frieden said.

He called this period "a window of opportunity," during which people will continue to become infected but that more and more should take advantage of increasing vaccine supplies to get protected. "And as that happens, it's harder for the virus to spread."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/02/public-health-threat-plans-under-review//print/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDITORIAL

Obama in handcuffs

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Imagine if President Obama went to Oslo next week to receive his Nobel Peace Prize and was arrested for purported war crimes committed by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. This bit of historical irony would be possible under an argument being made by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Mr. Ocampo claims jurisdiction over actions of U.S. troops in Afghanistan because Kabul in 2003 acceded to the Rome Statute, which established the court. He said a preliminary examination already is under way regarding possible American culpability in crimes against humanity.

There are 110 ratified parties to the agreement, but of them, only Afghanistan has a major U.S. combat-force presence, and the United States does not recognize the treaty. President Clinton signed the Rome Statute in December 2000, but the Senate did not ratify the treaty, and Mr. Clinton's signature was nullified by President George W. Bush in May 2002. The Bush administration was concerned that the ICC would become a permanent arena for endless harassment of American military personnel and civilian leaders on trumped-up war-crimes charges. But under Mr. Ocampo's logic, the court's jurisdiction would be determined by the nation in which foreign forces or personnel are stationed regardless of whether the forces' home country recognized the treaty. The United States would have to face the music.

As early as September, Mr. Ocampo was investigating allegations of "massive attacks, collateral damage exceeding what is considered proper, and torture" conducted by coalition forces. Those who believe that Mr. Ocampo only has a case against the previous administration should think again.

Several events have taken place under Mr. Obama's watch that could bring charges for war crimes. On May 4, American bombers killed as many as 147 Afghan civilians, 93 of them children, in an air strike in western Afghanistan that locals call the Farah Massacre. On Sept. 4, up to 90 civilians were killed by two 500-pound bombs dropped by a U.S. F-15 fighter on fuel trucks in Kunduz province that had been hijacked by the Taliban but were stuck in the mud. About 500 civilians had gathered to help themselves to the fuel when the air strike hit. Even the widespread use of unmanned drone aircraft to conduct strikes on terror targets is considered illegal activity in some quarters - and that is a program the Obama administration has openly endorsed and expanded.

The United States is well-equipped to defend itself against predatory moves by The Hague. In August 2002, Congress passed the American Service-Members' Protection Act to "protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party." The act authorized the president to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of or at the request of the International Criminal Court." Presumably, this act authorizes the use of force should the ICC seek to force Americans to trial.

The Obama administration has thus far been largely sympathetic to the global court and its mission. It endorsed Mr. Ocampo's move to indict Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on genocide charges, and in August, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said it is "a great regret, but it is a fact that we are not yet a signatory. But we have supported the court and continue to do so." We wonder if the United States would continue to support the court with the president in handcuffs.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/02/obama-in-handcuffs//print/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the White House

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Eisenhower Hall Theatre, United States Military Academy at West Point, West Point, New York

8:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Good evening.  To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans:  I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion.  It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.  We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people.  They struck at our military and economic nerve centers.  They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station.  Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day.  The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing.  The vote in the House was 420 to 1.  For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all.  And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks.  America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan.  Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed.  The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels.  A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope.  At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai.  And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq.  The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here.  It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end.  We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011.  That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform.  (Applause.)  Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. 

But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated.  After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe haven there.  Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces. 

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government.  Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq.  When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war.  Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.  And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops.  After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan.  I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts. 

Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives.  High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years.  In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain.  Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards.  There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum.  Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border.  And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population.  Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated.  In short:  The status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger.  Some of you fought in Afghanistan.  Some of you will deploy there.  As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service.  And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.  Now, let me be clear:  There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period.  Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners.  And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less.

This review is now complete.  And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.  After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.  These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. 

I do not make this decision lightly.  I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.  We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources.  Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort.  And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.  As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars.  I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed.  I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place.  I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.  If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly.  I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda.  It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.  This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat.  In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity.  We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear.  This is not just America's war.  Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali.  The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered.  And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies.  Our overarching goal remains the same:  to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan.  We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven.  We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.  And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future. 

We will meet these objectives in three ways.  First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers.  They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight.  And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. 

Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies.  Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan.  And now, we must come together to end this war successfully.  For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.  Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.  We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul.  But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. 

Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance.  The days of providing a blank check are over.  President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction.  And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance.  We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people.  We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable.  And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes.  So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering.  We have no interest in occupying your country.  We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens.  And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country.  But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan.  That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence.  But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism.  Public opinion has turned.  The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan.  And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly.  Those days are over.  Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.  America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development.  We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting.  And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy:  a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach.  So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam.  They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing.  I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history.  Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action.  Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency.  And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.  To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. 

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have.  But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there.  It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility.  Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort  -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade.  I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.  Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government.  It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests.  And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces.  I don't have the luxury of committing to just one.  Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration:  the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance.  We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy.  In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills.  Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children.  Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce.  So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars.  Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly.  Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home.  Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power.  It pays for our military.  It underwrites our diplomacy.  It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry.  And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last.  That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.

Now, let me be clear:  None of this will be easy.  The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.  It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world.  And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars.  We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power.  Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we can't count on military might alone.  We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad.  We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction.  And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.

We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone.  I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships.  And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not.  That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.  And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples.  That is who we are.  That is the source, the moral source, of America's authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs.  We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents.  We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies.  We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes.  But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty. 

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination.  Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations.  We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.  What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren.  And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.  (Applause.)   

As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President.  Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom.  And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age. 

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms.  It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.  (Applause.) 
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we.  But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear.  I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again.  (Applause.)  I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose.  For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.

America -- we are passing through a time of great trial.  And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear:  that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering.  We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.  (Applause.)  

Thank you.  God bless you.  May God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.  Thank you.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Making Home Affordable Campaign to Help America's Homeowners

Many families across the country are struggling to make ends meet.  For homeowners who are struggling with their mortgage, or have fallen behind, the threat of foreclosure can be devastating. Foreclosure threatens a family's stability, and the stability of our neighborhoods.

The Making Home Affordable Program was designed to help eligible homeowners modify or refinance their mortgage payments to make them more affordable. It gives eligible homeowners an opportunity to get back on track and rebuild their financial future. It is an important part of the Obama Administration's broader plan to strengthen the housing market and the economy.

More than 650,000 homeowners have already received a mortgage modification under the program, reducing their monthly payments by an average of $640. The program is gaining momentum, but we know that many more homeowners are eligible for help.

Too many of the homeowners we meet at Making Home Affordable events go into foreclosure without ever talking to their mortgage servicer or seeking the help of a housing counselor. They may feel ashamed or afraid to reach out, or are unsure about where to go for help.

Others homeowners are frustrated by the process of trying to work with their mortgage servicer. They may speak to a different customer service representative each time, or are required to submit the same paperwork over and over again.

President Obama said when he launched the program in February that this plan will require both homeowners and lenders to step up and do their part, to take on some responsibility. This week, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced a new campaign that marks unprecedented engagement to hold mortgage servicers accountable for timely decisions and reach out to eligible borrowers to make sure that they understand their responsibilities to get in – and stay in – the program.

One-third of the homeowners currently in trial mortgage modifications under the program are eligible to receive a permanent modification by the end of this month.  These homeowners deserve a timely decision from their mortgage servicer.  Treasury received plans last week from the country's biggest servicers that explain how they propose to convert each one of these trial mortgage modifications. 

The majority of homeowners in trial plans still owe their servicer paperwork.  Thirty-seven percent of homeowners have submitted paperwork that is incomplete.  More than twenty percent of homeowners have submitted no paperwork at all.  As part of this campaign, Treasury and HUD will be engaging the 2700 HUD-approved housing counseling organizations to reach out to these borrowers.

Homeowners should not be afraid or ashamed to ask for help.  They do not have to go through this alone.  Homeowners can visit www.MakingHomeAffordable.gov or call the Homeowner's HOPE™ Hotline at 1-888-995-HOPE (4673) to get free help from a HUD-approved housing counselor who will help them complete their paperwork and work productively with their mortgage servicer.  Even if the Making Home Affordable Program turns out not to be the right solution for a particular family, a HUD-approved  housing counselor will work with homeowners to get them the help they need.  For the homeowners we talk to around the country, this gives them hope.

Phyllis Caldwell is Chief of the Homeownership Preservation Office at the U.S. Department of the Treasury

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/01/making-home-affordable-campaign-help-america-s-homeowners

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the FBI

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec09/scams_120109.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kansas Man Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison for Attempted Sex Trafficking of a Child

Case Part of Human Trafficking Rescue Project: Operation Guardian Angel

KANSAS CITY, MO—Matt J. Whitworth, United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, announced that an Ottawa, Kan., man was sentenced in federal court today for the attempted commercial sex trafficking of a child.

Today's sentencing is the result of Operation Guardian Angel, a unique undercover law enforcement investigation targeting the demand for child prostitutes in the Kansas City metro area. As a result of this investigation, a total of seven defendants were indicted in the nation's first-ever federal prosecution of the alleged customers of child prostitution under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

Richard J. Oflyng, 32, of Ottawa, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Scott O. Wright this morning to 15 years in federal prison without parole. Oflyng pleaded guilty to a federal indictment on June 29, 2009.

During the weekend of March 5 to 7, 2009, the Human Trafficking Rescue Project, conducted a sting operation targeting local customers who solicit pimps to engage in commercial sex acts with children. The “children” were advertised online at Craigslist. No real children were actually involved in the sting.

Oflyng responded via e-mail to an ad that advertised “little girls available.” The ad clearly advertised the children for sex. Oflyng was then contacted by telephone by an undercover officer, who offered an 11-year-old girl and a 15-year-old girl. Oflyng said he wanted to have sexual intercourse with the 11-year-old girl and agreed to pay $20 extra to have sex without using a condom. Oflyng made an appointment to arrive the following morning.

Oflyng, a truck driver, arrived at the undercover location in his semi-truck tractor trailer the next morning. When he entered the residence, he confirmed that he wanted an 11-year-old girl and would pay $60, plus $20 extra for not using a condom. Oflyng handed the undercover officer the cash and was directed to a room with a dirty mattress laying on the floor. When he stepped into the room, he was arrested.

This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Cynthia L. Cordes. It was investigated by the Independence, Mo., Police Department, the Kansas City, Mo., Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in conjunction with the Human Trafficking Rescue Project.

Operation Guardian Angel

Operation Guardian Angel was conducted by the Human Trafficking Rescue Project, a joint task force from the Independence Police Department, the FBI, ICE, and the Kansas City, Mo. Police Department. During the undercover operation, task force officers placed Internet ads for underage prostitutes. According to court documents, the ads clearly stated that the prostitutes were “little girls” and were “young.” Those who responded to the ads were given directions to an undercover location that was outfitted with audio and video recording equipment. When they arrived at the undercover residence and paid cash for a child prostitute, they were arrested by task force officers.

This operation marks the first time that the U.S. Department of Justice has utilized the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to prosecute customers who allegedly attempt to pay for sex with children. While the pimps who offer to sell children to others for prostitution have been prosecuted in the Western District and elsewhere, these indictments are the first in the nation to charge a “John” with attempting to pay for sex with a child.

http://kansascity.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/kc120109.htm

.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.