Gunman suspected of killing 8 surrenders in Virginia

The Associated Press

5:00 AM PST, January 20, 2010

APPOMATTOX, Va.

Virginia State Police said Wednesday morning that a suspect in the shooting deaths of eight people at a rural home had surrendered without incident.

Sgt. Thomas Molnar said 39-year-old Christopher Speight approached officers at the crime scene and turned himself in.

Molnar said Speight was being taken to an undisclosed location to be interviewed. Charges are pending.

State police said Tuesday that more than 100 law enforcement officials had the suspect circled in woods where they believed he was hiding.

Police could not say what sparked the violence.

State police said the gunman also fired at a state police helicopter, which had to land with a ruptured fuel tank after one or more rounds struck it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-naw-virginia-shooting21-2010jan21,0,4064495,print.story

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

American ex-convicts suspected of link to Yemen militants

As many as 36 who converted to Islam while in prison traveled to Yemen recently, possibly for Al Qaeda training, a Senate report says.

By Greg Miller

January 20, 2010

Reporting from Washington

U.S. officials believe that as many as three dozen Americans who converted to Islam while in prison in the United States have traveled to Yemen over the last year, possibly to be trained by Al Qaeda, according to a Senate report.

The findings have alarmed U.S. counter-terrorism officials, who think that Al Qaeda has expanded its recruitment efforts in Yemen "to attract nontraditional followers" capable of carrying out more ambitious operations.

The report by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee underscores the growing anxiety in the United States about the Al Qaeda offshoot, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which has claimed responsibility for orchestrating the suspected attempted suicide bombing of a U.S. jetliner bound for Detroit from Amsterdam on Christmas Day.

"The Christmas Day plot was a nearly catastrophic illustration of a significant new threat from a network previously regarded as a regional danger, rather than an international one," the report concluded. It warns of "growing evidence of attempts by Al Qaeda to recruit American residents and citizens in Yemen, Somalia and within the United States."

The report was released in advance of a hearing that the committee is scheduled to conduct today on Al Qaeda's resurgence in Yemen.

"As many as 36 American ex-convicts arrived in Yemen in the past year, ostensibly to study Arabic," the document said. Some of those Americans "had disappeared and are suspected of having gone to Al Qaeda training camps in ungoverned portions of the impoverished country."

The estimate was attributed to interviews that committee staff members conducted with U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials in Yemen and other countries in the Middle East in December.

Fears about the Americans in Yemen are portrayed as part of a larger pattern of U.S. citizens or residents being drawn overseas to organizations with ties to Al Qaeda, raising concerns that they may be able to reenter the United States more easily than foreigners after undergoing terrorist training.

The document refers to "two dozen Americans of Somali origin who disappeared in recent months" from St. Paul, Minn., and are widely suspected of fighting alongside Shabab, a militant group in Somalia linked to Al Qaeda.

In addition to ex-convicts, the report makes mention of as many as a dozen other U.S. citizens who have traveled to Yemen after marrying Muslim women and converting to Islam.

U.S. intelligence officials declined to comment on the report, which did not identify its sources by name or agency.

CIA-operated Predator aircraft have carried out strikes on Al Qaeda targets in Yemen in recent weeks.

The Senate panel conducted the interviews before the Christmas Day jetliner incident, which was thwarted when fellow passengers subdued the suspect after explosives he allegedly had smuggled on board in his underwear failed to detonate.

The 23-year-old suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Michigan on charges of attempted murder and the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.

U.S. counter-terrorism officials have expressed concern that Abdulmutallab, who is the son of a prominent Nigerian banker and had a visa to enter the United States, represents the vanguard of an evolving threat. Abdulmutallab's ability to penetrate U.S. defenses and nearly pull off a devastating attack exposed serious failures in the U.S. intelligence community's ability to share and make adequate use of clues about such plots.

Among them were a warning that Abdulmutallab's father delivered to CIA officials in Nigeria about his son's growing radicalism, as well as the interception of Al Qaeda communications in Yemen indicating that a Nigerian was being employed in a terrorist plot.

The White House released a report on the intelligence breakdowns last week. John Brennan, President Obama's top counter-terrorism advisor, acknowledged that until the alleged attempted Christmas Day attack, U.S. analysts did not see Al Qaeda's franchise in Yemen as capable of carrying out an overseas plot.

The Senate report makes clear that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has recovered from being on the verge of collapse several years ago to represent a potent new threat.

The network in Yemen is led by Nasir Wahayshi, a former aide to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and one of 23 Al Qaeda fighters who escaped from a Yemeni prison in 2006.

The deputy of the group is Said Shihri, a Saudi citizen released from the U.S.-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in November 2007.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-prisoners-terror20-2010jan20,0,5426986,print.story

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

India might not show restraint if terrorists attack again, Gates says

The defense secretary praises India's statesmanship after the 2008 Mumbai assault, which was blamed on a group based in Pakistan. But he notes that India's patience might not last.

By Julian E. Barnes

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

January 20, 2010

Reporting from New Delhi

Even as he warned against allowing extremist groups to provoke a regional clash in South Asia, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday that he would not expect the Indian government to show restraint should it be attacked again by terrorist groups based in Pakistan.

Gates has praised the "statesmanship" of India in the wake of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, which have been attributed to Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based extremist group aligned with Al Qaeda. At a news conference Wednesday in New Delhi, Gates repeated those comments but said India's ability to continue that policy would be "in question" should militants strike again.

"I think it is not unreasonable to assume Indian patience would be limited were there to be further attacks," Gates said.

The defense secretary painted a detailed picture of extremist groups operating in Pakistan, arguing that some were focused on Afghanistan, some on India and some on Pakistan. But he argued that all operated under the direction of Al Qaeda and shared a goal of fomenting regional instability.

"The success of any one of these groups leads to new capabilities and new reputations for all these groups," Gates said. "A victory for one is a victory for all."

As other officials have done, notably Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Gates described the various extremist groups as a "syndicate" that uses common tactics and a common base in Pakistan's North Waziristan area to conduct operations.

Gates said the militant groups were trying to provoke conflict between India and Pakistan by mounting terrorist acts.

"It is very complicated situation; it is dangerous for the region as a whole," Gates said. "They are a syndicate of terrorist operators, intending to destabilize the whole region."

Gates was asked if the Indians had pressed him to push Pakistan to take more action against Lashkar-e-Taiba or other extremist groups. He signaled that he intended to try to help reduce Pakistani anxiety over India, to help Islamabad continue its focus on the militant threat.

"Clearly one of the subjects of discussion for my next visit is how to ally their concerns, so they can focus on what has become a real existential threat to Pakistan, these different terrorist groups operating in its territory," Gates said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-gates-india-terror21-2010jan21,0,6599662,print.story

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

Republican wins Massachusetts Senate race

Scott Brown claims Ted Kennedy's longtime seat in a major blow to Democratic ambitions that suggests a tough year to come.

By James Oliphant and Mark Z. Barabak

January 20, 2010

Reporting from Los Angeles and Boston

In a stunning blow to Democrats, Republican Scott Brown on Tuesday seized the Massachusetts Senate seat once held by Edward M. Kennedy, handing the GOP the crucial vote that could thwart President Obama's far-reaching agenda, beginning with healthcare reform.

More broadly, Brown's epic upset signals the start of what could be an exceedingly tough year nationwide for Democrats, who are fighting to hang on to their majorities in the House and Senate in a political climate that seems to grow more hostile by the day.

"The effort to pass Obama's legislative agenda has grown more difficult, a flood of new Democratic congressional retirements may follow, and Republicans will certainly feel emboldened to expand their list of Democratic targets for the fall election," said Rhodes Cook, an independent campaign analyst.

With 99% of the vote counted, Brown, a state senator, was leading Democratic state Atty. Gen. Martha Coakley 52% to 47% -- a lopsidedness that only added to the humiliation for Democrats, who held the seat for well over half a century.

The scene Tuesday night at Brown's victory party in Boston was exultant. Shouts of "Shock the World" and "Yes, We Can" -- Obama's campaign rallying cry -- rang through the packed ballroom at the historic Park Plaza Hotel.

"Tonight, the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken," Brown told the cheering crowd. "This will be the beginning of an election year filled with many surprises. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, rest assured there's trouble everywhere."

The most immediate problem for Democrats is keeping alive Obama's attempt at a healthcare overhaul -- something Kennedy called "the cause of my life."

Polls show that the legislation has grown increasingly unpopular the longer the debate drags on. Brown made his opposition a centerpiece of his campaign and promised to kill the bill upon arrival in Washington, using his vote as the 41st Republican senator -- the exact number the GOP needs to block the legislation.

Democrats appeared to be in disarray. Even as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) promised swift action, others in the party called for holding off on any final vote until Brown is sworn into office.

The finger-pointing over the loss in Massachusetts began before the polls closed. White House officials accused Coakley of running a poor campaign. She was complacent to the point of arrogance -- taking extensive time off after the Dec. 8 primary, disdaining the notion of standing outside in the cold, shaking hands -- and committed a series of gaffes, including an assertion during a debate last week that Afghanistan was free of terrorists.

Coakley supporters, however, blamed a backlash against the president, who today marks his first anniversary in office on a decidedly sour note.

Obama, who put his political prestige on the line by making a last-ditch appearance on Coakley's behalf, "was both surprised and frustrated" at how competitive the race had become in this once-sturdy Democratic bastion, spokesman Robert Gibbs said at the White House, while votes were still being cast. "Angry?" a reporter asked. "Not pleased," Gibbs replied.

Brown's victory will surely stoke the debate among Democrats about whether they must recalibrate their strategy ahead of the midterm elections by scaling back their ambitions and working more with Republicans, as party moderates suggest, or use the majority they still hold to push through an uncompromisingly liberal agenda, as many on the left advocate.

The GOP has won three major contests since Obama took office a year ago, capturing the governorships in Virginia and New Jersey in November. Analysts say it will be difficult for Republicans to win the 40 House and 10 Senate seats they need to regain control of Congress. But after Tuesday's special election, the party's prospects have certainly improved.

Charles Cook, another independent election handicapper, likened the results to "an air raid siren going off in . . . the bedroom."

Democrats "have badly damaged their own brand, with one large group of Americans upset that President Obama and congressional Democrats diverted their attention and focus on healthcare and climate change at the expense of the economy and jobs, while another group grew increasingly concerned about an unprecedented expansion in the size, scope and reach of the federal government," Cook said. "These two forces are squeezing Obama and Democrats from opposite directions and doing grave damage to him and his party."

The race to fill Kennedy's seat, scheduled after he died of brain cancer last summer, was expected to be a mere formality after Coakley easily won a four-way primary. Brown, who gained minor fame locally as a former Cosmopolitan centerfold and the father of a semifinalist on "American Idol," beat a perennial losing candidate to claim the little-valued GOP nomination.

Republicans have not elected a U.S. senator from Massachusetts since 1972, and there was little reason to believe they would be any more successful Tuesday. The Democrats' hegemony in the Bay State is nearly complete: The party controls every statewide elected office as well as the 12-member congressional delegation, and it holds huge majorities in both houses of the state Legislature.

Among voters, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1, though the ranks of those unaffiliated with -- or estranged from -- the two major political parties make up a majority of the electorate. It was these angry independents, along with disaffected Democrats, who turned a supposed cakewalk for Coakley into a political embarrassment.

Obama remains personally popular in Massachusetts. But the state was no more immune than the rest of the country to frustrations over the economy and concerns about the growth in government, embodied by the massive healthcare reform bill awaiting final passage.

There were other forces at work. Gov. Deval Patrick is extremely unpopular, and a series of corruption scandals have tainted Democrats on Beacon Hill, home to the Massachusetts statehouse. Brown repeatedly tied Coakley to the state's Democratic rulers, effectively turning her into the incumbent in the Senate race.

Even before the polls closed, Republicans received a bit of good news. Democratic Secretary of State William Galvin said he would declare a winner as soon as possible, ending speculation that Democrats would stall to ensure passage of the healthcare bill.

In a statement Tuesday night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada -- himself a prime GOP target -- welcomed Brown to the Senate and said that he would be seated "as soon as the proper paperwork is received."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-mass-senate20-2010jan20,0,1439695,print.story

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

Polanski's prosecution motivated by politics, not justice, his attorneys assert

Roman Polanski's lawyers suggested in a legal filing Tuesday that prosecutors were motivated by politics and not justice in opposing the acclaimed director's request to be sentenced in absentia in a three-decade-old child sex case.

"Politics seems to be interfering with the just administration of the law," Polanski's attorneys wrote.  The filing urged Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza to go forward with a sentencing hearing that Polanski's lawyers claim will expose misconduct in the original handling of the case.

The Los Angeles District Attorney's office argued in papers filed last week that sentencing Polanski in absentia would allow a long-standing and notorious fugitive to dictate court proceedings.

Referring to the director's contention that the judge in 1978 reneged on a plan to count a pre-sentencing prison stint served by Polanski as his formal sentence, the lawyers wrote, "if the District Attorney were truly concerned about the fair and equitable operation of the judicial system, the office would readily admit that Mr. Polanski has served his agreed-upon punishment...and stipulate to the entry of final judgment."

Espinoza has set a Friday hearing for arguments on the issue of sentencing in absentia. A state appellate court proposed that course of action in a decision last month. Polanski, 76, who pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977, is currently under house arrest in Switzerland pending a decision by a court there on whether to extradite him.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/

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

L.A. City Council gives preliminary approval to pot ordinance requiring 1,000-foot buffer zones

The Los Angeles City Council settled the remaining controversial issue and voted today to adopt a medical marijuana ordinance requiring dispensaries to be at least 1,000 feet from places where children congregate, such as schools, parks and libraries.

The council will have to vote again in a week because the 11-3 tally fell short of the 12-0 result that an ordinance needs to pass on the first reading, but members were relieved to end the excruciatingly meandering debate over the city's fast-spreading pot outlets.

"Our moment is now, our moment is today. We've been discussing it for two-plus years," Councilman Herb Wesson said in urging the council to vote.

The ordinance sets new rules for dispensaries that council members hope will curtail the anything-goes environment that made Los Angeles the vivid epicenter of the money-fueled Green Rush that erupted when the Obama administration announced last year that it would no longer prosecute dispensaries adhering to California's medical marijuana laws.

Hundreds of dispensaries have opened despite the city's 2007 moratorium, angering neighborhoods that have seen store after store pop up on main commercial boulevards.

The City Council began to consider the issue four and a half years ago when it asked the police department to make recommendations. The department found just four dispensaries, but called for rules to keep them from schools and recreational areas. Two years later, when the council imposed its moratorium on new stores, 186 registered with the city to operate under the ban.

The ordinance caps the number of dispensaries at 70, but allows exceptions for those that registered under the moratorium and are still in business. All other dispensaries will have to close, though some are making plans to challenge the city's ordinance in court.

Dispensaries will have to comply with numerous restrictions. The law aims to shut down the late-night pot club scene, banning on-site consumption and requiring dispensaries to close at 8 p.m. Collectives will have to keep extensive records on their operations and cannot make a profit, a restriction that is likely to be enforced by special units in the police department.

The ordinance will not take effect until the council sets the registration fee that collectives will have to pay, a decision city officials said could be made in the next few weeks.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/los-angeles-city-council-approves-pot-ordinance-requiring-1000-foot-buffer-zones.html#more

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

OPINION

Healthcare legislation is a threat to liberty

Congress is ignoring the Constitution by requiring all Americans to buy health insurance and ordering states to establish health benefit exchanges to run the new federal healthcare system.

By Orrin G. Hatch and Mark Shurtleff

January 20, 2010

The House and Senate have passed their respective versions of the legislation to take over the healthcare system, and a common bill is being hammered out, once again behind closed doors. The essential elements that we know will be in the final product are bad policy for America and, perhaps worse, a threat to liberty itself. The courts may have to enforce the constitutional boundaries that Congress has ignored.

This legislation presents at least two categories of constitutional problems. The first includes provisions that affect individuals and businesses. The mandate that individuals obtain health insurance, for example, would be the first time in American history that Congress has required all Americans to purchase a particular good or service. Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress that much power.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court has expanded that power to include regulating activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. But the courts have never upheld, and Congress has not yet tried, requiring people to engage in economic activity. In a national poll conducted by the Polling Co. in November, 75% of those who responded believe that this insurance mandate is unconstitutional. And they are right.

The legislation would also impose a steep excise tax on insurance plans with high premiums -- the so-called Cadillac plans. It would, however, set different premium thresholds for triggering the tax in different states, so that the same plan with the same premium would be taxed in some states but not in others. The constitutional problem is that, under Article 1, Section 8, all such excise taxes must be "uniform throughout the United States," which the Supreme Court says requires that they must have the same force and effect wherever the tax is in force.

Some provisions of the Constitution may be difficult to understand, but it seems obvious that applying a tax differently is the opposite of applying it uniformly.

The other category of constitutional concern is that this legislation would undermine the sovereign status of the states in our system of government. Federalism, like the separation of government power into different branches, is a critical means of limiting government power in order to protect liberty.

The proposed legislation imposes numerous mandates on the states, including the requirement that they establish health benefit exchanges to administer and regulate this new federal healthcare system. The Senate bill goes even further, warning that if states do not comply, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services will step in, establish and run these exchanges. In other words, Washington is ordering states to pass legislation and issue regulations to carry out a federal program.

This would reduce the states to little more than subdivisions of the federal government, and the Supreme Court could not have been clearer in condemning such a scheme. In the 1992 case of New York vs. United States, it held: "The federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." In Printz vs. United States (1997), the court was even more firm, "categorically" reaffirming that principle and adding that "state legislatures are not subject to federal direction." What part of that constitutional prohibition does Washington not understand?

These are just some of the constitutional defects with this legislation that affect both individuals and states, and litigation over these and other issues may well follow soon after this legislation becomes law. The attorneys general in several states, for example, intend to file suit if what has become known as the "Nebraska compromise," which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that other states must pay, becomes law.

Liberty requires limits on government; it always has and it always will. America's founders knew this and built limits into the system of government they established, including a Constitution that delegates enumerated powers to the federal government. By ignoring those constitutional limits, this healthcare takeover legislation threatens our liberty. The great cause of defending that liberty must continue.

Orrin G. Hatch is the senior U.S. senator from Utah. Mark Shurtleff is the attorney general of Utah.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-hatch20-2010jan20,0,28906,print.story

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

OPINION

Constitutional objections to Obamacare don't hold up

The federal government has clear authority to regulate interstate commerce, levy taxes and protect human rights, all part of the proposed healthcare overhaul.

By Akhil Reed Amar

January 20, 2010

Critics of Obamacare are now upping the ante, claiming that its basic outlines are not just unwise but unconstitutional. I'm no healthcare expert, but I have spent the last three decades studying the Constitution, and the current plan easily passes constitutional muster.

It's true that the Constitution grants Congress authority to legislate only in the areas enumerated in the document itself. Other matters are left to the states under the 10th Amendment.

But if enumerated power does exist, the 10th Amendment objection disappears.

Under the interstate commerce clause of Article I, activities whose effects are confined within a given state are to be regulated by that state government, or simply left unregulated. But the federal government is specifically empowered to address matters that have significant spillover effects across state lines or international borders.

Federal regulation makes obvious sense if the interstate or international issue involves trade or navigation. But the founders authorized Congress to act even in situations that did not involve explicit markets, so long as the activities truly crossed state lines or national borders. Today, that power properly extends to regulating such things as air pollution that wafts across state lines or endangered species that migrate across borders. In line with this broad understanding, George Washington signed a law preventing Americans from committing even non-economic crimes on Indian lands because such activities did indeed involve "commerce . . . with the Indian tribes."

The healthcare bill clearly addresses activities that cross state lines. These activities are often economic in nature. Currently, workers with preexisting medical conditions may be unable to accept job offers originating in another state -- a reality that clogs the free interstate flow of goods and services. Other Americans relocate to states with better public health benefits, creating interstate races to the bottom as states worry about becoming "welfare magnets." Some grandparents now refrain from visiting their out-of-state grandchildren because of anxieties about out-of-network healthcare delivery systems. Obamacare addresses all of these matters of interstate commerce.

The founders' Constitution also gave Congress sweeping power to impose all sorts of taxes. The slogan of those at the Boston Tea Party in 1773 was "no taxation without representation" -- Parliament should not tax Americans because Parliament did not represent Americans. But after independence, the founders created a representative Congress with explicit authority to tax Americans up, down and sideways.

The longest section of the Constitution's longest article -- Article I, Section 8, to be precise -- opens with the following words: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises." During the Progressive era, Americans amended the Constitution to underscore the broad power of Congress to tax, and indeed to tax for redistributive purposes. This is the plain meaning and original intent of the 16th Amendment.

The reason for this sweeping power to tax was clearly set out in Article I: Taxes would "pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare." One special founding-era concern was national security. Taxes would be needed to fund national defense. Today, national health does indeed affect America's ultimate national strength and national defense posture.

This broad view of national defense is precisely the one endorsed by President Washington in 1791 when he signed a bill creating a national bank. The word "bank" does not appear in the Constitution. Nevertheless, supporters of the bank understood that it would exist in the service of national defense, helping to pay soldiers on site and on time and to manage wartime finances. In 1819, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the bank as plausibly connected to national security.

After the Civil War, Americans amended the Constitution to give Congress another explicit authority relevant in the healthcare debate: Section 5 of the 14th Amendment charges Congress with protecting basic human rights. Healthcare is such a right -- or at least Congress is constitutionally allowed to decide it is. Those who disagree should simply vote for different congressional members rather than hiding behind bad constitutional arguments that do violence to the text and original intent of the 14th Amendment.

Beyond the broad question of federal power, critics of Obamacare have also raised a series of more focused objections. None holds water.

The plan is not a constitutionally improper "taking" of property without just compensation. It is a broad tax connected to a broad set of compensating benefits.

The plan may well have different costs and effects in different states. So do many federal laws, taxes and expenditures. Thus, federal gasoline taxes bite harder in states with higher gasoline consumption. More NASA money goes to Florida and Texas than to various other states. Federal income tax laws allowing deductions for state taxes benefit high-tax states. Mortgage deductions provide more benefits to states with more expensive housing stock.

True, the plan requires people to buy something from a private industry. But if Congress can tax, and can then spend the tax money to buy a policy from private industry, and can then offer this policy as a government benefit, why can't it do all three at once and cut out the middleman? (Would critics really prefer a government-run single-payer plan?)

True, the plan imposes mandates on individuals. So do jury service laws, draft registration laws and automobile insurance laws.

Maybe Obamacare is good policy; maybe not. But it is clearly constitutional. Recent critics of the plan are mangling the very Constitution they claim to cherish.

Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale University, is the author of "America's Constitution: A Biography."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-amar20-2010jan20,0,5783403,print.story

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

From the Daily News

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

Inmate release starts Monday

Despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Tuesday that postponed the early release of 40,000 California prisoners, another 6,000 convicts are expected to be set free early from state prisons starting next week, alarming public safety officials and local leaders.

The 6,000 are to be released under separate legislation that is not affected by the Supreme Court's decision Tuesday.

The court rejected the state of California's challenge of a special judicial panel's order to release the prisoners early under an overcrowding lawsuit filed by the Berkeley-based nonprofit Prison Law Office.

But the high court's decision was not final. Instead, it allows for further appeal, so the prisoner release could be postponed for up to a year until a final ruling is made.

In the meantime, Monday marks the start of a new law that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed last year to expand incentive credits for inmates to reduce their sentences and place parolees on non-revocable parole status.

"Many of these individuals are not going to be able to find jobs and they are going to go right back to doing what they know best, which is being a criminal," said Paul Weber, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

"We are going to see a severe spike in crime - and at a time when we have less police resources. I see a perfect storm for public safety."

The inmates will be "completely unsupervised," Weber said, and as a result he expects to see an increase in the crime rate. He noted the state has the nation's highest recidivism rate, with seven out of 10 parolees re-offending shortly after their release.

State Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesman Gordon Hinkle said the bill Schwarzenegger signed late last year, SB 18XXX, will help the prisons address the overcrowding problem.

"We disagree with the (LAPPL) because we feel the recent passage of (this bill) allows the CDCR to focus parole supervision on the most serious and violent parolees and allow law enforcement to continue to conduct warrantless searches on any of these parolees whether they are not non-revocable or on the regular caseload," Hinkle said.

State Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, said he is most concerned that the inmates will be released with no supervision.

"They are going into a system where they don't have to report to a parole officer," Runner said. "We don't even know where they are going to live. I think it sets us up for a much more dangerous society."

LAPD Assistant Chief Jim McDonnell told the Police Commission on Tuesday that the county already receives more than 27,000 prisoners a year who are released from state prisons and an extra 5,940 are expected to be released beginning Jan. 25.

"The capacity today is already stretched," McDonnell said. "We are doing all we can to plan for the additional prisoners."

Many of those released will be on a non-revocable status, he said, and the LAPD is coordinating its efforts with the mayor's Gang Reduction and Youth Development program in addition to its partnership with the U.S. Attorney, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Sheriff's Department and the probation and parole offices in the county and state.

"Given the state's recidivism rate, which is rather high among people leaving the state prison system, we, like members of the general public, are concerned. And we are working with the state, with state parole and other agencies to maximize our effectiveness in the local policing realm, as well as from a jail perspective," sheriff's Capt. Mike Parker said.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said the county's jails are already overcrowded and "it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this doesn't enhance public safety."

"Releasing convicted felons from state prisons is a problem - not a solution to the state's budget crisis," Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said. "It is a reckless and irresponsible Band-Aid on a wound that could hemorrhage into a public safety crisis."

The upcoming early releases of the state inmates comes as the governor last week proposed to save $334 million next fiscal year through a proposed statutory change that would require jail time instead of state prison for certain felonies, including grand theft, receiving stolen property, check fraud and various drug offenses.

The changes, if approved, are expected to shift 12,600 of the state's 168,000 adult inmates to county jails on an annual basis. The proposal also calls for reducing the state juvenile prison population - at 1,487 as of Jan. 6 - by 400 by limiting the age youth can enter Department of Juvenile Justice facilities to 21.

"On the state level, we don't see this really compromising public safety in the least," said CDCR spokesman George Kostyrko. "If you've been sent to prison for a serious crime, you are going to stay there as long as you are required by law."

At the same time, the state continues to fight the lawsuit filed by the Prison Law Office, which would ultimately force it to reduce the prison population by more than 40,000 inmates over two years.

Andrea Lynn Hoch, Schwarzenegger's legal affairs secretary, said Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling guarantees there will be no early release of prisoners while the three-judge panel's latest order is appealed.

Given the Jan. 12 order by the three-judge panel, Hoch said she was not surprised that the high court has decided to wait and consider the entire case upon the state's appeal, which was expected to be filed Tuesday.

Runner said he doesn't expect that the high court will ultimately uphold the three-judge panel order calling on the state to grant early releases to more than 40,000 prison inmates.

"We're not concerned that in the next month or two there will be this mass release," Runner said. "But what we are seeing now is this more systemic release as a result of the legislation passed last year."

http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_14225854

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

California to set time limit to see doctors

Health care officials say California is set to become the first state to limit the time patients must wait to see a doctor.

The Department of Managed Health Care says it plans to announce Wednesday there will soon be a limit of 10 business days for appointments to see a family practitioner.

The deadline is 15 days to see a specialist and 48 hours for people seeking urgent care.

In addition, doctors' offices must return telephone calls within 30 minutes.

The time limits apply only to doctors in health maintenance organizations, but officials say it will affect some 21 million Californians.

A 2002 state law mandated timely access to medical care, and the specifics were worked out in years of negotiations with doctors, hospitals, HMOs and consumer groups.

The rules will take effect next year.

http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_14221704

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

From the Wall Street Journal

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

American Heart Association Pushes for Prevention

In a shift of emphasis in the battle against cardiovascular disease, the American Heart Association is urging people to embrace prevention rather than just try to avoid risks long associated with the world's leading killer.

The Dallas-based organization unveiled a list of seven steps people can take to help prevent heart attacks and strokes and live healthy lives well into old age. The recommendations, which include staying smoke-free, eating healthy foods and getting regular exercise, are all familiar. But leaders hope a more pro-active message comprising the entire package of steps will help blunt the impact of the obesity epidemic and build on four decades of progress against the ravages of cardiovascular disease.

"We've always looked at this from the risk side of the equation," said Donald Lloyd-Jones, head of preventive medicine at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. "It's important to push the agenda of promoting health, not just avoiding disease."

Dr. Lloyd-Jones is lead author of a scientific statement being published in the AHA journal Circulation describing the science behind the strategy. The paper doesn't break any new ground on heart-disease risk. Indeed, in addition to the steps on smoking, diet and exercise, the report urges people to control cholesterol, blood pressure, blood sugar and a measure of healthy weight called body mass index.

Each of the recommendations has long been at the foundation of heart-disease prevention, but Dr. Lloyd-Jones says their impact taken as a whole hasn't previously been appreciated.

By attaining goals in all seven steps, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, people would achieve "ideal" cardiovascular health with a likelihood of living healthy lives well into old age. Together, they amount to "a fountain of youth for the heart," he said.

Clyde Yancy, a cardiologist at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and president of the AHA, said in the decade just ended, deaths from heart disease fell nearly 40% in the U.S. while mortality from stroke dropped 35%.

The AHA's aim is to reduce cardiovascular deaths by another 20% by 2020. But the rise in obesity is "the underbelly of the whole story," Dr. Yancy said. "If we don't do something to turn this process around, we're talking about losing all of these gains."

Dr. Yancy also said the AHA's approach is consistent with the goals of overhauling the U.S. health-care system. "A healthier population requires much less health care expenditures," he said. "If you want to see real health-care reform we need to find a way to achieve a healthy population."

To attain "ideal" cardiovascular health, a person needs to have never smoked or not smoked for at least a year; eat a healthy diet; get at least 150 minutes of moderate exercise or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise a week; achieve a body-mass index of less than 25; maintain total cholesterol below 200, blood pressure below 120/80 and fasting blood sugar below 100.

The Circulation paper says people are at poor, intermediate or ideal heart health depending on how well they meet all seven targets.

You can check how close you are to ideal cardiovascular health at www.heart.org/MyLifeCheck

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575014082372698208.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5#printMode

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

Flight 253 Hearings to Focus on Intelligence

WASHINGTON—Four Senate committees launch separate hearings Wednesday to probe questions stemming from the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound jetliner on Christmas Day, with at least three focusing on the government's failure to piece together intelligence that might have foiled the plot.

Among those testifying on Capitol Hill Wednesday will be Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller and the former co-chairmen of the independent commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The greatest single challenge is the urgent need to strengthen the analytic process," said Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman from Indiana who headed the 9/11 commission with Republican former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean.

Several senior government and Obama administration officials are expected to face intense questioning about the failure to do more at the agencies they lead.

Ms. Napolitano will testify before two separate panels, as will the man who is expected to face the most intense questioning: Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC.

The NCTC has faced heat for failing to connect a string of intelligence clues that might have led authorities to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian national charged in the attempted bombing.

The NCTC was established after 9/11 to provide a central clearinghouse for all intelligence on terrorism collected by the government's myriad and disparate spy agencies. Key clues about Mr. Abdulmutallab were never properly connected and analyzed, the White House has said. Intelligence officials have pledged to do better.

Those issues will be central to hearings held by the Senate commerce, homeland security and judiciary committees, according to Democratic and Republican staff members.

Senate aides said they didn't expect the hearings to focus on personal attacks against top officials who will testify, but on the difficult work of fixing intelligence gaps.

The homeland security panel is expected to hold a classified session following at least one round of questioning for Ms. Napolitano, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair and Mr. Leiter, officials said Tuesday.

The fourth hearing will be before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is set to examine U.S. efforts to confront al Qaeda in Yemen. The al Qaeda offshoot allegedly helped orchestrate the plot.

Also testifying before Senate panels Wednesday will be high-ranking officials from the State and Homeland Security departments. Spokesmen for all of the senior officials appearing Wednesday declined to comment on their testimony.

Following internal reviews, President Barack Obama ordered his top intelligence chiefs to patch gaps in the way terrorism intelligence is analyzed, distributed and checked against watch lists used to identify potential attackers bound for the U.S. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that administration officials were fully cooperating with the probes.

"I think you've seen the president be quite open in discussing our failings," Mr Gibbs told reporters. "The onus is on, now, all of us, both Capitol Hill and the White House, to ensure that we do all that we can to plug those shortcomings."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704561004575013430969029318.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5#printMode

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

Judges Trim Jail Time for Child Porn

Data Show Trend Toward Leniency for People Who View Images but Aren't Molesters

More federal judges are showing leniency toward individuals who view child pornography but who aren't themselves molesters, according to recent data on prison sentences.

Judges are looking skeptically at prosecutors' requests to give 15- to 25-year sentences for viewing sexual images of minors, handing down more sentences of five to 10 years, or in some cases probation. The movement has been gaining steam over the past two years even as the Justice Department has made child pornography and other child-exploitation prosecutions a top priority, leading to more than 2,300 cases last year, the highest figure since the department began tracking the statistic.

For years, federal sentencing guidelines have provided that someone convicted of downloading child porn would receive a minimum of five years in prison, plus extra time for, among other things, using a computer or having more than 10 images. Judges were rarely able to deviate from the guidelines. But Supreme Court rulings in 2005 and 2007 effectively made the guidelines advisory, not mandatory. Now, judges increasingly are giving prison terms for child porn that are lower than the range recommended by the guidelines.

In the 12 months ended September 2009, federal judges gave prison sentences below the guidelines in 44% of cases in which individuals obtained child pornography or shared it with others, up from 27.2% two years earlier, according to data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a federal agency that develops the guidelines. Those figures exclude cases in which judges gave lighter sentences at the prosecutors' request. In the same two-year period, the rate by which judges gave below-guideline sentences for all criminal cases rose to 16.9% from 12.5%.

Some judges who criticize the recommended sentences say they are the result of an unfair linking of child-porn users and sexual predators. While some child-porn viewers are accused or convicted of physical molestation, psychologists who treat sexual deviants say it is unclear whether most viewers of child pornography are likely to commit such acts. Many of the defendants convicted of downloading images said they would never molest a child.

The shift has upset advocates of abused children who say the sentences won't deter future misconduct. "There's a clear trend among judges to treat possession of child porn as if it's not serious, but these are crime-scene photos," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

Mr. Allen says the dissemination of such images encourages behavior that hurts children, not least the production of those images.

Some child-porn viewers still get sentences of 15 or 20 years from judges who follow the guidelines. That's greater than punishments meted out to some child molesters and other violent criminals.

But other judges are openly attacking the practice. "These guidelines are flawed not only because they are duplicative and draconian but most critically because they apply to almost all offenders, allowing no distinction between aggravated and less aggravated behavior," wrote Joan Gottschall, a federal judge in Chicago who recently sentenced a child-porn viewer to six years in prison, rejecting the 20- to 24-year term recommended by the guidelines.

In another example from June 2009, a former schoolteacher in Pennsylvania who downloaded images received a one-day prison sentence, followed by 10 years of probation. The federal judge, Lawrence Stengel, said the guidelines, which recommended four to five years, didn't account for the special circumstances of the case. For example, the judge ruled, there was no evidence that the defendant had attempted to molest any children.

The split among the judiciary means that someone who receives a prison sentence of several years in one court could get a decades-long sentence in a different court.

Last month, J. Randal Hall, a federal judge in Augusta, Ga., sentenced a child-porn viewer to 20 years in prison. There was no evidence that the defendant, Roger Gambrel, who is in his mid-50s, physically abused children, said his lawyer, Jacque Hawk.

"This amounted to a death sentence," Mr. Hawk said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704363504575003271494106644.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5#printMode

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

OPINION

The U.S. Isn't as Free as It Used to Be

Canada now boasts North America's freest economy.

The United States is losing ground to its major competitors in the global marketplace, according to the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom released today by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. This year, of the world's 20 largest economies, the U.S. suffered the largest drop in overall economic freedom. Its score declined to 78 from 80.7 on the 0 to 100 Index scale.

The U.S. lost ground on many fronts. Scores declined in seven of the 10 categories of economic freedom. Losses were particularly significant in the areas of financial and monetary freedom and property rights. Driving it all were the federal government's interventionist responses to the financial and economic crises of the last two years, which have included politically influenced regulatory changes, protectionist trade restrictions, massive stimulus spending and bailouts of financial and automotive firms deemed "too big to fail." These policies have resulted in job losses, discouraged entrepreneurship, and saddled America with unprecedented government deficits.

In the world-wide rankings of economic freedom, the U.S. fell to eighth from sixth place. Canada now ranks higher and boasts North America's freest economy. More worrisome, for the first time in the Index's 16-year history, the U.S. has fallen out of the elite group of countries identified as "economically free" by the objective measures of the Index. Four Asia-Pacific economies now sit atop the global rankings. Hong Kong stands in first place for the 16th consecutive year, followed by Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. Every region of the world maintains at least one country among those deemed "free" or "mostly free" by the Index.

These trends are important because study after study shows a strong correlation between economic freedom and prosperity. Citizens of economically freer countries enjoy much higher per-capita incomes on average than those who live in less free economies. Economic freedom also has positive impacts on overall quality of life, political and social conditions, and even on protection of the environment. Perhaps of most significance in these hard times, Index data indicate that freer economies do a much better job of reducing poverty than more highly regulated economies.

It is common these days to dismiss as simpletons or ideologues those who speak in favor of the free market or capitalism. An honest assessment shows otherwise. Economic freedom, as represented in the Index of Economic Freedom, is a philosophy that rejects economic dogma, championing instead the diversity that follows when entrepreneurs are free to choose their own paths to prosperity.

The abiding lesson of the last few years is that the battle for liberty requires perpetual vigilance. President Obama professes desire to foster prosperity, environmental protection, poverty reduction and better health care. How ironic, then, that his economic proposals so consistently ignore or even undermine the one system—free enterprise capitalism—that has proven best able to achieve those goals.

Now America's once high-flying economy is barely crawling forward. Americans deserve better, and they can do better—as soon as they reverse course and start regaining the economic freedom that made America the most prosperous country in the world.

Mr. Miller is director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at the Heritage Foundation. He is co-editor, with Kim R. Holmes, of the "2010 Index of Economic Freedom" (471 pages, $24.95), available at heritage.org/index.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575011684172064228.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion#printMode

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

OPINION

How to Protect Our Nuclear Deterrent

Maintaining confidence in our nuclear arsenal is necessary as the number of weapons goes down.

The four of us have come together, now joined by many others, to support a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, to prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately to end them as a threat to the world. We do so in recognition of a clear and threatening development.

The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how, and nuclear material has brought us to a tipping point. We face a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.

But as we work to reduce nuclear weaponry and to realize the vision of a world without nuclear weapons, we recognize the necessity to maintain the safety, security and reliability of our own weapons. They need to be safe so they do not detonate unintentionally; secure so they cannot be used by an unauthorized party; and reliable so they can continue to provide the deterrent we need so long as other countries have these weapons. This is a solemn responsibility, given the extreme consequences of potential failure on any one of these counts.

For the past 15 years these tasks have been successfully performed by the engineers and scientists at the nation's nuclear-weapons production plants and at the three national laboratories (Lawrence Livermore in California, Los Alamos in New Mexico, and Sandia in New Mexico and California). Teams of gifted people, using increasingly powerful and sophisticated equipment, have produced methods of certifying that the stockpile meets the required high standards. The work of these scientists has enabled the secretary of defense and the secretary of energy to certify the safety, security and the reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile every year since the certification program was initiated in 1995.

Yet there are potential problems ahead, as identified by the Strategic Posture Commission led by former Defense Secretaries Perry and James R. Schlesinger. This commission, which submitted its report to Congress last year, calls for significant investments in a repaired and modernized nuclear weapons infrastructure and added resources for the three national laboratories.

These investments are urgently needed to undo the adverse consequences of deep reductions over the past five years in the laboratories' budgets for the science, technology and engineering programs that support and underwrite the nation's nuclear deterrent. The United States must continue to attract, develop and retain the outstanding scientists, engineers, designers and technicians we will need to maintain our nuclear arsenal, whatever its size, for as long as the nation's security requires it.

This scientific capability is equally important to the long-term goal of achieving and maintaining a world free of nuclear weapons—with all the attendant expertise on verification, detection, prevention and enforcement that is required.

Our recommendations for maintaining a safe, secure and reliable nuclear arsenal are consistent with the findings of a recently completed technical study commissioned by the National Nuclear Security Administration in the Department of Energy. This study was performed by JASON, an independent defense advisory group of senior scientists who had full access to the pertinent classified information.

The JASON study found that the "[l]ifetimes of today's nuclear warheads could be extended for decades, with no anticipated loss in confidence, by using approaches similar to those employed in Life Extension Programs to date." But the JASON scientists also expressed concern that "[a]ll options for extending the life of the nuclear weapons stockpile rely on the continuing maintenance and renewal of expertise and capabilities in science, technology, engineering, and production unique to the nuclear weapons program." The study team said it was "concerned that this expertise is threatened by lack of program stability, perceived lack of mission importance, and degradation of the work environment."

These concerns can and must be addressed by providing adequate and stable funding for the program. Maintaining high confidence in our nuclear arsenal is critical as the number of these weapons goes down. It is also consistent with and necessary for U.S. leadership in nonproliferation, risk reduction, and arms reduction goals.

By providing for the long-term investments required, we also strengthen trust and confidence in our technical capabilities to take the essential steps needed to reduce nuclear dangers throughout the globe. These steps include preventing proliferation and preventing nuclear weapons or weapons-usable material from getting into dangerous hands.

If we are to succeed in avoiding these dangers, increased international cooperation is vital. As we work to build this cooperation, our friends and allies, as well as our adversaries, will take note of our own actions in the nuclear arena. Providing for this nation's defense will always take precedence over all other priorities.

Departures from our existing stewardship strategies should be taken when they are essential to maintain a safe, secure and effective deterrent. But as our colleague Bill Perry noted in his preface to America's Strategic Posture report, we must "move in two parallel paths—one path which reduces nuclear dangers by maintaining our deterrence, and the other which reduces nuclear dangers through arms control and international programs to prevent proliferation." Given today's threats of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, these are not mutually exclusive imperatives. To protect our nation's security, we must succeed in both.

Beyond our concern about our own stockpile, we have a deep security interest in ensuring that all nuclear weapons everywhere are resistant to accidental detonation and to detonation by terrorists or other unauthorized users. We should seek a dialogue with other states that possess nuclear weapons and share our safety and security concepts and technologies consistent with our own national security.

Mr. Shultz was secretary of state from 1982 to 1989. Mr. Perry was secretary of defense from 1994 to 1997. Mr. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977. Mr. Nunn is former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704152804574628344282735008.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion#printMode

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

From the Washington Times

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

S. Korea: Strike N. Korea first

ASSOCIATED PRESS

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- South Korea's defense chief called Wednesday for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea if there is a clear indication the country is preparing a nuclear attack.

Meanwhile, a state-run think tank predicted a military coup, popular uprising, a massacre or mass defections after North Korean leader Kim Jong Il dies. Kim, who turns 68 next month, is believed to have suffered a stroke in 2008.

The comments and speculation -- made even as officials from the two Koreas discussed further developing a joint industrial complex in the North -- were likely to anger Pyongyang, which recently threatened to break off dialogue and to attack Seoul.

North and South Korea have remained locked in a state of war and divided by a heavily fortified border since their three-year conflict ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, in 1953.

The United States, which backed South Korea during the war, has 28,500 troops stationed in the South to protect the ally against any threat from the communist North.

After a decade of warming ties, relations between the two Koreas turned frosty in 2008 with the inauguration of conservative South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, who has called on North Korea to stick to its disarmament commitments.

Recent reports of a South Korean contingency plan to handle any unrest in the isolate North raised Pyongyang's ire, with the North threatening to launch a "sacred nationwide retaliatory battle" and to cease all communication with the South.

If there is confirmation of North Korean intention to wage a nuclear attack, South Korea should "immediately launch a strike" on the North, Defense Minister Kim Tae-young said Wednesday in Seoul.

Kim, speaking at a seminar, made similar remarks in 2008 when he was chairman of South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff -- comments that prompted North Korea to threaten to destroy the South.

Unrest in North Korea is a distinct possibility in coming years, the Korea Institute for National Unification said in a report posted on its Web site late Tuesday.

Authoritarian Kim Jong Il, believed to have suffered a stroke in 2008, probably won't survive past 2012, the think tank said -- though it cited no evidence for its speculation. His death could touch off a military coup or power struggle unless he manages to stabilize succession plans soon, the report said.

Kim is believed to be grooming his youngest son to take over as leader of the nation of 24 million.

The think tank also speculated that Kim could delegate much of his authority to brother-in-law Jang Song Thaek, a member of the all-powerful National Defense Commission, until the son -- now in his 20s -- is able to take over power.

The North Korean leader himself succeeded his father, Kim Il Sung, in 1994 in communism's first hereditary transfer of power. The institute also said a collective leadership, or another figure, could emerge to rule the country after Kim's demise.

The speculation about the future of the impoverished, isolated country comes as envoys from neighboring nations seek to convince the regime to return to nuclear disarmament negotiations.

Pyongyang quit the six-nation disarmament talks also involving China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States in anger over international condemnation of a long-range rocket launch last April. The regime carried out an underground nuclear test the following month in defiance.

North Korea has shown some willingness to return to the talks, but recently demanded that sanctions be lifted first. The North also called for a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War, saying the agreement would help end hostile relations with the U.S. and promote the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

The U.S. has rejected the demands for a peace treaty or a lifting of sanctions.

"It would be inappropriate at this juncture to lift sanctions," Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell told reporters Tuesday in Washington.

South Korea's top nuclear negotiator, Wi Sung-lac, left for the U.S. on Wednesday for talks with Stephen Bosworth, Washington's special envoy to North Korea, and other officials.

Meanwhile, South and North Korean officials continued to discuss their joint industrial complex in the North Korean border city of Kaesong, Unification Ministry spokesman Chun Hae-sung said. They also met Tuesday.

Kaesong is the most prominent symbol of inter-Korean cooperation. About 110 South Korean factories employ some 42,000 North Korean workers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/20/s-korea-strike-n-korea-first//print/

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

From the ATF

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

ATF Enters Investigation Into Church Fires in Tyler, Texas

$5,000 Reward is Being Offered

TYLER, Texas — The National Response Team ( NRT ) of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ( ATF ), along with ATF special agents from Tyler have entered the investigation into two church fires in Tyler. There have been six church fires in the East Texas area since January 1st.

On Jan. 16, at approximately 6:30 p.m., fire destroyed the Tyland Baptist Church, 2818 Silver Creek Drive. Damage is estimated at one million dollars. On Sunday, Jan. 17, at approximately 6:30 p.m., fire destroyed the First Church of Christ, 106 East Second Street. Damage is estimated at $750,000.

ATF is offering a $5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons involved. Anyone with information should call the ATF Tyler office at (903) 590-1475, said Ken Chisholm, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of AT's Dallas Field Division. ATF is working with the Tyler Police and Fire Departments as well as the Tyler Fire Marshal's Office in the joint investigation.

In 1978, ATF developed the NRT to bring its expertise to federal, state and local investigators in meeting the challenges faced at the scenes of significant arson and explosives incidents. The NRT consists of four teams organized geographically to cover the United States. Each team can respond within 24 hours to assist state and local law enforcement/fire service personnel in onsite investigations.

In addition to investigating hundreds of large fire scenes, the NRT has also been activated to scenes such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City federal building bombing and the Sept. 11, 2001, Pentagon crash site, as well as blasts at explosives and ammunition manufacturing plants, legal fireworks factories and illegal explosive device manufacturing operations.

The teams are each composed of veteran special agents who have post-blast and fire origin-and-cause expertise; forensic chemists; explosives enforcement officers; fire protection engineers; accelerant detection canines; explosives detection canines; intelligence support, computer forensic support and audit support. The teams work alongside state and local officers in reconstructing the scene, identifying the seat of the blast or origin of the fire, conducting interviews, and sifting through debris to obtain evidence related to the bombing/arson.

Further complementing the teams' efforts are technical, legal and intelligence advisers. Moreover, a fleet of fully equipped response vehicles strategically located throughout the United States is available to provide logistical support.

This investigation will be the 6th activation for fiscal year 2009 and the 688th activation since the inception of the program.

ATF is the federal agency with jurisdiction for investigating fires and crimes of arson. More information about ATF and its programs is available at www.atf.gov .

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2010/01/011910-dal-atf-enters-church-fire-investigation.html

.