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

From the Los Angeles Times

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

State of the Union: Obama says U.S. acts 'together, or not at all'

President Obama's State of the Union speech emphasizes the need for bipartisanship in creating new jobs. He vows to protect his legislative achievements from more than 'fixes.'

by Christi Parsons and Peter Nicholas, Washington Bureau

January 25, 2011

Reporting from Washington

Confronting a divided government, President Obama struck notes of conciliation and challenge in his State of the Union speech, suggesting new spending cuts while advocating increased outlays for education, mass transit and infrastructure.

Obama's hourlong address Tuesday night sought to repel Republican efforts to roll back his party's signature legislative achievements, including the healthcare overhaul, during the next two years.

He emphasized the need for bipartisanship, calling on Democrats and Republicans to work together to create new jobs. "We will move forward together, or not at all — for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics," Obama said.

Obama called for a five-year freeze on nonmilitary discretionary spending in a bid to help reduce the deficit and said he would veto any bill containing pet projects known as "earmarks." He also endorsed $78 billion in Pentagon cuts and said he would consider other reductions.

But he defended his record and warned that although he may agree to tweaks to his legislative accomplishments, his top priority in the next two years would be to preserve that work. Especially on his landmark healthcare law, he called for changes where needed, but warned he would oppose repeal.

"Instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let's fix what needs fixing and move forward," he said.

In contrast to the fractious reception he received in his previous State of the Union speech, Obama encountered a more somber welcome in which most lawmakers wore black-and-white ribbons in honor of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and the other victims of the Tucson shooting rampage. Republicans and Democrats sat side by side in a show of unity.

Nonetheless, to Republican critics, Obama's call for government investment sounded like another spending package at time when deep cuts are needed. "That's the real secret to job creation, not borrowing and spending more money in Washington," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who delivered the GOP response.

Rather than promising a near-term solution to chronic unemployment, Obama devoted much of the speech to the threat of competition for jobs from overseas, urging programs that would "out-innovate, out-educate and out-build" the rest of the world.

Obama outlined an agenda for the second half of his term in office that tracks closely with his reelection strategy, in which he is staking out a middle ground politically.

With several promises, Obama sought to address perceptions that he spent too freely during his first two years in power and is unconcerned by a budget deficit that now stands at more than $1.4 trillion. His proposals include freezing federal spending not devoted to national security, which aides said would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over 10 years.

Obama said he would be reasonable in any negotiations. Waste and inefficiency are rampant in government, he said.

But he warned that, as with the healthcare law, certain steps would be off-limits.

Obama signaled that he would protect his signature education program, called "Race to the Top," which offers grant money to schools that make strides in educating students.

He drew a protective barrier around the basic social safety net, cautioning that he would not slash spending at the expense of "our most vulnerable citizens."

He added: "Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine."

That message is rooted in a hard-eyed calculation by White House aides. Grand new spending programs and initiatives are unrealistic given the political realignment on Capitol Hill. Instead, the White House wants to preserve programs that resurgent Republicans see as targets ripe for elimination.

In some ways, the speech was in keeping with Obama's move to the center after the Democrats' midterm election losses. He called for reducing the corporate tax rate, freezing nondefense discretionary spending and approval of free trade agreements that might expand U.S. exports.

Obama showed a willingness to buck members of his party. He said he would veto any bill carrying an earmark — a special spending project that lawmakers pass with little scrutiny or discussion. That stand sets up a potential showdown with one of Obama's closest allies, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who defends earmarks.

Equally revealing was what Obama did not say. He said very little new or different about the war in Afghanistan, the effort to halt the Iranian nuclear programs or other foreign policy hot spots. As he has before, he said U.S. troops were making progress at stabilizing Afghanistan and at shrinking sanctuaries used by al Qaeda and other militant groups in Pakistan.

He made no mention of climate change legislation, which business interests oppose and which stands little chance of passing in any case. Since his midterm election setback, Obama has tried to repair his relationship with the corporate world.

Obama also sought to reassure members of his liberal base, who've bristled over some of his post-midterm moves. He said he was committed to overhauling the nation's immigration laws and finding a pathway to legal status for the millions of people living in the U.S. illegally. The odds of that happening are low, as Obama essentially conceded.

Obama repeated arguments he has made before that Americans must respond to the competitive threat from foreign workers. In this case, it was part of his argument that the government should spend money to help Americans compete globally.

"The president's focus on innovation and competitiveness is calculated to appeal to both parties as a path to reversing American economic decline," said Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House energy staff member now at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank. "The question is, will Congress have the foresight to make needed investments in areas like breakthrough energy technologies, even as they cut the overall budget?"

The president noted that the nation had created more than a million private-sector jobs in the last year, but that still leaves the economy with more than 7 million fewer jobs than before the recession. Most experts believe it will take several years to recoup those lost jobs and to bring the nation's unemployment rate, currently 9.4%, to more normal levels of around 5%.

GOP congressional leaders dismissed Obama's proposals for spending reductions as inadequate, though their own party was divided over budget cuts.

"That's probably not going to inspire a lot of people who want to see meaningful efforts to reduce spending and reduce the debt," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), a potential presidential challenger in 2012.

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) was more pointed in his critique.

"That word 'investments' sure does sound good," he said. "But it's really just a fancy way of saying 'increase government spending.'"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-address-main-20110126,0,3802436,print.story

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

TRANSCRIPT

Obama's State of the Union: 'We do big things'

Prepared text of President Obama's State of the Union, as provided by the White House

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Tonight I want to begin by congratulating the men and women of the 112th Congress, as well as your new Speaker, John Boehner. And as we mark this occasion, we are also mindful of the empty chair in this Chamber, and pray for the health of our colleague – and our friend – Gabby Giffords.

It's no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years. The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that's a good thing. That's what a robust democracy demands. That's what helps set us apart as a nation.

But there's a reason the tragedy in Tucson gave us pause. Amid all the noise and passions and rancor of our public debate, Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater – something more consequential than party or political preference.

We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled.

That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation.

Now, by itself, this simple recognition won't usher in a new era of cooperation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.

I believe we can. I believe we must. That's what the people who sent us here expect of us. With ....

No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We are home to the world's best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any other place on Earth.

What's more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.

That is why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here.  It's why our students don't just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”

The future is ours to win. But to get there, we can't just stand still. As Robert Kennedy told us, “The future is not a gift. It is an achievement.” Sustaining the American Dream has never been about standing pat. It has required each generation to sacrifice, and struggle, and meet the demands of a new age.

Now it's our turn. We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government. That's how our people will prosper.  That's how we'll win the future. And tonight, I'd like to talk about how we get there.

The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation.

None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be, or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn't know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do – what America does better than anyone – is spark the creativity and imagination of our people.  We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn't just change our lives. It's how we make a living.

Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need.  That's what planted the seeds for the Internet. That's what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS.

Just think of all the good jobs – from manufacturing to retail – that have come from those breakthroughs.

Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik¸ we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist.  But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.

This is our generation's Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven't seen since the height of the Space Race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal.  We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

Already, we are seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are.........brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard.

Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert's words, “We reinvented ourselves.”

That's what Americans have done for over two hundred years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we've begun to reinvent our energy policy. We're not just handing out money. We're issuing a challenge.  We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.

At the California Institute of Technology, they're developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they're using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.

Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.

Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America's success. But if we want to win the future – if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas – then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.

Think about it. Over the next ten years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school degree. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us – as citizens, and as parents – are willing to do what's necessary to give every child a chance to succeed.

That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It's family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done.  We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair; that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.

Our schools share this responsibility. When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don't meet this test. That's why instead of just pouring money into a system that's not working, we launched a competition called Race to the Top. To all fifty states, we said, “If you show us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality and student achievement, we'll show you the money.”

Race to the Top is the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation. For less than one percent of what we spend on education each year, it has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning. These standards were developed, not by Washington, but by Republican and Democratic governors throughout the country.  And Race to the Top should be the approach we follow this year as we replace No Child Left Behind with a law that is more flexible and focused on what's best for our kids.

You see, we know what's possible for our children when reform isn't just a top-down mandate, but the work of local teachers and principals; school boards and communities.

Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver. Three years ago, it was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado; located on turf between two rival gangs. But last May, 97% of the seniors received their diploma. Most will be the first in their family to go to college. And after the first year of the school's transformation, the principal who made it possible wiped away tears when a student said “Thank you, Mrs. Waters, for showing… that we are smart and we can make it.”

Let's also remember that after parents, the biggest impact on a child's success comes from the man or woman at the front of the classroom. In South Korea, teachers are known as “nation builders.” Here in America, it's time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones.  And over the next ten years, with so many Baby Boomers retiring from our classrooms, we want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math.

In fact, to every young person listening tonight who's contemplating their career choice: If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child – become a teacher. Your country needs you.

Of course, the education race doesn't end with a high school diploma. To compete, higher education must be within reach of every American. That's why we've ended the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that went to banks, and used the savings to make college affordable for millions of students.  And this year, I ask Congress to go further, and make permanent our tuition tax credit – worth $10,000 for four years of college.

Because people need to be able to train for new jobs and careers in today's fast-changing economy, we are also revitalizing America's community colleges. Last month, I saw the promise of these schools at Forsyth Tech in North Carolina. Many of the students there used to work in the surrounding factories that have since left town. One mother of two, a woman named Kathy Proctor, had worked in the furniture industry since she was 18 years old.  And she told me she's earning her degree in biotechnology now, at 55 years old, not just because the furniture jobs are gone, but because she wants to inspire her children to pursue their dreams too. As Kathy said, “I hope it tells them to never give up.”

If we take these steps – if we raise expectations for every child, and give them the best possible chance at an education, from the day they're born until the last job they take – we will reach the goal I set two years ago: by the end of the decade, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

One last point about education. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of students excelling in our schools who are not American citizens. Some are the children of undocumented workers, who had nothing to do with the actions of their parents. They grew up as Americans and pledge allegiance to our flag, and yet live every day with the threat of deportation. Others come here from abroad to study in our colleges and universities. But as soon as they obtain advanced degrees, we send them back home to compete against us. It makes no sense.

Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. I know that debate will be difficult and take time. But tonight, let's agree to make that effort. And let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who can staff our research labs, start new businesses, and further enrich this nation.

The third step in winning the future is rebuilding America. To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information – from high-speed rail to high-speed internet.

Our infrastructure used to be the best – but our lead has slipped. South Korean homes now have greater internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports.  Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation's infrastructure, they gave us a “D.”

We have to do better. America is the nation that built the transcontinental railroad, brought electricity to rural communities, and constructed the interstate highway system. The jobs created by these projects didn't just come from laying down tracks or pavement. They came from businesses that opened near a town's new train station or the new off-ramp.

Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. Tonight, I'm proposing that we redouble these efforts.

We will put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We will make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based on what's best for the economy, not politicians.

Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying – without the pat-down. As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.

Within the next five years, we will make it possible for business to deploy the next generation of high-speed wireless coverage to 98% of all Americans. This isn't just about a faster internet and fewer dropped calls. It's about connecting every part of America to the digital age. 

It's about a rural community in Iowa or Alabama where farmers and small business owners will be able to sell their products all over the world. It's about a firefighter who can download the design of a burning building onto a handheld device; a student who can take classes with a digital textbook; or a patient who can have face-to-face video chats with her doctor.

All these investments – in innovation, education, and infrastructure – will make America a better place to do business and create jobs.  But to help our companies compete, we also have to knock down barriers that stand in the way of their success.

Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change.

So tonight, I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years – without adding to our deficit.

To help businesses sell more products abroad, we set a goal of doubling our exports by 2014 – because the more we export, the more jobs we create at home. Already, our exports are up. Recently, we signed agreements with India and China that will support more than 250,000 jobs in the United States. And last month, we finalized a trade agreement with South Korea that will support at least 70,000 American jobs. This agreement has unprecedented support from business and labor; Democrats and Republicans, and I ask this Congress to pass it as soon as possible.

Before I took office, I made it clear that we would enforce our trade agreements, and that I would only sign deals that keep faith with American workers, and promote American jobs. That's what we did with Korea, and that's what I intend to do as we pursue agreements with Panama and Colombia, and continue our Asia Pacific and global trade talks.

To reduce barriers to growth and investment, I've ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. But I will not hesitate to create or enforce commonsense safeguards to protect the American people.  That's what we've done in this country for more than a century. It's why our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe. It's why we have speed limits and child labor laws. It's why last year, we put in place consumer protections against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies, and new rules to prevent another financial crisis. And it's why we passed reform that finally prevents the health insurance industry from exploiting patients.

Now, I've heard rumors that a few of you have some concerns about the new health care law. So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses.

What I'm not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition.  I'm not willing to tell James Howard, a brain cancer patient from Texas, that his treatment might not be covered. I'm not willing to tell Jim Houser, a small business owner from Oregon, that he has to go back to paying $5,000 more to cover his employees. As we speak, this law is making prescription drugs cheaper for seniors and giving uninsured students a chance to stay on their parents' coverage. So instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let's fix what needs fixing and move forward.

Now, the final step – a critical step – in winning the future is to make sure we aren't buried under a mountain of debt.

We are living with a legacy of deficit-spending that began almost a decade ago. And in the wake of the financial crisis, some of that was necessary to keep credit flowing, save jobs, and put money in people's pockets.

But now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.

So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. This would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president.

This freeze will require painful cuts. Already, we have frozen the salaries of hardworking federal employees for the next two years. I've proposed cuts to things I care deeply about, like community action programs. The Secretary of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that he and his generals believe our military can do without.

I recognize that some in this Chamber have already proposed deeper cuts, and I'm willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do without. But let's make sure that we're not doing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens.  And let's make sure what we're cutting is really excess weight. Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you're flying high at first, but it won't take long before you'll feel the impact.

Now, most of the cuts and savings I've proposed only address annual domestic spending, which represents a little more than 12% of our budget. To make further progress, we have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending alone will be enough. It won't.

The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it – in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.

This means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit. Still, I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.

To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations.  And we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply cannot afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Before we take money away from our schools, or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break.

It's not a matter of punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success.

In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code. This will be a tough job, but members of both parties have expressed interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them.

So now is the time to act. Now is the time for both sides and both houses of Congress – Democrats and Republicans – to forge a principled compromise that gets the job done.  If we make the hard choices now to rein in our deficits, we can make the investments we need to win the future.

Let me take this one step further. We shouldn't just give our people a government that's more affordable. We should give them a government that's more competent and efficient. We cannot win the future with a government of the past.

We live and do business in the information age, but the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black and white TV.  There are twelve different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different entities that deal with housing policy. Then there's my favorite example: the Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in when they're in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked.

Now, we have made great strides over the last two years in using technology and getting rid of waste. Veterans can now download their electronic medical records with a click of the mouse. We're selling acres of federal office space that hasn't been used in years, and we will cut through red tape to get rid of more. But we need to think bigger. In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America. I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote – and we will push to get it passed.

In the coming year, we will also work to rebuild people's faith in the institution of government. Because you deserve to know exactly how and where your tax dollars are being spent, you will be able to go to a website and get that information for the very first time in history. Because you deserve to know when your elected officials are meeting with lobbyists, I ask Congress to do what the White House has already done: put that information online. And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren't larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: if a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.

  A 21st century government that's open and competent. A government that lives within its means. An economy that's driven by new skills and ideas. Our success in this new and changing world will require reform, responsibility, and innovation. It will also require us to approach that world with a new level of engagement in our foreign affairs.

Just as jobs and businesses can now race across borders, so can new threats and new challenges. No single wall separates East and West; no one rival superpower is aligned against us.

And so we must defeat determined enemies wherever they are, and build coalitions that cut across lines of region and race and religion. America's moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom, justice, and dignity. And because we have begun this work, tonight we can say that American leadership has been renewed and America's standing has been restored.

Look to Iraq, where nearly 100,000 of our brave men and women have left with their heads held high; where American combat patrols have ended; violence has come down; and a new government has been formed. This year, our civilians will forge a lasting partnership with the Iraqi people, while we finish the job of bringing our troops out of Iraq. America's commitment has been kept; the Iraq War is coming to an end.

Of course, as we speak, al Qaeda and their affiliates continue to plan attacks against us. Thanks to our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, we are disrupting plots and securing our cities and skies. And as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities, with respect for the rule of law, and with the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family.  

We have also taken the fight to al Qaeda and their allies abroad. In Afghanistan, our troops have taken Taliban strongholds and trained Afghan Security Forces. Our purpose is clear – by preventing the Taliban from reestablishing a stranglehold over the Afghan people, we will deny al Qaeda the safe-haven that served as a launching pad for 9/11.

Thanks to our heroic troops and civilians, fewer Afghans are under the control of the insurgency. There will be tough fighting ahead, and the Afghan government will need to deliver better governance. But we are strengthening the capacity of the Afghan people and building an enduring partnership with them. This year, we will work with nearly 50 countries to begin a transition to an Afghan lead. And this July, we will begin to bring our troops home.

In Pakistan, al Qaeda's leadership is under more pressure than at any point since 2001. Their leaders and operatives are being removed from the battlefield. Their safe-havens are shrinking. And we have sent a message from the Afghan border to the Arabian Peninsula to all parts of the globe: we will not relent, we will not waver, and we will defeat you.

American leadership can also be seen in the effort to secure the worst weapons of war. Because Republicans and Democrats approved the New START Treaty, far fewer nuclear weapons and launchers will be deployed. Because we rallied the world, nuclear materials are being locked down on every continent so they never fall into the hands of terrorists.

Because of a diplomatic effort to insist that Iran meet its obligations, the Iranian government now faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before. And on the Korean peninsula, we stand with our ally South Korea, and insist that North Korea keeps its commitment to abandon nuclear weapons.

This is just a part of how we are shaping a world that favors peace and prosperity. With our European allies, we revitalized NATO, and increased our cooperation on everything from counter-terrorism to missile defense.  We have reset our relationship with Russia, strengthened Asian alliances, and built new partnerships with nations like India. This March, I will travel to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador to forge new alliances for progress in the Americas. Around the globe, we are standing with those who take responsibility – helping farmers grow more food; supporting doctors who care for the sick; and combating the corruption that can rot a society and rob people of opportunity.

Recent events have shown us that what sets us apart must not just be our power – it must be the purpose behind it. In South Sudan – with our assistance – the people were finally able to vote for independence after years of war. Thousands lined up before dawn. People danced in the streets. One man who lost four of his brothers at war summed up the scene around him: “This was a battlefield for most of my life. Now we want to be free.”

We saw that same desire to be free in Tunisia, where the will of the people proved more powerful than the writ of a dictator. And tonight, let us be clear: the United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.

We must never forget that the things we've struggled for, and fought for, live in the hearts of people everywhere. And we must always remember that the Americans who have borne the greatest burden in this struggle are the men and women who serve our country.

Tonight, let us speak with one voice in reaffirming that our nation is united in support of our troops and their families.  Let us serve them as well as they have served us – by giving them the equipment they need; by providing them with the care and benefits they have earned; and by enlisting our veterans in the great task of building our own nation.

Our troops come from every corner of this country – they are black, white, Latino, Asian and Native American. They are Christian and Hindu, Jewish and Muslim. And, yes, we know that some of them are gay. Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love.  And with that change, I call on all of our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and the ROTC. It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move forward as one nation.

We should have no illusions about the work ahead of us. Reforming our schools; changing the way we use energy; reducing our deficit – none of this is easy. All of it will take time. And it will be harder because we will argue about everything. The cost. The details. The letter of every law.

Of course, some countries don't have this problem. If the central government wants a railroad, they get a railroad – no matter how many homes are bulldozed. If they don't want a bad story in the newspaper, it doesn't get written.

And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn't a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth.

We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything's possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from.

That dream is why I can stand here before you tonight. That dream is why a working class kid from Scranton can stand behind me. That dream is why someone who began by sweeping the floors of his father's Cincinnati bar can preside as Speaker of the House in the greatest nation on Earth.

That dream – that American Dream – is what drove the Allen Brothers to reinvent their roofing company for a new era. It's what drove those students at Forsyth Tech to learn a new skill and work towards the future. And that dream is the story of a small business owner named Brandon Fisher.

Brandon started a company in Berlin, Pennsylvania that specializes in a new kind of drilling technology. One day last summer, he saw the news that halfway across the world, 33 men were trapped in a Chilean mine, and no one knew how to save them.

But Brandon thought his company could help. And so he designed a rescue that would come to be known as Plan B. His employees worked around the clock to manufacture the necessary drilling equipment. And Brandon left for Chile.

Along with others, he began drilling a 2,000 foot hole into the ground, working three or four days at a time with no sleep. Thirty-seven days later, Plan B succeeded, and the miners were rescued. But because he didn't want all of the attention, Brandon wasn't there when the miners emerged. He had already gone home, back to work on his next project.

Later, one of his employees said of the rescue, “We proved that Center Rock is a little company, but we do big things.”

We do big things.

From the earliest days of our founding, America has been the story of ordinary people who dare to dream. That's how we win the future.

We are a nation that says, “I might not have a lot of money, but I have this great idea for a new company. I might not come from a family of college graduates, but I will be the first to get my degree. I might not know those people in trouble, but I think I can help them, and I need to try. I'm not sure how we'll reach that better place beyond the horizon, but I know we'll get there. I know we will.”

We do big things.

The idea of America endures. Our destiny remains our choice. And tonight, more than two centuries later, it is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong.

Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/01/obama-state-of-the-union-speech-text.html

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

Mother describes border vigilante killings in Arizona

Gina Gonzalez says her 9-year-old daughter, Brisenia Flores, pleaded for her life. Opening arguments begin in the trial of Shawna Forde of the Minutemen movement, who is accused in the killing of the girl and her father.

by Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times

January 25, 2011

Reporting from Tucson

As her mother tells it, 9-year-old Brisenia Flores had begged the border vigilantes who had just broken into her house, "Please don't shoot me."

But they did — in the face at point-blank range, prosecutors allege, as Brisenia's father sat dead on the couch and her mother lay on the floor, pretending that she too had been killed in the gunfire.

Even as this city continues to mourn the victims in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, another tragedy took center stage Tuesday, as opening arguments began in the trial of a member of a Minutemen group accused of killing Brisenia and her father, Raul Flores Jr.

Prosecutors allege that in May 2009, Shawna Forde decided to strike an odd alliance with drug dealers in southern Arizona: Forde would help the traffickers ransack their rivals' houses for stashes of drugs and cash, which could then fund her fledgling group, Minutemen American Defense.

She and another border vigilante, dressed in uniforms, identified themselves as law enforcement officers before bursting into the Flores home, prosecutors allege. If convicted, Forde could face the death penalty.

That second member of Forde's group is scheduled to go on trial next month, as is the alleged drug dealer with whom prosecutors say the Minutemen collaborated. But on Tuesday it was the turn of the woman who prosecutors contend masterminded the attack.

"Shawna Forde organized and planned this event," prosecutor Kellie L. Johnson told a Pima County Superior Court jury.

Forde's trial was almost delayed by the Giffords shooting. Her attorneys questioned whether an accused murderer allegedly driven by right-wing passions could get a fair trial here. The man charged in the Giffords rampage left behind a trail of writings with no coherent ideology, but Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik set off a national firestorm by insisting that Arizona's conservative politics played a role in that attack.

Forde's lawyer, Kevin Larson, told jurors that there is no evidence she was in the Flores house during the attack.

"The state will present to you absolutely no witnesses that will put her in that home on May 30," Larson said. He said his client was simply guilty of being "an exaggerator extraordinaire" for boasting of her plans to rob drug smugglers.

Forde spent several years as a bit player in the national Minutemen movement, a loose-knit affiliation of groups that believe that if the federal government cannot secure the border, armed citizens should do the job.

Prosecutors say that in April 2009, Forde told two members of the movement in Denver that she had linked up with drug dealers in the tiny town of Arivaca, Ariz., just north of the Mexican border and about 50 miles southwest of Tucson. She proposed helping the dealers raid a rival's house, which would be full of drug profits she could steal, prosecutors allege.

The plan so alarmed the members, prosecutors say, that they contacted the FBI. But Larson said it was such an obviously outlandish idea that the FBI did nothing with it.

On Tuesday, Johnson and Brisenia's mother, Gina Gonzalez, outlined the chilling sequence of events in the attack.

Shortly before 1 a.m. on May 30, 2009, Gonzalez was woken by her husband, who told her that police seemed to be at the door. The two went to the front room, where their daughter Brisenia was sleeping on the couch so she could be close to her new dog.

There were two people in camouflage outside — a short, heavyset woman who did all the talking and a tall man carrying a rifle and pistol, his face blackened by greasepaint, Gonzalez said. The woman told them they were accused of harboring fugitives and needed to open the door.

Once the pair were inside, the man —identified by authorities as Jason Bush — told Flores, "Don't take this personal, but this bullet has your name on it," Gonzalez testified Tuesday.

According to testimony, Bush shot Flores, then Gonzalez. Gonzalez was hit in the shoulder and leg and slumped to the floor. She testified that she played dead as she heard Bush pump more bullets into her husband as Brisenia woke up.

"Why did you shoot my dad?" the girl asked, sobbing, according to Gonzalez's testimony. "Why did you shoot my mom?"

Gonzalez said she heard Bush slowly reload his gun and that he then ignored Brisenia's pleas and fired.

More men entered the house and ransacked the place. After they left, Gonzalez called 911. On a tape of the recording, played for the jury Tuesday, she suddenly realized that the attackers were returning, and crawled to the kitchen to grab her husband's gun.

Prosecutors say Bush came back in and fired on Gonzalez, who returned fire and apparently hit him, forcing him to retreat.

Gonzalez testified that the woman in the house looked like Forde, but she said she couldn't definitively say it was her "because I don't know her personally." She failed to identify Forde in a police lineup after the shooting.

Forde had Gonzalez's wedding ring and jewelry with her when she was arrested days after the shooting, authorities say. Shortly after her arrest, members of the Minutemen movement disavowed her, saying they did not trust her and that she had stayed on its fringes.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-minutemen-murder-20110126,0,1952416,print.story

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

20 arrested in gun smuggling case

Federal authorities indict the men on charges of buying hundreds of weapons in Arizona and conspiring to sell them to drug cartels in Mexico.

by Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times

January 25, 2011

In a case aimed at stemming the flow of U.S. weapons to the Mexican drug war, federal authorities indicted 20 men Tuesday on charges of buying an estimated 700 weapons in Arizona and conspiring to transfer them across the border, chiefly to the Sinaloa drug cartel.

The arrests, carried out by at least 100 federal agents, began early Tuesday, the latest crackdown targeting an international trafficking network that authorities say has seen as many as 60,000 weapons seized in Mexico and traced to U.S. sources.

"The massive size of this operation sadly exemplifies the magnitude of the problem: Mexican drug lords go shopping for war weapons in Arizona," Dennis Burke, U.S. attorney in Arizona, said in a statement.

Officials at the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said the case demonstrates the need to include long-barreled weapons in the requirement for gun sellers to report multiple weapon sales to a single buyer. The proposal has been opposed by the National Rifle Assn. and many gun owners as an inappropriate reach of federal authority.

Gun advocates say many of the weapons in the hands of Mexican drug traffickers were acquired from weapons stocks officially supplied by the U.S. government to Mexico and other Latin American countries.

The case involves the relatively common use of "straw purchasers," legal residents of the state who buy the weapons from licensed gun dealers and certify that they are for their own use, but end up selling the guns to the drug cartels.

None of those charged in the indictments are licensed gun dealers. But the indictments identify a number of Arizona dealers that legally supplied large quantities of weapons to individual buyers, often in a single day.

One of the defendants, Uriel Patino, for example, purchased 26 AK-47 rifles from Lone Wolf Trading Co. in Glendale, Ariz., on March 26; 10 more on June 2 from the same outlet; 16 on July 8; and 12 on Aug. 5 — in addition to purchasing a number of other weapons.

In all these cases, according to the indictment, Patino signed a federal form certifying that he was not buying the weapons for someone else, a requirement that is prominently featured on Lone Wolf's website.

But on Aug. 8, federal agents found all 12 of the AK-47s purchased Aug. 5 concealed in a stove and a television in what was an apparent attempt to smuggle them into Mexico through the border crossing at Lukeville, Ariz.

A few months earlier, on Feb. 20, law enforcement agents intercepted an Isuzu Rodeo on the Tohono O'odham Nation territory in southeastern Arizona that was loaded with 37 AK-47s purchased by Patino between Jan. 15 and Feb. 13.

The federal firearms bureau announced in December that it was proposing to require an estimated 8,500 gun dealers along the southwestern U.S. border to provide notice of multiple rifle sales, but gun advocates have said it is an attempt to blame lawful gun dealers for border enforcement problems and the violence in Mexico.

"This is just a shallow excuse to engage in a sweeping firearms registration scheme," Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive and executive vice president, wrote on the organization's website.

Tom Mangan, spokesman for the firearms bureau in Phoenix, said officials are hopeful the regulation will go through.

"It's not prohibiting; it's not infringing upon a purchaser's right to buy guns," he said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gun-smuggling-20110126,0,4761271,print.story

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

From the New York Times

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

States' Lawmakers Turn Attention to the Dangers of Distracted Pedestrians

Many joggers don earbuds and listen to music to distract themselves from the rigors of running. But might the Black Eyed Peas or Rihanna distract them so much that they jog into traffic?

That is the theory of several lawmakers pushing the latest generation of legislation dealing with how devices like iPods and cellphones affect traffic safety. The ubiquity of interactive devices has propelled the science of distraction — and now efforts to legislate against it — out of the car and into the exercise routine.

In New York, a bill is pending in the legislature's transportation committee that would ban the use of mobile phones, iPods or other electronic devices while crossing streets — runners and other exercisers included. Legislation pending in Oregon would restrict bicyclists from using mobile phones and music players, and a Virginia bill would keep such riders from using a “hand-held communication device.”

In California, State Senator Joe Simitian, who led a successful fight to ban motorists from sending text messages and using hand-held phones, has reintroduced a bill that failed last year to fine bicyclists $20 for similar multitasking.

“The big thing has been distracted driving, but now it's moving into other ways technology can distract you, into everyday things,” said Anne Teigen, a policy specialist for the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks legislative developments.

Exercising in Central Park on Tuesday, Marie Wickham, 56, said she understood what all the fuss was about: “They're zigging, they're zagging, they don't know what's around them. It can definitely be dangerous.”

But Ms. Wickham added that she would be opposed to any ban of such devices. “I think it's an infringement on personal rights,” she said. “At some point, we need to take responsibility for our own stupidity.”

Pedestrian fatalities increased slightly for the first time in four years in the first six months of 2010, according to a report released last week by the Governors Highway Safety Association, an organization based in Washington that represents state highway safety agencies.

Among the states, Arizona and Florida had the largest increases in pedestrian fatalities, followed by North Carolina, Oregon and Oklahoma. Nationally, pedestrian traffic fatalities had dropped to 4,091 in 2009 from 4,892 in 2005, the report stated.

“One of the reasons we think the trend may be turning negatively is because of distracted pedestrians,” said Jonathan Adkins, spokesman for the safety group.

The New York bill was proposed by State Senator Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat who has grown alarmed by the amount of distraction he sees on the streets in his neighborhood and across New York City. Since September, Mr. Kruger wrote in the bill, three pedestrians have been killed and one was critically injured while crossing streets and listening to music through headphones.

“We're taught from knee-high to look in both directions, wait, listen and then cross,” he said. “You can perform none of those functions if you are engaged in some kind of wired activity.”

Hal Pashler, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, San Diego, said that listening to sounds through two earbuds creates a particularly powerful kind of “auditory masking” that drowns out external sounds. Such masking not only goes directly into the ear, it also is involuntary in the sense that the sound floods the brain even when a person tries to listen to something else — say, traffic.

“It's even more overwhelming than the kind of muiltitasking costs we normally talk about,” Mr. Pashler said.

As it is written, Mr. Kruger's proposal, which was first introduced in 2007, would apply only to cities with populations of one million or more. But Mr. Kruger would like to expand the bill to cover even smaller cities. Violators would face a civil summons and a $100 fine.

“This is not government interference,” he said. “This is more like saying, ‘You're doing something that could be detrimental to yourself and others around you.' ”

But some outdoor exercisers who rely on music for a boost see the proposals as little more than a distraction for law enforcement officials. “Chasing down the runner who has his headphones in instead of chasing down the driver who's been at the local pub sounds like they're trying to pick the low-hanging fruit,” said John Wiant, 43, a runner from Newport Beach, Calif.

In Arkansas, an avalanche of criticism on Tuesday led a legislator to withdraw a proposal that would have banned pedestrians from wearing headphones in both ears. Other lawmakers have tried to strike some sort of balance between public safety and the gravity of the offense.

In California, Mr. Simitian is proposing the $20 fine on bicyclists who send text messages and a $30 increase on the existing $20 penalty for doing the same activity while driving a car, a difference that he said reflects the relative risk the behavior poses to others.

“At some point,” he said, “you do have to simply rely on the good judgment of folks as they go through their daily lives.”

Mr. Simitian added that he believed that efforts to legislate against distraction outside the car could diminish the seriousness of hard-fought campaigns and laws meant to curb distracted driving.

“Is there a problem out there with distracted pedestrians? I'd be the first to acknowledge it,” he said. But, he added, “It's appropriate to distinguish between 4,000 pounds of steel and glass coming at you and a pedestrian who may well put themselves at risk but probably poses less of a risk to the general public.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26runners.html?_r=1&ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

Ex-Detainee Gets Life Sentence in Embassy Blasts

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the first former detainee at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to be tried in the civilian court system, was sentenced to life in prison on Tuesday for his role in the 1998 bombings of two United States Embassies in East Africa.

The nearly simultaneous attacks in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killed 224 people and wounded thousands.

The defense had asked the judge for a lesser sentence, citing the extraordinary circumstances of Mr. Ghailani's case, like the years he spent in detention in a so-called black site run by the C.I.A., where his lawyers say he was tortured.

But the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said that no matter how Mr. Ghailani was treated while in detention, “the impact on him pales in comparison to the suffering and the horror that he and his confederates caused.”

“It was a cold-blooded killing and maiming of innocent people on an enormous scale,” Judge Kaplan said. “The very purpose of the crime was to create terror by causing death and destruction.”

Mr. Ghailani's case had always conveyed layers of added significance. From a policy standpoint, the trial was seen as a test of President Obama's intention of trying military detainees in civilian court “whenever feasible.” From a terrorism perspective, Mr. Ghailani was viewed as a bridge between two distinct eras: before and after 9/11, when Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden emerged even more prominently.

In the six years that the government says Mr. Ghailani was a fugitive after the attacks, he trained in Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and became a bodyguard for Mr. bin Laden — aspects of his life that the jury was never told.

Mr. Ghailani was captured in 2004 after a 14-hour gun battle with Pakistani authorities.

But on Tuesday, Mr. Ghailani's sentencing was stripped to its essence. Judge Kaplan made clear that Mr. Ghailani's treatment while in detention, or statements he had made before he was brought into the civilian system, were not factors in his deciding on a sentence.

“This trial has been as divorced from any questionable practice that may have been engaged in by anybody other than the defendant as this human being is capable of having made it,” the judge said. “I simply put all of that out of my mind.”

Although Mr. Ghailani was acquitted of more than 280 charges of murder and conspiracy, the judge focused on the solitary conviction of conspiracy to destroy government buildings and property.

“Mr. Ghailani knew and intended that people would be killed as a result of his own actions and of the conspiracy that he joined,” Judge Kaplan said, adding that was “supported by the trial record alone.”

In the end, Mr. Ghailani received the same maximum sentence, life without parole, that he would have faced had he been convicted of all counts. And it seems likely that he will be sent to the so-called Supermax federal prison in Florence, Colo., where other defendants convicted in the same embassy plot are being held.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement that the sentencing “shows yet again the strength of the American justice system in holding terrorists accountable for their actions.”

Preet Bharara, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, acknowledged that “this was a difficult case for a number of reasons.”

“Our goal all along was to hold Ghailani accountable for his heinous conduct, and, no matter the obstacles, to see to it that he would receive the punishment he deserved,” said Mr. Bharara, whose office prosecuted the case.

At a time when the Obama administration is preparing to increase the use of military commissions to prosecute Guantánamo detainees, groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said the case showed the value of the civilian system in contrast to military commissions. But Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas and the leader of the House Judiciary Committee, said that while he was relieved at the life sentence, the trial “was also a near disaster” as a test run of the administration's plan to try foreign terrorist suspects in federal court.

Citing the sole conviction and many acquittals, Rep. Smith added, “While the administration will no doubt try to spin the verdict as a success, the truth is this case was a close call.”

Relatives of the victims, from Tanzania, Kenya and the United States, addressed the judge, describing their loss.

“The pain is with me every day; oftentimes, it is unthinkable,” said Sue Bartley, who lost two family members in the Nairobi bombing: her husband, Julian L. Bartley Sr., who was the consul general; and her son, Julian L. Bartley Jr., a college student working as an intern at the embassy. “That was half of my family,” she said.

Yasemin Pressley, who worked in the embassy in Nairobi with her husband, described an eerie silence after the blast as she climbed through rubble, searching for him amid bodies and bleeding victims.

“I mean, it was just like the end of the world,” Ms. Pressley said. Her husband survived, but he has undergone numerous surgeries and endures a life of chronic pain. “If we are going to be with pain all our life, so also should he,” she said of Mr. Ghailani.

As the family members spoke, Mr. Ghailani remained still, showing no emotion. After the last of the 11 speakers, Mr. Ghailani was offered a chance to address the court, but declined.

As the hearing ended, he smiled at his lawyers, Peter E. Quijano and Anna N. Sideris, and hugged Ms. Sideris briefly before he was handcuffed behind his back and led away.

“We still believe our client is innocent,” Mr. Quijano said later, adding that he would appeal.

“He feels great sadness for what happened,” Mr. Quijano added. “He feels great sadness for the reality that he engaged in some conduct that helped lead to this.”

The government, which had not sought the death penalty in the case, said Mr. Ghailani had played a central role in the preparations for the embassy bombing in Dar es Salaam, and fled the day before the Aug. 7, 1998, attacks on a flight to Pakistan with other operatives.

“He took away hundreds, hundreds of lives,” a prosecutor, Michael Farbiarz, said. “In response to that, your honor, you should take away his freedom, and you should take it away forever.”

Judge Kaplan, referring to the request for leniency on the grounds that Mr. Ghailani was tortured while in C.I.A. custody, echoed statements he made earlier in the case that said Mr. Ghailani might have other remedies for “any illegal or improper actions by our government.”

“But that is a matter for another time and another place,” the judge said. “Today is about justice, not only for Mr. Ghailani, but for the victims of his crime.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/nyregion/26ghailani.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

From Google News

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

Girl shot in Washington still unidentified, but Utah parents certain it's her

CLEARFIELD — The parents of a missing Utah teenager say they are nearly certain their 13-year-old daughter was the girl who was killed in a weekend shootout with police in Washington.

Investigators in Washington said Tuesday that dental records are needed to officially identify the young girl — a task that could take a week.

Neither authorities in Washington nor Utah could confirm Tuesday whether the teenage girl killed in front of a Walmart in Port Orchard, Wash., about 15 miles west of Seattle across Puget Sound, is Astrid Valdivia, who ran away from a South Salt Lake foster home.

But a spokesman for her family said Tuesday they know it was her and are planning for her funeral.

On Sunday afternoon, police say Anthony Allen Martinez, 30, shot two Kitsap County, Wash., sheriff's deputies before he was fatally shot by a third deputy.

At some point during the confrontation, a teenage girl ran toward Martinez. Witnesses reported seeing the girl run toward the man after he was shot. It was unknown Tuesday whether the girl was shot by police gunfire or by Martinez's gun.

Martinez was charged in October in 2nd District Court in Davis County with child kidnapping, a first-degree felony, after authorities found him in Sacramento, Calif., with Astrid, a Clearfield resident who had left a note saying she was running away. Martinez, who was free on $25,000 bail, was scheduled to appear in court Wednesday on that case.

Barrett Martinez told reporters Monday that his brother was not a pedophile, but was just trying to help the girl because she was going through many difficulties, including thoughts of suicide. But a spokesman for Astrid's family said he had no business being with her.

"If I called somebody and said I'm going to take my life, what's the first thing you're going to do? Are you going to take me out of the state twice when I'm 13 years old? Or are you going to call somebody and get that taken care of?" said family friend and spokesman Christopher Bateman.

"I don't believe that. I think it's a complete lie. He kidnapped this little girl," he said. "She might have gone with him, but I think there was some brainwashing involved. ... Thirteen-year-old girls just don't run away with 31-year-old men and call them her lover."

Bateman said Anthony Martinez was a friend of Astrid's mother when Astrid was about 4 years old. He never lived with the family, Bateman said, and Astrid had not seen or communicated with him until they ran into each other in April of last year at a store. The family was unaware of any contact between them until she ran away with him the first time.

"Obviously they were communicating because she ran away with him in September, but we have no idea how," Bateman said. "They say that they were lovers. That's been said many times. We don't know the exact relationship."

On Jan. 18, Valdivia ran away from her South Salt Lake foster care home, where she had been placed following the September incident. It was clear she had planned it out, said South Salt Lake police detective Gary Keller. She cut off her ankle monitor and packed all of her possessions, he said. She was last seen about 10 p.m.

It was unclear Tuesday who issued the ankle tracking device. The Division of Child and Family Services does not place ankle monitors on children placed into foster care. However, juvenile court judges can order them for children. Once a court order is given, the agency with custody of the child contracts with providers to monitor compliance, according to court officials.

Keller did not know Tuesday whether Valdivia had been communicating with anyone prior to running away via text messages or e-mails. He did not know if investigators had been able to check any of those records as of Tuesday.

Bateman said Astrid had a stable home life but was placed in foster care in order to protect her from Anthony Martinez.

"He's not even part of the family. He's not blood. He's nothing to the family," he said of Martinez. "Why would he even have her there (in Washington)? I think he's the one who put her in harm's way."

As of Tuesday afternoon, Valdivia's missing person case was still considered active.

The deputies who were shot in Washington are expected to make full recoveries.

On Tuesday, the Kitsap County Sheriff's Office released more information about the three deputies involved in the incident.

Deputy Andrew Paul Ejde, 48, was shot in his left shoulder and right arm. He was listed Tuesday in satisfactory condition at Tacoma General Hospital and was expected to be released sometime within the next two days to continue his recovery at home.

Deputy John Roy Stacy, 50, was shot in the right shoulder. He was released from Tacoma General Hospital Monday afternoon.

Deputy Krista Rae McDonald, 38, is on standard paid administrative leave pending an investigation into the shooting. McDonald fired at Martinez after her fellow deputies had been shot, ending the shootout. She was not injured.

Bateman described Astrid as a typical teenager who loved music, smiled a lot, was close to her sister and brother and "loved everything."

"She was a good person and it's really hard to even imagine a 13-year-old girl in this situation," he said. "Even if it she wasn't (taken) against her will, it's probably still a hard situation for her."

He said the family is anxious to receive an official confirmation and have her returned to Utah.

"This is a horrible tragedy for them," he said. "They just need some peace."

Donations to the family are being accepted at Wells Fargo under the name of Astrid's mother, Jackalyn Rimola.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705365121/Girl-shot-in-Washington-still-unidentified-but-Utah-parents-certain-its-her.html

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

From the Department of Justice

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

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli at the Defending Childhood Grantee Meeting

Washington, D.C. ~ Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Good morning. I know it's early in our first day, but I hope you are already getting a sense of just how important Defending Childhood is to the Department of Justice. One of my responsibilities here at the Department that I find most rewarding is overseeing all of the Department's grant programs. This allows me the opportunity to support the excellent work related to children, youth and violence that comes out of the Office of Justice Programs, the Office on Violence Against Women and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. A hallmark of this Department of Justice's approach to its work is collaboration – if we want to work with communities on broad-ranging and truly comprehensive solutions to problems, we ourselves in the Department need to work together. The Defending Childhood Initiative is one of several in the Department where we have sought to enhance how we work together, all with the goal of better helping our partners in cities, towns, reservations, and rural areas throughout the Nation.

We are here today because communities across the country face a reality that is simply unacceptable – our children are exposed to far more violence than I think most people realize and that is intolerable. We can have only one response – something must be done. I want to echo what the leaders from all our components have said about the vital importance of this initiative. It has the potential to substantially change the lives of American children and families. With the Attorney General's Defending Childhood Initiative, the Justice Department is committing to a comprehensive approach to a pervasive problem. With a fragmented approach, children exposed to violence can slip through the cracks of every service system. Other times, these children may be viewed as collateral damage in shattered lives – or, most tragically, when the sources of their trauma goes unnoticed, as troublemakers or delinquents. This initiative is about targeting and breaking the cycle of violence that affects our most vulnerable Americans.

This initiative seeks to redefine how the Justice Department responds to children who experience violence, witness violence, or suffer ongoing negative ramifications from violence. We have devised an initiative that will harness resources from across the Department to – first, prevent exposure to violence when possible; second to mitigate the negative impact of violence when it does occur; and third, to develop knowledge and spread awareness that will ultimately improve our homes, cities, towns, and communities. We are integrating efforts to protect and assist children exposed to violence into everything we do at the Justice Department.

Tomorrow you'll hear from the Attorney General firsthand. This is a very personal undertaking for him. He has been a leader and a visionary in this area. As he will tell you, he first focused on this issue more than a decade ago and it was his efforts, as Deputy Attorney General, that led to much of the Department's work on these issues and was a catalyst for much of the research and experience we will discuss over the next couple of days. He has made it clear that the Defending Childhood Initiative is a top priority for the Department and he has promoted the importance of this initiative throughout the Administration. In his proclamation declaring October as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, President Obama mentioned Defending Childhood as part of our efforts to help children who are the victims and witnesses of domestic violence. He noted that children who experience violence face many obstacles and that prevention and early intervention efforts can do much to help them.

I will also note that this is a very personal undertaking for me. As a parent, one naturally wants to protect children, but I was stunned by the results of the National Survey on Children Exposed to Violence. I have also been deeply affected by what we have learned over the years in areas such as truancy – where the correlations with a host of other problems that are likely to cause truancy and a host of negative outcomes that may follow are extraordinary – and bullying, which so often is a product of a young person who themselves was victim or witness of violence. It was an honor when the Attorney General asked me to help construct the Initiative, and I am a constant and strong advocate for funding of the Initiative. I also want to note that the Initiative is evidence of the Department's renewed commitment to its trust responsibility to Tribal Nations; that is why two of the pilot sites are tribal communities.

As I noted, we do not work on a blank slate; much work has been done on the problem of children exposed to violence – both to understand the problem and to develop promising practices to address it. Most recently, our efforts to generate knowledge included the National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence. The Attorney General will cover the detailed statistics tomorrow. I'll just highlight a few facts and point out that this study really helps bring the importance of our work into focus.

We have now been able to document the extent to which the same kids are often victimized again and again. A child who is exposed to one type of violence is more likely to be exposed to other types of violence, or to be exposed multiple times. More than 38 percent of children reported more than one direct victimization within the previous year. The study also found that a child who was physically assaulted in the past year would be five times as likely to also have been sexually victimized and more than four times as likely to also have been maltreated during that period. Children who should be getting treatment and being protected are instead being subjected to victimization once again.

We also learned, sadly, that children are more likely to be exposed to violence and crime than adults. For instance, a 2005 study showed that juveniles and young adults ages 12 to 19 were more than twice as likely to be the victims of violent crimes as the population as a whole. And we know that children who are exposed to violence are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, suffer from depression and anxiety, have problems in school, experience or perpetuate dating violence, and engage in criminal behavior later in life.

Through the Defending Childhood initiative, the Department of Justice is focused on implementing concrete knowledge to combat children's exposure to violence. For years, we've worked to develop our knowledge about this issue and to promote promising approaches. Defending Childhood takes this a step further by calling for direct action in targeted communities – your communities. The best way that we can break this vicious cycle of violence is by working to prevent children's exposure to violence, to provide appropriate interventions when we can't prevent exposure, and to increase knowledge and raise awareness about this issue. These are the goals of Defending Childhood.

As I noted at the outset, we believe collaboration is key. Today, I'm joined by a wide variety of DOJ representatives and you'll hear from even more in the next few days. This effort cuts across the entire Department, not just OJP, OVW and COPS. Representatives from the FBI as well as the U.S. Attorneys Offices across the country are important partners in Defending Childhood.

We're also building partnerships with other federal agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education. We worked with HHS in the late 1990s on the Safe From the Start Action Plan, and they continue to play a key role in helping children exposed to violence. You'll hear from HHS representatives tomorrow, and we're thrilled that we've already been able to work with them to jointly develop information about evidence-based practices that will be presented during one of tomorrow's workshops. Going forward, there will be many additional opportunities for collaboration with these and other federal agencies. At the federal level, this is truly an unprecedented effort to comprehensively address children's exposure to violence.

But there are many critical partners outside the federal government. We plan to do outreach to law enforcement organizations. We're working to inform and support law enforcement officers as first responders. Officers have the unique opportunity to help with the early identification of children exposed to violence, and we want to encourage their involvement.

We are tapping the knowledge of national experts and continuing to advance science in this area. One of our first steps in launching this initiative was to host a meeting of a small group of national experts on this topic. Then, this past summer, several DOJ representatives attended the International Family Violence and Child Victimization Research Conference and met with the experts assembled there. We plan to continue to hold small group meetings and to use them to identify pressing issues and innovative approaches.

But by far our most important partners are all of you – you who daily face the problems of violence in your communities and its devastating impact on children. We have asked for unprecedented collaboration from you and among all those who serve young people across your communities, from law enforcement to social services, to the courts, and beyond. Your knowledge, your experience, your commitment, and your hard work are the most essential ingredient in this effort, which is too important to fail. Not only will your work, we hope, make for demonstrably better lives for children in your communities and improve the quality of life for the entire community, but we also hope that, through scientific evaluation integrated into your demonstration sites from the beginning, we will expand our knowledge on children's exposure to violence, develop best practices, and help communities across the country facing similar challenges. .

I understand that you have ambitious agenda of topics to cover over the next two and a half days, and I hope you will find the time to be productive. I truly appreciate your time and commend your dedication to these issues. I look forward to continued opportunities to work with you as we move forward to help Defending Childhood achieve its goals. I also look forward to hearing from you now about your communities and your plans and hope to visit some, if not all, of your communities in the coming year.

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/asg/speeches/2011/asg-speech-110125.html

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

Statement of Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Jason Weinstein Before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security

Washington, D.C. ~ Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Good afternoon, Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner, Committee Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department of Justice. We welcome this opportunity to provide our views about data retention by companies that provide the public with Internet and cell phone services. I am particularly pleased to be able to speak with you about data retention, because data retention is fundamental to the Department's work in investigating and prosecuting almost every type of crime.

In offering this testimony, our goal is explain the nature of the public safety interest in data retention by providers. We do not attempt to discuss appropriate solutions, evaluate cross-cutting considerations, or evaluate the proper balance between data retention and other concerns. We look forward to continuing the dialog on these important issues with Congress, industry, and other interested organizations.

The harm from a lack of retention

Our modern system of communications is run by private companies that provide communications services. These providers include the companies that sell us cell phone service, the companies that bring Internet connectivity to our homes, and the companies that run online services, such as e-mail. These providers often keep records about who is using their services, and how. They keep these non-content records for business purposes; the records can be useful for billing, to resolve customer disputes, and for business analytics. Some records are kept for weeks or months; others are stored very briefly before being purged. In many cases, these records are the only available evidence that allows us to investigate who committed crimes on the Internet. They may be the only way to learn, for example, that a certain Internet address was used by a particular human being to engage in or facilitate a criminal offense.

All of us rely on the government to protect our lives and safety by thwarting threats to national security and the integrity of our computer networks and punishing and deterring dangerous criminals. That protection often requires the government to obtain a range of information about those who would do us harm.

In discharging its duty to the American people, the Department increasingly finds that Internet and cell phone companies' records are crucial evidence in cases involving a wide array of crimes, including child exploitation, violent crime, fraud, terrorism, public corruption, drug trafficking, online piracy, computer hacking and other privacy crimes. What's more, these records are important not only in federal investigations, but also in investigations by state and local law enforcement officers.

Through compulsory process obtained by law enforcement officials satisfying the requirements of law, the government can obtain access to such non-content data, which is essential to pursue investigations and secure convictions that thwart cyber intrusions, protect children from sexual exploitation and neutralize terrorist threats – but only if the data is still in existence by the time law enforcement gets there.

There is no doubt among public safety officials that the gaps between providers' retention policies and law enforcement agencies' needs can be extremely harmful to the agencies' investigations. In 2006, forty-nine Attorneys General wrote to Congress to express “grave concern” about “the problem of insufficient data retention policies by Internet Service Providers.” They wrote that child exploitation investigations “often tragically dead-end at the door of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that have deleted information critical to determining a suspect's name and physical location.” The International Association of Chiefs of Police adopted a formal resolution stating that “the failure of the Internet access provider industry to retain subscriber information and source or destination information for any uniform, predictable, reasonable period has resulted in the absence of data, which has become a significant hindrance and even an obstacle in certain investigations.” In 2008 testimony before this Committee, FBI Director Robert Mueller reported that “from the perspective of an investigator, having that backlog of records would be tremendously important,” and that where information is retained for only short periods of time, “you may lose the information you need to be able to bring the person to justice.” Former Attorney General Gonzales similarly testified about “investigations where the evidence is no longer available because there's no requirement to retain the data.”

In a 2006 hearing before another committee in this House, an agent of the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation gave a heart-wrenching example of the harm that a lack of data retention can cause. He described how an undercover operation discovered a movie, depicting the rape of a two-year-old child that was being traded on a peer-to-peer file sharing network. Investigators were able to determine that the movie had first been traded four months earlier. So, investigators promptly sent a subpoena to the ISP that had first transmitted the video, asking for the name and address of the customer who had sent the video. The ISP reported that it didn't have the records. Despite considerable effort, the child was not rescued and the criminals involved were not apprehended.

In some ways, the problem of investigations being stymied by a lack of data retention is growing worse. One mid-size cell phone company does not retain any records, and others are moving in that direction. A cable Internet provider does not keep track of the Internet protocol addresses it assigns to customers, at all. Another keeps them for only seven days—often, citizens don't even bring an Internet crime to law enforcement's attention that quickly. These practices thwart law enforcement's ability to protect the public. When investigators need records to investigate a drug dealer's communications, or to investigate a harassing phone call, records are simply unavailable.

These decisions by providers to delete records are rarely done out of a lack of desire to cooperate with law enforcement; rather, they are usually done out of an understandable desire to cut costs. Some providers also seem to delete records out of a concern for customer privacy.

Yet, as a result of short or even non-existent retention periods, criminal investigations are being frustrated. In one ongoing case being investigated by the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, we are seeking to identify members of online groups using social networking sites to upload and trade images of the sexual abuse of children. One U.S. target of this investigation uploaded child sexual abuse images hundreds of times to several different groups of like-minded offenders – including one group that had thousands of members. Investigators sent legal process to Internet service providers seeking to identify the distributors based on IP addresses that were six months old or less. Of the 172 requests, they received 33 separate responses noting that the requested information was no longer retained by the company because it was out of their data retention period. In other words, 19 percent of these requests resulted in no information about these offenders being provided due to lack of data retention. Indeed, lack of data retention has to date prevented us from identifying the investigation's chief U.S. target. 

In October 2008, a federal arrest warrant was issued for a fugitive drug dealer. Law enforcement officers later identified a social networking account used by an associate of the drug dealer. Logins to the social networking account were traced back to IP addresses assigned by a particular cellular provider, revealing that the social networking account was being accessed through that cellular provider's network. A subpoena was sought for data identifying the particular cellular phone number to which the IP addresses were assigned, but the cellular provider was unable to isolate the device by the IP addresses identified, because the data was not there. The inability to identify the specific cellular phone being used to access the social networking account stymied the effort to get the drug dealer off the street.

In many cases, investigations simply end once investigators recognize that, pursuant to provider policy, the necessary records have almost certainly been deleted. This occurs, for example, when a victim of a hacking crime discovers an attack too late, or when evidence of criminal conduct involving the Internet comes to light only after lengthy and complex forensic examination. Unlike burglaries, murders, and arsons, online crimes can be difficult to detect, and even more difficult to investigate. A business that has been hacked may not realize that its customers' identifying information has been stolen until months after the theft. Moreover, investigating online crimes can require obtaining many different records from many different providers in order to pierce the veil of anonymity provided by the Internet. The reason why the government may need access to records months or years after they were made is not because the government is slow or lazy in investigating those crimes, but because gathering the evidence in compliance with federal law – including meeting the statutory thresholds to obtain orders and warrants – takes time.

The current preservation regime

These unfortunate incidents arose under a legal regime that does not require providers to retain non-content data for any period of time, but instead relies upon investigators, on a case-by-case basis, to request that providers preserve data.

Federal law permits the government only to request that providers preserve particular records relevant to a particular case while investigators work on getting the proper court order, subpoena, or search warrant to obtain those records.

This approach has had its limitations. The investigator must realize he needs the records before the provider deletes them, but providers are free to delete records after a short period of time, or to destroy them immediately. If, as has sometimes been the case, a provider deletes the relevant records after just a few seconds or a few days, a preservation request can come too late. For example, suppose agents investigating a terrorist seize a computer and analyze it for evidence of who communicated with the target. If the terrorist has communicated over the Internet with co-conspirators, but those communications are older than the ISPs' retention periods, then investigators lose the ability to use information about the source and destination of those communications to trace the identity of other terrorists. With respect to those communications, provider practices thwart the government's legal authority to preserve evidence.

The current preservation regime also suffers from inconsistent responses from providers. In some cases, providers have been affirmatively uncooperative. In these instances, providers have failed to provide law enforcement agencies with reliable contact information, have ignored preservation requests, and have undermined the confidentiality of investigations by informing customers about preservation requests.

Many of the larger providers have established policies about how long they retain this data. For obvious reasons, I will not testify about how long those periods are for specific providers. I will say that, in general, those periods are rarely longer than a few months, and in some cases are considerably shorter.

Privacy and costs

Data retention implicates several concerns. These include not just the needs of public safety, but also privacy interests and the burden on providers. Imposing greater retention requirements would raise legitimate concerns about privacy, and these concerns should be considered. However, the absence of strong data retention requirements introduces different privacy risks, as the government may be less effective at targeting malicious activities that threaten citizens' private data. Moreover, any privacy concerns about data retention should be balanced against the needs of law enforcement to keep the public safe. In considering those factors, it is important to be clear what data retention is not about.

Data retention is not primarily about collecting additional data that is not already collected. Most responsible providers are already collecting the data that is most relevant to criminal and national security-related investigations. In many cases, they have to collect it in order to provide service to begin with. In other cases, they collect it for the company's security, or to research how their service is being used. They simply do not retain that data for periods that are sufficient to meet the needs of public safety.

To be sure, the presence of large databases, by itself, poses privacy concerns. Those databases exist today, but data retention requirements could make them more common. Privacy concerns about those databases might be addressed by tailoring the information that is retained and clarifying the time period for which it is retained. Although we do not have a position on what information should be retained or for how long, the Department would welcome such a discussion.

A discussion about data retention is also not about whether the government should have the ability to obtain retained data. Retained data is held by the provider, not the government. Federal law controls when providers can disclose information related to communications, and it requires investigators to obtain legal process, such as a subpoena or court order and in some cases with a search warrant, in order to compel providers to disclose it.

As members of the Committee may be aware, there is an ongoing discussion about whether those laws strike a proper balance between privacy protection and public safety. I do not address that discussion in these remarks. Yet, whatever one's position in that discussion might be, data retention concerns a different question: Whether, in cases where law enforcement needs to obtain certain types of non-content data to protect public safety, and satisfies the legal standard for obtaining that data, the data will be available for that discrete purpose at all.

Short or non-existent data retention periods mean the data will not be available. Denying law enforcement that evidence prevents law enforcement from identifying those who victimize others online, whether by the production and trade of sexually abusive images of children, or by other online crimes, such as stealing private personal information.

It also can disserve the cause of privacy. Americans today face a wide range of threats to their privacy interests. In particular, foreign actors, including cyber criminals, routinely and unlawfully access data in the United States pertaining to individuals that most people would regard as highly personal and private. Data retention can help mitigate those threats by enabling effective prosecution of those crimes. Cyber criminals, often anonymously, hack into computer networks of retailers and financial institutions, stealing millions of credit and debit card numbers and other personal information. In addition, many Americans' computers are, unbeknownst to them, part of a “botnet” – a collection of compromised computers under the remote command and control of a criminal or foreign adversary. Criminals and other malicious actors can extensively monitor these computers, capturing every keystroke, mouse click, password, credit card number, and e-mail. Unfortunately, because many Americans are using such infected computers, they are suffering from an extensive, pervasive, and entirely unlawful invasion of privacy at the hands of these actors. Making extensive use of data retained by providers, the Department has successfully investigated and prosecuted criminals who use these techniques to invade the public's privacy.

Unlike the Department of Justice – which must comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States and is accountable to Congress and other oversight bodies – malicious cyber actors do not respect our laws or our privacy. The government has an obligation to prevent, disrupt, deter, and defeat such intrusions. The protection of privacy requires that we keep information from those who do not respect it — from criminals and others who would abuse that information and cause harm. Investigating and stopping this type of criminal activity is a high priority for the Department, and investigations of this type require that law enforcement be able to utilize lawful process to obtain data about the activities of identity thieves and other online criminals. Privacy interests can be undercut when data is not retained for a reasonable period of time, thereby preventing law enforcement officers from obtaining the information they need to catch and prosecute those criminals. Short or non-existent data retention periods harm those efforts.

Providers incur some costs in retaining that data, and although storage costs have been dropping exponentially, it is possible that longer retention periods would impose higher costs. However, when data retention is purely a business decision, it seems likely that the public safety interest in data retention is not being given sufficient weight. There is a role for Congress in striking a more appropriate balance.

Thus, I welcome a discussion about the balance among public safety, providers' needs, and privacy interests. Legitimate debates about privacy protection should not be resolved solely through the “delete” key.

Conclusion

I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the important role of data retention in helping law enforcement fight crime, improve public safety, and defend the national security while protecting privacy. We look forward to continuing to work with Congress as it considers whether legal changes are needed in this area. I also wish to emphasize that the Administration is in the process of developing comprehensive views on both cybersecurity legislation and potential amendments to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Nothing in my testimony should be interpreted to pre-judge the outcome of those discussions.

This concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to answer questions from you and other members of the Committee.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/pr/testimony/2011/crm-testimony-110125.html

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

From the FBI

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

Man Wanted for More Than a Decade Nabbed After Profile Airs on National TV

ROCKWELL, TX—A man on the run for more than a decade was arrested in Rockwell, TX this morning after investigators received tip calls from viewers of America's Most Wanted. Jack Allen Poteat (dob: 10/03/1964) is wanted on a federal Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution warrant based on charges in Union County, NC.

A jury indicted Poteat in June 1999 for first degree statutory rape, first degree statutory sex offense, indecent liberties with a minor and crimes against nature involving a 13-year-old girl in Monroe, NC. Poteat failed to appear for his jury trial on October 19, 1999 and has been a fugitive ever since.

A profile of the case aired on America's Most Wanted on January 22, 2011. Viewers in Texas recognized Poteat and called the FBI. After tracking down leads, law enforcement went to a home in Rockwell, TX this morning to make the arrest. When Poteat spotted law enforcement approaching the home, he took off in a truck and ended up crashing after a short chase. Poteat is being treated for minor injuries.

“We are grateful for the opportunity to have profiled this case on America's Most Wanted, as well as the opportunity to work with the FBI and the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office in apprehending this man,” said Ben Bailey, Chief Deputy Sheriff at the Union County Sheriff's Office. “This is a prime example of what can happen when law enforcement agencies share information and cooperate in investigations. It also demonstrates that the public has the courage and willingness to come forward and turn in criminals.”

“After more than a decade, most fugitives may begin to believe they've beaten the system, but this case proves we won't give up the chase. Our law enforcement partners and the Task Force Officer on our Safe Streets Task Force never stopped searching for Poteat,” said Aaron T. Ford, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the Charlotte FBI. “This also proves the public can be our eyes and ears when we most need their help. Those tipsters who called in share in the success of this case.”

http://charlotte.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel11/ce012511.htm

.