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

From the Los Angeles Times

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

Obama justifies U.S. intervention in Libya

President Obama tells Americans that the U.S. has a 'strategic interest' in stopping Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi and that he ordered military action to halt a humanitarian disaster.

by Christi Parsons and Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times

March 29, 2011

Reporting from Washington

President Obama told a skeptical American public that he ordered military action in Libya because circumstances allowed the U.S. and its allies to halt a humanitarian disaster, but he acknowledged that even a weakened Moammar Kadafi still may be a long way from leaving power.

In his first address to the nation since launching cruise missiles and airstrikes 10 days ago, Obama on Monday cast doubt on the likelihood of U.S. military action in other Middle Eastern countries, where oppressed citizens have taken to the streets to demand reform. Under his leadership, he said, the United States would not act unilaterally, risking American lives and treasure as it did by launching the Iraq war in 2003.

Libya, ruled for more than four decades by a man Obama referred to as a "tyrant," is a country where the United States could build an alliance that would protect civilians and defend U.S. interests, he said.

"In this particular country, Libya, at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale," Obama said. "We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries and a plea from the Libyan people themselves."

"To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and, more profoundly, our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are," he said.

The U.S. had an "important strategic interest" in preventing Kadafi from overrunning the opposition forces because a massacre would have driven thousands of refugees across Libyan borders and put a strain on the transitional governments in Egypt and Tunisia and on American allies in Europe.

Obama said the U.S. acted when Kadafi's troops, taking advantage of their superior weaponry against a ragtag rebel force, were close to overrunning the opposition's de facto capital, Benghazi, in eastern Libya. With Kadafi's air force grounded and armored vehicles in smoking ruins along the roads because of strikes by warplanes from the U.S., Britain, France and other countries, Obama said, the U.S. was stepping back to allow the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to take charge.

The U.S. still will provide intelligence, logistics, search-and-rescue help and expertise to jam Kadafi's communications, he said.

Obama's justification for intervening in Libya may provide a response to those who question why his administration acted there and not in other countries such as U.S. allies Bahrain and Yemen, where civilian protesters have been killed. In Syria, a country of greater strategic importance than Libya that long has had a strained relationship with Washington, dozens have died in recent days.

Gaining United Nations Security Council approval to act and building a military coalition could be much more difficult in any of those cases than it was against Kadafi, who has alienated world powers and his neighbors alike during his long rule.

Obama's speech did little to clear up how military action under a U.N. mandate to protect civilians squares with an offensive by ragtag Libyan rebels who see airstrikes by foreign warplanes as essential to their success. And it did not offer a clear path to removing Kadafi from power.

Obama said the U.S. would continue to work to cut off the supply of arms and cash to the Kadafi regime and to assist the opposition.

"It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Kadafi tries desperately to hang on to power," Obama said. "But it should be clear to those around Kadafi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side."

While refraining from openly criticizing Obama's decision to dispatch military personnel to the region, some Republicans in Congress have criticized the president for waiting to speak publicly about the military action.

Others questioned how Obama could allow Kadafi to remain in power and not use military force to oust him. As long as the Libyan leader remains in control, said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), "he will increasingly pose a threat to the world and civilians in Libya will not be fully secure."

Administration officials have acknowledged they have worried about the prospect of Kadafi, once a leading supporter of terrorism, regaining some degree of control, or becoming locked in a protracted civil war.

In the days preceding the speech, administration officials have been laying out the defense of the military campaign. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates took to the airwaves over the weekend to make the case that the country has an interest in protecting its allies and promoting stability in the region.

White House officials have also stressed there would be international cooperation on the effort.

But Obama's remarks were aimed at an American public tired of ongoing war elsewhere and skeptical about the wisdom of the airstrikes.

On Monday, as Obama prepared for his speech at the National Defense University in Washington, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released a report showing that less than half of Americans, 47%, think he made the right decision in conducting airstrikes.

Obama made clear what aides have been saying behind the scenes for days: that those looking for a promise of military aid to other countries should assume no precedent from the Libya intervention.

The U.S. doesn't take action to adhere to precedent or to follow "consistency guidelines," said deputy national security advisor Denis McDonough, but rather to advance the nation's interests.

"Each of those interests is going to be unique in each instance," McDonough said.

Still, Obama emphasized that he "refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves" before taking action against Kadafi's forces.

"We should not be afraid to act, but the burden of action should not be America's alone," Obama said. "As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action."

"Given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action," Obama said.

The White House deliberations on Libya have been haunted in part by the memory of Rwanda, where government forces in 1994 began a genocide that claimed more than 800,000 lives.

Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, National Security Council aide Samantha Power and Clinton all have spoken of deep regret about the killings and pushed for the administration not to risk a repeat in Libya.

Obama himself has publicly supported the principle of intervention to stop governments from engaging in mass killings.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-obama-libya-20110329,0,1624800,print.story

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

EDITORIAL

The president makes his case on Libya

Obama addressed the tough questions about Libya, but not all of his answers were persuasive.

March 29, 2011

Before President Obama's address to the nation about Libya, three questions about U.S. involvement there loomed large: Why, among all the places with vulnerable civilian populations, did the U.S. and its allies choose to intervene in Libya? Was the mission designed to prevent civilian suffering or to topple Moammar Kadafi? How (and how quickly) would the U.S. extricate itself from this engagement?

In his speech Monday, Obama addressed these thorny questions and many others with cogency and clarity, though not all of the answers were persuasive. He was at his most eloquent when he discussed the Libyan regime's crimes against its own people, his reluctance to put Americans in harm's way and his eagerness to work within a multinational coalition. We were pleased to hear him reaffirm that the U.S. has limited interests in Libya and a limited role to play.

But at the same time, we were left unpersuaded on several key points. His dramatic recounting of Kadafi's misdeeds — including the targeted killings of individuals, attacks on hospitals and ambulances, the choking off of food and water — did not sufficiently explain why the U.S. and its allies would use military force in Libya and not in other states where governments brutalize their people. The president argued essentially that the humanitarian crisis in Libya was unique, but he did not describe genocide, or atrocities all that different from those that occur in many civil wars around the world, so he left us wondering where this mission fits with America's foreign policy objectives more broadly.

Second, he was not terribly reassuring about the exit strategy. To be sure, he said that the U.S. would hand off the lead role in the operation to NATO and that he would not introduce ground troops or pursue a military strategy to depose Kadafi — all of which we were pleased to hear. But it was still unclear whether the nonmilitary steps aimed at ousting Kadafi would succeed or how the allies would continue to protect civilians indefinitely if he does not leave. And if the regime does fall, what exactly is the plan for what comes next?

The president ended his speech by welcoming "the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States." One clear challenge ahead, of course, is to make good on that vision in dealing with oppressive regimes that are U.S. allies.

Obama may not have changed the minds of those who believe that the Libyan operation was unwise or of others who believe it didn't go far enough. But no one can complain that he didn't make a thoughtful, compelling case for his decision to intervene.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-obama-20110329,0,7911542.story

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

8th suspect held in gang rape of 11-year-old in Moreno Valley

Michael Sykes, 19, and six male juveniles allegedly raped the girl in a park bathroom March 10. A teenage girl was also arrested. The attack is believed to be gang-related, authorities say.

by Abby Sewell, Los Angeles Times

March 29, 2011

Moreno Valley police arrested the final suspect Monday in the gang rape of an 11-year-old girl.

Michael Sykes, 19, was arrested about noon at a residence in Moreno Valley, said Cpl. Courtney Donowho, a Riverside County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman. He had not been booked into jail as of Monday afternoon.

Six male juveniles had previously been arrested and booked in Riverside County Juvenile Hall on charges of sexual assault on a child. A teenage girl who allegedly helped lure the victim to the scene of the rape was also arrested.

The suspects allegedly raped the girl March 10 in a bathroom at Victoriano Park.

According to a police statement, the suspects are believed to be associated with a local gang, and Donowho said police believe the rape was gang-related.

Anyone with information about the case is asked to contact Det. Duke Viveros of the Moreno Valley Police Department at (951) 247-8700 .

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gang-rape-20110329,0,4382940,print.story

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

Trial begins Tuesday for Irvine man accused of raping women he met on online dating site

An Irvine man accused of raping and sodomizing women he met on an online dating site will stand trial Tuesday in Santa Ana.

Joseph Raymond Garcia, 51, is charged with six felony counts of sodomy by force and two felony counts of forcible rape.

Garcia allegedly met two of his victims on MillionaireMatch.com, an online dating site that bills itself as “the first, largest and most effective site in the world to connect with, date and marry successful, beautiful people.”

According to the Orange County district attorney's office, Garcia allegedly created a personal profile where he claimed to make more than $200,000 a year and described himself as “sophisticated, charming” and “strikingly handsome.”

He met a third alleged victim at United States Postal Service facility, where she worked.

All three of the women reported that Garcia took them to his Irvine home and forcibly sodomized them. Two of the victims also reported that he raped them.

The women reported the crimes at different times to the Irvine Police Department, which investigated the case.

If convicted, Garcia faces a maximum sentence of 120 years to life in prison.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/man-accused-of-raping-women-he-met-on-online-dating-site.html

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

From the New York Times

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

States Battling Meth Makers Look to Limit Ingredients

NASHVILLE — Faced with a surging methamphetamine problem, a number of states are weighing contentious bills this spring that would require a doctor's prescription for popular decongestants like Sudafed.

The drugs contain pseudoephedrine, the crucial ingredient in methamphetamine, and the police say past efforts to keep them out of the hands of meth cooks have failed. Here in Tennessee, the police seized nearly 2,100 meth labs last year — a 45 percent increase over 2009 and more than any other state.

“It's a no-brainer,” said Thomas N. Farmer, director of the Tennessee Methamphetamine Task Force, who is pushing for a prescription-only law along with most other law enforcement officials here. “This has got to be the next step.”

But the proposals have met with stiff resistance from drug makers and pharmacy groups, who say the measures would place an undue burden on cold and allergy sufferers. They are promoting other bills that would help the police monitor pseudoephedrine sales with interstate electronic tracking.

“We can't change lives just to stop these weirdo people,” said Joy Krieger, executive director of the St. Louis chapter of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, who is fighting a prescription-only bill in Missouri.

Officials like Mr. Farmer say drug companies only want to protect the multimillion-dollar profits they reap from over-the-counter pseudoephedrine sales. But the industry's argument to legislators — that law-abiding citizens should not have to pay for a doctor's visit for a mere stuffy nose — has proved potent. Prescription-only bills were defeated or failed to make it to a vote this month in Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky and West Virginia after heavy lobbying by the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, a trade group representing makers of over-the-counter drugs. Similar bills are still alive in Alabama, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee and several other states.

Two states, Mississippi and Oregon, already require prescriptions for pseudoephedrine; law enforcement officials there say meth lab seizures have plummeted since the laws were enacted. In Mississippi, which adopted a prescription-only law last year, the authorities say meth lab seizures have dropped by nearly 70 percent.

Marshall Fisher, director of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, said that from July through February, 203 meth labs were seized in the state, down from 607 from July 2009 through February 2010. The prescription requirement, Mr. Fisher said, has stymied “smurfers,” people who buy the drug at multiple stores, in small-enough amounts to evade detection.

“Yes, I do think it's inconvenient,” Mr. Fisher said of the law. “But I don't have the resources to constantly be chasing around a bunch of smurfers and addicts out there.”

He added that while opponents of Mississippi's law had predicted a public outcry after it took effect, “it hasn't occurred.”

Pseudoephedrine was a controlled substance until 1976, when the Food and Drug Administration allowed it to be sold over the counter. Sales of over-the-counter pseudoephedrine drugs now exceed $550 million a year, Elizabeth Funderburk, a spokeswoman for the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, said in an e-mail.

The rise in meth lab seizures, concentrated in the South and Midwest, comes five years after Congress passed a series of restrictions that initially seemed to curb meth production. They required pharmacies to keep pseudoephedrine drugs behind sales counters, set daily and monthly limits on how much each customer could buy, and required pharmacists to keep a log of sales.

Meth labs have spread again partly due to smurfing, the police say; another reason is a new, easier way of making meth with household chemicals in a two-liter bottle. Jesse Reynolds, director of the 19th Judicial District Drug Task Force in Clarksville, Tenn., said undercover agents often spotted carloads of smurfers leaving drugstores there.

“We'll follow them from pharmacy to pharmacy to pharmacy,” Mr. Reynolds said. “They'll make a big circle around town.”

Methamphetamine, a highly addictive stimulant, produces an initial rush when smoked or injected and generally makes users hyper-energetic. Chronic abuse can lead to aggression, delusions, rotten teeth and brain damage. Instead of prescription-only bills, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association is calling for an interstate electronic tracking system for pseudoephedrine purchases. Unlike the current logbooks that pharmacies use, tracking could identify people who exceed purchase limits in real time, according to the group.

“It seems to me that we need to try tracking before putting people to all the trouble of a doctor's visit,” said State Senator Mae Beavers, a Mount Juliet Republican sponsoring a tracking bill that has more momentum in Tennessee than the prescription-only proposal. “It's the easiest thing we can do right now.”

But law enforcement officials said tracking had not stopped the spread of meth labs in states like Kentucky and Oklahoma and could not stop smurfers who buy less than the legal limit or use fake IDs.

“Those are the two things that completely evade and eviscerate the electronic tracking systems,” said Rob Bovett, the district attorney in Lincoln County, Ore., who said meth lab seizures in his state had dropped by 96 percent since its prescription-only law took effect in 2006, and arrests involving meth by 32 percent.

Ms. Funderburk said that meth lab seizures had dropped throughout the West, not just in Oregon, and that smurfing rings were not a proven trend.

“We have seen no evidence or hard data that smurfing rings actually exist,” she said. “We only hear anecdotes.”

Opponents of prescription-only laws also said such measures would not stop drug traffickers from importing vast amounts of Mexican methamphetamine. But Mr. Bovett said demand for that product had dropped because Mexico banned pseudoephedrine in 2009 and the meth produced there is now less potent.

Law enforcement officials like to point out that dozens of cold and allergy treatments do not contain pseudoephedrine, and thus would not be affected by prescription-only laws. But for people like Harriet Mabry, who lives in Clarksville and battles year-round allergies , pseudoephedrine drugs work best.

Ms. Mabry said she disliked the monthly limits imposed by the current law and thought a prescription might simplify things at the pharmacy counter.

“It's very irritating,” she said of the limits and the requirement to show identification whenever she buys Zyrtec-D. “I'm 77 years old with a head full of white hair, so they should look at me and know I'm not making meth.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/us/29meth.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

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

In Texas Courtroom, Saudi Denies Plotting Bomb Attacks

A Saudi man who had been a student at Vanderbilt and Texas Tech Universities pleaded not guilty on Monday in federal court in Lubbock, Tex., to a charge of trying to assemble an explosive device, with the potential to be used for American targets including New York City, a Dallas residence of former President George W. Bush and dams.

The defendant, Khalid Aldawsari, 20, a chemical engineering student, had obtained two of the three chemicals needed to assemble a bomb during the past several months and had sought to buy the third, prosecutors said. He was arrested Feb. 23.

Mr. Aldawsari faces a single count of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, which carries a penalty of life in prison. A federal judge has barred lawyers from discussing the case publicly. The trial is scheduled to start May 2.

Federal officials said Mr. Aldawsari first came under suspicion after placing an online order in late January with a North Carolina chemical supply company for phenol, to be shipped to a Lubbock address. Phenol is explosive when combined with the two other chemicals Mr. Aldawsari was said to have obtained.

The company reported Mr. Aldawsari's order to the F.B.I. on Feb. 1, and within days law enforcement officials were secretly searching Mr. Aldawsari's home, where they said they found chemical lab equipment and read his diary.

In it, Mr. Aldawsari wrote that his enrollment at Texas Tech had given him a type of access to his desired targets, officials said. It also made clear, they said, that he had planned to carry out bombings long before September 2008, when he came to the United States on a student visa.

“And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for jihad,” Mr. Aldawsari wrote, according to court documents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/us/29aldawsari.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

.