Obama repeals policy favoring Cuban refugees

(January 13) Obama repealed a long-standing U.S. policy that allows any Cuban who makes it to U.S. soil to be able to stay in the U.S. and become a legal resident, according to a senior U.S. administration official.

	1 of 2
The "wet foot, dry foot policy" has long been in force. It is described by Wikipedia as follows:

The wet foot, dry foot policy is the name given to a consequence of the 1995 revision of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 that essentially says that anyone who fled Cuba and entered the United States would be allowed to pursue residency a year later. After talks with the Cuban government, the Clinton administration came to an agreement with Cuba that it would stop admitting people intercepted in U.S. waters. Since then, in what has become known as the "Wet foot, Dry foot" policy, a Cuban caught on the waters between the two nations (with "wet feet") would summarily be sent home or to a third country. One who makes it to shore ("dry feet") gets a chance to remain in the United States, and later would qualify for expedited "legal permanent resident" status and eventually U.S. citizenship.

The anonymous senior administration official said that the repeal was effective immediately. The repeal follows months of negotiations that in part focused on Cuba agreeing to take back Cubans arriving in the U.S. While the official said that Cuba would give no assurances as to how it would treat returned Cubans, he noted that those concerned with persecution at home could still request asylum in the U.S.

Today, Obama made an official announcement saying:"Effective immediately, Cuban nationals who attempt to enter the United States illegally and do not qualify for humanitarian relief will be subject to removal, consistent with U.S. law and enforcement priorities. By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries. The Cuban government has agreed to accept the return of Cuban nationals who have been ordered removed, just as it has been accepting the return of migrants interdicted at sea."

The move a week before Obama leaves office is a continuation of Obama's attempt to normalize relations with Cuba after he made a historic visit to the island last year. He was the first U.S. president to visit Cuba in nearly 90 years. The wet foot dry foot policy was meant in part to stem mass migration of Cubans to the U.S. but it still gave Cubans favorable special status compared to other immigrants to the U.S. James Williams, president of Engage Cuba, a group working to end the travel and trade embargo on Cuba said: "This is a logical, responsible, and important step towards further normalizing relations with Cuba. The 'wet foot, dry foot' policy has been an enduring problem that decades of hostility and isolation failed to solve. This change, which has long had strong bipartisan support, would not have been possible without the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba." However, Senator, Bob Menendez a Democrat from New Jersey and himself a Cuban-American claimed:"Today's announcement will only tighten the noose the Castro regime continues to have around the neck of its own people." The Obama administration is also ending a 2006 policy that allowed Cuban medical personnel required to study or work in a third country to, in effect, defect to the U.S. Obama said the program contradicted US-Cuba efforts to fight diseases.

Donald Trump could attempt to change back to the old policy in order to keep the support of many older Cuban Americans who favor policies opposed to Cuba. Trump has criticized Obama's attempt to improve relations with Cuba. At the same time, Trump has supported tougher immigration policies. We will have to wait and see which of two contradictory policies he decides to follow. The "wet foot, dry foot" policy was actually put in place by Democratic president Bill Clinton in 1995.

While relations with Cuba have improved under Obama, a decades-old embargo still remains. The Cuban Adjustment Act also is still in force that allows Cubans to become permanent residents a year after they arrive legally in the United States. Since October 2012 more than 118,000 Cubans had presented themselves at ports of entry.

The preferential treatment for migrating Cubans was encouraged by anti-Castro Cubans who had migrated to the US and had become a potent political power. Younger Cuban-Americans appear less likely to identify their politics in terms of US policy toward Cuba. However, Trump won Cuban-American voters but by a much narrower margin than many other Republican presidential contenders had done. Obama's move may be another attempt to box Trump in by policies that conflict with those of Trump. Obama also recently expelled a number of Russian diplomats, and sanctioned five others. These moves may make it difficult for Trump to improve relationships with Russia as he claims to want.

US drops an average of 3 bombs per hour across the globe

A report from the Council of Foreign relations shows that in 2016 the US dropped an average of 72 bombs every day or three every hour. The think tank, located in New York City, noted that 26,171 bombs were dropped on 6 different countries.

Even such a high number is probably low according to the report as a single strike can often involve multiple bombs or munitions. In Iraq and Syria where the US is helping drive Islamic State (IS) militants from both countries, 24,287 bombs were said to be dropped compared to 22,110 in 2015. The number of bombs dropped in Afghanistan also rose in 2016 to 1,337 in 2017 compared to just 947 in 2015.

When campaigning for president in 2008 Obama promised to end the Iraq war on day one. Yet the US has sent more and more trainers and advisers to Iraq and also to Syria while claiming there are no "boots on the ground". As of the end of September last year the US sent 600 more troops to Iraq bringing the total to around 5,000 troops, seven years after Obama had withdrawn all US troops from the country. Obama says his toughest decision as president was to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in 2009. While those troops are now withdrawn, there are still US troops in Afghanistan and Obama is planning to send 300 more to help the Afghans keep Helmand province out of the hands of the Taliban.

In the same year as he sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize:The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to United States President Barack Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".[1] The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation[2] and a "new climate" in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world.[3][4]

We are now facing no action at all on nuclear proliferation and the new climate in international relations includes a renewed cold war with Russia. The US has retained good relations with countries such as Saudi Arabia whose human rights record is dismal. Bahrain can crack down on dissidents because it is a US ally and a US navy fleet is headquartered there. Two of the few positive developments during the Obama presidency were his opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba and the Iran nuclear deal, a huge achievement to be sure.

On the whole, Obama has turned out to be a hawk in foreign relations. However, his use of force is often less visble than under the last Bush administration. For example, he has expanded greatly the use of special operations around the world. In 2016, special forces were operating in a total of 138 countries, 70 percent of the countries in the world. This is an increase of 130 percent from the Bush administration.

A feature of Obama's rule has been the extension of the use of drones. Obama authorized more than ten times the number of drone strikes than George W. Bush. He also has classified all males of military age in regions attacked as legitimate targets. The extended powers that Obama has given himself will now be passed on to president-elect Donald Trump. While the US is part of a coalition in bombing Iraq and Syria, the US carried out approximately 67 percent of airstrikes in Iraq and 96 percent of those in Syria.

U.S. to send 600 more troops to Iraq for Mosul offensive

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter has announced that some 600 additional troops will be sent to Iraq prior to a major offensive against the city of Mosul held by the Islamic State.

Carter said President Barack Obama approved sending the troops. The troops were sent on the recommendation of General Joe Dunford, Chair of the Joint Chiefs. The Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi approved sending the additional troops and supported the U.S. decision. Carter claimed the additional troops would "further enable Iraqi forces", saying:"The troops, in close coordination with the government of Iraq, will provide specific capabilities including logistics and maintenance support; train, advise and assist teams for Iraqi Security Forces and Kurdish Peshmerga for the upcoming Mosul operation; and expanded intelligence resources to help disrupt ISIL's terrorist network in Iraq and beyond." Iraqi PM al-Abadi said: "American President Barack Obama was consulted on a request from the Iraqi government for a final increase in the number of trainers and advisers under the umbrella of the international coalition in Iraq."

The addition of the troops will raise the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to over 5,200 while the cap is supposed to be 4,600. The news did not sit well with everyone in the U.S. government. John McCain, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee called the move "mission creep". Carter will likely send a request for more funds to Congress as expenses mount for U.S. wars, including 8,400 troops in Afghanistan. McCain has suggested that there should be even more funding and that even more troops need to be sent to Iraq. He has complained that the offensive against the Islamic State has been too incremental McCain said: "They're going to need more money than, maybe, they said they'd need a couple weeks ago. And they may have to send more troops over and may have to ask for more money."

The level of U.S. involvement in Iraq has grown throughout the year. This is the third new deployment of U.S. troops since last April. The new troops will serve as trainers and advisers to Iraqi security forces as well as the Kurdish peshmerga forces concentrating on preparing for the battle to take Mosul. Carter noted that although it will be the Iraqi forces who are in combat, that American forces would be "in harm's way". Some of the troops wii be based at Qayara air base which is about 40 miles (60 km) from the city of Mosul. The base was captured in July and is being turned into a logistics hub to support the Mosul offensive. Carter said: "Mosul will be the last of the very large cities that needs to be recaptured but they’ll need to continue to consolidate control over the whole city.” The U.S. dispatched about 200 more troops in April and then 560 more in July. Three US troops have been killed so far since the battle against the Islamic State was launched. At the height of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq there were 170,000 troops deployed to Iraq. The U.S. president continues to insist that in the operation against the Islamic State there will be no troops on the ground.

CNN also has a report on the sending of a new contingent of troops to Iraq but claims there will be approximately 500 new troops. Officials claim that this will probably be the final addition of U.S. troops to Iraq. The article notes that the total number of troops listed in Iraq is misleading in that hundreds of additional troops, currently there on a short term status, are not counted.

President Obama breaks promise on troop reduction in Afghanistan

Obama had pledged to reduce U.S. troop deployment in Afghanistan to 5,500 troops by the end of this year but instead he is withdrawing about 1,400.

This will leave 8,400 troops in Afghanistan until the end of his presidency, 2,900 more than he promised. Obama defended his decision saying:

“I strongly believe that it is in our national security interest, especially after all the blood and treasure we've invested in Afghanistan over the years, that we give our Afghan partners the very best opportunity to succeed. The decision I'm making today ensures that my successor has a solid foundation for continued progress in Afghanistan as well as the flexibility to address the threat of terrorism as it evolves.”

Obama said his national security advisers had recommended that he move away from his earlier pledge to reduce numbers to 5,500. Officials said the decision was based for the most part on assessments made by General John Nicholson Jr. who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Obama said the basic nature of the present mission to assist and advise local Afghan forces will not change but last month the White House approved giving U.S. commanders greater freedom to use air strikes whenever U.S. or Afghan troops were in danger. Obama said he will not let Afghanistan become a safe haven for terrorists to attack the U.S. The U.S. spends about $4 billion annually to fund the Afghan military. The U.S. is trying to get some NATO partners to share the burden as described in a recent article. This October, the US will have been in Afghanistan for 15 years. As of now, the Taliban control more territory than they have any time since 2001.

Many members of the U.S. Congress want the U.S. to send more troops. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mac Thornberry, said:“The precision of the president’s new Afghanistan troop cap would be comical were its consequences not so tragic for our mission and military readiness. It is time that the president level with the American people about what it will really take to achieve our goals in Afghanistan, and how much it will cost. The truth is that many thousands more Americans are performing military functions in Afghanistan than even the current troop cap authorizes."In spite of the fact that the combat role of the US in Afghanistan is over, 38 Americans including troops, contractors, and workers lost their lives last year.

The UK is to send 50 more troops to Afghanistan. With the 450 troops already there, the UK contingent will be 500 troops. The mission was to end this year but has been extended to 2017.

Australia has also extended its Afghan mission until at least mid-2017. It was to end at the end of this year. Australia also pleadged $100 million a year to fund the Afghan National Army and National Police until 2020. There are only 270 Australian troops in Afghanistan.

NATO allies promised the US they will contribute about $1 billion a year over the next three years to help fund the Afghan military. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stotlenberg said that there were more pledges to come. 12,000 NATO troops will stay in Afghanistan into 2017.

Guantanamo unlikely to close before Obama's term ends

A sign that Guantanamo Bay is not set to close anytime soon are new construction contracts to build new facilities and repair old buildings at the naval base in Cuba.

There has been $240 million budgeted for improvements and repairs to buildings used by personnel assigned to work on the base. Contracts awarded to five different firms stretch over five years.

One contract awarded to Munilla Construction Management of Miami is for $63 million to build a new school for children of civilians and military working on the island. Even though there are already two schools for those at the base, U.S. officials claim that the facilities are not enough for the 6,000 people at the base.

Base Commander Captain David Culpepper said: "The quality of life for our residents and their families is of the utmost importance and the new school will provide a great opportunity for our children for many years," Construction at the base would indicate that the prison is not to be closed soon or there would not be the need to build a new school. If the base were being closed soon one would think that the present two schools would be more than enough for those who remained working at the base. Cuba has repeatedly asked for the return of the territory as part of normalizing relations between the two countries but there is no sign of that happening. Obama promised to close the base during his 2008 presidential campaign but has yet to do so.

Donald Trump has condemned Obama's plan to close the base and claimed he would keep it open. In February Obama outlined his plans to Congress for closing the base but it immediately was criticized by many Republicans and even some Democrats mostly because it involves bringing some of those held to the continental United States. Congress is vehemently against such a move even though as Obama points out on the appended video, there are a number of convicted terrorists already held in the continental United States without any problems. However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he was not willing to accept bringing suspected terrorists to the US. He said: “The bipartisan will of congress has already been expressed against that proposal.” The plan does not set out exactly where the prisoners might go but even the suggestion to where they might go brought rejections and outcry from the areas named.

Hillary Clinton, who claims to support the closing of Guantanamo, said that she backed Obama's effort to close the prison but also stressed that terrorist suspects would not necessarily be transferred to a military jail here. She is obviously trying to avoid the fact that Obama is intending to relocate some prisoners to the continental U.S.

Senator John McCain, who has been generally supportive of Obama in his attempt to close Guantanamo, was nevertheless critical of his plan. “What we received today is a vague menu of options, not a credible plan for closing Guantanamo, let alone a coherent policy to deal with future terrorist detainees. The president has missed a major chance to convince the Congress and the American people that he has a responsible plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.”

Some have pointed out that Obama could simply use his executive power to close the base and transfer the prisoners to the U.S. However, such a move is too politically dangerous for him to try. It could damage the chances of Hillary Clinton to be elected president and create a huge outcry in Congress, and even give rise to court challenges. An article earlier this year in Time,goes through the reasons why Obama will not be able to close Guantanamo and concludes:... expect the President and his Team to publicly anguish over closing Guantanamo unilaterally; expect them to decide in the end that the rule of law — which the President holds dear and will play up in his memoirs — forbids it; and expect fifty or so dangerous terrorists to be locked up in indefinite military detention in Guantanamo when the next President assumes office on January 20, 2017.

In the appended video, Obama speaks of Guantanamo violating American values. However moving the suspects to the US and closing down the facility does not change the fact that he is still violating the basic right to be charged if you commit a crime and be able to defend yourself in a court of law. Obama's plan continues the scheme of indefinite detention of those thought a danger to the US with no charge being brought against them and no way for those accused to prove their innocence. If you are a terror suspect you are guilty until those who arrested you think you are no longer a danger and can be released.

Obama releases official figures of civilian casualties from drone strikes

The Obama administration has finally released figures on the number of civilians killed in non-combat areas including Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia.

The figures exclude Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. The report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence claims that between 2009 to 2015 airstrikes killed between 64 and 116 civilians in the four countries. This is the first time that the Obama administration has provided official estimates of the death toll from drones. He also issued that an executive order report on drone strikes annually including the number of combatants and non-combatants killed. The order also instructs the government to increase efforts to avoid civilian casualties and acknowledge them when they do occur. Hina Shamsi, the director of the National Security Project for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said that the order was a "positive step but riddled with caveats and weak formulations."

The official numbers are much lower than those estimated by journalists and researchers. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, based in London estimates that at least 325 civilians have been killed in drone strikes outside of war zones by the Obama administration. The New America Foundation estimates are somewhat lower at 247 to 294. Neither estimate included Libya. The estimates are still more than double those of the official statistics. The government insists that the US government is better informed as it has classified information unavailable to outside investigators. The report notes: . "The U.S. Government uses post-strike methodologies that have been refined and honed over the years and that use information that is generally unavailable to non-governmental organizations."

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism actually gives much higher casualty figures than those attributed to it above by Mother Jones.

A Bureau article says of the US official figures:This is a fraction of the 380 to 801 civilian casualty range recorded by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism from reports by local and international journalists, NGO investigators, leaked government documents, court papers and the result of field investigations.

At the same time, the estimates of the total number killed are much less different. The US government total is 2,436 killed, while the Bureau's total is 2,753. The official data has been a long time coming as the White House announced three years ago it would release casualty figures. It comes four months after Obama's counter-terrorism adviser Lisa Monaco promised the data would be released.

The figures do not include those killed under the administration of George Bush who carried out an estimated 58 strikes which were estimated to have killed 174 civilians. The newly released figures are not broken down by year, nor do they provide any detail on controversial strikes. Jamel Jaffer of the ACLU said:“While any disclosure of information about the government’s targeted-killing policies is welcome, the government should be releasing information about every strike—the date of the strike, the location, the numbers of casualties, and the civilian or combatant status of those casualties. Perhaps this kind of information should be released after a short delay, rather than immediately, but it should be released. The public has a right to know who the government is killing—and if the government doesn’t know who it’s killing, the public should know that.”Jennifer Gibson of Reprieve noted that back in 2011 the US administration claimed to have only killed 60 civilians but now its estimates lead one to conclude that it is possible that there have only been four more since then to arrive at the 64 number at the low end of their estimates.

Obama said as the figures were released: “All armed conflict invites tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life.” The statement is similar to that made by John Brennan in June 2011 who said the drone strikes were "exceptionally precise and surgical" and had not killed a single civilian since August 2010.

A Bureau investigation concluded that there had been 213 civilian killed in Pakistan alone during Obama's presidency. An investigation into a drone strike in Yemen revealed that the US hid its responsibility for a strike on a camp that killed 41 civilians many of them children and 5 pregnant women. Often the US has little idea of who was killed in a strike and the dead often remain unidentified. The situation is made worse by the use of signature strikes which target people on the basis of their behavior and double-tap strikes that target those who come to help those hit by an earlier strike. Leaked records from CIA strikes show that not only did they not know who they killed but did not know what group they belonged to. They are listed as "other militants" or "foreign fighters."

According to the figures released between 2,372 and 2,581 militants were killed. An anonymous administration official did admit to reporters that exact figures were difficult to determine since the strikes often took place in "non-permissive environments". In the past, the administration has refused even to acknowledge the drone program existed in countries such as Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya.

Extension of drone program and executive powers part of Obama's heritage

Journalists Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald claim that the Obama administration has left a "deadly legacy" in its employment of presidential power for targeted killing using drones.

The two award-winning journalists argue that Democratic president Obama has been able to perpetrate crimes and repressive policies that liberals would never allow a Republican carry out. The Democratic president, they say, has gotten away with crimes and repressive policies that liberals never would have let a Republican carry out, certainly not with the support of many liberals. Scahill said in an interview on Democracy Now: “The most significant aspect of what President Obama has done, regarding drones and regarding the so-called targeted killing program around the world, is that Obama has codified assassination as a central official component of American foreign policy.”

Just over last year, the U.S. dropped over 23,000 bombs on six countries with Muslim majorities. Scahill believes that liberals and liberal pundits will not maintain the same supportive position about such operations as many do now if a Republican wins the presidency and carries on with the same policies. During his 2007 campaign, Obama had lambasted the destructive policies of the Bush administration, but as president, Obama has not only adopted the same policies but has increased and strengthened them. He has continued indefinite detention in Guantanamo and other places and greatly expanded the drone program from what it was under Bush.

Greenwald says that Obama not only imprisons suspected terrorists without charge or due process or eavesdrop on them as many Democrats had criticized Bush for doing, Obama also targets them for execution. He points out that Democrats have long opposed the death penalty even when criminals are sentenced to death after a full trial, yet Obama claims that he can "target people for death anywhere in the world that he wants, including places where we are not at war, including even American citizens."

Scahill has written a new book called "The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government's Secret Drone Warfare Program". The book was a joint project of the staff of the Intercept, the news outlet formed by Scahill and Greenwald along with filmmakers Laura Poitras. Edward Snowden wrote an introduction to the book with can be read on The Intercept. The Assassination Complex is based upon leaked government documents showing how destructive the program has been. Some of the documents were released last October as the Drone Papers.

Among many damaging revelations, one is that during a five-month period, Operation Haymaker, a US program in northeastern Afghanistan, ninety percent of those killed in the attacks were not the intended targets. Investigative journalists and researchers place the number of civilians killed by drone attacks in the hundreds at the least but the program remains secret with little information released. Only recently has the Obama administration promised to release the number of people it has killed.

Obama has insisted that though some innocent people are killed the rate of civilian casualties is far less than those that would be killed by a pilot in conventional war. Experts at the Council on Foreign Relations claim the opposite is true. Scahill thinks that the statistics Obama will release will drastically underestimate the number of civilians killed.

The government considers any male of military age as an enemy unless there is verified evidence to the contrary. As Scahill notes, the system of counting virtually ensures the often zero civilians will be killed: Virtually anyone who is killed in a U.S. drone strike is labeled an “enemy killed in action,” or EKIA, ...until they are posthumously proven to not have been a militant. It is the polar inversion of the basic principle of the justice system: you are innocent until proven guilty.

Scahill along with many others argues that through the drone program the US encourages terrorism, providing terror organizations with recruiting material. Policies that were once publicly opposed during the Bush administration became acceptable The Obama administration has now made the drone program and targeted assassination a key official component of US policy and an important part of his legacy.

Obama says that the U.S. will be in Iraq for a long haul

At a press conference during his visit to Saudi Arabia, President Barack Obama said the U.S. will continue its presence in Iraq over the longer term. He cited the country's political instability as showing that the U.S. needs to remain involved.

The U.S. has been increasing its military involvement in Iraq for some time, with 200 more troops sent recently. The number of U.S. troops in Iraq is now more than the cap imposed by the Iraqi government.

The political situation in Iraq is chaotic. Prime Minister Hader Abadi has been trying to have a reform cabinet of technocrats approved. The Shia mullah Moqtada al-Sadr has led huge demonstrations demanding reform. There have been fist-fights on the floor of the parliament. The speaker was sacked. The parliament has been suspended until further notice. In an attempt to force the parliament to act quickly, Obama said that increased funding for Iraq would be based on the ability of the government to get a cabinet in place. Obama said he was concerned that Abadi's hold on power was not very strong. Abadi is facing strong resistance from party members who prefer the old corrupt system which gives them more power and influence. For once, the fiercely anti-American al-Sadr and the Americans agree on something. However, Sadr is opposed to more U.S. ground troops in Iraq.

While visiting Saudi Arabia, Obama appealed to the Saudis and Gulf states to provide more financial aid for Iraq. However, the budgets of the rich oil producers are stretched by the steep decline in oil prices. The Sunni nations are not anxious to provide funds for their mainly Shia neighbor under in those circumstances. They also want the political situation to improve and Iraq to better integrate its Sunni minority into the government. Even Obama said:“Right now in Baghdad, there’s some big challenges. Until that’s settled, I think it’s important for us to make sure that any additional stabilization dollars that we put in are going to be effectively spent.”Obama has not been able to wind down U.S. involvement in the Middle East or Afghanistan, as conflicts continue. Many of Obama's Middle East allies are concerned that Obama is willing to make a peace deal in Syria that would leave Assad in power. Obama noted that the ceasefire seems to be breaking down.

Obama still trying to close Guantanamo Bay prison in spite of Congressional roadblocks

Obama is poised to present his plan for closing the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, a plan that involves transfer of some inmates to the US. The plan may be revealed as early as today, Friday the 13th of November.

 

+ Add Image

The transfer of any inmates to U.S. soil is prohibited by the U.S. Congress by provisions in a recently passed defense bill. The provisions also place restriction on transfers of inmates to other countries. The Obama plan suggests seven facilities in the U.S. to which inmates could be transferred. The list includes two in Colorado one of which has a Supermax facility for very dangerous inmates. The report indicates the advantages and disadvantages of each facility but does not rank them. No doubt Obama would probably choose a facility in a location that has the least local resistance to the transfer or even had local support.

Guantanamo now holds 112 detainees with 53 eligible for transfer to another country. The other 59 will either face trial by military commission or the government has decided that they are too dangerous to release but are not facing charges. A key aspect of the shame of Guantanamo was that it held prisoners indefinitely without charge. Yet Obama's plan retains that feature while closing the facility. As a Guardian article notes:The administration claims they cannot charge and hold a trial for dozens of detainees (in many cases, because torture will likely taint any evidence), but they also say they consider them “too dangerous” to release from US custody. So the plan appears to be to let them rot in jail forever – in clear violation of the fifth amendment – in a supermax prison somewhere inside the United States.

Those who oppose Obama's plan appear not to even take notice of this aspect of his plan. They worry that the inmates might pose a danger to Americans even though there are already many terrorists locked up in the U.S. quite safely it would appear. Ben Carson, the frontrunner in the Republican presidential nomination race, probably speaks for many Republicans when he says on his Facebook page that the Guantanamo detention facility must be kept open even though many observers think that it is a prime recruiting tool for jihadists. Even George W. Bush thought it should be closed.

There are difficulties too in transferring the 53 cleared for transfer to another country. U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter must be certain that the detainees will not return to terrorism or the battlefield. Many of those cleared for transfer are from Yemen now in the midst of a civil war in which Al Qaeda is making great gains. Carter is not about to repatriate any Yemeni inmates.

Many analysts and legal experts argue that Obama could easily use his executive power as commander in chief to transfer Guantanamo inmates to the US without congressional approval. The main argument is relatively straightforward. The former special envoy overseeing Guantánamo’s closure, Cliff Sloan, and a former White House counsel, Gregory Craig, wrote a commentary on Nov. 6 in the Washington Post arguing that, under his powers as commander in chief outlined in Article II of the Constitution, “the president has exclusive authority to determine the facilities in which military detainees are held.”

A similar argument has been made by Harold Koh, a former top legal advisor at the State Department.

It would be somewhat ironic if Obama does use his executive power and ignore the U.S. Congress. In 2007 as a senator Obama accused the G.W. Bush administration of "clear abuse of power" for claiming sweeping authority to ignore Congress. However as president Obama has moved in the same direction of extending executive privilege: He has invoked commander-in-chief authorities to justify the widespread use of lethal drone strikes abroad and the secrecy surrounding them, despite criticism that in many cases the individuals targeted did not represent an “imminent threat” to the United States.When he wants to claim and use executive power Obama does so, but when he has it but does not want to use it he claims he cannot act because Congress is preventing him.

The problem for Obama with using his executive power is that he could face not just a legal challenge but challenges to cut funding for government priorities or even a shut down, as well as refusal to approve nominations for key positions. Obama may not be willing to face such a political battle even if this means not being able to carry out a key promise that he has continually said he will keep. Perhaps Obama might wait until after the November election to carry out the transfer of detainees to the U.S. by executive order. Already, the Republicans are making the plan to close Guantanamo a joint Obama-Clinton operation as shown on one appended video.

Over $600 billion US defence bill bans Guantanamo inmates from US.

The US Senate on Tuesday approved a $607 billion defense spending bill that includes provisions that will make it difficult for Barack Obama to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

+ Add Image

While Obama had vetoed an earlier version of the bill, the new version passed by a 370 to 58 vote in the House of Representatives and 91 to 3 in the Senate. Bernie Sanders, who is running to be the Democratic presidential candidate, was one of the three senators voting against the bill.

Even the new bill has provisions in it that would ban transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the U.S. The administration has been studying possible locations for prisoners in the U.S., includeing a "Supermax" facility in Florence, Colorado, designed for very dangerous inmates. The restrictions in the bill would prevent transfer of detainees to the U.S. even for prosecution as well as continued detention. There are also tighter restrictions on transferring detainees to other countries. Obama's plan was to transfer 53 of those remaining in the facility to other countries and to send the 61 remaining prisoners to the U.S. In spite of the roadblocks put in place by the U.S. Congress, the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, insisted the Obama administration would continue to work towards closing the prison. Closing Guantanamo has been a key unfulfilled promise of Obama from the beginning of his term of office. Earnest was optimistic:“I don’t think this has any material impact on our ability to put together and send to Congress a thoughtful, carefully considered plan for closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, and a plan that we believe merits the strong support of both Democrats and Republicans.”Senate Republicans such as Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire were critical and warned Obama against any attempt to circumvent Congress saying: “Even when the Democrats controlled the Senate, there have been provisions that have prohibited the transfer of the terrorist detainees at Guantánamo to the United States of America. So this discussion that you’ve seen from the administration to say that the president is contemplating an executive order on this issue clearly would violate the law.”

Josh Earnest commented on the executive order issue:"I'm not aware of any ongoing effort to devise a strategy using only the president's executive authority to accomplish this goal. But I certainly wouldn't, as I mentioned last week, take that option off the table."The new bill cuts less than 1 percent from the previous bill. There was bipartisan agreement that the U.S. needed to spend the money to maintain and upgrade U.S. military capacities due to threats against American interests throughout the globe. As Republican Senator John McCainput it: “We must champion the cause of defense reform, rigorously root out Pentagon waste, and invest to maintain our military technological advantage, and that is what this bill is about."

Among the specific expenditures authorized were $300 million for military aid in Ukraine. The bill also grants a request from Obama for $715 million to be used to fight the Islamic State in Iraq. There was also a further expenditure of $80 billion in a separate bill that passed 93 to 0. The bill was for veteran's programs and military construction projects. The White House has affirmed that Obama will sign the bill in spite of the retention of provisions that make it difficult for him to close Guantanamo as well as minimal spending reductions. Both houses have sufficient votes to overcome a veto in any event.

Obama sends 450 more troops to Iraq as US mission grows

On Wednesday the White House announced it would send up to 450 additional troops to Anbar province in eastern Iraq. The troops will advise and otherwise assist Iraqi forces in their battle against the Islamic State(IS) in the province.

+ Add Image

With the addition of these 450 troops, the total number of U.S. military forces in Iraq will now number 3,550, less than four years after the U.S. pulled all of its troops out of the country. The White House Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, sounded the regular refrain of the Obama administration: “These additional US troops will not serve in a combat role.”

In spite of constant bombing by a U.S.-led coalition of IS positions, the group has managed to retain much of the territory it took and has even driven Iraqi forces out of some cities such as Ramadi, although Iraqi forces have taken the city of Tikrit from the Islamic State. There is no sign yet of Iraqi forces being able to retake the major city of Mosul.

The new troops are termed "advisers" by the White House. They will provide "operational advice and planning support for Iraqi forces" with the aim of improving their ability to "plan, lead and conduct operations" against the Islamic State, also called ISIS or Daesh. As with the earlier occupation of Iraq, the UK is a junior partner in the campaign against IS. It is sending 125 more trainers to Anbar province as well.

The new troops are being sent to a base at Taqaddum, just 15 miles from Ramadi, the capital of Anbar,just recently captured by the Islamic State. The Americans will be in a position where they may be subject to attack by IS and suffer casualties. This might be used as a reason to send even further troops although it could also cause a reaction against intervention. US officials described the new deployment as follows:The new U.S. forces will begin arriving in six to eight weeks. About a quarter of them will be advisers; the remainder will provide security and other logistics.The U.S. forces will advise the 8th Iraqi Army Division, based at al-Taqaddum, on intelligence gathering, logistics, troop deployments and other tactical and administrative improvements to help them develop a plan to retake of Ramadi. That division includes forces that fled the Islamic State attack on the city last month.Note that most of the troops deployed are to protect the hundred or so advisers. The administration must realize that they are locating in an area where their troops will likely be attacked. Obama has not ruled out further steps to be taken in the fight against the Islamic State. There are obvious signs of mission creep already. Some Republicans including John McCain are urging Obama to further involve the U.S.

US continues aid and support to Egypt in spite of its repressive policies

In spite of the fact that since the overthrow of elected president Mohamed Morsi led by then army chief Abdel al-Sisi, the regime has become even more repressive since his election as president and the Obama administration has become more supportive.

In September President Al-Sisi met with Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright. In late September, Obama also met with al-Sisi and "touted the longstanding relationship between the United States and Egypt as a cornerstone of American security policy in the Middle East." In June, Human Rights Watch claimed that the post-coup era in Egypt has included "the worst incident of mass unlawful killings in Egypt's recent history". The situation became even worse as: “judicial authorities have handed down unprecedented large-scale death sentences and security forces have carried out mass arrests and torture that harken back to the darkest days of former President Hosni Mubarak’s rule.” Even the New York Times in an editorial said: “Egypt today is in many ways more repressive than it was during the darkest periods of the reign of deposed strongman Hosni Mubarak.”
 Yet even back in April US officials promised to ensure that some of the $1.5 million in aid to Egypt, most of it military, would be released including 10 Apache helicopter gunships to be used in operations in the Sinai against militants. In June, Secretary of State John Kerry also met with al-Sisi and US officials announced that $572 million in aid that had been frozen after the crackdown last October, has now been released.
 An Egyptian court recently dismissed all charges against previous president Hosni Mubarak. The charges involved the killing of 239 protesters in 2011. Mubarak's interior minister and six aides were also cleared. Mubarak was also cleared of two corruption charges. Although one charge was upheld it will not likely entail any more prison time. While Mubarak was cleared of charges a total of 188 members of the Muslim Brotherhood were found guilty and sentenced to death en masse for the killing of 11 police officers during an ant-Sisi protest. This is the third mass sentencing of hundreds in the last year. Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights Watch said: “It is just one more piece of evidence that the judiciary is just a political tool the government uses to prosecute its enemies and free the people it wants to be freed,”
 Al-Sisi refused to condemn the dropping of charges against Mubarak. He said that Egypt should "look to the future" and "cannot ever go back" echoing President Obama's justifications for not prosecuting any of the torturers and others from the Bush era black site times.Obama had said that "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards". No doubt Egypt can look forward to further repression and mass sentencing.
 During the Tahrir Square demonstrations, the US applauded the drive towards democracy even though they had for years supported Mubarak and even used his torturers to extract information for them on occasion. In March of 2009 Hillary Clinton said: “I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family.” Perhaps if Hillary becomes US president, President Al-Sisi will become friends of her family. Expect that Al-Sisi will also be friends with Putin and even with Israel.

US launches 500th drone attack

As Micah Zenko noted in an article in 2012, November 3 that year marked the tenth anniversary of the first drone attack by the US. No one took notice. The same will apply to the 500th confirmed US drone attack today outside of combat zones.

In his 2012 article Zenko called the drone strikes America's Third War. Micah Zenko is the Douglas Dillon fellow in the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He has worked previously at Harvard and the Brookings Institution. Targeted killings were originally directed supposedly at a small number of key terrorist leaders thought to be an imminent threat to the US. Now the attacks barely merit a mention in the press. As Zenko puts it in his 2012 article: What was once considered an immediate response to an exceptional threat to the United States is now a permanent and institutionalized feature of U.S. foreign policy. Perhaps by November 3, 2022, policymakers and the American people will have noticed.
 Certainly in November 2014 Zenko is one of the few who have noted that a recent drone strike in Pakistan was the 500th such attack. The attack destroyed a house in Mada Khei a village in North Waziristan. The attack reportedly killed six people and wounded three others. All six who were killed were said to be suspects but none were identified. The reports were from a security official in the area.
 The Pakistan military has been carrying out an offensive in the area and claims to have killed about 1,200 militants. Before the offensive the population of the area about a million people were told to leave their homes, creating a huge flood of displaced people.
In the final years of the Bush administration there were just a few attacks each year. However, since Obama came to power attacks have increased in number and been extended to both Yemen and Somalia. In all, the 500 attacks are estimated to have killed 3,674 people but only 473 are listed as confirmed civilian casualties with the rest usually never identified but classified as "suspects". The 500th strike was reportedly also the 21st strike of this year in Pakistan. The Pakistan government constantly complains about the strikes but does nothing to stop them. Of the 500 drone strikes 50 were authorized by president George W. Bush and the other 450 by the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama.

Not just in Ferguson, Missouri, in total there are presently 30 different states of emergency in US

A proclamation by governor Jay Nixon authorizes the Missouri National Guard to support police if there is violence when a grand jury decision is announced on whether a white policeman who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager will be charged.

The exact proclamation can be found here. Governor Nixon said: "As part of our ongoing efforts to plan and be prepared for any contingency, it is necessary to have these resources in place in advance of any announcement of the grand jury’s decision." The order also designates the St. Louis Police Department rather than the Ferguson police to be in charge of policing any protests that might arise as a result of the decision. There have already been protests in Clayton, Missouri, where the grand jury is meeting. The decision is expected some time in November. The state of emergency was for thirty days but can always be extended.
Many states of emergency are extended for years. In 1979 on the 10th day of the Iranian hostage crisis, then president Jimmy Carter declared a state of emergency. It is still in effect about 35 years later. The post 9/11 state of national emergency issued by president George W. Bush has been renewed six times by Obama. He uses the state of emergency for many of his actions in the war on terror. States of emergency are very convenient for giving officials extra-ordinary power. In the US at present there are a total of thirty distinct states of emergency in effect.
 Some states of emergency seem only marginally related to any significant immediate threat to the United States. For example, recently Obama informed the US Congress that he was extending a state of emergency with respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo that had been passed in the Bush era because the "widespread violence and atrocities" in that country "pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States".
 Emergency declarations allow the president extraordinary powers to seize property, call up the National Guard, and also hire and fire military officers as he wishes. Kim Scheppel of Princeton University said:"What the National Emergencies Act does is like a toggle switch, and when the president flips it, he gets new powers. It's like a magic wand. and there are very few constraints about how he turns it on," Since the National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976 presidents have declared 53 states of emergency but this does not count declarations during natural disasters such as hurricanes or floods. Since Obama has been in office he has declared nine emergencies but also extended 22 others that were already in effect. Only one declaration has been allowed to expire.The 1976 law requires both houses of Congress to meet within six months of a declaration to vote it up or down. Apparently this has never happened.
Attorney Patrick Thronson in a University of Michingan law journal identified 160 different laws giving presidents broad unchecked powers. These include the power to: • Suspend environmental laws, including a law forbidding the dumping of toxic and infectious medical waste at sea.• Bypass federal contracting laws, allowing the government to buy and sell property without competitive bidding.
  Harold Relyea of the Congressional Research Service said: "The history here is so clear. The Congress hasn't done much of anything. Congress has not been the watchdog. It's very toothless, and the partisanship hasn't particularly helped." Scheppele claims that declarations of emergencies have now become so routine they often do not even generate a single headline:"If we had to break the glass and flip the switch in order to do it ... it would be helpful for the alarm to go off at least. It's a sign that normal law isn't set up right. States of emergency always bypass something else. So what we need to look at is what's being bypassed, and should that be fixed."

US House or Representatives passes Keystone XL pipeline approval bill

- The U.S. House of Representatives controlled by Republicans easily passed a bill that approves the Keystone XL pipeline that also circumvents the need to get presidential approval for the project.

The legislation approving the $8 billion dollar project passed by a vote of 252 votes to 161. Joining all 221 Republicans who voted for the bill were 31 Democrats. Supporters claim the bill will also pass in Senate although this is certainly not assured as at least one source claims that one more vote was needed to pass Senate to garner the 60 votes to overcome any attempt to block passage through a fillibuster. The Senate is expected to take up the bill on Tuesday.
 The Keystone XL pipeline would transport oil from the Canadian Tar Sands in the province of Alberta to the US Gulf Coast. Since the pipeline will cross the US border the line must be approved by the US government. A description of the project and its history can be found here.
 While supporters of the pipeline, including some unions, claim construction of the line would create many jobs among other benefits, environmentalists claim the number of jobs created is inflated and that the pipeline will indirectly elevate carbon emissions through the increased production from the Alberta Tar or Oil Sands. Obama has threatened to veto any approval in the past as he wants to wait for the outcome of a legal case over the route of the pipeline in Nebraska. After the ruling the State Department can complete its own evaluation of the project.
 The Democrats face problems when the Keystone bill comes to the Senate. The bill is sponsored not only by Republican John Hoeven from North Dakota but also Democrat Mary Landrieu from Lousiana. The sponsor of the House bill was Republican Bill Cassidy also of Louisiana. Cassidy will face Landrieu on December 6 in a runoff election for Senate. Democrats will need to decide if they want to help out their fellow Democratic Senator by voting for the bill or vote against it. Even if the bill does not pass the Senate now it will probably pass after the Republicans take over control in January since after the mid-term elections they gained control of the body. At present, the Republicans need the support of 15 Democrats to push through the legislation.
Republicans and Democrats both touted their role in bringing the bill before the Senate. Landrieu pushed for the vote in Senate to show she supported the project, as it is quite popular in Louisiana. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, on the other hand claimed progress on the bill was due to Republican sponsor John Hoeven:"We never would have gotten to this point without the tireless leadership of Sen. Hoeven in the Senate, and Congressman Cassidy in the House. Like the experts, Sen. Hoeven also knows that Keystone would also have almost zero net effect on our climate."
 Obama maintains that the pipeline would not help lower gas prices in the US claiming that it only provides Canada the ability to send its oil to the Gulf and export it elsewhere as shown on the appended video. Duane Bratt, chair of the Department of Policy Studies at Mount Royal University, is quite critical of Obama's remarks: "There is so much wrong with that statement. It ignores the undercapacity of U.S. refineries. Having additional oil coming into U.S. refineries is good for them." He points out as well that most Canadian oil is not shipped to China and Asia but is sold in the US. He might have mentioned as well that most of the oil sands producers are not even Canadian owned: More than two-thirds of all oil sands production in Canada is owned by foreign entities, sending a majority of the industry’s profits out of the country, says a new analysis released Thursday by a British Columbia-based conservation group Oil analyst Jackie Forrest pointed out that Gulf Coast refineries in the US need heavy oil: “There is a shortage of heavy oil. If we can get our oil to the Gulf Coast, there is a market for it there.”
 Environmentalists will see Obama's reactions to these events as a test of his commitment to address the issue of climate change. The Republicans accept a State Department report this January that the pipeline would not significantly add to carbon emissions since if the pipeline were not built the oil would be transported by truck and rail which could cause even more environmental problems.