Tag Archives: President Obama

U.S. weighs dangers, benefits of naming Russia in cyber hack

Hand in front of computer

By Warren Strobel and John Walcott

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Wary of a global confrontation with Russia, U.S. President Barack Obama must carefully weigh how to respond to what security experts believe was Moscow’s involvement in the hacking of Democratic Party organizations, U.S. officials said.

Publicly blaming Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intelligence services would bring instant pressure on Washington to divulge its evidence, which relies on highly classified sources and methods, U.S. intelligence officials said.

One option for Washington is to retaliate against Russia in cyberspace. But the intelligence officials said they fear a rapid escalation in which, under a worst-case scenario, Moscow’s sophisticated cyber warriors could attack power grids, financial systems and other critical infrastructure.

Washington also has diplomacy to manage with Russia in Secretary of State John Kerry’s long-shot attempt to enlist Moscow’s help in ending the Syrian civil war and sustaining the Iran nuclear deal, as well as Russia-NATO tensions over Ukraine and Eastern Europe to manage.

“Despite how outrageous it is to interfere with a democratic election, the costs of coming out and saying the Russians did it would far outweigh the benefits, if there would be any benefits,” said one intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

Russia has denied responsibility for hacking the emails of the Democratic National Committee. Also attacked were a computer network used by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the party’s fundraising committee for House of Representative candidates in the Nov. 8 election.

Other current and former officials are arguing for a firm response, however. They said the hack was the latest in a series of aggressive moves by Putin, including Russia’s annexation of Crimea, military intervention to rescue Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and funding of right-wing and anti-European Union groups in Europe.

Columbia University cyber security expert Jason Healey said at an annual security forum in Aspen, Colorado, on Saturday that the Russians had been very aggressive in cyberspace too.

“I think the president needs to start looking at brush-back pitches,” Healey said, referring to a baseball thrown near the batter as a warning.

NAME AND SHAME?

Intelligence officials and cyber experts said the intrusions themselves were not that unusual. American spy agencies conduct similar electronic espionage outside U.S. borders.

What made this hack a game-changer, they said, was the public release of the DNC emails, via the pro-transparency group WikiLeaks, in an apparent attempt to affect the election.

Government and party officials said they were unaware of any evidence that WikiLeaks had received the hacked materials directly from Russians or that WikiLeaks’ release of the materials was in any way directed by Russians.

The Justice Department’s National Security Division, which is overseeing the investigation, has publicly charged U.S. adversaries – known as “naming and shaming” – before.

The U.S. government blamed North Korea for a damaging attack on Sony Pictures, and in 2014 indicted five members of the Chinese military for computer hacking and economic espionage.

Among adversary nations with significant cyber capabilities, a list that also includes Iran, the Russian government is the only one the Justice Department has not yet charged.

Obama’s homeland security and counter-terrorism advisor Lisa Monaco said the government has developed “best practices” to investigate cyber attacks and decide when to make the results public.

Monaco, also speaking at the Aspen forum, said that in the Sony case, FBI investigators had high confidence North Korea was responsible. The attack was deemed destructive, as well as coercive, because it was retaliation for a movie parodying North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

“Those two things, along with our confidence in the attribution and the ability to talk about it in a way that would not disclose sources and methods and hinder our ability to make such attribution in the future all combined to say, ‘We’re going to call this out’,” she said.

Elissa Slotkin, an acting assistant secretary of defense, said that for the next decade, the U.S. government faced a fundamental question in dealing with Russia: “How do you get the balance right?”

“Are we being too charitable and giving them too many opportunities to come back to the table, or are we providing such a high level of deterrence that we’re potentially provoking them?” Slotkin asked.

(Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball, Jonathan Landay and Arshad Mohammed; editing by Grant McCool)

Discrimination against Muslims an affront of American values: Obama

President Obama shaking hands with guests after discrimination speech

By Ayesha Rascoe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Thursday praised the contributions of Muslim immigrants to the United States, saying any effort to discriminate against the Islamic faith plays into the hands of terrorists.

“Muslim Americans are as patriotic, as integrated, as American as any other members of the American family,” Obama said at a White House reception to celebrate the Muslim Eid al-Fitr holiday.

“Whether your family has been here for generations or you’re a new arrival, you’re an essential part of the fabric of our country,” he said.

The Obama administration has faced criticism for its plan to admit as many as 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States this year, with some Republicans warning that violent militants could enter the country posing as refugees.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had proposed a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country after a Muslim American and his wife killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, last year.

While not naming Trump specifically, Obama said that discriminatory policies against Muslims are an affront the “values that already make our nation great.”

Trump, who will be giving his official acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night, has used “make America great again” as his campaign slogan.

“Singling out Muslim Americans, moreover, feeds the lie of terrorists like ISIL, that the West is somehow at war with a religion that includes over a billion adherents,” Obama said, using an acronym for the Islamic State militant group. “That’s not smart national security.”

(Reporting by Ayesha Rascoe; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Bikers ride through Baton Rouge in support of fallen police

Several hundred bikers gathered in Baton Rouge on Tuesday and rode in a procession to the city’s police headquarters in a show of support for the policemen shot and killed by a gunman at the weekend.

The bikers, many carrying U.S. flags and revving their engines, rode past the gas station where the policemen where killed en route to the police station.

Spectators gathered on the side of the streets to cheers them on. One woman carried a banner reading ‘cops lives matter.’

President Barack Obama has told law enforcement officials that Americans recognize, respect and depend upon the difficult and dangerous work they do, a rallying call of support following the ambush killings of eight officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge.

Three police officers were gunned down in Louisiana’s state capital on Sunday by a U.S. Marine Corps veteran with ties to an African-American anti-government group, authorities said. On July 7, another former U.S. serviceman espousing militant black nationalist views killed five Dallas officers.

Authorities identified the Baton Rouge gunman as former Sergeant Gavin Long of Kansas City, Missouri, an Iraq war veteran, and said he seemed determined to slay as many police officers as possible before a SWAT team marksman cut short his attack.

The single gunshot that killed Long, 29, was fired by an officer from about 100 yards away, police have said as they deepened their investigation into the second racially charged armed assault on U.S. law enforcement this month.

Obama urges NATO to stand firm against Russia despite Brexit

European Council President Donald Tusk (L-R), U.S. President Barack Obama and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker deliver remarks to reporters after their meeting at the NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland July 8, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

By Yeganeh Torbati and Wiktor Szary

WARSAW (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama urged NATO leaders on Friday to stand firm against a resurgent Russia over its seizure of Crimea from Ukraine, saying Britain’s vote to leave the European Union should not weaken the Western defense alliance.

In an article published in the Financial Times newspaper as he arrived for his last summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation before he leaves office in January, Obama said America’s “special relationship” with Britain would survive the referendum decision he had warned against.

“The special relationship between the U.S. and the UK will endure. I have no doubt that the UK will remain one of NATO’s most capable members,” he said, but noted that the vote raised significant questions about the future of EU integration.

The 28-nation EU will formally agree to deploy four battalions totaling 3,000 to 4,000 troops in the Baltic states and Poland on a rotating basis to reassure eastern members of its readiness to defend them against any Russian aggression.

Host nation Poland set the tone of mistrust of Russia. Its foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, told a pre-summit forum: “We have to reject any type of wishful thinking with regard to a pragmatic cooperation with Russia as long as it keeps on invading its neighbors.”

Obama was more diplomatic, urging dialogue with Russia, but he too urged allies to keep sanctions on Moscow until it fully complies with a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine, and to help Kiev defend its sovereignty. Ukraine is not itself a member of NATO.

“In Warsaw, we must reaffirm our determination — our duty under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty — to defend every NATO ally,” Obama said.

“We need to bolster the defense of our allies in central and eastern Europe, strengthen deterrence and boost our resilience against new threats, including cyber attacks.”

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland – all NATO members – have requested a permanent NATO presence. They fear Moscow will seek to destabilize their pro-Western governments through cyber attacks, stirring up Russian speakers, hostile broadcasting and even territorial incursions. Critics say the NATO plan is a minimal trip wire that might not deter Russian action.

The head of NATO’s military committee, Czech General Petr Pavel, said Russia was attempting to restore its status as a world power, an effort that includes using its military.

“We must accept that Russia can be a competitor, adversary, peer or partner and probably all four at the same time,” he said.

The Kremlin said it was absurd for NATO to talk of any threat coming from Russia and it hoped “common sense” would prevail at the Warsaw summit. Moscow was and remains open to dialogue with NATO and is ready to cooperate with it, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a conference call with journalists.

Russia often depicts NATO as an aggressor, whose member states are moving troops and military hardware further into former Soviet territory, which it regards as its sphere of influence.

Russian President Vladimir Putin made several gestures aimed at showing a cooperative face before the summit. At the same time, Moscow highlighted its intention to deploy nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania.

Putin agreed to a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council next week, the second meeting this year of a consultation body that was put on ice after Moscow’s seizure of Crimea in 2014. Russia allowed a U.N. resolution authorizing the EU to intercept arms shipments to Libya in the Mediterranean, and Putin talked by telephone with Obama in the run-up to the NATO meeting.

However, a White House spokesman said they reached no agreement on cooperation in fighting Islamic State militants in Syria during that call on Wednesday.

BRITAIN

Outgoing British Prime Minister David Cameron, who said he will resign after losing the referendum on EU membership last month, will seek to emphasize an active commitment to Western security at his final NATO summit, to offset any concern about Europe’s biggest military spender leaving the EU.

The first item on the summit agenda was the signing of an agreement between the EU and NATO on deeper military and security cooperation.

The U.S.-led alliance is also expected to announce its support for the EU’s Mediterranean interdiction operation. NATO already supports EU efforts to stem a flood of refugees and migrants from Turkey into Greece, in conjunction with an EU-Turkey deal to curb migration in return for benefits for Ankara.

Obama and the other NATO leaders will have a more unscripted discussion of how to deal with Russia over dinner in the same room of the Polish Presidential Palace where the Warsaw Pact was signed in 1955, creating the Soviet-dominated military alliance that was NATO’s adversary during the Cold War.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg sought to balance the new military deployments and air patrols close to Russia’s borders by stressing the alliance would continue to seek “meaningful and constructive dialogue” with Moscow.

“We don’t want a new Cold War,” he told reporters. “The Cold War is history and it should remain history.”

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan told reporters before leaving Ankara to attend the summit that NATO also needed to adapt to do more to fight a threat from Islamic State militants, who were accused of last week’s deadly attack on Istanbul airport.

“As we have seen from the terrorist attacks first in Istanbul and then in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, international security is becoming more fragile,” Erdogan said.

“The concept of a security threat is undergoing a serious change. In this process, NATO needs to be more active and has to update itself against the new security threats,” he said.

(Additional reporting by Gabriela Baczynska and Robin Emmott in Warsaw, Humeyra Pamuk in Istanbul and Elizabeth Piper in Lodon; Writing by Paul Taylor; Editing by Toby Chopra, Larry King)

Obama says UK relationship endures despite Brexit

President Obama delivers statement about Britain leaving EU

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama said on Friday that strong U.S. ties to Britain and the European Union would endure after British voters chose to leave the EU in a referendum that sent U.S. officials scrambling to contain political and economic fallout.

“The people of the United Kingdom have spoken, and we respect their decision,” said Obama, who had argued passionately for close NATO ally Britain to stay in the group.

“The United Kingdom and the European Union will remain indispensable partners of the United States even as they begin negotiating their ongoing relationship,” Obama said in a statement.

Britain’s decision at a referendum on Thursday forced the resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron and dealt the biggest blow to the European project of greater unity since World War Two.

The vote threatened to damage the U.S. economic recovery, hurt Obama’s trade agenda and made it more difficult for America’s Western allies to face challenges such as Islamic State, the rise of China and climate change together in the Democratic president’s last months in the White House.

Obama administration officials are also casting a wary eye across the Atlantic at the success of Britain’s “Leave” campaign, which has similarities with Republican Donald Trump’s insurgent bid for the Nov. 8 presidential election.

Obama, during a visit to London in April, had warned against Brexit, or Britain’s exit from the EU, in an unusually strong intervention into British politics.

“I must say we had looked for a different outcome. We would have preferred a different outcome,” U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, traveling in Ireland, said on Friday.

Biden, in remarks prepared for a speech at Dublin Castle, took a swipe at Trump who won the Republican nomination by highlighting some of the issues, particularly immigration, that appear to have won support for Britain’s “Leave” campaign.

Without mentioning Trump by name, Biden warned against “politicians and demagogues peddling xenophobia, nationalism, and isolationism.”

TRUMP ON BREXIT

Trump thrust himself into the heart of the Brexit issue, calling the result of the vote a “great thing” and drawing parallels to his own unorthodox presidential campaign.

“People want to take their country back. They want to have independence in a sense. You see it with Europe, all over Europe,” Trump, 70, said in Turnberry, Scotland where he reopened a golf course.

Obama hopes his former secretary of state Hillary Clinton will win the November election and safeguard his legacy but economic volatility in the United States after Brexit could hurt her chances of beating Trump.

In response to Britain’s decision to leave, Clinton said the United States must first safeguard against any economic fallout at home at “this time of uncertainty” and underscore its commitment to both Britain and Europe.

With the Brexit result rattling Wall Street and other markets around the world, the U.S. Federal Reserve sought to calm global financial markets by saying it was ready to provide dollar liquidity following the British vote.

After Brexit, the U.S. central bank’s ambitions for two interest rate rises this year now look unlikely. Traders of U.S.-interest rate futures even began to price in a small chance of a Fed rate cut, and now see little chance of any hike until the end of next year.

“One can forget about rate hikes in the near term,” said Thomas Costerg, New York-based economist at Standard Chartered Bank. “What I’m worried about is that the Brexit vote could be the straw that breaks the back of the U.S. growth picture.”

The historic divorce launched by the Brexit vote could sink hopes of a massive U.S.-EU free trade deal before Obama leaves office in January.

Negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, were already stalled by deeply entrenched differences and growing anti-trade sentiment on both continents.

(Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu and Ayesha Rascoe in Washington, Steve Holland in Scotland and Ann Saphir in San Francisco; Writing by Susan Heavey and Alistair Bell; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

Split U.S. Supreme Court blocks Obama immigration plan

Immigration activists at Supreme Court

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Barack Obama’s plan to spare millions of immigrants in the country illegally from deportation in a split ruling that heartened political foes who had accused him of overstepping his powers.

The 4-4 ruling, coming seven months before Obama’s term in office ends, marked the latest success that his Republican adversaries have had in thwarting a major policy initiative of the Democratic president. Obama had hoped that overhauling the U.S. immigration system and resolving the fate of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally would be part of his presidential legacy.

The ruling is likely to further amplify the role that the immigration issue will play in the run-up to the Nov. 8 presidential election in which voters will pick Obama’s successor. It also leaves in legal limbo the roughly 4 million people Obama’s action was meant to help.

Obama unveiled his plan in November 2014. It was quickly challenged in court by Republican-governed Texas and 25 other states that argued that Obama overstepped the powers granted to him by the U.S. Constitution by infringing upon the authority of Congress. His unilateral executive action bypassed the Republican-led Congress.

Because the court was split, a 2015 lower-court ruling invalidating Obama’s plan was left in place. The plan never was implemented because the lower courts had blocked it.

The plan was tailored to let roughly 4 million people – those who have lived illegally in the United States at least since 2010, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents – get into a program that shields them from deportation and supplies work permits.

A split ruling was possible because the court was down to eight justices, four liberals and four conservatives, after conservative justice Antonin Scalia died in February. The Republican-led Senate has refused to act on Obama’s nomination of appeals court judge Merrick Garland to replace Scalia.

In an appearance at the White House after the ruling, Obama expressed frustration at the court’s inability to issue a decisive ruling on the merits of the case and at Senate Republicans for “willfully” keeping the court shorthanded.

“I think it is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who made their lives here, who’ve raised families here, who hope for the opportunity to work, pay taxes, serve in our military, and fully contribute to this country we all love in an open way,” Obama said.

Obama said the U.S. immigration system has been broken for two decades and that this ruling set it back even further.

The issue of illegal immigration has featured prominently in the presidential campaign. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has called for deportation of all illegal immigrants – most of them from Mexico and other Latin American countries – and building a wall along the Mexican border.

The court did not reveal how each justice voted in the ruling, but it was possible the four liberals backed Obama and the four conservatives backed the states.

The court appeared divided along ideological lines during oral arguments on April 18, with liberals indicating support for the administration and conservative opposed.

‘MAJOR SETBACK’

The nation’s top elected Republican, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, and others in his party welcomed the ruling.

“This is a major setback to President Obama’s attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican.

The Constitution assigns certain powers to the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government.

The split decision set no nationwide legal precedent on presidential power or immigration law. The ruling indicates that any major immigration policy change that would address the long-term situation of illegal immigrants would have to be enacted by Congress.

“We feel that justice has turned its back on millions of immigrants who, much like our founding fathers and mothers, sought a better future for themselves and their children and yet continue to live in the shadows without the respect and dignity that they deserve,” said Jorge-Mario Cabrera, a spokesman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.

The Obama administration could ask the high court to rehear the case, as losing parties in two other cases in which the court has split 4-4 have done. The court has not yet acted on those other petitions.

The Supreme Court decision does not affect a separate 2012 program aimed at protecting people brought to the United States as children from deportation, which Texas and the other states did not challenge.

Obama took the action after House Republicans killed bipartisan immigration legislation, billed as the biggest overhaul of U.S. laws on the matter in decades and providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, that was passed by the Senate in 2013.

Maya Ledezma, an immigrant from Mexico who lives in Maryland, said would have been eligible for Obama’s program because she has lived in the United States for more than a decade and has an 8-year-old daughter who is a U.S. citizen.

“My life would have changed if the vote had been favorable,” she said through a translator during a rally outside the Supreme Court.

Republicans have been critical of Obama’s use of executive action to get around Congress on immigration policy and other issues such as gun control and healthcare.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton criticized the ruling for “throwing millions of families across our country into a state of uncertainty.” Trump said the ruling “blocked one of the most unconstitutional actions ever undertaken by a president.”

(Additional reporting by Ayesha Rascoe and Emily Stephenson in Washington and Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles)

Exclusive: Justice Department opposes new Obama proposal on Guantanamo

Guantanamo Bay

By Charles Levinson

NEW YORK (Reuters) – President Barack Obama is again facing dissent from within his administration – this time from Attorney General Loretta Lynch – over his plans to shutter the Guantanamo Bay military prison, according to senior administration officials.

Lynch, a former federal prosecutor whom Obama appointed to head the Justice Department two years ago, is opposing a White House-backed proposal that would allow Guantanamo Bay prisoners to plead guilty to terrorism charges in federal court by videoconference, the officials said.

Over the past three months, Lynch has twice intervened to block administration proposals on the issue, objecting that they would violate longstanding rules of criminal-justice procedure.

In the first case, her last-minute opposition derailed a White House-initiated legislative proposal to allow video guilty pleas after nearly two months of interagency negotiations and law drafting. In the second case, Lynch blocked the administration from publicly supporting a Senate proposal to legalize video guilty pleas.

“It’s been a fierce interagency tussle,” said a senior Obama administration official, who supports the proposal and asked not to be identified.

White House officials confirmed that President Obama supports the proposal. But the president declined to overrule objections from Lynch, the administration’s top law-enforcement official.

“There were some frustrations,” said a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The top lawyer in the land has weighed in, and that was the DOJ’s purview to do that.”

If enacted into law, the Obama-backed plan would allow detained terrorism suspects who plead guilty to serve their sentences in a third-country prison, without setting foot on U.S. soil. The plan would thus sidestep a Congressional ban on transferring detainees to the United States, which has left dozens of prisoners in long-term judicial limbo in Guantanamo, the American military enclave in Cuba.

Obama has vowed to close the prison on his watch. But while he has overseen the release of some 160 men from the prison, the facility still holds 80 detainees.

The video plea plan has broad backing within the administration, including from senior State Department and Pentagon officials. A Defense Department spokesman declined to comment.

The most enthusiastic backers of the plan have been defense lawyers representing up to a dozen Guantanamo Bay detainees who are eager to extricate their clients from seemingly indefinite detention.

Republicans in Congress have opposed the president’s plans to empty the prison, on the grounds that many of the detainees are highly dangerous. But there is some bipartisan support for the proposal as well, a rarity in the Guantanamo debate.

Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Senator Lindsey Graham, a leading Republican voice on defense and national security issues, said Graham was “intrigued” by the proposal.

While support from a Republican senator would by no means guarantee the votes needed to pass, it does give the proposal a better chance than schemes that would transfer detainees from the Cuban enclave to the United States.

Obama views the video feed proposal as a meaningful step toward closing the facility and making good on one of his earliest pledges as president, administration officials said.

Of the 80 prisoners remaining in Guantanamo, roughly 30 have been approved for transfer to third countries by an interagency review board. Most of those 30 men are expected to be released from Guantanamo in coming weeks, according to administration officials.

The officials said they think that as many as 10 more prisoners could be added to the approved-for-transfer list by the review board. Finally, another 10 detainees are standing trial in military commissions.

That leaves roughly 30 detainees whom the government deems too dangerous to release but unlikely to be successfully prosecuted in court. As a result, those men would likely have to be transferred to detention in the United States if the prison were closed.

Administration officials say that allowing video feeds could reduce that number to somewhere between 10 and 20. The administration believes that with such a small number of prisoners requiring transfer to the United States, it would be easier to win support for closing the facility, which is run by a staff of 2,000 military personnel.

“This is the group that gives the president the most heartburn,” said the senior administration official.

Lynch and her deputies at the Justice Department argued that the laws of criminal procedure do not allow defendants to plead guilty remotely by videoconference.

Even if Congress were to pass the law, Lynch and her aides have told the White House that federal judges may rule that such pleas are in effect involuntary, because Guantanamo detainees would not have the option of standing trial in a U.S. courtroom.

A defendant in federal court usually has the option to plead guilty or face a trial by jury. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, the only option they would likely face is to plead guilty or remain in indefinite detention.

“How would a judge assure himself that the plea is truly voluntary when if the plea is not entered, the alternative is you’re still in Gitmo?” said a person familiar with Lynch’s concerns about the proposal. “That’s the wrinkle.”

Lawyers for Guantanamo detainee Majid Khan, a 36-year-old Pakistani citizen, first proposed allowing Khan to plead guilty by videoconference in a legal memo submitted to the Department of Justice in November. In 2012, Khan confessed in military court to delivering $50,000 to Qaeda operatives who used it to carry out a truck bombing in Indonesia, and to plotting with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, on various planned strikes.

Senate investigators found internal CIA documents confirming that Khan’s CIA interrogators subjected him to forced rectal feedings. Khan’s lawyers say the experience amounted to rape. He was also water-boarded.

That treatment makes it difficult for the Department of Justice to successfully prosecute Khan in federal court, according to administration officials.

When White House officials learned that Khan and other detainees were ready to plead guilty to terrorism charges in federal court, they thought they had found a solution.

Efforts to try detainees, including Mohammed and other Sept. 11 suspects, in military tribunals at Guantanamo have bogged down over legal disputes. Only eight defendants have been fully prosecuted. Three verdicts have been overturned.

“The beauty of a guilty plea is you don’t need a trial,” said the senior administration official who supports the video plea proposal.

In February, senior Obama aides proposed pushing ahead with video guilty pleas at an interagency meeting at the White House on the closure of Guantanamo, according to officials briefed on the meeting.

Justice Department officials said they opposed video guilty pleas. Matthew Axelrod, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, said the proposal would violate laws of criminal procedure, according to the officials.

The meeting ended with an agreement to pursue new legislation allowing the guilty pleas, the officials said, which the Department of Justice supported.

One week later, President Obama rolled out his plan to close the prison in a nationally televised announcement from the Roosevelt Room. Obama’s plan included seeking “legislative changes … that might enable detainees who are interested in pleading guilty” in U.S. federal courts.

Administration officials spent much of the next two months drafting the new law. On a Friday afternoon in mid-April, White House staff emailed all the involved agencies with a final draft of the bill, according to the officials. The bill would be submitted to Congress the following Monday, the White House email said.

That weekend, Lynch intervened unexpectedly and said the Justice Department opposed the bill. The eleventh-hour move frustrated White House staff. Deciding again to not overrule Lynch, the White House shelved the bill.

In late May, White House officials found a sympathetic lawmaker who inserted language authorizing video pleas into the annual defense spending bill. The White House drafted a policy memo publicly supporting the proposal, which is known as a Statement of Administration Policy, or SAP.

Lynch opposed the idea, according to administration officials, sparking renewed tensions between the Justice Department and White House.

A SAP is the president’s public declaration on the substance of a bill, according to Samuel Kernell, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego. Without one, it’s often more difficult to get lawmakers on the fence to vote the way the White House wants.

The White House again bowed to Lynch’s objections and declined to issue the SAP.

(Additional reporting By David Rohde. Editing by Michael Williams)

Most House members sign letter backing Israel at U.N.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – More than 90 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives has signed a letter urging President Barack Obama to use U.S. veto power to block any United Nations resolutions seen as biased against Israel, one of the letter’s lead sponsors said on Friday.

U.S. Representative Nita Lowey said 394 members of the 435-member House signed the letter that was sent to Obama on Thursday.

It was written as the Palestinian Authority renewed its drive to persuade the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israeli settlements in Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

The United States vetoed a similar resolution in the Security Council five years ago.

With U.S. efforts to broker a two-state solution in tatters since 2014, France has been lobbying countries to commit to a conference that would get Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations to end their conflict.

The congressional letter backed a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but insisted that negotiations between the two sides are the only path to peace, not United Nations action or an international conference.

“The only way you can get there is if the two parties can be brought together and really go over all the issues,” Lowey said in a telephone interview.

Lowey is the top Democrat on the House subcommittee that oversees U.S. diplomacy and foreign aid. Republican Representative Kay Granger, who chairs the subcommittee, also sponsored the letter.

Lowey said she had not yet had a response to the letter, but she hoped administration officials were carefully reading it.

Support for Israel is one of the few issues that has the support of Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Fiona Ortiz)

President Obama Tells China to Quit Land Reclamation of South China Sea

President Obama spoke on the sidelines of an economic summit of Asia Pacific nations and stated that China had to stop claiming land in the South China Sea.

Obama continued by pledging money and naval assistance to the Philippines who are competing with China for the region due to its many resources.

“We discussed the impact of China’s land reclamation and construction activities on regional stability,” Obama said.

“We agree on the need for bold steps to lower tensions, including pledging to halt further reclamation, new construction, and militarization of disputed areas in the South China Sea,” Obama told reporters after a meeting, according to USA Today.

BBC News reports that China’s land reclamation began in late 2013 when they began building islands on reefs. They continue to claim that their actions are legal and they have “no intention to militarise” those islands.

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting will discuss the South China Sea dispute. The summit brings together 21 leaders of the Pacific Rim. Smaller countries – including the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan – worry that China will dominate the area and its oil and gas resources.

According to Yahoo! News, China responded to President Obama’s remarks by saying the U.S. should not get involved in the South China Sea dispute.

“The United States should stop playing up the South China Sea issue, stop heightening tensions in the South China Sea and stop complicating disputes in the South China Sea,” Hong Lei, a foreign ministry spokesman, said at a regular press briefing in Beijing.

“No country has the right to point fingers at” China’s construction activities, he added.

Beijing has claimed nearly all of the South China Sea, including waters near the coasts of other countries.

Despite Past Differences, Meeting of Obama and Netanyahu was Productive

In their first sit-down summit after a year of rocky relations, President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a public show of praising their countries’s’ unique political, cultural and military ties.

The leaders emphasized areas of shared interest, including negotiations on a new security arrangement and the goal of peace between Israelis and Palestinians, even as the two sides grapple with fresh outbreaks of violence.

According to news reports, each said to the other what he most wanted to hear: Netanyahu declared that he still believes in a two-state road to peace, and Obama declared that he remains devoted to Israel’s security and nailing down a new military aid package.

Obama and Netanyahu looked to move past their differences and focus instead on areas of common ground, including the deteriorating security situation in the Middle East and the fight against Islamic State and other extremist groups.

“I think this is a tremendously important opportunity for us to work together to see how we can defend ourselves against this aggression and this terror; how we can roll back. It’s a daunting task,” Netanyahu said.