Christian militia members charged in Michigan
DETROIT
(Reuters) - Nine members of a Christian militia group were indicted on charges of conspiring to wage war against the U.S. government, federal prosecutors said on Monday.
U.S.
According to the grand jury indictment unsealed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the eight men and one woman were members of a group called the Hutaree that planned to kill a police officer in Michigan and then ambush the law enforcement officers who attended his funeral.
The indictment said the group believed the attacks would "serve as a catalyst for a more widespread uprising" against the government.
Eight people were arrested by the FBI over the weekend in raids in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois. One of the accused, Joshua Stone, 21, is still at large.
The arrests followed a federal grand jury indictment handed down in Detroit charging them with seditious conspiracy, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence.
The weapons of mass destruction charge referred to improvised explosive devices with projectiles, the indictment said.
Seven of the eight in custody were arraigned on Monday. On Wednesday, U.S. Magistrate Donald Scheer will consider the prosecutor's request that the defendants be held without bail. The status of the eighth person was not immediately clear.
The group's website, hutaree.com, says the term Hutaree means "Christian warrior" and characterizes the group as "preparing for the end time battles to keep the testimony of Jesus Christ alive." It also features a Bible quotation from John 15:13: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
The indictment said the leader of the group is David Brian Stone Sr., 45, of Clayton, Michigan, who was among those arrested.
A woman identifying herself as Donna Stone, who said she was David Brian Stone Sr.'s ex-wife, appeared at Monday's court hearing. She told reporters that her ex-husband's increasing obsession with firearms had been the cause of the divorce.
She said: "When he got carried away from handguns to big guns, I said, 'I'm done.'"
Monday, March 29, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Congress clears historic health care bill
WASHINGTON – Summoned to success by President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled Congress approved historic legislation Sunday night extending health care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and cracking down on insurance company abuses, a climactic chapter in the century-long quest for near universal coverage.
Widely viewed as dead two months ago, the Senate-passed bill cleared the House on a 219-212 vote, with Republicans unanimous in opposition.
Congressional officials said they expected Obama to sign the bill as early as Tuesday.
A second measure — making changes in the first — was lined up for passage later in the evening. It would then go to the Senate, where Democratic leaders said they had the votes to pass it.
Crowds of protesters outside the Capitol shouted "just vote no" in a futile attempt to stop the inevitable taking place inside a House packed with lawmakers and ringed with spectators in the galleries above.
Across hours of debate, House Democrats predicted the major bill, costing $940 billion over a decade, would rank with other great social legislation of recent decades.
"We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, partner to Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in the grueling campaign to pass the legislation.
"This is the civil rights act of the 21st century," added Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the top-ranking black member of the House.
Republicans readily agreed the bill would affect everyone in America, but warned repeatedly of the burden imposed by more than $900 billion in tax increases and Medicare cuts combined.
"We have failed to listen to America," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, leader of a party that has vowed to carry the fight into the fall's midterm elections for control of Congress.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation would extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it, ban insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and cut deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade. If realized, the expansion of coverage would include 95 percent of all eligible individuals under age 65.
Far beyond the political ramifications — a concern the president repeatedly insisted he paid no mind — were the sweeping changes the bill held in store for millions of individuals, the insurance companies that would come under tougher control and the health care providers, many of whom would face higher taxes.
For the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused. Much of the money in the bill would be devoted to subsidies to help families at incomes of up to $88,000 a year pay their premiums.
The measure would also usher in a significant expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor. Coverage would be required for incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014.
The insurance industry, which spent millions on advertising trying to block the bill, would come under new federal regulation. They would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill.
Parents would be able to keep children up to age 26 on their family insurance plans, three years longer than is now the case.
A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion would go into high gear.
The final obstacle to passage was cleared a few hours before the vote, when Obama and Democratic leaders reached a compromise with anti-abortion lawmakers whose rebellion had left the outcome in doubt. The president issued an executive order pledging that no federal funds would be used for elective abortion, satisfying Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and a handful of like-minded lawmakers.
A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed skepticism that the presidential order would satisfy the church's objections.
For the president, the events capped an 18-day stretch in which he traveled to four states and lobbied more than 60 wavering lawmakers in person or by phone to secure passage of his signature domestic issue. According to some who met with him, he warned that the bill's demise could cripple his still-young presidency.
After more than a year of political combat, Democrats piled superlative upon superlative across several hours of House debate.
Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York read a message President Franklin Roosevelt sent Congress in 1939 urging lawmakers to address the needs of those without health care, and said Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Richard Nixon had also sought to broaden insurance coverage.
Republicans attacked the bill without let-up, warning it would harm the economy while mandating a government takeover of the health care system.
"The American people know you can't reduce health care costs by spending $1 trillion or raising taxes by more than one-half trillion dollars. The American people know that you cannot cut Medicare by over one-half trillion dollars without hurting seniors," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich.
"And, the American people know that you can't create an entirely new government entitlement program without exploding spending and the deficit."
Obama has said often that presidents of both parties have tried without success to achieve national health insurance, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt early in the 20th century.
The 44th president's quest to succeed where others have failed seemed at a dead end two months ago, when Republicans won a special election for a Massachusetts Senate seat, and with it, the votes to prevent a final vote.
But the White House, Pelosi and Reid soon came up with a rescue plan that required the House to approve the Senate-passed measure despite opposition to many of its provisions, then have both houses pass a fix-it measure incorporating numerous changes.
To pay for the changes, the legislation includes more than $400 billion in higher taxes over a decade, roughly half of it from a new Medicare payroll tax on individuals with incomes over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. A new excise tax on high-cost insurance policies was significantly scaled back in deference to complaints from organized labor.
In addition, the bills cut more than $500 billion from planned payments to hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and other providers that treat Medicare patients. An estimated $200 billion would reduce planned subsidies to insurance companies that offer a private alternative to traditional Medicare.
The insurance industry warned that seniors would face sharply higher premiums as a result, and the Congressional Budget Office said many would return to traditional Medicare as a result.
The subsidies are higher than those for seniors on traditional Medicare, a difference that critics complain is wasteful, but insurance industry officials argue goes into expanded benefits.
Widely viewed as dead two months ago, the Senate-passed bill cleared the House on a 219-212 vote, with Republicans unanimous in opposition.
Congressional officials said they expected Obama to sign the bill as early as Tuesday.
A second measure — making changes in the first — was lined up for passage later in the evening. It would then go to the Senate, where Democratic leaders said they had the votes to pass it.
Crowds of protesters outside the Capitol shouted "just vote no" in a futile attempt to stop the inevitable taking place inside a House packed with lawmakers and ringed with spectators in the galleries above.
Across hours of debate, House Democrats predicted the major bill, costing $940 billion over a decade, would rank with other great social legislation of recent decades.
"We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, partner to Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in the grueling campaign to pass the legislation.
"This is the civil rights act of the 21st century," added Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the top-ranking black member of the House.
Republicans readily agreed the bill would affect everyone in America, but warned repeatedly of the burden imposed by more than $900 billion in tax increases and Medicare cuts combined.
"We have failed to listen to America," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, leader of a party that has vowed to carry the fight into the fall's midterm elections for control of Congress.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation would extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it, ban insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and cut deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade. If realized, the expansion of coverage would include 95 percent of all eligible individuals under age 65.
Far beyond the political ramifications — a concern the president repeatedly insisted he paid no mind — were the sweeping changes the bill held in store for millions of individuals, the insurance companies that would come under tougher control and the health care providers, many of whom would face higher taxes.
For the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused. Much of the money in the bill would be devoted to subsidies to help families at incomes of up to $88,000 a year pay their premiums.
The measure would also usher in a significant expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor. Coverage would be required for incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014.
The insurance industry, which spent millions on advertising trying to block the bill, would come under new federal regulation. They would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill.
Parents would be able to keep children up to age 26 on their family insurance plans, three years longer than is now the case.
A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion would go into high gear.
The final obstacle to passage was cleared a few hours before the vote, when Obama and Democratic leaders reached a compromise with anti-abortion lawmakers whose rebellion had left the outcome in doubt. The president issued an executive order pledging that no federal funds would be used for elective abortion, satisfying Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and a handful of like-minded lawmakers.
A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed skepticism that the presidential order would satisfy the church's objections.
For the president, the events capped an 18-day stretch in which he traveled to four states and lobbied more than 60 wavering lawmakers in person or by phone to secure passage of his signature domestic issue. According to some who met with him, he warned that the bill's demise could cripple his still-young presidency.
After more than a year of political combat, Democrats piled superlative upon superlative across several hours of House debate.
Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York read a message President Franklin Roosevelt sent Congress in 1939 urging lawmakers to address the needs of those without health care, and said Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Richard Nixon had also sought to broaden insurance coverage.
Republicans attacked the bill without let-up, warning it would harm the economy while mandating a government takeover of the health care system.
"The American people know you can't reduce health care costs by spending $1 trillion or raising taxes by more than one-half trillion dollars. The American people know that you cannot cut Medicare by over one-half trillion dollars without hurting seniors," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich.
"And, the American people know that you can't create an entirely new government entitlement program without exploding spending and the deficit."
Obama has said often that presidents of both parties have tried without success to achieve national health insurance, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt early in the 20th century.
The 44th president's quest to succeed where others have failed seemed at a dead end two months ago, when Republicans won a special election for a Massachusetts Senate seat, and with it, the votes to prevent a final vote.
But the White House, Pelosi and Reid soon came up with a rescue plan that required the House to approve the Senate-passed measure despite opposition to many of its provisions, then have both houses pass a fix-it measure incorporating numerous changes.
To pay for the changes, the legislation includes more than $400 billion in higher taxes over a decade, roughly half of it from a new Medicare payroll tax on individuals with incomes over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. A new excise tax on high-cost insurance policies was significantly scaled back in deference to complaints from organized labor.
In addition, the bills cut more than $500 billion from planned payments to hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and other providers that treat Medicare patients. An estimated $200 billion would reduce planned subsidies to insurance companies that offer a private alternative to traditional Medicare.
The insurance industry warned that seniors would face sharply higher premiums as a result, and the Congressional Budget Office said many would return to traditional Medicare as a result.
The subsidies are higher than those for seniors on traditional Medicare, a difference that critics complain is wasteful, but insurance industry officials argue goes into expanded benefits.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Mullah Baradar arrest: UN envoy criticizes Pakistan for arrests
Kai Eide, the UN's special representative to Afghanistan until earlier this month, has attacked Pakistan for having arrested prominent Taliban leaders who were taking part in back-channel peace talks.
Eide, a Norwegian, confirmed for the first time since leaving office that he had held what seemed to him to be promising discussions with senior Taliban representatives, but that channels of communication had shut down after the arrests.
These arrests had a "negative effect" on prospects for continuing the political process, he told the BBC World Service. The talks had taken place with at least the tacit assent of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, Eide believed. "I find it unthinkable that such contact would take place without his knowledge," he said.
Eide was tasked with bringing impetus to peace efforts in Afghanistan two years ago when relations between Kabul and the international community were in crisis. He left his post 10 days ago.
The US is sceptical about negotiations, though Britain wants greater efforts to talk to the Taliban about cutting ties with al-Qaida and ending a conflict which has cost more than 270 British lives and is being intensified by Kabul's inefficiency and corruption.
"Of course I met Taliban leaders during the time I was in Afghanistan," Eide said. "Anything else would have been unthinkable." He said that the first contacts were made last spring, with a lull until after the August 2009 election. But they ended a few weeks ago when US and Pakistani intelligence arrested Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the number two in the Taliban command, in Karachi. Up to 14 others were also detained.
Baradar's seizure was reported as a breakthrough in co-operation between the CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, but a key figure in back-channel talks involving Saudi Arabia described his arrest as "a huge blow" to the fledgling peace initiative.
Eide was highly critical of Pakistan and questioned its motives. "If your question had been, 'do I believe that Pakistan plays the role it should in promoting a political dialogue that is so necessary for ending the conflict in Afghanistan?' – then my answer would be no, the Pakistanis did not play the role that they should have played. They must have known about this; I don't believe that these people were arrested by coincidence. They must have known who they were, what kind of role they were playing; and you see the result today."
Eide said he believed Pakistan wanted to stop the UN and Afghan talks with the Taliban to retain control of the process.
The diplomat also took issue with senior US military and political officials, including General David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, who argue that peace talks are premature and that the Taliban will only begin to negotiate in good faith once they have felt the full force of the US-led military surge.
"I believe, on the contrary, that talks are long overdue, and had we really engaged in them some time ago then we could have progressed further than we have today," Eide said in the BBC interview.
"I think I have experienced, over 35 years of engagement in international affairs, that we very often misjudge our opponents, or the other side. We did that in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s. We did it in the 1990s. And we do it again, I believe; and that, perhaps if we had seen it from the point of view of the Taliban, maybe we would have come to a different conclusion than the one we've come to today. I believe that what has happened over the last few weeks may well have hardened the Taliban, rather than moved them closer to the table."
Eide had previously argued that talks with the Taliban were the best way to end the eight-year-old war and expressed concern that Barack Obama's decision to send 30,000 to 35,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan is coming without a concurrent political surge.
Courtesy: guardian.co.uk
Eide, a Norwegian, confirmed for the first time since leaving office that he had held what seemed to him to be promising discussions with senior Taliban representatives, but that channels of communication had shut down after the arrests.
These arrests had a "negative effect" on prospects for continuing the political process, he told the BBC World Service. The talks had taken place with at least the tacit assent of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, Eide believed. "I find it unthinkable that such contact would take place without his knowledge," he said.
Eide was tasked with bringing impetus to peace efforts in Afghanistan two years ago when relations between Kabul and the international community were in crisis. He left his post 10 days ago.
The US is sceptical about negotiations, though Britain wants greater efforts to talk to the Taliban about cutting ties with al-Qaida and ending a conflict which has cost more than 270 British lives and is being intensified by Kabul's inefficiency and corruption.
"Of course I met Taliban leaders during the time I was in Afghanistan," Eide said. "Anything else would have been unthinkable." He said that the first contacts were made last spring, with a lull until after the August 2009 election. But they ended a few weeks ago when US and Pakistani intelligence arrested Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the number two in the Taliban command, in Karachi. Up to 14 others were also detained.
Baradar's seizure was reported as a breakthrough in co-operation between the CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, but a key figure in back-channel talks involving Saudi Arabia described his arrest as "a huge blow" to the fledgling peace initiative.
Eide was highly critical of Pakistan and questioned its motives. "If your question had been, 'do I believe that Pakistan plays the role it should in promoting a political dialogue that is so necessary for ending the conflict in Afghanistan?' – then my answer would be no, the Pakistanis did not play the role that they should have played. They must have known about this; I don't believe that these people were arrested by coincidence. They must have known who they were, what kind of role they were playing; and you see the result today."
Eide said he believed Pakistan wanted to stop the UN and Afghan talks with the Taliban to retain control of the process.
The diplomat also took issue with senior US military and political officials, including General David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, who argue that peace talks are premature and that the Taliban will only begin to negotiate in good faith once they have felt the full force of the US-led military surge.
"I believe, on the contrary, that talks are long overdue, and had we really engaged in them some time ago then we could have progressed further than we have today," Eide said in the BBC interview.
"I think I have experienced, over 35 years of engagement in international affairs, that we very often misjudge our opponents, or the other side. We did that in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s. We did it in the 1990s. And we do it again, I believe; and that, perhaps if we had seen it from the point of view of the Taliban, maybe we would have come to a different conclusion than the one we've come to today. I believe that what has happened over the last few weeks may well have hardened the Taliban, rather than moved them closer to the table."
Eide had previously argued that talks with the Taliban were the best way to end the eight-year-old war and expressed concern that Barack Obama's decision to send 30,000 to 35,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan is coming without a concurrent political surge.
Courtesy: guardian.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)