Treasury overpaid for bank stocks

By JIM KUHNHENN
bailout

WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government overpaid for stocks and other assets in attempting to help financial institutions last year, a government watchdog said Thursday, taking further issue with the beleaguered $700 billion rescue program.

Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the bailout funds, told the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday that Treasury in 2008 paid $254 billion and received assets worth about $176 billion.

The figures were reached by extrapolating the results of a study of 10 government transactions, comparing the price paid by Treasury and the value of the asset at the time of purchase. Warren did not present details of the transactions the panel analyzed. A full report will be released Friday.

In a bright spot for the rescue program, however, banks that received capital infusions from Treasury have already paid $271 million in dividends to the federal government. A Treasury official said Thursday that banks are expected to pay more than $1.5 billion in dividends by the end of this month. Among them is Wells Fargo, which received a $25 billion infusion. The bank announced this week it would pay Treasury $371 million in dividends.

Still, lawmakers and watchdog groups continued to express frustration with the implementation of the rescue plan, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Congress approved the plan last fall, but members of both parties criticized spending decisions by the Bush administration and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

The misgivings come as new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is preparing to place the Obama administration's imprint on the program with a sweeping new framework for helping banks, loosening credit and helping reduce foreclosures. Geithner plans to unveil the changes next week.

"The plan will strengthen transparency and accountability measures so that taxpayers know where and how their money is being spent and whether it's achieving real results," said Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker.

Referring to overpayment on assets, Warren said Treasury has failed to specify its goals and methods in helping more than 300 institutions.

"There may be good policy reasons for overpaying, but without a clearly delineated reason, we can't know that," Warren said.

Senate Banking chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said the overpayment was sure to "raise eyebrows."

"I can understand some gap," he said. "No one is expecting perfection between the price you pay and what you think you're getting. But that's a pretty large disparity."

Another fund watchdog urged the Obama administration to be clearer about the true value of the nearly $300 billion the Treasury has infused into more than 300 institutions through purchases of assets such as preferred stock.

"Treasury needs, in the near term, to begin developing a more complete strategy on what to do with the very substantial portfolio that it now manages on behalf of the American people," said Neil Barofksy, the special inspector general for the rescue program.

In a lengthy report, complete with a glossary, Barofsky spelled out the various means by which Treasury has distributed taxpayer money to financial institutions. More than $190 billion has gone to banks deemed healthy but in need of capital. But Treasury, under Paulson, also distributed large chunks of money to ailing companies considered too significant to let fail. It also bought stock and made loans to help Detroit automakers.

Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the banking committee's top Republican, complained that Treasury had set up a "disorderly approach" and Dodd called for "a sharp change in the direction of this program under new management."

Obama to order charges withdrawn against USS Cole bombing mastermind

by Robert Spencer

"I am concerned about the President considering dropping the charges because it may be indicative that the president does not intend to follow the military commissions process which has undergone extensive legal and legislative review." Yes. It is good that al-Nashiri will remain in custody, but if he ends up being prosecuted in a civilian court, the effect on the military could be catastrophic -- military personnel will be afraid to act without gathering evidence that could convince a civilian jury that their actions were justified.

An update on this story. "President Obama Likely to Order Military Commission Charges Dropped Against Terrorist Suspect Al-Nashiri Friday," by Jake Tapper for ABC News, February 5 (thanks to Pamela):

ABC News has learned that on Friday, President Obama will likely order the Department of Defense's Military Commission to withdraw charges against terrorist suspect Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The charges may later be reinstated in a military commission or pursued in a civilian court. Al-Nashiri will remain in custody.

The announcement will not be made until after President Obama meets with the families of victims of terrorist attacks on 9/11 and on the U.S.S. Cole, where he will assure them that this step is not being done to be lenient towards al-Nashiri. The move is being done to stop the continued prosecution of al-Nashiri in a court system that his administration may ultimately find illegitimate, not for any other reason, sources told ABC News.

President Obama has expressed concern about whether the military commissions set up by the Bush administration are the proper way to go forward in pursuing charges against the U.S. detainees, and on January 22 he asked all the judges supervising the trials of detainees for a continuance of 120 days, so a team of administration officials could review the best way forward.

In almost the cases, that continuance request was granted. But last week the judge supervising the al-Nashiri trial -- Army Col. James L. Pohl, the chief judge at the Guantanamo Bay war crimes court -- said he would not heed President Obama's request for a 120-day continuance, or delay, in prosecutions of terrorism suspects. Pohl called the president's request "not reasonable" and not "in the interests of justice."

The arraignment of al-Nashiri is scheduled for Monday, February 9.

Al-Nashiri has been identified as the former Persian Gulf Operations Chief for al Qaeda and the mastermind of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. In March 2007 he testified in military court that he only confessed to certain crimes because he has been tortured for the previous five years.

Asked for reaction to the news, Commander Kirk Lippold (Ret.), former Commander aboard the U.S.S. Cole when it was bombed on October 12, 2000, told ABC News that "I am concerned about the President considering dropping the charges because it may be indicative that the president does not intend to follow the military commissions process which has undergone extensive legal and legislative review."

"For some reason the administration says what's been expressed through the legislature is not sufficient," Lippold said of the military commissions. "They need to allow the process to go forward."...

Hybrid Enemies - A Primer

(Compiler's note: A must read series of articles follow.)

from DefenseTech.org

[Editor: I just wanted to post this excellent article written by our colleague Greg Grant over at DoD Buzz as an add-on to my Afghan rant. He has a really helpful dissection of Hybrid Warfare (coined by old DT friend Frank Hoffman) and how the USMil is falling short.]

For the past fifty years, the military has sized, trained and equipped its ground forces to battle a conventional, mechanized, tank heavy opponent, organized in companies, battalions and brigades, with supporting artillery and aircraft. Training scenarios envisioned a repeat of World War II tank battles, Army units were run through simulated armored clashes in the open deserts at its premier training ground, the NTC at Ft. Irwin, Ca. Now, at its training centers, the Army, and Marines also train for urban counterinsurgency.

That the Army’s big-battle mindset hasn’t gone far, despite eight years spent fighting two counterinsurgency wars, can be seen in this article on the Small Wars Journal web site by an Army captain who recently completed the captain’s career course and had this to say: “With rare exception, the exercises which hone officers’ skills in these areas are focused on the conventional Fulda gap-style battle… Despite all that has been written about third-generation warfare (Blitzkrieg) and fourth-generation warfare (state vs. non-state), we operated largely in the second generation of warfare.”

A small group of strategic thinkers are flexing their intellectual muscle, and a new opponent model is taking shape against which America’s ground forces will be configured to fight (with the Marines way ahead of the Army). Called “hybrid” enemies, they come equipped with high-end, precision guided weapons, yet fight in distributed networks of small units and cells more akin to guerrillas. One of the leading scholars in this group, Frank Hoffman, who advises the Marines and is a researcher at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, says hybrid wars, “blend the lethality of state conflict with the fanatical and protracted fervor of irregular warfare.” Theory moved to reality when Hezbollah, equipped with loads of advanced missiles and skillfully using urban terrain, fought the Israeli army to a stand still in 2006. Hezbollah, Hoffman says, “is representative of the rising hybrid threat.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has given his imprimatur to the hybrid opponent as the new OpFor, first in his recent Foreign Affairs piece, and then again in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee. In his Senate hearing, speaking about the Army’s FCS program, Gates said that unless new weapons and vehicles can be shown to be effective in complex hybrid wars, they shouldn’t be funded. I’ve also heard that some services, I’m thinking of the Marines here, were loathe to buy into the irregular warfare mission as they couldn’t justify their more expensive new systems to fight counterinsurgencies, but they have a better chance at getting what they want if they play up the hybrid threat.

I thought I’d flesh out a bit exactly what the military has in mind when they discuss hybrid wars. A good place to start is this article by Hoffman in Joint Forces Quarterly or this longer discussion here for those of you with more time.

While Hezbollah may be the hybrid archetype, Hoffman says they’re not limited to non-state actors. "States can shift their conventional units to irregular formations and adopt new tactics as Iraq’s fedayeen did in 2003." He said evidence shows that a number of Middle East militaries are modifying their forces to fight in a hybrid style, Iran being one such country. One of the challenges faced by the U.S. military, is it fights in largely predictable fashion, only with the Iraq war have efforts been made to adapt to different styles of fighting such as irregular warfare. What Hezbollah demonstrated, Hoffman says, is "the ability of non-state actors to study and deconstruct the vulnerabilities of Western-style militaries and devise appropriate countermeasures."

Read the rest of this story over at DoD Buzz and be sure to bookmark the excellent Small Wars Journal which has been quietly influencing military thinking on this subject.

American Teenager Murdered By Former Gitmo Detainee

(Compiler's note: It has begun and we must now determine, "Who is responsible for letting these people out -- alive.)

from Gateway Pundit

American Susan Elbaneh was murdered in an Al-Qaeda attack in Yemen.


Susan Elbaneh in Lackawanna (Newshopper)

An American teenager was murdered by Al-Qaeda last month in Yemen.
The attack was led by former Gitmo detainee Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri.
9-11 Families for a Safe and Strong America reported, via LGF:

Susan Elbaneh was murdered by al Qaeda and apparently most of the media does not want you to know. Last week, you saw her killers’ faces splashed across the headlines yet away from her hometown, the media was busy playing echo-chamber.

Strangely, the New York Times has failed to report the whole story three times.

The proof of that assertion is: Robert F. Worth wrote of Susan Elbaneh’s fugitive cousin last March; he mentioned her death, name, and hometown last September while reporting on the bombing of our embassy in Yemen yet made no mention of Jaber Elbaneh; and their names and the latter’s connection to the Lackawanna Six were missing from his reports last week about two former Guantanamo detainees reuniting with al Qaeda in Yemen and their being suspected in that same attack upon our embassy.

Two Gitmo detainees rehabilitated in Saudi Arabia rejoined the jihad and recently made a movie.

Former detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri (right) and former detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi appeared in a threatening Al-Qaeda movie this week. Said Ali al-Shihri (or al-Shahri) passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen. (AFP)

Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri (Shihri) is the Al-Qaeda chief in Yemen who organized the attack that killed Susan Elbaneh.

Obama Backs Out on Iraq Appointment

(Compiler's note: It must have been learned that Gen. Zinni paid his taxes.)

byBarbara Slavin

The Obama administration asked retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni to be U.S. ambassador to Iraq but abruptly withdrew the appointment without explanation, Gen. Zinni said Tuesday.

Gen. Zinni, a former commander of Central Command, told The Washington Times that he had been offered the job by the White House national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, two weeks ago and that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed the offer on Jan. 26.

"I started making arrangements," Gen. Zinni said, but became concerned because he heard nothing further from the State Department or White House. He called Gen. Jones Monday night and was told that Christopher Hill, the outgoing assistant secretary of State for East Asia, was getting the job.

Gen. Zinni said no explanation was given. "That kind of bothered me," he said. "I was told that I had it."

Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, said, "We have spoken to a number of extraordinarily talented individuals about serving in this important role, and have made no announcement about who will be the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

"Obviously, the president has enormous respect for Gen. Zinni, and believes he would be on anybody's short list for a number of critical national security roles."

The State Department had no immediate comment.

Gen. Zinni indicated that he was not interested in other offers from the administration.

"I'm not going to give up my day job" writing books and teaching at Cornell University, he said.

Mr. Hill has extensive experience in Northeast Asia and the Balkans but not in the Middle East.

Gen. Zinni, on the other hand, was the deputy commanding general of "Provide Comfort," a U.S. operation that provided relief to Iraqi Kurds in 1991.

He was deputy commander in chief of Central Command from 1996-1997 and commander from 1997 until 2000. In 1998, he supervised "Operation Desert Fox," a series of U.S. air strikes against Iraq targeting what the U.S. believed were weapons of mass destruction programs.

"I know Chris," Gen. Zinni said. "He's a fine guy."

Local Police Want Right to Jam Wireless Signals

By Spencer S. Hsu

As President Obama's motorcade rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, federal authorities deployed a closely held law enforcement tool: equipment that can jam cellphones and other wireless devices to foil remote-controlled bombs, sources said.

It is an increasingly common technology, with federal agencies expanding its use as state and local agencies are pushing for permission to do the same. Police and others say it could stop terrorists from coordinating during an attack, prevent suspects from erasing evidence on wireless devices, simplify arrests and keep inmates from using contraband phones.

But jamming remains strictly illegal for state and local agencies. Federal officials barely acknowledge that they use it inside the United States, and the few federal agencies that can jam signals usually must seek a legal waiver first.

The quest to expand the technology has invigorated a debate about how widely jamming should be allowed and whether its value as a common crime-fighting strategy outweighs its downsides, including restricting the constant access to the airwaves that Americans have come to expect.

"Jamming is a blunt instrument," said Joe Farren, vice president of government affairs for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association. He and others pointed out that when authorities disable wireless service, whether during a terrorist attack or inside a prison, that action can also stop the calls that could help in an emergency. During November's raids in Mumbai, for example, citizens relied on cellphones to direct police to the assailants.....

United Nations' threat: No more parental rights

(Compiler's note: Watch this one. Sounds like a bad dream. It makes one wonder, who are these people to even dream up this stuff?)

By Chelsea Schilling

A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families' religion is on America's doorstep, a legal expert warns.

Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.

"It's definitely on our doorstep," he said. "The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election."

The 1990s-era document

was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.

Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.

The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." It is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.

According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:

• Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

• A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

• Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

• The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

• A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

• According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

• Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

• Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

• Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

• Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

"Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government," Farris said. "The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children."

Michael Farris

The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.

"If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention

gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account

, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child."

He continued, "If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance."

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.

Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because "the political world has changed."

At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.

"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.

Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.

In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.

Partnership

for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.

While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.

"I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime," he said. "There's not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it."

16 illegals sue rancher who catches them on his land

A group of 16 illegal aliens is suing an Arizona rancher, claiming he violated their civil rights, falsely imprisoned them and inflicted emotional distress by holding them at gunpoint on his property along the border..... Barnett allegedly detained the trespassing illegals until Border Patrol agents arrived.