BIG BUSINESS AGREES TO PAY $47 MILLION TO SETTLE FALSE CLAIMS ACT ALLEGATIONS

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Harbert Companies Agree to Pay $47 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations
Harbert Corporation, Harbert International, Inc., Bill Harbert International Constructions Inc., Harbert Construction Services (U.K.) Ltd. and Bilhar International Establishment have agreed to pay the United States $47 million to settle claims that they submitted false claims, and caused others to submit false claims, to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Justice Department announced today.
                                                                                                         
The settlement resolves claims under the False Claims Act that the Harbert entities conspired to rig the bids on a USAID-funded construction contract that was bid and performed in Cairo, Egypt, in the late 1980s and early 1990s.   Harbert International Inc. was part of a joint venture that bid on, and was ultimately awarded, Contract 20A to build a sewer system.   The United States alleges that various Harbert entities entered into agreements with other potential bidders on Contract 20A to ensure that the joint venture would win the bid.   The United States contends that other potential bidders agreed to either not bid or bid intentionally high in return for a payoff.   The United States previously obtained a judgment against Harbert Construction Services (U.K.) Ltd. and Bilhar International Establishment on these claims.  
         
“Attempts to collude or rig bids undermine the integrity of the government contracting process,” said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.   “As this case demonstrates, we will take action against those who seek to abuse that process and pad their profits at taxpayer expense.”

 "This case demonstrates our endurance in the fight against corporations that attempt to defraud the government," said Vincent H. Cohen, Jr., Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney  of the District of Columbia "Two decades after a bid-rigging conspiracy corrupted a massive construction project in Egypt, we have obtained a $47 million settlement on behalf of the American taxpayer.  Our resolve in this matter should serve as a warning to other contractors who are thinking about abusing the contracting process."

The allegations that the Harbert entities conspired to rig the bidding on the contract were first made in a lawsuit that whistleblower Richard F. Miller filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 1995.   Under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, private citizens may file actions on behalf of the United States alleging the submission of false claims and share in any recovery.   The claims settled by this agreement against Harbert Corporation, Harbert International Inc., and Bill Harbert International Constructions Inc. are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

“It’s been a very long road to justice in this case.   We are pleased that it has ended with this significant recovery of taxpayer funds,” said Michael G. Carroll, Acting Inspector General, USAID.

This matter was handled by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and USAID’s Office of Inspector General.

U.S. AND NEW ZEALAND COMMIT TO DEEPENING STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

The following excerpt is from the U.S. State Department
U.S.-New Zealand Strategic Dialogue
Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
March 19, 2012
Following is the text of a joint statement by the United States and New Zealand issued on March 19, 2012:
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt M. Campbell and Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Lavoy hosted New Zealand’s Deputy Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, David Walker, and Secretary of Defence, John McKinnon, for the 2012 U.S.-New Zealand Strategic Dialogue today as part of their ongoing bilateral dialogue.

The two countries discussed opportunities and challenges in the Asia-Pacific region. They reiterated their commitment to deepening the strategic partnership between the United States and New Zealand, as envisioned in the Wellington Declaration - which was signed in November 2010 by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully.

The U.S. delegation included representatives from the Departments of State and Defense, the National Security Staff, and USAID. The New Zealand delegation included representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of Defence, the New Zealand Defence Force, the National Assessments Bureau, and the New Zealand Embassy in Washington D.C. The two sides look forward to meeting again in the future.

The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

SPECIAL BRIEFING ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

The following excertp is from a U.S. Department of State e-mail:
Implementation of Section 1245 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
Special Briefing Senior State Department Official
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
March 20, 2012
MODERATOR: Thank you very much. We are delighted to have with us today [Senior State Department Official], hereafter known as Senior State Department Official, to give you some background on some decisions that the Secretary is making with regard to those countries that we consider have implemented Section 1245 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. I know you are all awaiting a statement by the Secretary of State on this issue. We expect it to be out in the next 15 minutes. [Senior State Department Official] will summarize it for you and then go into his background briefing.
Over to you, [Senior State Department Official].

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Very good. [Moderator], thank you. Thank you for joining us in this conversation. The statement that you will be getting in a short amount of time will indicate that the Secretary announced today that an initial group of 11 countries has significantly reduced their volume of crude oil purchases from Iran. That group includes Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, and it also includes Japan.
The 10 countries from Europe are 10 countries that have been importers of crude oil. This specifically responds to a provision in the legislation that sanctions imposed pursuant to the legislation shall not apply if a country has significantly reduced its volume of crude oil purchases from Iran. And that is the key triggering language in the legislation. As a result of the Secretary’s determination, she has reported to the Congress that these sanctions, pursuant to Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act, will not apply to financial institutions that are based in those countries for a period of 180 days. And that 180 days is renewable based on ongoing reductions.

For the European Union, a critical factor was that on January 23rd, the EU approved a decision to ban immediately all new contracts for the import purchase or transport of Iranian crude oil and petrochemicals, including related financing and insurance, and to phase out all existing Iranian oil contracts by July 1st, and all existing petrochemical contracts by May 1st, and finally, to immediately prohibit investment in the provision of goods and services to Iran’s petrochemical sector.

On Japan, the Secretary had already indicated in her testimony at the end of February how Japan, despite the hardships and the loss of energy capacity after Fukushima, had indeed reduced its imports of Iranian crude oil from Iran in the second half of 2011. This followed a period of three years of successive reductions. And in addition to that, Japan’s industry has aggressively sought out new suppliers as an alternative to Iran.

All of these countries have focused steadfastly, I think, on a common goal, which is to deny export revenues to Iran that can fund its nuclear program. It continues to underscore that these countries are acting in solidarity with a common policy goal, and we see this as a significant step in the implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act, and the progress that we’re achieving in implementing the measures of the act. And I’m glad to answer your questions.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Operator, we’ll go on to questions now. Just to advise participants that we have made oral notifications to the Hill on the Secretary’s intention to do this, but the actual paperwork will go up later today or tomorrow.
Operator, go ahead with the first question, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you so much. Your first question comes from Tolga Tanis of Hurriyet. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you for this. Hi, [Senior State Department Official]. I had a quick question specifically on Turkey. You have not mentioned on Turkey within the countries that – who reduces the crude oil purchase from Iran. What does it mean to Turkey, first of all, I mean, in – after 180 days? And at – is there any favor or request from Turkey from you on this specification? Thank you.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I would say first of all that there are a number of countries with which we have started and continue to have conversations. We will – we look forward to hearing from countries the kinds of actions that they might take to indicate their interest and commitment to significantly reducing their imports of Iranian crude oil.

I would underscore that the first sanctions that apply related to any financial transactions with Central Bank of Iran came into effect on February 29th. Since that was the first day that the legislation took hold, then any case related to actual sanctions would have to be detected and would be built up and, as we have indicated, that we would have consultations with any country before the imposition of sanctions.

On the specific cases that were cited, I would just underscore that they represent a real model, a model on the part of Japan, because under great hardship, the Japanese have understood the commitment to reduce the imports of Iranian crude oil and took those actions. On the part of the European Union, we had 27 states acting in solidarity to take this action to impose a ban on new purchases and contracts and to phase out all existing contracts by July 1st. And for any country that might have an interest in seeking to be considered in a similar category, these models provide a basis for them to consider what kind of action they think they could potentially take where they can demonstrate a similar commitment to denying Iran export markets.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Operator, next question, please.

OPERATOR: This question comes from Matthew Lee. Your line – of AP – your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, there. I need – wondering if you could tell us exactly what the Japanese commitment is, how much have they reduced their imports, and how much did they do recently? In other words, after the passage of – the signing of this legislation. And please be as specific as possible, because I know there are countries out there that are probably wondering how the Japanese managed to get this exemption.

And then a second thing is just: What happens to countries that have not gotten the exemption? Are there any – are there countries on which – I’m sorry, I don't know the legislation that well, but are there countries that are affected by this now, countries – the other, what 190, 180 countries in the world that did not get exemptions now?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: So first of all, regarding Japan. The specifics of the actions that Japan has taken and that they’re seeking to pursue in the future entails specific commercially protected information. I can’t go into what those contractual arrangements that Japan is looking at would entail. What is available publicly is that, over the last six months of 2011, that depending on the data sources that you look at and the seasonal adjustment of the data, that Japan increased – or decreased its imports of Iranian crude oil between 15 and 22 percent, depending on what the data source is. And that is an extraordinary action on the part of Japan and the Japanese people, following the point – the Fukushima and the hardships that they were forced to go through.
In terms of the actual implications of the law for others: I think first, just to clarify, this exception, as I mentioned earlier, applies only to countries that have significantly reduced the volume of crude oil purchases from Iran. There are approximately 23 countries in the world that have been importers of Iranian crude oil, so that is the total limit of the number of countries that would – that can be considered under the exception. If there are countries that believe that they should be considered under it, we are happy to have discussions with them. And again, I would only underscore that these cases with Japan and the 10 European countries, that they serve as a model, as a benchmark that others can look at and determine whether they are able to make commitments to deny Iran export markets for its crude oil.

In terms of the applicability of sanctions, that is a good question, and there has been some confusion about this. There are several provisions in the law that might be helpful to remember.

The first is on – relates to February 29th. At that point, financial transactions with the Central Bank of Iran that are related to non-petroleum products – non-petroleum products – except in the circumstance of a country sending refined petroleum products to Iran, those financial sanctions took effect. And that essentially excludes those financial institutions from access to the U.S. banking system, because on February 29th, that provision only came into law. Then any sanctions case after that has to be analyzed, built up, and be able to be justified in a court of law in order to be able to be pursued. And so that is one of the questions that now has to be addressed, is whether sanctionable activity will be detected by any country that would not be following the provisions specified under that clause of the legislation specifically related to trade in non-petroleum products.
On March 30th, there’s a provision in the legislation that calls for the President to make a determination on whether or not price and supply conditions in the market allow for countries to switch from Iran to other suppliers of Iranian crude oil. And if the President does make that determination, that then triggers or calls into action another set of sanctions that come into effect on June 28th. And those sanctions are against any transactions with the Central Bank of Iran by any financial institution, whether it’s private or public, related to the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products for Iran.

So bringing that back to the specific point of what happens to other countries, in terms of countries that were importers of Iranian crude oil, there are 12 others that fall into that category. For those 12 countries, they – it is – they now have an example that they can look at to determine what kind of actions that they might be willing to consider domestically. In terms of sanctionable activity, we can’t comment on that because the first step has to be to determine and detect whether there is sanctionable activity, and secondly, to then determine if there is a case to be built up around it.

MODERATOR: Good. Thank you. Next question, please?

OPERATOR: This question is from Indira Lakshman from Bloomberg News. Your line is open, ma’am.

QUESTION: Thanks. Thank you for doing this. [Senior State Department Official], can you tell us in the country that we know are the other major importers – I mean, the main importers of Iranian oil, which are all Asian nations, who haven’t been given exemptions other than Japan – do they now have up until June 28th to come into compliance with the significant reduction? Is that the basic deal? And would then the President determine on June 28th who is getting further sanctions and who is not?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: The
 --
QUESTION: I mean further exemptions.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Essentially, the way that you present the question is correct. And as always, the case is more complicated with any of the provisions of the sanctions rule. The way the legislation is established is that it has provisions for sanctions that are related to non-petroleum products and sanctions that are related to petroleum products.

QUESTION: Right. No, I’m just talking about the petroleum part, because under the 180-day clause, it makes it sound like that 180 days from December 31st is the June 28th for the petroleum portion. So that’s --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: That is correct. The only reason I’m hesitating is because if a country, in addition to having imported petroleum products, may have had other kinds of sanctionable activities, it could actually become liable to sanctions even before that.

The point that I would underscore is that we would hope that any countries that feel that they have the capacity to reduce their imports of Iranian crude oil, that we would be open to the soonest possible discussion with them. There are a number of countries that have begun those discussions with us, and we are very interested to continue to pursue them in great seriousness.

QUESTION: Are you confident that India, China, and South Korea will all be able to reduce them?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I – we look very much forward to hearing what kind of messages those countries are able and willing to bring to us, and to continue to pursue them in a serious and professional conversation.
MODERATOR: Okay, next question. Thank you.

OPERATOR: Arshad Mohammed from Reuters. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yeah. Three quick things: [Senior State Department Official], can you – or excuse me, Administration official, can you please identify the 12 other countries that continue to import Iranian oil, and therefore, could eventually be subject to sanctions? Question one.

Question two: You yourself noted that the Administration has to make a determination by the end of this month on whether the price and availability of alternative supplies are sufficient to allow countries to significantly reduce and switch to other crude oil suppliers. Why then are you announcing these exemptions today? I don’t understand the timing, particularly since sanctions for crude oil purchases via the Central Bank of Iran couldn’t even be applied until after June 28th. So why the necessity of moving this up to now?
And final question: Should the other 12 countries conclude that they are going to have to come up with what you said was the publicly available reports of the reduction in Japan’s Iranian crude oil purchases of 15 to 22 percent? That would seem like a pretty high bar, but is that what they should expect that they need to do so as to be to secure exemptions?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Arshad on – and the 12 others, I don’t have them immediately available. It’s open source information. I think if you Googled imports of Iranian crude oil, you’d probably get the answer really quickly.
In terms of why we’re doing it now, the law is – makes a very strong statement that the sanctions shall not apply if a country has significantly reduced the volume of crude oil purchases. And if a country is in that situation and has unambiguously taken those actions, as we believe the European Union countries have and has Japan have, we felt that it was important to recognize that, because we are achieving significant success in the implementation of the sanctions policy toward Iran.

There are countries that are coming together and demonstrating that they recognize the need to deny Iran export markets and to the extent to which we can reinforce the solidarity that we have with these countries and demonstrate the success in moving forward, that is a strong reason to be able to acknowledge that and put it forward. It does not in any way preempt any decisions that the President will have to make later on. It’s his determination that will effectively make the choice on whether or not the sanctions related to petroleum and petroleum products will come into effect on June 28th.

And finally, on the case of the other countries, the legislation specifies significantly reduce. It doesn’t define what significantly reduce is. I think it’s important for countries to look at actions that have been taken. Japan has just gone through a tremendous tragedy. As I indicated earlier, if you look at open source data in the last half of 2011, even after that tragedy, depending on the data source, they reduced on seasonally-adjusted terms between 15 and 22 percent. That gives some indication. And again with the European Union, they have gone to zero. So we look forward to hearing from countries what their views are and what they can do.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. You said that gives some indication. That gives some indication of what?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Pardon me?

QUESTION: You said that gives – you referred to 15 to 22 percent reduction in Japan, and you said that gives some indication.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: That gives some indication of what a particularly country was able to do in a situation of hardship, and we look forward to countries that are importers of Iranian crude oil to come back to us looking at the Japan example, the European Union example, and to give – indicate to us what they believe that they are able to do.

QUESTION: But if that what Japan was able to do in hardship, presumably it’s a floor, then, for countries that are not in hardship.

MODERATOR: Operator, we only have time for one more, so let’s just take the last one and let him go.

OPERATOR: Gary Gentile from Platts, your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. I just want to clarify. This is all dependent on the determination the President makes on March 30th as to whether there is sufficient supply at sufficient price for countries to be able to access an alternative source of crude oil. Is that – is my understanding of that correct? And second of all, is everything on track for that determination to be made by the end of next week?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I didn’t hear the first part of the question. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: I just want to make sure my understanding is correct, that these sanctions kicking in at the end of June are dependent on the President determining that there is in fact sufficient supply out there – alternative supply for countries to be able to take advantage of. That determination comes on March 30th, so I want to understand that – my understanding of that’s correct, that that is, everything’s dependent on that determination.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: The President’s determination by March 30th will determine whether or not sanctions related to petroleum and petroleum products come into effect on June 28th. That is correct. The sanctions that are established in the legislation apply not just to petroleum and petroleum products. They also apply to other financial transactions with the Central Bank of Iran for non-petroleum products, and the exception that I read applies for all sanctions in the legislation, both petroleum and petroleum products and to non-petroleum products.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: All right. Thank you all very much for joining us.

TRAVELS WITH LEON: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANETTA OUTLINES CENTRAL ASIAN TRIP

The photo and following excerpt are from a U.S. Department of Defense American Forces Press Service e-mail:

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta speaks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai after talks in Kabul, Afghanistan, March 15, 2012.  DOD photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley

WASHINGTON, March 20, 2012 - As has been his custom for all of his foreign travels, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta today provided a personal account of his trip last week to Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan and the United Arab Emirates.
Here is the secretary's report:
I've recently returned from my seventh international trip, and my third trip to Afghanistan as Secretary of Defense. As I always do upon returning from international travel, I wanted to share some observations and reflections on the trip directly with you, the men and women of the Department of Defense.

My first stop was Bishkek, the capital city of Kyrgyzstan, which is also host to the International Transit Center at Manas. The visit to Bishkek gave me the chance to meet with Kyrgyz leaders for the first time, and my goal was to affirm our relationship and thank them for their support of the Manas Transit Center. That transit center is critical to sustaining our efforts in Afghanistan, and provides us with the ability to move personnel in and out of the war zone, to execute aerial refueling sorties, and to transport air cargo in and out of theater.

Kyrgyzstan and its Central Asian neighbors serve as key links in the logistical supply lines into Afghanistan known as the Northern Distribution Network, which has proven extremely important in recent months. For me the visit underscored that the United States shares a number of important interests with our Central Asian partners, chief among them a secure and stable Afghanistan so that the broader region can be peaceful and benefit from expanded trade and development.

We had dinner at a local restaurant and stayed at a hotel in downtown Bishkek. The next morning, I was able to greet American troops at the Transit Center who were waiting for flights home or into Afghanistan. As I met with each of them individually, I was on the lookout for anyone bound for California and managed to greet a few from my home state. I was energized to meet doctors and nurses who had volunteered for service at the war front. I thanked all of the men and women I met for their dedication and sacrifice to their missions. Each received Secretary of Defense coins in recognition of their excellence while serving our nation in uniform.

I departed Kyrgyzstan from Manas in a C-17, traveling onward to Southwest Afghanistan, where I landed at Camp Bastion Airfield in Helmand Province. My trip to Afghanistan took place against the backdrop of a series of challenges that have tested our relationship with our Afghan partners as well as our resolve to focus on achieving the mission there. An unfortunate incident at the airfield as I landed only served to heighten tensions but as I told the press, this is a war zone and it is important to keep our eye on the mission.
We are making strong progress in our military campaign by reducing violence and continuing a process of transitioning security responsibility to Afghan lead. Enemy-initiated attacks in Afghanistan in early 2012 are down about 24 percent compared to last year, and half of the Afghan population now lives in areas that are transitioning to Afghan-led security control.

My basic message to U.S. and coalition troops and to our Afghan partners was that we all needed to stay focused on our fundamental mission to ensure not only that we defeat al-Qaida and their militant allies, but that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists to conduct attacks on the United States or our allies. To do that we must support efforts that will enable Afghanistan to secure and govern itself.
After a short ride over to adjoining Camp Leatherneck, I was honored to meet with several Afghan provincial government leaders, including the Governor of Helmand, as well as commanders from the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police. I told Governor Mangal that on my way from the United States to Afghanistan I had been reading more about the rich history of Afghanistan. I said that I appreciated how in many ways the history of Afghanistan is the story of leaders seeking peace and stability in the face of conflict.

At the same meeting I also heard from Major General Malouk who commands the Afghan National Army 215th Corps in Helmand province. He told me his men know how to fight and are willing to take risks against the enemy, but that they also continue to need help from the international community as they mature into a professional force. I assured him that the U.S. is committed to assisting him and his units as we work together toward transitioning security responsibility to them. I came away from this discussion encouraged that Afghan forces are truly taking charge of operations and leading them in this part of the country, and that Afghanistan has brave leaders who are determined to build a better future for their country.

After meeting with these local Afghan officials and military commanders, I had the opportunity to address U.S. Marines, and other ISAF and Afghan troops. I emphasized my message to focus on the mission even in the face of challenges. As these troops know well, we have been tested, time and time again, over a decade of war. That's the nature of war: to confront every obstacle, to face every barrier, to fight through every challenge in order to accomplish a mission. It is important that all of us -- the United States, Afghanistan, the ISAF forces -- all stick to the strategy that we've laid out.
It was an honor to meet with this motivated group of Marines, Afghan, and international troops, for it's their dedication that offers the chance at a better life for us and our children, and for the Afghan people and their children as well.
We then boarded an MV-22 Osprey and flew from Camp Leatherneck to Forward Operating Base Shukvani, the remote and dusty operating location for the Georgian 31st Battalion and their U.S. Marine Corps partners.

At FOB Shukvani, I thanked the Georgian troops for their important contributions to the campaign, and read them a letter from their former commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel Alex Tugushi, who was grievously injured during operations in December 2011. In the letter Lt. Col. Tugushi called the troops "Georgian heroes" and said it was a great honor for Georgian troops to partner with American and international troops in Afghanistan. I told the Georgian troops that Lt. Col. Tugushi's letter reflected my feelings exactly: the U.S. is privileged to stand together with Georgia.

That afternoon, we flew to Kabul for meetings that night with my friends and colleagues Minister of Defense Wardak and Minister of Interior Mohammadi. The focus of our discussion was on the progress being made by the Afghan National Security Forces. Minister Wardak hosted me at the ministry for a traditional Afghan meal, and I was grateful for his hospitality. Both of my meetings with the ministers went very well, reaffirming our shared commitment to the mission, progress in achieving greater security in Afghanistan, and the continued development of Afghan security forces.

The following morning I met with President Karzai at his palace. President Karzai and I have met several times over the years, and I told him that we seem to get tested almost every other day by incidents that challenge our leadership and our commitment to our shared goals. I know that tragedies like the incident in Kandahar weigh heavily on President Karzai's heart and create problems for him as the leader and the protector of the Afghan people. They weigh heavily on all of us. That's why I told him that we are sparing no effort to hold those responsible accountable and to make sure this does not happen again.

Still, our discussion largely focused on the future as the United States and Afghanistan seek to build an enduring partnership. We have made significant progress on reaching this kind of agreement, and were recently able to sign an MOU with Afghanistan that establishes a way forward to transferring detention operations to Afghanistan. In spite of recent challenges, I am confident that we will reach an agreement with President Karzai on a strategic partnership.

After finishing this meeting and heading to the Kabul Airport, I reflected on the fact that in past trips to Afghanistan, whether as CIA Director or Secretary of Defense, I was invariably concerned about the differences with regards to the strategy ahead and how to try to get better agreement on how we would proceed in the future.

In this trip, everyone I talked to absolutely agreed with the strategy that NATO nations and the Afghan government have laid out: to support an Afghan-led transition process leading to Afghan responsibility for security across the country by the end of 2014. As the Afghans increasingly take on leadership through the transition process, we expect ISAF to shift naturally in 2013 from a primarily combat to a primarily support role, while remaining fully combat capable. At the same time, we will continue to talk about the kind of post-2014 presence we need to maintain. Everybody is absolutely committed to this strategy.
There is no doubt that the Afghan people are tired of war. They've suffered through years of conflict, and they're hoping for peace and the opportunity to raise their families so that hopefully their children will have a better life. The American people share some of that tiredness after 10 years of war as well, and all of that's understandable.

But I think the American people also understand that we came here with a mission to accomplish. The mission was to make sure that those that attacked our country on 9/11 will never be able to use Afghanistan as a base to do that again and that Afghanistan needs to be able to govern and secure itself. That's our mission, that's our goal, and we have never been closer to accomplishing that.

From Afghanistan I continued on to the United Arab Emirates, which is a very important partner in the Middle East. The U.S. continues to work closely with our Emirati partners, including the missions in Libya and working with the international community on Syria, as well. I had good discussions with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed about regional issues and also the importance of our relationship with the UAE, particularly at this point in time.

As I headed home from this trip, I reflected on the fact that our troops are heroes and patriots, and that we can never forget your sacrifices. Those of you in uniform are doing the job of trying to protect this country, and doing it magnificently with courage and with dedication. Your skill and mission focus have always been the key to our ability to overcome any challenge -- and that enables all of us to pursue that fundamental American dream of giving our children a better life.

TAYLOR, BEAN & WHITAKER'S FORMER CFO PLEADS GUILTY TO FRAUD

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Former Chief Financial Officer of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Pleads Guilty to Fraud Scheme
WASHINGTON – Delton de Armas, a former chief financial officer (CFO) of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. (TBW), pleaded guilty today to making false statements and conspiring to commit bank and wire fraud for his role in a more than $2.9 billion fraud scheme that contributed to the failures of TBW and Colonial Bank.

 The guilty plea was announced today by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride for the Eastern District of Virginia; Christy Romero, Deputy Special Inspector General, Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP); Assistant Director in Charge James W. McJunkin of the FBI’s Washington Field Office; David A. Montoya, Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD-OIG); Jon T. Rymer, Inspector General of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC-OIG); Steve A. Linick, Inspector General of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA-OIG); and Rick A. Raven, Acting Chief of the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI).

De Armas, 41, of Carrollton, Texas, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia.  De Armas faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison when he is sentenced on June 15, 2012.

“As TBW’s chief financial officer, Mr. de Armas concealed a massive $1.5 billion deficit in TBW’s funding facility and another large deficit on TBW’s books,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer.  “He tried to conceal the gaping holes by falsifying financial statements and lying to investors as well as the government.  Ultimately, Mr. de Armas’ criminal conduct, along with that of his co-conspirators, contributed to the collapse of TBW and Colonial Bank.  With today’s guilty plea, Mr. de Armas joins seven other defendants – including the former chairman of TBW Lee Bentley Farkas – who have been convicted of participating in this massive fraudulent scheme.”

“When Mr. de Armas learned of a hole in Ocala Funding’s assets, he used his position as CFO to cover it up and mislead investors,” said U.S. Attorney MacBride.  “Today’s plea is the eighth conviction in one of the nation’s largest bank frauds in history.  As CFO, Mr. de Armas could have put a stop to the fraud the moment he discovered it.  Instead, the hole in Ocala Funding grew to $1.5 billion on his watch, and as it grew, so did his lies to investors and the government.”

According to court documents, de Armas joined TBW in 2000 as its CFO and reported directly to its chairman, Lee Bentley Farkas, and later to its CEO, Paul Allen.  He admitted in court that from 2005 through August 2009, he and other co-conspirators engaged in a scheme to defraud financial institutions that had invested in a wholly-owned lending facility called Ocala Funding.  Ocala Funding obtained funds for mortgage lending for TBW from the sale of asset-backed commercial paper to financial institutions, including Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas. The facility was managed by TBW and had no employees of its own.

According to court records, shortly after Ocala Funding was established, de Armas learned there were inadequate assets backing its commercial paper, a deficiency referred to internally at TBW as a “hole” in Ocala Funding.  De Armas knew that the hole grew over time to more than $700 million.  He learned from the CEO that the hole was more than $1.5 billion at the time of TBW’s collapse.  De Armas admitted he was aware that, in an effort to cover up the hole and mislead investors, a subordinate who reported to him had falsified Ocala Funding collateral reports and periodically sent the falsified reports to financial institution investors in Ocala Funding and to other third parties.  De Armas acknowledged that he and the CEO also deceived investors by providing them with a false explanation for the hole in Ocala Funding.

De Armas also admitted in court that he directed a subordinate to inflate an account receivable balance for loan participations in TBW’s financial statements.  De Armas acknowledged that he knew that the falsified financial statements were subsequently provided to Ginnie Mae and Freddie Mac for their determination on the renewal of TBW’s authority to sell and service securities issued by them.

In addition, de Armas admitted in court to aiding and abetting false statements in a letter the CEO sent to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, through Ginnie Mae, regarding TBW’s audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2009.  De Armas reviewed and edited the letter, knowing it contained material omissions.  The letter omitted that the delay in submitting the financial data was caused by concerns its independent auditor had raised about the financing relationship between TBW and Colonial Bank and its request that TBW retain a law firm to conduct an internal investigation.  Instead, the letter falsely attributed the delay to a new acquisition and TBW’s switch to a compressed 11-month fiscal year.

“With our nation in a housing crisis, de Armas, as chief financial officer of TBW, one of the country’s largest mortgage lenders, papered over a gaping hole in the balance sheet of TBW subsidiary Ocala Funding and lied to regulators and investors to cover it up,” said Deputy Special Inspector General Romero for SIGTARP.  “The fraud provided cover to others at TBW to misappropriate more than $1 billion in Ocala funds and sell fraudulent, worthless securities to conspirators at Colonial BancGroup.  SIGTARP and its law enforcement partners stopped $553 million in TARP funds from being lost to this fraud and brought accountability and justice that the American taxpayers deserve.”

“Mr. de Armas has admitted that, during his tenure at TBW, he purposefully misled investors in a massive scheme to defraud financial institutions,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge McJunkin.  “The actions of Mr. de Armas and his co-conspirators contributed to the financial crisis and led to the collapse of one of the country’s largest commercial banks.  The FBI and our partners remain vigilant in investigating such fraudulent activity in our banking and mortgage industries.”

“The guilty plea of Mr. de Armas is one small measure in our continued efforts to restore the trust and confidence of the general public and of investors in our financial system,” said HUD Inspector General Montoya.  “In response to the many recent articles of mortgage fraud and misconduct, the mortgage industry needs to do much to rethink their values and their idea of client service in order to help rebuild a stronger economy and to restore the confidence of American homeowners.”

“The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of Inspector General is pleased to have played a role in bringing to justice yet another senior official in a position of trust who was involved in one of the biggest and most complex bank fraud schemes of our time,” said FDIC Inspector General Rymer.  “The former chief financial officer of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker is the latest participant who will be held accountable for seeking to undermine the integrity of the financial services industry.  Even as the financial and economic crisis seems to be easing, we reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that those contributing to the failures of financial institutions and corresponding losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.”
“Mr. de Armas and his colleagues committed an egregious crime,” said FHFA Inspector General Linick.  “FHFA-OIG is proud to be part of the team that continues to protect American taxpayers.”

In April 2011, a jury in the Eastern District of Virginia found Lee Bentley Farkas, the chairman of TBW, guilty of 14 counts of conspiracy, bank, securities and wire fraud.  On June 30, 2011, Judge Brinkema sentenced Farkas to 30 years in prison.  In addition, six individuals have pleaded guilty for their roles in the fraud scheme, including: Paul Allen, former chief executive officer of TBW, who was sentenced to 40 months in prison; Raymond Bowman, former president of TBW, who was sentenced to 30 months in prison; Desiree Brown, former treasurer of TBW, who was sentenced to six years in prison; Catherine Kissick, former senior vice president of Colonial Bank and head of its Mortgage Warehouse Lending Division (MWLD), who was sentenced to eight years in prison; Teresa Kelly, former operations supervisor for Colonial Bank’s MWLD, who was sentenced to three months in prison; and Sean Ragland, a former senior financial analyst at TBW, who was sentenced to three months in prison.

The case is being prosecuted by Deputy Chief Patrick Stokes and Trial Attorney Robert Zink of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Charles Connolly and Paul Nathanson of the Eastern District of Virginia.  This case was investigated by SIGTARP, FBI’s Washington Field Office, FDIC-OIG, HUD-OIG, FHFA-OIG and IRS-CI.  The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the Department of the Treasury also provided support in the investigation.  The Department would also like to acknowledge the substantial assistance of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in the investigation of the fraud scheme.

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON ON REDUCED USE OF IRANIAN OIL

The following excerpt is from a U.S. State Department e-mail: 
Statement on Significant Reductions of Iranian Crude Oil Purchases
Press Statement Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Washington, DC
March 20, 2012
I am pleased to announce that an initial group of eleven countries has significantly reduced their volume of crude oil purchases from Iran -- Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. As a result, I will report to the Congress that sanctions pursuant to Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (NDAA) will not apply to the financial institutions based in these countries, for a renewable period of 180 days.

The actions taken by these countries were not easy. They had to rethink their energy needs at a critical time for the world economy and quickly begin to find alternatives to Iranian oil, which many had been reliant on for their energy needs. The ban on all new purchases of Iranian crude oil by the European Union countries as of January 23, and phase out of existing contracts by July 1, demonstrates their solidarity and their commitment to holding Iran accountable for its failure to comply with its international obligations. Japan’s significant reductions in crude oil purchases is also especially noteworthy considering the extraordinary energy and other challenges it has faced over the past year. We commend these countries for their actions and urge other nations that import oil from Iran to follow their example.

Only two months after the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, we have made progress in shrinking Iran’s oil export markets, and isolating its Central Bank from the world financial system. The United States is leading an unprecedented international coalition of partners that has brought to bear significant pressure on the Iranian regime to change its course. Diplomacy coupled with strong pressure can achieve the long-term solutions we seek and we will continue to work with our international partners to increase the pressure on Iran to meet its international obligations.

WHITE HOUSE SAYS HEALTH REFORM HAS HELPED MILLIONS OF WOMEN WITH PREVENTIVE CARE

The photo and excerpt are from the White House website:

President Obama’s health reform law requires that new health insurance plans cover preventive services with no co-pay or deductible. In the last 18 months, approximately 20.4 million women with private health insurance have received preventive health services such as mammograms and pap smears at no additional cost because of this provision in the Affordable Care Act.

Besides improving access to services that help women stay healthy and detect health problems early on, health reform helps women in many other ways. For example, health insurance companies can no longer discriminate against women by charging them higher premiums than they charge men. Insurance companies are banned from imposing a limit on the amount of care they’ll cover over a woman’s lifetime, and are now required to spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on care—not overhead.

Women who have been unable to purchase health insurance because of a pre-existing condition such as cancer or having been pregnant now have an option to obtain the insurance they need through the new Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan.

Beginning in 2014, the Affordable Care Act will be fully implemented and offer even greater protection for women and their health care, including a ban on denying care based on pre-existing conditions, and the removal of annual limits on care.

CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE ADDRESSES INFLATION IN NEWSLETTER

The following excerpt is from Congressman Dave Camp's website:
Highlights from the House: Constituents' Concerns
Congressman Dave Camp met with constituents across Michigan last week to hear their concerns, answer questions about the economic uncertainty that continues to threaten our nation’s recovery. Michiganders continue to voice concerns over the failed energy policies of the Obama Administration that have caused the price of gas to double, rising from a national average of $1.83 when President Obama took office to $3.75 today.

Gas is not the only price increase Americans are facing, according to a recent USA Today article, electricity bills have also skyrocketed. Under the Obama Administration, the average family income is down by more than $1,000, and the cost of eggs has increased by 30 percent, fruit by 14 percent, and meat by 18 percent. With the cost of living continuing to rise and wages remaining low, it comes as little surprise that nearly half of the U.S. feels worse off financially today than they did one year ago, according to a recent Gallup poll.

Relief, especially relief from high gas prices, does not appear to be on the horizon from President Obama. A White House aide recently confirmed that the president lobbied Senate Democrats to vote against the Keystone XL pipeline. If passed, the Keystone XL pipeline would increase our domestic crude supply by an estimated 302 million barrels per year (830,000 barrels a day), $20 billion of private sector investment would be injected into the American economy, 20,000 direct jobs would be created and $5 billion in taxes to local communities would be collected over the project’s lifetime.

GENERAL ALLEN TELLS CONGRESS TROOP WITHDRAWAL SHOULD NOT BE STEPPED UP

The following excerpt is from a Department of Defense American Forces Press Service e-mail:

Allen: Troops Will Accomplish Afghan Mission

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 20, 2012 - Recent incidents have been deplorable, but they will not stand in the way of accomplishing goals in Afghanistan, the International Security Assistance Force commander said here.

Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen also said the incidents do not represent the actions of the vast majority of U.S. military personnel who have served in Afghanistan.

Three incidents have been lumped together, the general said: desecration of corpses, the accidental burning of Qurans and the murder of 16 Afghans in Kandahar province. "It's important to understand that while tragic, these few incidents do not represent who we are," Allen said during an interview. "The Afghan people know that, the Afghan government knows that, and more importantly, the Afghan national security forces know who we are."

Allen emphasized that U.S. and Afghan forces have been working together for years, and many Afghans and Americans have close working relationships.

"We have a sound campaign plan that is developed jointly by the Afghan national security forces and the International Security Assistance Force," he said. "It is a good plan and we are executing that plan. I think we can accomplish our objectives, without question."

It is important to remember that considerable progress has taken place in Afghanistan, Allen said. "Security in many places in Afghanistan is near normal," he added, citing the city of Herat as a prime example of a place "on a very positive trajectory."

The civil government, the Italian-led ISAF forces, the Afghan national security forces and the population as a whole are combining to create a peaceful, stable area in and around Herat, where economic progress provides opportunities, the general said.

The Afghan capital of Kabul is jammed with cars and is known for the "hustle and bustle of a city where the people are going about their way on a moment-to-moment basis free from the oppression of the Taliban, free from the threat of terrorist attack," he said.

Kabul is virtually incident-free, Allen said, and Afghan forces provide security for the region. Still, he acknowledged, he taps on wood when he talks of security, because "it is the great ambition of the Taliban to terrorize the Afghan people, to cause fear and disruption in their daily lives."

Afghan forces are the difference, Allen said. "In places like Herat, in Kabul, in the south in Kandahar and the Helmand River Valley, the [Afghan forces] have created an environment of security by which the Afghan people can now, in many places, go about their normal daily lives," the general said.

Afghan forces already protect more than 50 percent of the Afghan people, and that number will grow in the months ahead. NATO nations, contributing countries and Afghan leaders agreed to the transition process at NATO's November 2010 summit in Lisbon, Portugal. Two "tranches" of areas have transitioned to Afghan security control already, Allen noted. "We are working on a third tranche now," he said. "We'll have the fourth by the end of the year, and a fifth by the end of the summer of 2013."

Addressing war-weariness among Americans for the conflict in Afghanistan, Allen said people must remember why U.S. forces are there.

"We should remember why we're in Afghanistan, which was 9/11," he said. "On the 11th of September 2001, more than 3,000 people were killed by terrorist attacks on the homeland of the United States. Those attacks were planned and ultimately executed out of Kandahar by al-Qaida, sheltered by the Taliban."

At the time, Kandahar was a dying city totally under the thumb of religious radicals who stoned people to death for singing in the street and refused medical care to women. Today, Allen said, it is a bustling city where security is measurable and led by the Afghan national forces.

No further attacks on the United States have taken place since 9/11, Allen noted. "The effects of our forces over this period of time has kept the United States safe, kept the Western world safe, kept Afghanistan safe," he said, "and it has expelled al-Qaida largely from Afghanistan, and it is now in fact, reducing the ability of the Taliban to terrorize Afghan citizens and [has] expelled them from the population."

This is significant progress, the general said, noting the American people "should be tremendously proud of their sons and daughters who have fought this war now for going on 11 years."

More than 800,000 Americans have deployed to Afghanistan since the war began. With very few exceptions, Allen said, these young service members "have upheld the standards of this country."

"While there have been some moments of tragedy and some actions of very few that have complicated the campaign and our objectives, I would say the thousands and thousands of American young men and women who passed through Afghanistan have demonstrated respect for Islam and respect for the Afghan people," the general said. They have fought shoulder-to-shoulder with the Afghans for the freedom of the country, he added.

"That's why we're there," he said. "And if Afghanistan becomes safe, America becomes safer. It's a direct-line relationship, and we should never forget that."
 

ON ANNIVERSARY OF U.S. INVASION OF IRAQ PRESIDENT OBAMA "PROCLAIMS NATIONAL DAY OF HONOR"

The following excerpt is from a Department of Defense American Forces Press Service e-mail:

President Proclaims 'National Day of Honor'

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 19, 2012 - On the ninth anniversary of U.S. forces moving into Iraq, President Barack Obama has proclaimed today to be "A National Day of Honor."

Here's is the text of the president's proclamation:

Nine years ago, members of the United States Armed Forces crossed the sands of the Iraq-Kuwait border and began one of the most challenging missions our military has ever known. They left the comforts of home and family, volunteering in service to a cause greater than themselves. They braved insurgency and sectarian strife, knowing too well the danger of combat and the cost of conflict. Yet, through the dust and din and the fog of war, they never lost their resolve. Demonstrating unshakable fortitude and unwavering commitment to duty, our men and women in uniform served tour after tour, fighting block by block to help the Iraqi people seize the chance for a better future. And on December 18, 2011, their mission came to an end.

Today, we honor their success, their service, and their sacrifice. In one of our Nation's longest wars, veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn wrote one of the most extraordinary chapters in American military history. When highways became mine fields and uncertainty waited behind every corner, service members rose to meet the task at hand with unmatched courage and determination. They learned languages and cultures, taking on new roles as diplomats and development experts to improve the communities where they served. Their strength toppled a tyrant, and their valor helped build opportunity in oppression's place. Across nearly 9 years of conflict, the glory of their service -- as well as the contributions of other members of the U.S. Government and our coalition partners -- always shone through.

The war left wounds not always seen, but forever felt. The burden of distance and the pain of loss weighed heavily on the hearts of millions at home and overseas. Behind every member of our military stood a parent, a spouse, or a son or daughter who proudly served their community and prayed for their loved one's safe return. For wounded warriors, coming home marked the end of one battle and the beginning of another -- to stand, to walk, to recover, and to serve again. And, in war's most profound cost, there were those who never came home. Separated by time and space but united by their love of country, nearly 4,500 men and women are eternally bound; though we have laid them to rest, they will live on in the soul of our Nation now and forever. To them, to their families, and to all who served, we owe a debt that can never be fully repaid.

When we returned the colors of United States Forces-Iraq and the last of our troops set foot on American soil, we reflected on the extraordinary service and sacrifice of those who answered our country's call. Their example embodied that fundamental American faith that tells us no mission is too hard, no challenge is too great, and that through tests and through trials, we will always emerge stronger than before. Now, our Nation reaffirms our commitment to serve veterans of Iraq as well as they served us -- to uphold the sacred trust we share with all who have worn the uniform. Our future is brighter for their service, and today, we express our gratitude by saying once more: Welcome home.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 19, 2012, as a National Day of Honor. I call upon all Americans to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities that commemorate the return of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq.

TWO FINANCIAL ADVISERS CHARGED BY SEC WITH INSIDER TRADING WITH CONFIDENTIAL MERGER INFORMATION

The excerpt below is from the SEC website:
March 14, 2012
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that, on March 13, 2012, it charged two financial advisors and three others in their circle of family and friends with insider trading for more than $1.8 million in illicit profits based on confidential information about a Philadelphia-based insurance holding company’s merger negotiations with a Japanese firm.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, charges Timothy J. McGee, of Malvern, Pa., Michael W. Zirinsky, of Schwenksville, Pa., Robert Zirinsky, of Quakertown, Pa. and Hong Kong residents Paulo Lam and Marianna sze wan Ho with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint also names as relief defendants Michael Zirinsky’s wife Kellie F. Zirinsky, sister Jillynn Zirinsky, mother Geraldine A. Zirinsky, and grandmother Mary L. Zirinsky for the purpose of recovering illegal profits in their trading accounts. Lam and Ho have each agreed to settle the SEC’s charges and pay approximately $1.2 million and $140,000 respectively.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that McGee and Michael Zirinsky, who are registered representatives at Ameriprise Financial Services, illegally traded in the stock of Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. (PHLY) based on nonpublic information about the company’s impending merger with Tokio Marine Holdings. The complaint alleges that McGee misappropriated the inside information from a PHLY senior executive who was confiding in him through their relationship at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) about pressures he was confronting at work. McGee then purchased PHLY stock in advance of the merger announcement on July 23, 2008, and made a $292,128 profit when the stock price jumped 64 percent that day.

The complaint further alleges that McGee tipped Michael Zirinsky, who purchased PHLY stock in his own trading account as well as those of his wife, sister, mother, and grandmother. Zirinsky tipped his father Robert Zirinsky and his friend Paulo Lam, who in turn tipped another friend whose wife Marianna sze wan Ho also traded on the nonpublic information. The complaint alleges that the Zirinsky family collectively obtained illegal profits of $562,673 through their insider trading. Lam made an illicit profit of $837,975 and Ho profited by $110,580.

The complaint seeks a final judgment ordering disgorgement of ill-gotten gains together with prejudgment interest from the defendants and relief defendants, and permanent injunctions and penalties against the defendants.

Lam and Ho have each consented, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining them from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Lam agreed to pay $837,975 in disgorgement, $123,649 in prejudgment interest, and a penalty of $251,392. Ho has agreed to pay $110,580 in disgorgement, $16,317 in prejudgment interest, and a penalty of $16,587. The settlements are subject to court approval.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Philadelphia Regional Office enforcement staff Brendan P. McGlynn, Patricia A. Paw and Daniel L. Koster. The SEC’s litigation will be led by Scott A. Thompson, Nuriye C. Uygur, and G. Jeffrey Boujoukos.

NEW FROG SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY

The following excerpt is from the National Science Foundation website:
March 14, 2012
In the wilds of New York City--or as wild as you can get that close to skyscrapers--scientists have found a new leopard frog species.
For years, biologists mistook it for a more widespread variety of leopard frog.
While biologists regularly discover new species in remote rainforests, finding this one in ponds and marshes--sometimes within view of the Statue of Liberty--is a big surprise, said scientists from the University of California, Los Angeles; Rutgers University; the University of California, Davis and the University of Alabama.
"For a new species to go unrecognized in this area is amazing," said UCLA biologist Brad Shaffer, formerly at UC Davis.

Shaffer's research is funded by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Environmental Biology.

In recently published results in the journal Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Shaffer and other scientists used DNA data to compare the new frog to all other leopard frog species in the region.

"Many amphibians are secretive and very hard to find, but these frogs are pretty obvious animals," said Shaffer.

"This shows that even in the largest city in the U.S., there are still new and important species waiting to be discovered."

The researchers determined the frog is an entirely new species. The unnamed frog joins a crowd of more than a dozen distinct leopard frog species.
The newly identified wetland species likely once lived on Manhattan. It's now only known from a few nearby locations: Yankee Stadium in the Bronx is the center of its current range.

Lead paper author Cathy Newman, now of Louisiana State University, was working with Leslie Rissler, a biologist at the University of Alabama, on an unrelated study of the southern leopard frog species when she first contacted scientist Jeremy Feinberg at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

Feinberg asked if she could help him investigate some "unusual frogs" whose weird-sounding calls were different from those of other leopard frogs.
"There are northern and southern leopard frogs in that general area, so I was expecting to find one of those that for some reason had atypical behaviors or that were hybrids of both," Newman said.

"I was really surprised and excited once I started getting data back strongly suggesting it was a new species. It's fascinating in such a heavily urbanized area."
Feinberg suspected that the leopard-frog look-alike with the peculiar croak was a new creature hiding in plain sight.

Instead of the "long snore" or "rapid chuckle" he heard from other leopard frogs, this frog had a short, repetitive croak.

As far back as the late 1800s, scientists have speculated about these "odd" frogs.
"When I first heard these frogs calling, it was so different, I knew something was very off," Feinberg said.

"It's what we call a cryptic species: one species hidden within another because we can't tell them apart on sight. Thanks to molecular genetics, people are picking out species that would otherwise be ignored."
The results were clear-cut: the DNA was distinct, no matter how much the frogs looked alike.

"If I had one of these three leopard frogs in my hand, unless I knew what area it was from, I wouldn't know which one I was holding because they all look so similar," Newman said. "But our results showed that this lineage is very clearly genetically distinct."
Mitochondrial DNA represents only a fraction of the amphibian's total DNA, so Newman knew she needed to do broader nuclear DNA tests to see the whole picture and confirm the frog as a new species. She performed the work at UC Davis.

Habitat destruction, disease, invasive species, pesticides and parasites have all taken a heavy toll on frogs and other amphibians worldwide, said Rissler, currently on leave from the University of Alabama and a program director in NSF's Division of Environmental Biology.

Amphibians, she said, are great indicators of problems in our environment--problems that could potentially impact our health.

"They are a good model to examine environmental threats or degradation because part of their life history is spent in the water and part on land," Rissler said. "They're subject to all the problems that happen to these environments."
The findings show that even in densely-populated, well-studied areas, there are still new discoveries to be made, said Shaffer.  And that the newly identified frogs appear to have a startlingly limited range.

"One of the real mantras of conservation biology is that you cannot protect what you don't recognize," Shaffer said. "If you don't know that two species are different, you can't know whether either needs protection."

The newly identified frogs have so far been found in scattered populations in northern New Jersey, southeastern mainland New York and on Staten Island.
Although they may extend into parts of Connecticut and northeastern Pennsylvania, evidence suggests they were once common on Long Island and other nearby regions.
They went extinct there in just the last few decades. "This raises conservation concerns that must be addressed," said ecologist Joanna Burger of Rutgers University.
"These frogs were probably once more widely distributed," Rissler said. "They are still able to hang on. They're still here, and that's amazing."

Until scientists settle on a name for the frog, they refer to it as "Rana sp. nov.," meaning "new frog species."

NASA'S NEW INFRARED ATLAS AND CATALOG SHEDS LIGHT ON THE UNIVERSE

The following excerpt is from the NASA website:

WASHINGTON -- NASA unveiled a new atlas and catalog of the entire 
infrared sky today showing more than a half billion stars, galaxies 
and other objects captured by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer 
(WISE) mission. 

"Today, WISE delivers the fruit of 14 years of effort to the 
astronomical community," said Edward Wright, WISE principal 
investigator at UCLA, who first began working on the mission with 
other team members in 1998. 

WISE launched Dec. 14, 2009, and mapped the entire sky in 2010 with 
vastly better sensitivity than its predecessors. It collected more 
than 2.7 million images taken at four infrared wavelengths of light, 
capturing everything from nearby asteroids to distant galaxies. Since 
then, the team has been processing more than 15 trillion bytes of 
returned data. A preliminary release of WISE data, covering the first 
half of the sky surveyed, was made last April. 

The WISE catalog of the entire sky meets the mission's fundamental 
objective. The individual WISE exposures have been combined into an 
atlas of more than 18,000 images covering the sky and a catalog 
listing the infrared properties of more than 560 million individual 
objects found in the images. Most of the objects are stars and 
galaxies, with roughly equal numbers of each. Many of them have never 
been seen before. 

WISE observations have led to numerous discoveries, including the 
elusive, coolest class of stars. Astronomers hunted for these failed 
stars, called "Y-dwarfs," for more than a decade. Because they have 
been cooling since their formation, they don't shine in visible light 
and could not be spotted until WISE mapped the sky with its infrared 
vision. 

WISE also took a poll of near-Earth asteroids, finding there are 
significantly fewer mid-size objects than previously thought. It also 
determined NASA has found more than 90 percent of the largest 
near-Earth asteroids. 

Other discoveries were unexpected. WISE found the first known "Trojan" 
asteroid to share the same orbital path around the sun as Earth. One 
of the images released today shows a surprising view of an "echo" of 
infrared light surrounding an exploded star. The echo was etched in 
the clouds of gas and dust when the flash of light from the supernova 
explosion heated surrounding clouds. At least 100 papers on the 
results from the WISE survey already have been published. More 
discoveries are expected now that astronomers have access to the 
whole sky as seen by the spacecraft. 

"With the release of the all-sky catalog and atlas, WISE joins the 
pantheon of great sky surveys that have led to many remarkable 
discoveries about the universe," said Roc Cutri, who leads the WISE 
data processing and archiving effort at the Infrared and Processing 
Analysis Center at the California Institute of Technology in 
Pasadena. "It will be exciting and rewarding to see the innovative 
ways the science and educational communities will use WISE in their 
studies now that they have the data at their fingertips." 

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, Calif., manages 
and operates WISE for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in 
Washington. The mission was competitively selected under NASA's 
Explorers Program, which is managed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight 
Center in Greenbelt, Md. The science instrument was built by the 
Space Dynamics Laboratory in Logan, Utah, and the spacecraft was 
built by Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp., in Boulder, Colo. 
Science operations, data processing and archiving take place at the 
Infrared Processing and Analysis Center at the California Institute 
of Technology in Pasadena. Caltech manages JPL for NASA. 

SEC CHARGES SENIOR EXECUTIVES WITH PERPETRATING STOCK LENDING SCHEME

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:
March 16, 2012
SEC Charges Senior Executives at California-Based Firm in Stock Lending Scheme
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two senior executives and their California-based firm with defrauding officers and directors at publicly-traded companies in an elaborate $8 million stock lending scheme.

The SEC alleges that Argyll Investments LLC’s purported stock-collateralized loan business is merely a fraud perpetrated by James T. Miceli and Douglas A. McClain, Jr. to acquire publicly traded stock from corporate officers and directors at a discounted price from market value, separately sell the shares for full market value in order to fund the loan, and use the remaining proceeds from the sale of the collateral for their own personal benefit. Miceli, McClain, and Argyll typically lied to borrowers by explicitly telling them that their collateral would not be sold unless a default occurred. However, since Argyll had no independent source of funds other than the borrowers’ collateral, Argyll often sold the collateral prior to closing the loan and then used the proceeds to fund it.

Also charged in the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California is a broker through which Argyll attracted potential borrowers. The SEC alleges that AmeriFund Capital Finance LLC and its owner Jeffrey Spanier violated the federal securities laws by brokering numerous transactions for Argyll while not registered with the SEC.

The SEC alleges that Miceli and McClain induced at least nine corporate officers and directors since 2009 to transfer ownership of millions of shares of stock to Argyll as collateral for purported loans. Miceli and McClain promised to return the stock to the borrowers when the loans were repaid. However, rather than retaining the collateral shares as required, they sold the shares without the borrowers’ knowledge before or soon after funding the loans. In many cases, they used the proceeds from the collateral sales to fund the loans. Because Argyll typically loaned the borrowers 30 to 50 percent less than the current market value of the shares, the company retained substantial proceeds even after funding the loans. As a result of the scheme, Argyll reaped more than $8 million in unlawful gains that Miceli and McClain used in part toward their personal expenses.

In addition to the fraud charges against Miceli, McClain, and Argyll, the SEC alleges that they violated the federal securities laws by improperly selling the collateral shares — all of which were restricted securities — into the public markets in unregistered transactions. They also failed to register with the SEC as brokers or dealers.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Miceli, McClain, and Argyll violated Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, and that Spanier and AmeriFund violated Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Jacob D. Krawitz, Anthony S. Kelly, and Anik Shah, and supervised by Julie M. Riewe. The SEC’s litigation effort will be led by Dean Conway.
The SEC thanks the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for their assistance with this matter.

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT CHARGED WITH INSIDER TRADING IN NBTY INC STOCK

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: 
On March 15, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged a Chicago-based management consultant with insider trading based on confidential information about his client’s impending takeover of a Long Island-based vitamin company.

Sherif Mityas, a partner and vice-president at a global management consulting firm has agreed to pay more than $78,000 to settle the SEC’s charges. The proposed settlement is subject to the approval of Chief Judge Carol B. Amon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York today announced the unsealing of criminal charges against Mityas.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in Brooklyn, alleges that Mityas and others at his were retained by Washington, D.C.-based private equity firm The Carlyle Group to provide strategic advice related to the acquisition of NBTY Inc. That same month, Mityas purchased NBTY stock and subsequently tipped a relative who also bought NBTY shares. After Carlyle publicly announced its acquisition of NBTY, Mityas and his relative sold their NBTY stock for a combined profit of nearly $38,000.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Mityas’s firm was retained by Carlyle in May 2010. Only five days after being told during a May 17 conference call that NBTY was Carlyle’s acquisition target, Mityas moved $50,000 from a bank account he shared with a relative into a brokerage account they shared. On May 27, he transferred $49,000 from that brokerage account to a different relative’s brokerage account that he controlled as custodian and then used those funds to purchase 1,300 shares of NBTY at a cost of more than $44,000. On July 7, based on a tip from Mityas, yet another relative bought 440 shares of NBTY stock. That same relative also bought an additional 210 shares on July 14. Carlyle’s acquisition of NBTY was publicly announced the following day. Mityas sold all of his shares only three hours after the announcement was made, for an illegal profit of $25,896. The relative held the shares purchased on July 7 and 14 through the completion of the merger, and sold all of the shares on October 1 for an illicit profit of $12,035.
The SEC’s complaint charges Mityas with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, would require Mityas to pay disgorgement of his and his relative’s ill-gotten gains totaling $37,931, plus prejudgment interest of $2,375.39, and a penalty of $37,931. The settlement also would bar Mityas from serving as an officer or director of a public company and permanently enjoin him from future violations of these provisions of the federal securities laws.

NSF SAYS GLOBAL SEA LEVEL COULD RISE 70 FEET

The photo ( credit NASA) and excerpt are from the National Science Foundation website:
Global Sea Level Likely to Rise as Much as 70 Feet in Future Generations 
March 19, 2012
Even if humankind manages to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)--as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends--future generations will likely have to deal with a completely different world.
One with sea levels 40 to 70 feet higher than at present, according to research results published this week in the journalGeology.

The scientists, led by Kenneth Miller of Rutgers University, reached their conclusion by studying rock and soil cores taken in Virginia, New Zealand and the Eniwetok Atoll in the north Pacific Ocean.

They looked at the late Pliocene epoch, 2.7 million to 3.2 million years ago, the last time the carbon dioxide level in Earth's atmosphere was at its current level and when atmospheric temperatures were 2 C higher than they are now.

"The difference in water volume released is the equivalent of melting the entire Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets, as well as some of the marine margin of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet," said H. Richard Lane, program director in the National Science Foundation's Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the work.

"Such a rise of the modern oceans would swamp the world's coasts and affect as much as 70 percent of the world's population."

"You don't need to sell your beach real estate yet, because melting of these large ice sheets will take centuries to millennia," Miller said.

"The current trajectory for the 21st century global rise of sea level is 2 to 3 feet due to warming of the oceans, partial melting of mountain glaciers and partial melting of Greenland and Antarctica."

Miller said, however, that the results highlight the sensitivity of Earth's great ice sheets to temperature change, suggesting that even a modest rise in temperature would result in a large sea-level rise.

"The natural state of the Earth with present carbon dioxide levels is one with sea levels about 70 feet higher than now," he said.
Imagine what the future may well look like on a very blue planet.
Rutgers colleagues James Wright, James Browning, Yair Rosenthal, Sindia Sosdian and Andrew Kulpecz join Miller in the research.

Other co-authors are Michelle Kominz of Western Michigan University; Tim Naish of Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand; Benjamin Cramer of Theiss Research in Eugene, Oregon; and W. Richard Peltier of the University of Toronto.

SMACK-DOWN: CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL VS ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER OVER "DUE PROCESS"

 The following excerpt is from a Congressman Ron Paul e-mail:
Congressman Paul's Texas Straight Talk: Demolishing Due Process
“It is ironic but perhaps sadly appropriate that Attorney General Eric Holder would choose a law school, Northwestern University, to deliver a speech earlier this month in which he demolished what was left of the rule of law in America.

In what history likely will record as a turning point, Attorney General Holder bluntly explained that this administration believes it has the authority to use lethal force against Americans if the President determines them to be a threat to the nation. He tells us that this is not a violation of the due process requirements of our Constitution because the President himself embodies “due process” as he unilaterally determines who is to be targeted. As Holder said, “a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process.’” That means that the administration believes it is the President himself who is to be the judge, jury, and executioner…”


For clarification the speech given by Attorney general Eric Holder at Northwestern University can be read in it's entirety below as posted on the U.S. Department of Justice website:

Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at Northwestern University School of LawChicago ~ Monday, March 5, 2012
As prepared for delivery

Thank you, Dean [Daniel] Rodriguez, for your kind words, and for the outstanding leadership that you provide – not only for this academic campus, but also for our nation’s legal community.   It is a privilege to be with you today – and to be among the distinguished faculty members, staff, alumni, and students who make Northwestern such an extraordinary place.

For more than 150 years, this law school has served as a training ground for future leaders; as a forum for critical, thoughtful debate; and as a meeting place to consider issues of national concern and global consequence.   This afternoon, I am honored to be part of this tradition.  And I’m grateful for the opportunity to join with you in discussing a defining issue of our time – and a most critical responsibility that we share: how we will stay true to America’s founding – and enduring – promises of security, justice and liberty.

Since this country’s earliest days, the American people have risen to this challenge – and all that it demands.   But, as we have seen – and as President John F. Kennedy may have described best – “In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.”

Half a century has passed since those words were spoken, but our nation today confronts grave national security threats that demand our constant attention and steadfast commitment.   It is clear that, once again, we have reached an “hour of danger.”

We are a nation at war.  And, in this war, we face a nimble and determined enemy that cannot be underestimated.

Like President Obama – and my fellow members of his national security team – I begin each day with a briefing on the latest and most urgent threats made against us in the preceding 24 hours.  And, like scores of attorneys and agents at the Justice Department, I go to sleep each night thinking of how best to keep our people safe.
         
I know that – more than a decade after the September 11th attacks; and despite our recent national security successes, including the operation that brought to justice Osama bin Laden last year – there are people currently plotting to murder Americans, who reside in distant countries as well as within our own borders.   Disrupting and preventing these plots – and using every available and appropriate tool to keep the American people safe – has been, and will remain, this Administration’s top priority.

But just as surely as we are a nation at war, we also are a nation of laws and values.  Even when under attack, our actions must always be grounded on the bedrock of the Constitution – and must always be consistent with statutes, court precedent, the rule of law and our founding ideals.   Not only is this the right thing to do – history has shown that it is also the most effective approach we can take in combating those who seek to do us harm.

This is not just my view.   My judgment is shared by senior national security officials across the government.   As the President reminded us in 2009, at the National Archives where our founding documents are housed, “[w]e uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and it keeps us safe.   Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset.”   Our history proves this.   We do not have to choose between security and liberty – and we will not.

Today, I want to tell you about the collaboration across the government that defines and distinguishes this Administration’s national security efforts.   I also want to discuss some of the legal principles that guide – and strengthen – this work, as well as the special role of the Department of Justice in protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.

Before 9/11, today’s level of interagency cooperation was not commonplace.   In many ways, government lacked the infrastructure – as well as the imperative – to share national security information quickly and effectively.   Domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence operated in largely independent spheres.   But those who attacked us on September 11th chose both military and civilian targets.   They crossed borders and jurisdictional lines.   And it immediately became clear that no single agency could address these threats, because no single agency has all of the necessary tools.

To counter this enemy aggressively and intelligently, the government had to draw on all of its resources – and radically update its operations.   As a result, today, government agencies are better postured to work together to address a range of emerging national security threats.   Now, the lawyers, agents and analysts at the Department of Justice work closely with our colleagues across the national security community to detect and disrupt terrorist plots, to prosecute suspected terrorists, and to identify and implement the legal tools necessary to keep the American people safe.   Unfortunately, the fact and extent of this cooperation are often overlooked in the public debate – but it’s something that this Administration, and the previous one, can be proud of.

As part of this coordinated effort, the Justice Department plays a key role in conducting oversight to ensure that the intelligence community’s activities remain in compliance with the law, and, together with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in authorizing surveillance to investigate suspected terrorists.   We must – and will continue to – use the intelligence-gathering capabilities that Congress has provided to collect information that can save and protect American lives.   At the same time, these tools must be subject to appropriate checks and balances – including oversight by Congress and the courts, as well as within the Executive Branch – to protect the privacy and civil rights of innocent individuals.   This Administration is committed to making sure that our surveillance programs appropriately reflect all of these interests.

Let me give you an example.   Under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize annually, with the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, collection directed at identified categories of foreign intelligence targets, without the need for a court order for each individual subject.   This ensures that the government has the flexibility and agility it needs to identify and to respond to terrorist and other foreign threats to our security.   But the government may not use this authority intentionally to target a U.S. person, here or abroad, or anyone known to be in the United States.

The law requires special procedures, reviewed and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to make sure that these restrictions are followed, and to protect the privacy of any U.S. persons whose nonpublic information may be incidentally acquired through this program.    The Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence conduct extensive oversight reviews of section 702 activities at least once every sixty days, and we report to Congress on implementation and compliance twice a year.   This law therefore establishes a comprehensive regime of oversight by all three branches of government.  Reauthorizing this authority before it expires at the end of this year is the top legislative priority of the Intelligence Community.

But surveillance is only the first of many complex issues we must navigate.   Once a suspected terrorist is captured, a decision must be made as to how to proceed with that individual in order to identify the disposition that best serves the interests of the American people and the security of this nation.

Much has been made of the distinction between our federal civilian courts and revised military commissions.   The reality is that both incorporate fundamental due process and other protections that are essential to the effective administration of justice – and we should not deprive ourselves of any tool in our fight against al Qaeda.

Our criminal justice system is renowned not only for its fair process; it is respected for its results.   We are not the first Administration to rely on federal courts to prosecute terrorists, nor will we be the last.   Although far too many choose to ignore this fact, the previous Administration consistently relied on criminal prosecutions in federal court to bring terrorists to justice.   John Walker Lindh, attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid, and 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui were among the hundreds of defendants convicted of terrorism-related offenses – without political controversy – during the last administration.

Over the past three years, we’ve built a remarkable record of success in terror prosecutions.  For example, in October, we secured a conviction against Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for his role in the attempted bombing of an airplane traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.   He was sentenced last month to life in prison without the possibility of parole.  While in custody, he provided significant intelligence during debriefing sessions with the FBI.  He described in detail how he became inspired to carry out an act of jihad, and how he traveled to Yemen and made contact with Anwar al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen and a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.   Abdulmutallab also detailed the training he received, as well as Aulaqi’s specific instructions to wait until the airplane was over the United States before detonating his bomb.

In addition to Abdulmutallab, Faizal Shahzad, the attempted Times Square bomber, Ahmed Ghailani, a conspirator in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and three individuals who plotted an attack against John F. Kennedy Airport in 2007, have also recently begun serving life sentences.   And convictions have been obtained in the cases of several homegrown extremists, as well.   For example, last year, United States citizen and North Carolina resident Daniel Boyd pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim, and injure persons abroad; and U.S. citizen and Illinois resident Michael Finton pleaded guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction in connection with his efforts to detonate a truck bomb outside of a federal courthouse.

I could go on.   Which is why the calls that I’ve heard to ban the use of civilian courts in prosecutions of terrorism-related activity are so baffling, and ultimately are so dangerous.  These calls ignore reality.   And if heeded, they would significantly weaken – in fact, they would cripple – our ability to incapacitate and punish those who attempt to do us harm.

Simply put, since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in Article III courts and are now serving long sentences in federal prison.   Not one has ever escaped custody.   No judicial district has suffered any kind of retaliatory attack. These are facts, not opinions.   There are not two sides to this story.   Those who claim that our federal courts are incapable of handling terrorism cases are not registering a dissenting opinion — they are simply wrong.

But federal courts are not our only option.   Military commissions are also appropriate in proper circumstances, and we can use them as well to convict terrorists and disrupt their plots.   This Administration’s approach has been to ensure that the military commissions system is as effective as possible, in part by strengthening the procedural protections on which the commissions are based.   With the President’s leadership, and the bipartisan backing of Congress, the Military Commissions Act of 2009 was enacted into law.   And, since then, meaningful improvements have been implemented.

It’s important to note that the reformed commissions draw from the same fundamental protections of a fair trial that underlie our civilian courts.   They provide a presumption of innocence and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   They afford the accused the right to counsel – as well as the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.   They prohibit the use of statements obtained through torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.   And they secure the right to appeal to Article III judges – all the way to the United States Supreme Court.   In addition, like our federal civilian courts, reformed commissions allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence gathering, and for the safety and security of participants.

A key difference is that, in military commissions, evidentiary rules reflect the realities of the battlefield and of conducting investigations in a war zone.   For example, statements may be admissible even in the absence of Miranda warnings, because we cannot expect military personnel to administer warnings to an enemy captured in battle.   But instead, a military judge must make other findings – for instance, that the statement is reliable and that it was made voluntarily.

I have faith in the framework and promise of our military commissions, which is why I’ve sent several cases to the reformed commissions for prosecution.  There is, quite simply, no inherent contradiction between using military commissions in appropriate cases while still prosecuting other terrorists in civilian courts.   Without question, there are differences between these systems that must be – and will continue to be – weighed carefully.   Such decisions about how to prosecute suspected terrorists are core Executive Branch functions.   In each case, prosecutors and counterterrorism professionals across the government conduct an intensive review of case-specific facts designed to determine which avenue of prosecution to pursue.

Several practical considerations affect the choice of forum.

First of all, the commissions only have jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who are a part of al Qaeda, have engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, or who have purposefully and materially supported such hostilities.   This means that there may be members of certain terrorist groups who fall outside the jurisdiction of military commissions because, for example, they lack ties to al Qaeda and their conduct does not otherwise make them subject to prosecution in this forum.   Additionally, by statute, military commissions cannot be used to try U.S. citizens.

Second, our civilian courts cover a much broader set of offenses than the military commissions, which can only prosecute specified offenses, including violations of the laws of war and other offenses traditionally triable by military commission.  This means federal prosecutors have a wider range of tools that can be used to incapacitate suspected terrorists.   Those charges, and the sentences they carry upon successful conviction, can provide important incentives to reach plea agreements and convince defendants to cooperate with federal authorities.

Third, there is the issue of international cooperation.   A number of countries have indicated that they will not cooperate with the United States in certain counterterrorism efforts — for instance, in providing evidence or extraditing suspects – if we intend to use that cooperation in pursuit of a military commission prosecution.   Although the use of military commissions in the United States can be traced back to the early days of our nation, in their present form they are less familiar to the international community than our time-tested criminal justice system and Article III courts.   However, it is my hope that, with time and experience, the reformed commissions will attain similar respect in the eyes of the world.

Where cases are selected for prosecution in military commissions, Justice Department investigators and prosecutors work closely to support our Department of Defense colleagues.  Today, the alleged mastermind of the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole is being prosecuted before a military commission.   I am proud to say that trial attorneys from the Department of Justice are working with military prosecutors on that case, as well as others.

And we will continue to reject the false idea that we must choose between federal courts and military commissions, instead of using them both.   If we were to fail to use all necessary and available tools at our disposal, we would undoubtedly fail in our fundamental duty to protect the Nation and its people.   That is simply not an outcome we can accept.

This Administration has worked in other areas as well to ensure that counterterrorism professionals have the flexibility that they need to fulfill their critical responsibilities without diverging from our laws and our values.   Last week brought the most recent step, when the President issued procedures under the National Defense Authorization Act.   This legislation, which Congress passed in December, mandated that a narrow category of al Qaeda terrorist suspects be placed in temporary military custody.

Last Tuesday, the President exercised his authority under the statute to issue procedures to make sure that military custody will not disrupt ongoing law enforcement and intelligence operations — and that an individual will be transferred from civilian to military custody only after a thorough evaluation of his or her case, based on the considered judgment of the President’s senior national security team.   As authorized by the statute, the President waived the requirements for several categories of individuals where he found that the waivers were in our national security interest.   These procedures implement not only the language of the statute but also the expressed intent of the lead sponsors of this legislation.   And they address the concerns the President expressed when he signed this bill into law at the end of last year.

Now, I realize I have gone into considerable detail about tools we use to identify suspected terrorists and to bring captured terrorists to justice.   It is preferable to capture suspected terrorists where feasible – among other reasons, so that we can gather valuable intelligence from them – but we must also recognize that there are instances where our government has the clear authority – and, I would argue, the responsibility – to defend the United States through the appropriate and lawful use of lethal force.

This principle has long been established under both U.S. and international law.   In response to the attacks perpetrated – and the continuing threat posed – by al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, Congress has authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those groups.   Because the United States is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerents under international law.   The Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack.   And international law recognizes the inherent right of national self-defense.   None of this is changed by the fact that we are not in a conventional war.

Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan.   Indeed, neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan.   We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country.   Over the last three years alone, al Qaeda and its associates have directed several attacks – fortunately, unsuccessful – against us from countries other than Afghanistan.  Our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats.

This does not mean that we can use military force whenever or wherever we want.  International legal principles, including respect for another nation’s sovereignty, constrain our ability to act unilaterally.   But the use of force in foreign territory would be consistent with these international legal principles if conducted, for example, with the consent of the nation involved – or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States.

Furthermore, it is entirely lawful – under both United States law and applicable law of war principles – to target specific senior operational leaders of al Qaeda and associated forces.   This is not a novel concept.   In fact, during World War II, the United States tracked the plane flying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – the commander of Japanese forces in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Battle of Midway – and shot it down specifically because he was on board.   As I explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee following the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the same rules apply today.

Some have called such operations “assassinations.”   They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced.   Assassinations are unlawful killings.   Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes.

Now, it is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that some of the threats we face come from a small number of United States citizens who have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad.   Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well as during this current conflict, it’s clear that United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted.   But it does mean that the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to United States citizens – even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent Americans.   Of these, the most relevant is the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which says that the government may not deprive a citizen of his or her life without due process of law.

The Supreme Court has made clear that the Due Process Clause does not impose one-size-fits-all requirements, but instead mandates procedural safeguards that depend on specific circumstances.   In cases arising under the Due Process Clause – including in a case involving a U.S. citizen captured in the conflict against al Qaeda – the Court has applied a balancing approach, weighing the private interest that will be affected against the interest the government is trying to protect, and the burdens the government would face in providing additional process.  Where national security operations are at stake, due process takes into account the realities of combat.

Here, the interests on both sides of the scale are extraordinarily weighty.   An individual’s interest in making sure that the government does not target him erroneously could not be more significant.   Yet it is imperative for the government to counter threats posed by senior operational leaders of al Qaeda, and to protect the innocent people whose lives could be lost in their attacks.

Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen – even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaeda in a foreign land – is among the gravest that government leaders can face.   The American people can be – and deserve to be – assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws.   So, although I cannot discuss or confirm any particular program or operation, I believe it is important to explain these legal principles publicly.

Let me be clear:   an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

The evaluation of whether an individual presents an “imminent threat” incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States.   As we learned on 9/11, al Qaeda has demonstrated the ability to strike with little or no notice – and to cause devastating casualties.   Its leaders are continually planning attacks against the United States, and they do not behave like a traditional military – wearing uniforms, carrying arms openly, or massing forces in preparation for an attack.   Given these facts, the Constitution does not require the President to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning – when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear.   Such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail, and that Americans would be killed.

Whether the capture of a U.S. citizen terrorist is feasible is a fact-specific, and potentially time-sensitive, question.   It may depend on, among other things, whether capture can be accomplished in the window of time available to prevent an attack and without undue risk to civilians or to U.S. personnel.   Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack.   In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.

Of course, any such use of lethal force by the United States will comply with the four fundamental law of war principles governing the use of force.   The principle of necessity requires that the target have definite military value.   The principle of distinction requires that only lawful targets – such as combatants, civilians directly participating in hostilities, and military objectives – may be targeted intentionally.   Under the principle of proportionality, the anticipated collateral damage must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.   Finally, the principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering.

These principles do not forbid the use of stealth or technologically advanced weapons.   In fact, the use of advanced weapons may help to ensure that the best intelligence is available for planning and carrying out operations, and that the risk of civilian casualties can be minimized or avoided altogether.

Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces.   This is simply not accurate.   “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.   The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.

The conduct and management of national security operations are core functions of the Executive Branch, as courts have recognized throughout our history.   Military and civilian officials must often make real-time decisions that balance the need to act, the existence of alternative options, the possibility of collateral damage, and other judgments – all of which depend on expertise and immediate access to information that only the Executive Branch may possess in real time.   The Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad, and it is essential – but, as a recent court decision makes clear, it does not require judicial approval before the President may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war – even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen.

That is not to say that the Executive Branch has – or should ever have – the ability to target any such individuals without robust oversight.   Which is why, in keeping with the law and our constitutional system of checks and balances, the Executive Branch regularly informs the appropriate members of Congress about our counterterrorism activities, including the legal framework, and would of course follow the same practice where lethal force is used against United States citizens.

Now, these circumstances are sufficient under the Constitution for the United States to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen abroad – but it is important to note that the legal requirements I have described may not apply in every situation – such as operations that take place on traditional battlefields.

The unfortunate reality is that our nation will likely continue to face terrorist threats that – at times – originate with our own citizens.   When such individuals take up arms against this country – and join al Qaeda in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow Americans – there may be only one realistic and appropriate response.   We must take steps to stop them – in full accordance with the Constitution.   In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out – and we will not.

This is an indicator of our times – not a departure from our laws and our values.   For this Administration – and for this nation – our values are clear.   We must always look to them for answers when we face difficult questions, like the ones I have discussed today.   As the President reminded us at the National Archives, “our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights, through World War and Cold War, because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way.”

Our most sacred principles and values – of security, justice and liberty for all citizens – must continue to unite us, to guide us forward, and to help us build a future that honors our founding documents and advances our ongoing – uniquely American – pursuit of a safer, more just, and more perfect union.   In the continuing effort to keep our people secure, this Administration will remain true to those values that inspired our nation’s founding and, over the course of two centuries, have made America an example of strength and a beacon of justice for all the world. This is our pledge.    

Thank you for inviting me to discuss these important issues with you today.