SUBMARINERS HONORED AFTER 112 YEARS OF SERVICE

FROM:  U.S. NAVY
HONOLULU (April 11, 2012) Sailors from Commander Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, pay tribute to past submariners during a plaque rededication ceremony at the National Cemetery of the Pacific in commemoration of 112 years of submarine history. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ronald Gutridge/Released)

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 13, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

12:57 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. Just a brief statement at the top, and then perhaps can answer some of your questions about the situation in Guinea-Bissau.
We strongly condemn the attempt by certain elements of the military to undermine the legitimate civilian leadership of Guinea-Bissau. We regret that they have chosen to disrupt the democratic process, which already was challenged by the opposition’s call to boycott the second round of presidential elections. We urge all parties to put down their weapons, release government leaders immediately, and restore legitimate civilian leadership. And we’re clearly deeply concerned about the safety of all those in Bissau today, and we’re going to continue to work with our partners in the region and beyond as we monitor developments.
Matt.
QUESTION: That’s it?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: To say – have you decided – no decision has been made about – on aid or anything like that?
MR. TONER: No. I mean it’s – look. It’s – we’ve got a situation that’s still developing, events still unfolding. But as I mentioned, since the evening of April 12th, it looks like military forces have taken control of radio and television stations. They remain off the air, as well as seized the headquarters of the ruling party for the independence of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde party and are attempting to restrict movement. So we obviously strongly condemn this attempt to undermine the civilian authority there. We want it restored as soon as possible.
QUESTION: Right. Okay. Well, then, in the interest of saving time on a beautiful Friday afternoon --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- I’ve got three really quick ones.
MR. TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: One, two, three. You can just – do you have anything new to say about North Korea that hasn’t been said by the Secretary – what is she – the White House Secretary or Susan Rice at the UN?
Two, do you anything new to say about the Pakistani parliament and the rules of engagement, or whatever they’re calling them, that wasn’t said in Toria’s statement of last night?
And three, do you have anything new to say about the P-5+1 talks tomorrow?
MR. TONER: No, no, and no. (Laughter.) But I think I’ll still get the questions. I don’t think everyone’s as single-minded as you are. But thanks, Matt. I appreciate that, actually. Any other questions you want to –
QUESTION: I have one on North Korea? (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: Sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just about the IAEA --
MR. TONER: I couldn’t resist.
QUESTION: -- monitors. Yeah. Is this – does the U.S. still support sending IAEA monitors into North Korea after the launch?
MR. TONER: It’s a fair question. I mean, obviously, that’s something for you to ask the IAEA. I know – I don’t – I’m not aware of where they’re at, frankly, on deliberations about that monitoring mission. I mean, obviously, what we’ve seen in the past week or so since – or two weeks or so since North Korea announced its intention and then moved ahead with this launch has been the same old, same old with North Korea. And we’re obviously very concerned about the situation there, so – yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just two, like a short one and a kind of longer.
MR. TONER: Sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: First, on the food aid. Will – nothing had been delivered, right? There was no --
MR. TONER: No.
QUESTION: So is there any technical thing that we have to look at in terms of food aid? Do you just stop it? Nothing happens? There’s nothing in the pipeline floating around Asia that might has to be – have to be pulled back, or anything like that?
MR. TONER: I don’t believe so. My understanding where we were at shortly after the Leap Day agreement or statement was that they – a team tried to finalize some of the arrangements to be made on food assistance. But then when we had the announcement by North Korea that it was moving ahead with this satellite launch, then we suspended that program.
QUESTION: And then a longer format question.
MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just in terms of the approach and the policy of the United States right now, I mean, where does engagement go? Is this – we just turn our backs and say you have done what the world didn’t want you to do, and we don’t talk? Because the President did leave open the door, still, of engagement. But realistically, what happens?
MR. TONER: Well, you are correct that the White House statement yesterday did note that the door does remain open for engagement, or that we’re prepared to engage constructively with North Korea. But as we’ve said many times, we’re not going to reward bad behavior with engagement. And in fact – and we don’t, as you’ve often heard us say, don’t want to engage in talks for talks’ sake.
And so as we move forward – you talked about where we’re at diplomatically. I mean, I think first, we’re in intensive consultations with all our Six-Party colleagues. And in fact, the Secretary has already spoken today, I believe, with China – Chinese Foreign Minister Yang, and then yesterday with South Korea’s Foreign Minister Kim, and of course, with the G-8 here, she also had the opportunity to speak intensively on this matter with Foreign Minister Lavrov, as well as -- where am I forgetting, who else she spoke with --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: Sorry?
QUESTION: (Off-mike).
MR. TONER: But anyway, these consultations continue intensively, and moving forward, we’re going to continue to talk with them as we talk about next steps. Obviously, discussions are ongoing today, and Ambassador Rice just gave a readout, in fact, of the Security Council meeting on North Korea’s launch. But I think it’s going to be – I guess if I was trying to characterize it, we’re going to consult, we’re going to move together in a unified manner, and we’re going to – when we do take action, we’re going to do so in a deliberate way.
QUESTION: And just one other thing. The Secretary indicated, and I think Toria in her previous briefing, said often actions from North Korea come in twos or threes. So the obvious next step would be for them to move toward some type of nuclear testing. Is the U.S. picking up any indications from them that they are – I’m not talking about even spies, but – or that type of intelligence, but are you picking up any indication that they are now going to move to that?
MR. TONER: Well, first of all, my do-over. When I was talking about Foreign Minister Lavrov and then, of course, had my brain freeze – that’s what a week in Florida will do to you – I meant Foreign Minister Gemba to add as well. So she’s had a chance to consult with the Japanese, with the Russians, and now reached out subsequently after the launch with South Korea and China.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: Thank you. Anyway, to answer your – your question was about talk about a nuclear test. I mean, obviously, I can’t talk about intelligence matters from the podium. In the past we’ve seen a pattern, if you will, to North Korea’s bad behavior, but I can’t talk, obviously, about any intelligence matters. So –
QUESTION: On North Korea, did you – what the Chinese are saying – what kind of a role they have played or – in this process or as far as missile launch is concerned?
MR. TONER: Just rewinding Goyal, the first part of your question was who?
QUESTION: What role you think Chinese played in this process with North Korea as far as missile launch?
MR. TONER: Well, the Secretary, as I just said, had a good opportunity – or an opportunity to have a good conversation with the Chinese foreign minister this morning. One of the things that she stressed was the need to obviously consult closely with other members of the Six-Party team, if you will, and that we move together in a deliberate and unified way to speak out and condemn this action. So we’re cooperating closely, consulting closely with China. And obviously they’ve got a very important role.
Sorry, to just finish up --
QUESTION: Sorry.
MR. TONER: They’ve – we’re asking them to use their relationship with North Korea to convey our concern about their recent actions.
QUESTION: And finally, what are you telling the regional nations like South Korea and Japan and others now, because they were angry before that they will take action? And where do we stand now as far as regional nations are concerned of the threat in the region?
MR. TONER: Where do we stand now with other – well, as I said, I think the international community is rightly concerned, as I said, given North Korea’s launch yesterday but also its behavior in the past, this pattern of bad behavior. And so we’re going to consult very closely with other Six-Party colleagues as we move forward and speak out in a unified voice.
QUESTION: Could I follow up on North Korea?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just with the food aid, the nutritional assistance.
MR. TONER: Sure. Thank you.
QUESTION: As far as the U.S. is concerned, is this completely null and void, the Leap Year agreement and everything, in light of what North Korea has done? Or could food aid potentially – if their behavior changes in the weeks and months to come, could food aid be resumed or the plan for food aid be resumed, or is this completely over at this point?
MR. TONER: I guess I would answer that by saying that North Korea’s behavior to date since we signed this agreement has – as we’ve discussed several times, has raised doubts about their ability to live up to their obligations and their commitments. And so given their willingness to flout international obligations and move ahead with a launch that was clearly in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, that we don’t feel we can move forward at any level, including at the nutritional assistance level, because we don’t feel that we can frankly trust the North Koreans that this will end up in appropriate hands.
QUESTION: Is that – I mean, in your view, is that linking politics with the humanitarian situation? I mean, are there still concerns about – I mean, aid groups --
MR. TONER: I think it’s – I think it’s simply acknowledging that if you can’t trust the government to live up to its commitments on – in one aspect of – then you can certainly not expect it to live up to its commitments on another aspect. And so these – as we’ve talked about all along, nutritional assistance needs to be credibly monitored. We need to ensure that it goes in the hands of the people who need it and who it’s designed for. And so if we can’t trust North Korea to live up to its commitments in terms of its activities and launch of ballistic missiles, then we feel that we can’t trust it on the nutritional assistance that it will get to the appropriate people.
QUESTION: And just – the February 29th agreement as a whole, is the United States still looking for North Korea to comply with that, or is that – as far as you’re concerned, that’s just – that’s over, that’s (inaudible)?
MR. TONER: I would say – I mean, the word I’d say is “suspended” given the current state of –
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Another subject?
QUESTION: Pakistan, please?
QUESTION: Still on North Korea?
MR. TONER: Let’s go – yeah, you had your hand up for Pakistan.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: Are we done with North Korea?
QUESTION: No. Still on North Korea.
MR. TONER: North Korea. Sorry. Tomoko, finish up with that.
QUESTION: Would you say one of the reason that they failed the launch is the current sanction on North Korea?
MR. TONER: Look, you’re asking me to – I have absolutely no idea. I would point you in the direction of NORAD or NORTHCOM, who can provide you with a detailed technical analysis of the launch, or to the Government of North Korea, which I think acknowledged the launch’s failure.
Yeah. Go – oh, are you still on North Korea?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: Sure. Sorry. I will get to Pakistan. Sorry.
QUESTION: You’ve been referring to the missile launch activity as “deal breaker.” And I remember you using the word “abrogation” as well. But you just said the White House statement still leaves some room open for some talk. Has your position changed? Is the Leap deal agreement effective as of today?
MR. TONER: I just – the White House statement, I think, simply said that we’re prepared to engage constructively with North Korea, but only a North Korea that wants to engage constructively with the rest of the world. And until we see that type of pattern of behavior, then that’s not going to be possible.
QUESTION: So is a deal – was a deal breaker? Did it break the deal? Is the deal still effective?
MR. TONER: We think it was a deal breaker. Yeah.
Yeah, go ahead. Now Pakistan.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you, Mark. These rules of engagement, these are actually recommendations from the Pakistani parliament to negotiate a future relationship with the United States. So do you plan to reengage them? Do you plan to discuss a future relationship with them? Do you have any schedule in mind – future meetings, visits? Are you looking for a midway for building a new relationship particularly on the issue of drones and other issues that they have raised?
MR. TONER: I mean, I – it’s a very good question. I mean, I don’t have any announcements to make today about upcoming trips or travel. I do --
QUESTION: You’ve got someone pretty senior there right now.
MR. TONER: Well, I was going to – I was getting there. I was going to say that our USAID Administrator Raj Shah is on the ground right now in Pakistan. And I think that speaks to what we talked about a little bit in the past weeks, is that we’ve already seen in the past weeks and month or so a reengagement at a high level both with the President’s conversation with President Zardari and then subsequent visits by Deputy Secretary Nides and others. We’ve been reengaging already with – at a high level with the Pakistani Government.
But nothing to announce in terms of next steps or next – or upcoming trips or travel, beyond the fact that what we said yesterday, which is that we are ready to engage with the Pakistani Government on this parliamentary review and on the issues that it has raised. We want to build a very constructive relationship with Pakistan and one that is based on mutual understanding.
QUESTION: Are you looking for a meeting point? I mean, they have come up with certain demands, and you would probably have something --
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear your question. Are we looking for --
QUESTION: A meeting point for a future relationship. I mean, you probably would go with some of your points, some of your demands. And so do you think – how would you build up this relationship? What will be the basis for this?
MR. TONER: I do think we’re ready to have – as we’ve said many times, we’re awaiting the end of this parliamentary review. And my understanding, in fact, is that this still has to be – obviously, there’s still a little bit left in this political process. It still has to be approved by the cabinet, is my understanding.
But as we move forward, we definitely want to engage, to talk about the breadth of issues that have been raised in this parliamentary review and to come to a better understanding of our relationship.
QUESTION: Did they tell you that these are not binding on the government?
MR. TONER: Did they --
QUESTION: Did they tell you that these recommendations are not binding on the government; the government does not have to follow them in letter and spirit?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we’re – we’ve talked a lot about this parliamentary review. We’re going to engage with the Pakistani Government in a way that listens to their concerns, recognizes their needs in the relationship, recognizes that this is a shared relationship and a shared commitment, and move forward.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Who is Shah seeing while he’s there, and will he be discussing any of the things that are in the Pakistani demands, list of demands?
MR. TONER: He did actually meet with Foreign Minister Khar today, and that is all I have just from – I’m not sure – was he supposed to meet with President Zardarai? Thank you. Yes. But I’m not sure when that meeting is taking place.
QUESTION: Do you know if they’ll be talking about any of --
MR. TONER: Not to my understanding. No, he’s – I mean, he’s there to talk about our civil assistance – civilian assistance, rather.
QUESTION: Is there – and what about that? Is there some --
MR. TONER: Well, that’s been --
QUESTION: What are the issues with that?
MR. TONER: I mean, that has continued throughout this parliamentary review and throughout the turmoil, if you will, in the relationship post November 26. So that’s been ongoing. That has not stopped. So he’s there to review those programs.
QUESTION: Mark, there are four major demands. One, are you ready to apologize? They’re asking for the 24 Pakistani soldiers who were killed. Two, stop all the drone and other attacks. And three, that Pakistani should be treated just like you treat India. And fourth, finally, that Pakistan should be a given a nuclear – civil nuclear just like to India.
MR. TONER: Goyal, those are a nice try to get me to negotiate and talk about that ongoing relationship from the podium, but let’s let us sit down with our senior officials, sit down with Pakistan’s senior officials, and discuss it.
QUESTION: No, this is what --
MR. TONER: Sure, Goyal.
QUESTION: Sorry. This is what I am saying that this is what has been going on in the media in Pakistan every day and in discussions among those politicians and all that. That’s --
MR. TONER: No, I think we’re aware of some of the concerns that the parliamentary review raised. And they’re – frankly, some of them are not new to us, so we’re going to engage.
QUESTION: You said that you’d talk about the breadth of the whole thing, correct? That would be every subject that you’re willing to talk about with them?
MR. TONER: I don’t know if we would talk about every subject under the sun. We’d talk about --
QUESTION: No, no. Every subject that they raised, you’re willing to talk about, including --
MR. TONER: Well, we’re going to talk to them about our civilian cooperation as well as our counterterrorism cooperation, security cooperation --
QUESTION: So you’re willing to talk with them about the drone strikes?
MR. TONER: You know I can’t talk about any intelligence matters.
QUESTION: You can’t talk about it with us. Can you talk about it with them?
MR. TONER: Well, again, we have very robust counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, is this something – they put this on the table. Are you – is this something that’s on the table for the U.S.?
MR. TONER: I’ll just say that we’re going to talk about aspects – all aspects of our relationship moving forward.
QUESTION: You’re going to talk about all aspects of what they raised?
MR. TONER: Including counterterrorism cooperation, but you know --
QUESTION: Does that include – is that your understanding? Does that include drone strikes?
MR. TONER: I cannot address that point.
QUESTION: But wait – forget about the word – the two words “drone” and “strike.” You are willing – the U.S. is going to talk to them about everything that’s in this review?
MR. TONER: I think we’re willing to address their concerns moving forward and find a middle ground.
QUESTION: Well, without naming them, are there some issues that you’re not willing to talk about?
MR. TONER: Again, let’s let these conversations move forward until – and I’m not going to – we’re not going to take anything off the table or put anything on the table.
QUESTION: Can I talk about India-Pakistan relations going on now at the --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- especially at the Atari border, a lot of activities are going on between India and Pakistan people-to-people and trades, and they want to open the borders and cultures and trade relations and opening. As far as Mr. Shah, sir, being in Pakistan today, is he discussing any of these things or that as far as opening of the – a lot of things that people-to-people between the two countries after especially the President Zardari’s visit to India?
MR. TONER: It’s a fair question, Goyal. I can’t tell you specifically whether it’s being raised in his conversations. Of course, you know where we stand. We support improved relations, better dialogue, more people-to-people exchanges. Everything you essentially just ran through we view as a very positive development. But I can’t preclude that he’s – it’s going to be raised in some of his conversations.
Yeah. In the back. Sorry.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Staying in the region --
QUESTION: Can we stay on Pakistan, please?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Pakistani Finance Minister Hafeez Shaikh is coming to town this week – weekend. Is he meeting anyone in this building next week?
MR. TONER: I’ll take the question.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: India’s movie star Shah Rukh Khan was detained at a New York airport yesterday. Do you know why he was detained for the second time in two years, and what are the reasons? Is there something pending against him? Do you suspect something against him?
MR. TONER: Well, I can say we are certainly aware, as you stated, that he was temporarily delayed before admission at the White Plains, New York airport. He was – or is apparently, or was apparently traveling to an event at Yale University. And we have, obviously, the utmost respect for Mr. Khan and his work both as an artist and a humanitarian. And we offer our apologies for any discomfort or inconvenience he may have suffered as a result of this incident.
QUESTION: What were the reasons for delay, and how long was the delay?
MR. TONER: Well, I’d refer you to the TSA for any specific questions about the incident.
QUESTION: Have you received any official communication from Indian Government?
MR. TONER: We have. Both the Indian Ministry of External Affairs as well as the Indian Embassy in Washington have expressed their concern.
QUESTION: This for the second time that he was detained or delayed at the airport in U.S. And first time after he was detained, you had said this will not be repeated again. So what happened this time?
MR. TONER: Well, again, my understanding – you used the word “detained.” I’ve been told he was simply delayed. But in any case, I wouldn’t necessarily look at this as some sort of pattern but rather two separate incidents. Obviously, we’ve expressed our regret about the incident and recognize him – that he’s a very renowned artist and humanitarian. Obviously, he was going to Yale, I think, to receive a prestigious award there. And we apologize.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry. You said – I’m not sure – quite sure I understand the --
MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- nuance of delay. Was he delayed in handcuffs in a cell? (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: No. No.
QUESTION: Well, what does that mean?
MR. TONER: Now my understanding, he was delayed actually --
QUESTION: Delayed – I mean, delay is what happened when there’s bad weather.
MR. TONER: -- actually disembarking from the airplane. There was a delay of an hour or so from him getting off the airplane.
QUESTION: Well, what does that mean?
MR. TONER: He wasn’t – that it wasn’t --
QUESTION: What, he couldn’t physically get off the plane?
MR. TONER: It wasn’t – that is not detention. That is a delay.
QUESTION: Well, was it delay because --
QUESTION: Was it tied to him?
MR. TONER: Sorry?
QUESTION: I mean, was the delay personally tied to him, or was it an airport thing?
MR. TONER: Again, I’d refer you to the TSA, but no, I don’t – they believe it was airplane related. But again, he wasn’t – but he wasn’t detained. He was simply delayed getting – disembarking.
QUESTION: Well, were all the other passengers on the plane delayed?
MR. TONER: I don’t know. I don’t think so.
QUESTION: Is that because --
QUESTION: Well, then this is not a delay. I’m sorry. I mean, if he was yanked off the plane – he was held on the plane?
MR. TONER: That is my understanding.
QUESTION: And he was not allowed to leave the plane?
MR. TONER: Again, I would refer you to the TSA for details of the incident.
QUESTION: This is really Orwellian. That’s a delay?
MR. TONER: That’s a delay.
QUESTION: Was he on some type of –
QUESTION: Is that because his name is Khan? That’s number one. And number two, in India, what discussions are going on now, Mark, that this is not the only one first incident only with Mr. Khan or a famous film star but also many other incidents took place with the high-class Indians. They named all of them and they were really concerned why it is happening, only somebody with a turban but he is in the Prime Minister Manmohan’s government and a high class and other – among other businessmen and so forth. So what can you assure them in the future what should be done or what can be done between these problems?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, actually there is a program whereby travelers can alert – identify their status before they depart via the Embassy. And that’s one approach or avenue to take.
In answer to your first question, look, I really would have to refer you to the TSA in terms of their screening procedures, why this individual, why two times. Again, I don’t know. I don’t have the answers.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up on Goyal’s question, I think that the allegation that the Indians are making was that it was racial profiling, that – because he has a Muslim name. Is that --
MR. TONER: I mean, I think we all know that that’s clearly not the case. The fact of the matter is tens of thousands of Muslims travel to and from the United States every day and are not detained or delayed. (Laughter.) And --
QUESTION: Well, this one was.
MR. TONER: And so when something obviously goes wrong, we hear about it, but we don’t hear about the vast majority when – and it all goes smoothly. So no.
QUESTION: Sorry. One last thing on that.
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: So you said that this is something that the TSA is sort of in charge of?
MR. TONER: Well, they’re responsible for airport screening, so I don’t know – I don’t have – they probably have a very detailed report about the incident. I don’t know. I don’t know why he was delayed.
QUESTION: But it’s not something that you then work with them on, especially after an Embassy and the foreign ministry calls the State Department to ask them about that. I mean, how – what kind of communication does the State Department and the TSA have on issues like this?
MR. TONER: Well, we respect very much that they have an important job in keeping passengers safe and keeping Americans safe and keeping all airline passengers who are traveling or transiting the United States safe. And so we’re very respectful of the important role that they play. Certainly, we’re always seeking – I don’t know, in this particular case, what the follow-up might be. I can certainly look into it. But I know in the past, we’ve certainly talked with them about procedures, but again, mindful of the fact that they’ve got – they have a job to do.
QUESTION: Just a clarification?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: You said that the incident happened, the apology has been given, but you said to stop it in future --
MR. TONER: And he went on to --
QUESTION: To inform the Embassy --
MR. TONER: -- to Yale, where he received his award.
QUESTION: No, no. To – yeah, but in future, to stop such things to happen, you said to inform the Embassy. What exactly is that, the details? Have you talked to the Indian ministry?
MR. TONER: I’d refer you to the Embassy in New Delhi, but it’s a program that they have where they can identify their status before they depart to address any difficulties that they may experience.
QUESTION: And finally, as far as the U.S. new ambassador, Madam Nancy Powell, is concerned, and she must be going through all this, facing all these questions when she arrives in Delhi. She must be briefed all this.
MR. TONER: Look, I’m – it’s a – as I think I’ve said, it’s an unfortunate incident. We’ve apologized. I don’t know what more there is to say beyond the fact that he went on and had a very fruitful visit and, I believe, made the – helped or encouraged – there’s a YouTube video, somebody told me, of him dancing with the director of admissions at Yale as though they were in a Bollywood musical. So all’s well that ends well.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: On another subject if they’re all done?
MR. TONER: It’s still – I’m sorry, are we still --
QUESTION: Was an apology issued to Mr. Kahn, or was it issued through the Indian Embassy – the Embassy of the U.S. and India?
MR. TONER: Well, I offered my sincere apologies that he may have experienced – I’m not sure that it was done on a personal level. I don’t have that information.
QUESTION: I just wondered, when might the advance team go to Syria ahead of or as part of this monitoring mission? And do you have to wait until you get some kind of clearance in New York, or what’s --
MR. TONER: It’s all being – yeah. I mean, that’s exactly what’s going on right now in New York. And obviously, they met this morning. Ambassador Rice emerged – talked about the conversation that they had deploring North Korea’s actions, and then went back in. The second part of the meeting, I think, is going to focus on Syria and next steps.
You heard the Secretary yesterday talk about a very robust monitoring mission is what we want to see, and we want to see that advance team out there. What we saw in the last day or so was a very fragile truce emerge, a very fragile first step. So now it’s important to get this advance team out there and to get a monitoring mission on the ground.
QUESTION: So right now you’re still waiting for some agreement in New York on that? You’re not thinking about just going ahead?
MR. TONER: That’s what they’re discussing. I mean, obviously, this is in support of Kofi Annan’s process here, and so it’s appropriate that that’s done through the council.
Yeah. Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: When you -- just on that, I mean, would you expect to be part of a monitoring mission?
MR. TONER: You know what? I don’t know if that’s – again, I don’t know if the composition’s been discussed or debated.
QUESTION: Do you think that the Syrians would welcome an American presence?
MR. TONER: I’m very doubtful, but the Secretary’s very clear that she wants to see as robust a mission as possible.
QUESTION: And you’re not going to barge your way in? You’re not going to just barge your way in and say hi, we’re here to monitor the ceasefire?
MR. TONER: We never barge.
QUESTION: Oh? I’ll remember to tell that to the Iraqis. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: To follow up, I mean, what’s your assessment of how the truce is holding? It’s been a day. There’s been some reports from human rights groups of deaths. I mean, what’s the assessment?
MR. TONER: Sure. I’ve heard there’s – sure – from – we do hear from these LCCs, these local coordination committees that sporadic fighting continues in parts of Syria. I’ve heard estimates of seven to ten people killed today. So again, this is – at best can only be described as fragile. But it is a first step; we want to try to build on it.
And obviously, as the Secretary was very clear about yesterday, as – there are still other elements to the Annan plan that need to be implemented by the Syrian Government. This is not a menu; this is a set of obligations, so we need to see them move forward on all of the elements of the plan, which is an inclusive, Syrian-led political dialogue and transition, a cessation of all forms of violence, humanitarian assistance, access to all areas and populations in need, the release of all political prisoners, and the freedom of movement, access for media and journalists, as well as freedom of assembly.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary discuss Syria yesterday with the Saudi defense minister?
MR. TONER: I promise you I will try to get you a readout. You, of course, saw that they walked out and did a – brief comments at the top of their meeting. I did not get a full readout of their meeting. I can certainly imagine that they discussed in some detail Syria.
QUESTION: Is the Reward for Justice – one, is it working as far as – and second, one person, Jubair Ahmad from Woodbridge, Virginia, a Pakistani citizen, he pled guilty that he was providing information and material support to the LET in Pakistan.
MR. TONER: Right. Geez, I left talking about that, and I come back a week later and still talking about it. Anyway, this will take some time, Goyal. These programs often do. They do have a very high success rate overall, which is why we use them, frankly. So let’s wait and see.
And in terms of your second question, I’m not familiar with the case, so I would refer you to the other – Department of Justice or local authorities.
QUESTION: Just a brief one. The health minister of Myanmar, Burma is here. I was just wondering if there was anything specific that the U.S. wanted to discuss or wanted to promote in the country during his visit.
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, obviously we’ve got the reopening of a USAID office in Burma, which is a positive first step. I can imagine many of the programs – again, I don’t have a detailed list or assessment in front of me, but many of our programs touch upon health matters – preventative health care, childhood communicable diseases, that kind of stuff. So – but I don’t know what – specifically who he’s meeting with.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. TONER: Oh, Samir, anything else? Are we done?
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the demonstrations in Egypt today against the military rule and the people from the Mubarak era not to run for the presidency?
MR. TONER: I don’t, beyond that it’s up to the Egyptian people to set the parameters of their political process and democratic transition moving forward, and they certainly have the right to peaceful assembly.
Thank you.

SAILORS FIGHT MOCK FIRE ON BOARD USS ENTERPIRSE

ARABIAN SEA (April 9, 2012) Sailors fight a simulated class bravo fire during a fuel station fire drill on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65). Enterprise is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility conducting maritime security operations, theater security cooperation efforts and support missions as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Scott Pittman/Released)

TWO MEN IN KENTUCKY INDICTED ON ALLEGED SEXUAL ORIENTATION HATE CRIME

Thursday, April 12, 2012
Two Harlan County, Kentucky, Men Indicted for Federal Hate Crime Against Individual Because of Sexual OrientationThe Indictment Marks the First Case Charged Under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act Involving Sexual Orientation
WASHINGTON – Two Harlan County, Ky., men were indicted today for their roles in kidnapping and assaulting a gay man because of his sexual orientation, the Justice Department announced today.

A federal grand jury in London, Ky., returned a three-count indictment charging David Jason Jenkins, 37, and Anthony Ray Jenkins, 20, for kidnapping and assaulting Kevin Pennington, and for conspiring with each other and with other unnamed individuals to commit the kidnapping.  The indictment charges the men with committing a hate crime in violation of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded federal jurisdiction to include certain assaults motivated by someone’s sexual orientation.  This case marks the first federal hate crime charging a violation of the sexual orientation provision of the statute.

The indictment alleges that on April 4, 2011, the two defendants kidnapped and assaulted Kevin Pennington because of Pennington’s sexual orientation.  According to the indictment, the defendants enlisted two women to trick Pennington into getting into a truck with the defendants, so that the defendants could drive Pennington to a state park and assault him.  According to the indictment, the defendants then drove Pennington a secluded area of the Kingdom Come State Park in Kentucky and assaulted him.
If convicted, the defendants face a maximum penalty of up to life in prison for each charge.

The Shepard-Byrd law, enacted in 2009, criminalizes acts of physical violence causing bodily injury motivated by any person’s actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.

This case was investigated by Special Agents Anthony Sankey and Mike Brown with the FBI.  This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Hydee Hawkins with the U.S. Attorney Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky and Trial Attorney Angie Cha with the Civil Rights Division.

NASA NASA Podcasts Update

NASA NASA Podcasts Update

THE NAVY COMMEMORATES THE WAR OF 1812

The Navy Commemorates the War of 1812

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON REMARKS ON TRADE TREATY WITH UNITED KINGDOM

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty With the United Kingdom
Press Statement Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Washington, DC
April 13, 2012
I am pleased to announce today’s entry into force of the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. This Treaty is a result of the close, longstanding relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. It will help American and British troops get the best technology in the fastest way possible so they can continue to defend our interests and protect our national security around the world.

The UK is already one of the United States’ most significant defense trading partners. Through the creation of an approved community of users, it is now faster and easier for U.S. and UK industry to develop and field future technologies that support U.S. and British government interests. Our two countries share a deeply rooted history and an unbreakable friendship. This treaty will further strengthen our relationship as we work together to build a safer, more secure world.

STATE DEPARTMENT FACT SHEET ON PATHWAYS TO PROSPERITY IN THE AMERICAS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas
Fact Sheet
Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
April 12, 2012
Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas links Western Hemisphere countries committed to democracy and open markets in an initiative to promote inclusive growth, prosperity, and social justice.

Current Pathways countries are Belize, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and the United States. Brazil and Trinidad and Tobago have observer status. The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) are strategic Pathways partners.

On October 5, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton participated in the fourth Pathways Ministerial in the Dominican Republic. The Government of Colombia plans to host the next Pathways Ministerial meeting in Cali in October 2012, in conjunction with the Americas Competitiveness Forum. Ministers will review the progress of the initiative’s pillars and activities and discuss ways to increase the initiative’s impact.

Partnering to Expand Opportunities
Pathways is a policy-level dialogue through which countries learn from one another’s experiences and collaborate to spread the benefits of economic growth more broadly to all of our citizens. Pathways countries recognize that the gains from trade and economic growth have not always been equitably shared and that the promise of economic and social opportunity remains elusive for too many people in this hemisphere. Pathways seeks to close this gap by encouraging public policies and public-private partnerships to empower small farmers, small businesses, women, indigenous communities, Afro-descendants, youth, and vulnerable groups to participate effectively in the global economy. Through shared leadership, Pathways partner countries are committed to deepening cooperation on the following four pillars:
Empowering small businesses by building an enabling environment for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises;
Facilitating trade by improving the systems, regulation, and infrastructure small firms need to trade more competitively across borders;
Building a modern workforce by supporting labor rights and emphasizing key requirements of education, training, and entrepreneurship; and
Developing responsible and sustainable business practices by improving environmental practices, protections, and cooperation.

Pathways Activities
Pathways events highlight best practices to expand economic opportunities and encourage effective implementation. Countries chairing Pathways pillar committees organize activities throughout the year that advance the Ministerial Action Plan. Uruguay, as the chair country of Pillar III, hosted a Digital Opportunities Conference in September 2011 with support from the United States government and ECLAC. The conference convened Pathways partners, technology experts, and civil society leaders from around the Americas to share best practices, build relationships, and raise digital literacy to expand educational opportunities and build a modern workforce by promoting access to information and communication technologies.

In 2011, Peru and the United States, co-chairs of Pillar IV, hosted workshops on policies and mechanisms for the conservation of biodiversity in the context of trade and sustainable development, and on public participation in the management of protected areas in high-conflict zones. Honduras’ Pillar I event in 2012 will focus on financial inclusion. As co-chairs of the trade facilitation pillar, Costa Rica and Chile are working on a customs-related event later this year, and Peru plans to host an environmental workshop with the United States.

ECLAC, a key institutional partner, compiled and published a new book on Pathways best practices that illustrates how sound, evidence-based government policies and public-private partnerships contribute to building prosperity for all sectors of society. The volume identifies country-level policies and projects, as well as regional programs the United States and its partners can build on under the Pathways initiative.

To make concrete progress toward Pathways goals, U.S. government agencies will provide $20 this year for technical assistance in priority areas such as small business development, financial inclusion, infrastructure financing, women entrepreneurs, greening the supply chain, and improving environmental practices, including:

The United States Government will contribute $5 million to a new Inter-American Development Bank-managed “Crossroads” fund that supports regional infrastructure projects reduce transport and trade cost to promote business development.

U.S. Department of Treasury regional advisors will assist Central America and the Dominican Republic in financing infrastructure through public-private partnerships and accelerating policies that promote greater financial inclusion.

The Millennium Challenge Corporation helped Honduras become a leader in secured transactions reform in Latin America and the Caribbean which will expand credit to small and medium enterprise by allowing collateralized borrowing.

In February 2011, the United States launched the Pathways Access Initiative in Peru to connect U.S. businesses with women-owned businesses.

The U.S. Department of State is working with Higher Education for Development and the World Environment Center to support the initiative, Pathways to Cleaner Production, launched in 2011. Under this initiative, Illinois Institute of Technology will lead a partnership with universities and National Cleaner Production Centers in Central America, the Dominican Republic, and Peru to enhance academic training and curricula in cleaner production and sustainable industrial development, and improve environmental performance and productivity of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs).

The Department of Commerce and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are working through programs in Honduras, El Salvador and Costa Rica to improve and modernize border management around customs issues to ease the flow of goods and services as well as to increase hemispheric competitiveness.

TALIBAN LEADER CAUGHT; SUICIDE ATTACK PREVENTED

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Combined Force Captures Taliban Leader

Compiled from International Security Assistance Force Joint Command News Releases

WASHINGTON, April 13, 2012 - A combined Afghan and coalition security force today captured a Taliban leader who was planning a suicide attack against an upcoming gathering of local Afghan civilians in Afghanistan's Kunduz province, military officials reported.

As the security force approached the Taliban leader's suspected location, an insurgent armed with an assault rifle was killed as he prepared to fire, and the Taliban leader was wounded in the arm.

The security force provided medical treatment to the Taliban leader and later took him to a coalition medical facility. He is expected to fully recover and will be detained, officials said. Several other insurgents were detained in the operation.

In other operations today:

-- In Paktia province's Gardez district, security combined force captured a Taliban leader who coordinated suicide bombings and other attacks against Afghan and coalition security forces. He also provided weapons and ammunition to insurgents in the area. The security force also detained another insurgent in the operation.

-- An Afghan and coalition security force detained several suspected insurgents and destroyed more than 330 pounds (of bomb-making materials while searching for a Taliban leader in Wardak province's Sayyidabad district. The wanted man supervises construction and placement of roadside bombs and facilitates the movement of Taliban fighters from Pakistan into Afghanistan.

-- In Ghazni province's Khugyani district, Ghazni province, security combined force detained two suspected insurgents during an operation launched to capture a Taliban leader who plans kidnappings and conducts attacks against Afghan and coalition security forces. He also supplies local insurgents with weapons and equipment.

-- A combined force in Kandahar province's Shah Wali Kot district detained several suspected insurgents during an operation to capture a Taliban leader who directs attacks against Afghan and coalition security forces.

-- In Nangarhar province's Chaparhar district, security combined force detained several suspected insurgents an operation to capture a Taliban leader who directs attacks against Afghan and coalition security forces.

In other news, Afghan security forces supported by coalition troops found and destroyed 1,100 pounds of ammonium nitrate and a 115 mm rocket in Nangarhar province's Achin district yesterday. Ammonium nitrate is a fertilizer banned by the Afghan government because insurgents use it to make explosives.

And in an April 11 operation, a combined security force in Faryab province's Maimanah district killed Ammar Sahib, a senior facilitator for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan terrorist group.

Ammar Sahib, also known as Qyamuddin, provided weapons, ammunition, and equipment to terrorists across northern Afghanistan. He also recruited suicide bombers and coordinated with Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan leaders in Pakistan for newly trained fighters.

In 2006, he was arrested for a bombing that killed two civilians and two members of the coalition's provincial reconstruction team. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison, but served only six months.

The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan organization is linked closely to al-Qaida and the Taliban. It operates in northern Afghanistan and other countries in Central Asia, officials said.

U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL DISCUSSIONS ON NORTH KOREA AND GUINEA-BISSAU

 FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, at the Security Council Stakeout on North Korea and Guinea-Bissau, April 13, 2012
Susan E. Rice
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
U.S. Mission to the United Nations New York, NY April 13, 2012
AS DELIVERED
Good afternoon. The Council has discussed this morning both the situation with respect to DPRK and Guinea-Bissau, and I will brief you on both.
With respect to the first issue, the Council has just concluded consultations about the launch conducted yesterday by North Korea. The Council received a briefing from UN Assistant Secretary-General Oscar Fernandez-Taranco regarding the launch. Assistant Secretary-General Fernandez-Taranco reported that North Korea apparently launched a multi-stage rocket at 6:39 p.m. yesterday, Eastern Daylight Time. The launch was a failure.

He noted that the Secretary-General had released a statement regarding the launch in which the Secretary-General called the launch "deplorable as it defies the firm and unanimous stance of the international community" and noted that the "launch is in direct violation of Security Council Resolution 1874 and threatens regional stability." The Secretary-General also renewed his call on North Korean authorities to work towards building confidence with neighboring countries and improving the lives of its people.
Following our discussion, Council members have asked me to say the following on their behalf:

The Security Council held consultations to address the serious situation and listen to the concerns arising from the launch by North Korea. Members of the Security Council deplored this launch, which is in violation of Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874.
Members of the Security Council agreed to continue consultations on an appropriate response, in accordance with its responsibilities, given the urgency of the matter.
Now I’ll turn to Guinea-Bissau. The Council received a briefing on the situation in Guinea-Bissau from Assistant-Secretary-General Zerihoun. He noted that the situation is evolving rapidly and that it is not easy to confirm information at this time.

The military has arrested the Prime Minister, as well as Acting President Herrera. Their whereabouts cannot be confirmed at this time. The Secretariat urged the international community to address the cycle of violence and impunity in Guinea-Bissau. The members of the Security Council condemned the military action and urged the immediate restoration of civilian authority.

Council members are now discussing a press statement.
I’m happy to take a few questions.

Reporter: Ambassador Rice, do you expect the US to be pushing for sanctions or interested in sanctions on North Korea? And do you expect a presidential statement, press statement or anything like that in the near future?

Ambassador Rice: I’m not going to characterize the form of the response. This is the subject of early stage discussions among Council members.

Reporter: Ambassador, though, with an appropriate response, you have an opinion in terms of your national capacity. Can you speak to that, perhaps?

Ambassador Rice: I--the United States’ view of this is quite clear. We have condemned the launch. We view it as a direct violation of Resolutions 1718 and 1874. We think it’s important that the Council respond credibly. And we will be working in that direction.
Reporter: Will that be a sanctions resolution?

Ambassador Rice: As I said, I think it’s premature, both in my national capacity and as president of the Security Council, to predict or characterize the form of the reaction. We think a credible reaction is important.

Reporter: Ambassador, will you be discussing DPRK later on today? (Inaudible.)
Ambassador Rice: We have a very full agenda, many issues are brewing simultaneously and we’re working them simultaneously.

Reporter: How soon do you want to reach an agreement on the next appropriate measure? I mean, you are discussing other urgent matters but North Korea is also very urgent, so how –

Ambassador Rice: It is, and we’re working on it. And we will let you know when we have more to say. Thank you very much.

U.S. SUBMARINE FORCE CELEBRATES 112 YEARS OF SERVICE

FROM:  U.S. NAVY

110909-N-OV802-222 NORFOLK (Sept.9, 2011) The Virginia-class submarine Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) California (SSN 781) gets underway from Naval Station Norfolk to conduct weapons systems acceptance trials. California is the eighth Virginia-class submarine and is scheduled to be commissioned Oct. 29. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class William Jamieson/Released)

Happy Birthday, U.S. Submarine Force! Celebrating 112 Years of Undersea Dominance 
By Lt. Hayley Sims, Commander, Submarine Force, Atlantic Public Affairs
NORFOLK, Va (NNS) -- The submarine force was born April 11, 1900 when the U.S. Navy bought the submersible Holland VI from John Holland.

Since that historic day, undersea warfighters and submarines have used fortitude and creativity to sustain their superiority beneath the sea and develop the force into the indispensable asset that patrols world-wide today.

As submariners celebrate their birthday around the world this month, they will honor the heroes on eternal patrol and those who have served past and present.
Rear Adm. Frank Caldwell, commander, Submarine Force U.S. Pacific Fleet, understands the value of submariners.

"For 112 years, the broad military advantages created by undersea concealment have resulted in a wide range of undersea platforms and missions that have enhanced our national security," said Rear Adm. Caldwell. "Throughout history, what has remained constant is the bold character of submariners."

Throughout the last 11 decades, submariners have advanced through four generations. The first generation produced fleet boats with the speed, endurance, weapons and payload that would make the submarine a warfighting platform. The second generation, defined by World War II heroes, made a decisive difference in the war and dominated the seas which set high standards of performance. The third generation of undersea warfare during the Cold War was defined by the advent of nuclear power - in weapons and propulsion. This advanced technology prevented a nuclear world war and secured the nation's interests.

The current generation of submariners, Generation IV, is being defined by the increase of long-range precision sensors and weapons. Today's submariners stay ahead of these threats and work hard to preserve their superiority in the undersea environment with the help of the "Design for Undersea Warfare" a guiding document which articulates how undersea warfighters provide "Ready Forces, Effective Employment, and Future Forces."

Vice Adm. John M. Richardson, commander, Submarine Forces, recognizes the hard, outstanding work of submariners and their families.

"I am incredibly proud of each and every member of the undersea warfare team, including our families who sacrifice along with us," said Vice Adm. Richardson. "Just as earlier generations did before us, we fourth generation undersea warriors will be ready to surge to any crisis - first to arrive and last to leave. Let it always be a comforting reassurance to our friends and the worst nightmare for our enemies to know that the U.S. Submarine Force is on the job."

Today's submarine force consists of 53 attack, 14 ballistic-missile and four guided-missile submarines that enable the Navy and the nation to win wars, deter wars, defeat terrorists, and ease disasters.

Happy birthday U.S. Submarine Force and congratulations on 112 years of rich success running silent through history and running deep into the future.

JUSTICE, EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS AND UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REACH AGREEMENT OVER RACIAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS

FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Friday, April 13, 2012
Departments of Justice and Education Reach Agreement with the University of California, San Diego to Resolve Harassment Allegations
The Departments of Justice and Education reached a settlement agreement with the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), to resolve an investigation into complaints of racial harassment against African-American students on campus.  Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 each prohibit harassment based on race.

The complaints alleged multiple incidents of racial harassment on campus, including public displays of nooses and a Ku Klux Klan-style hood, and the hosting of an off-campus party where students were invited to dress as stereotypes of African-Americans.   After conducting an extensive investigation into the alleged incidents, and following the receipt of additional complaints of racial discrimination and harassment on campus, the Departments of Justice and Education worked collaboratively with the university to address concerns regarding racial hostility on campus.

UCSD voluntarily entered into a resolution agreement with the departments.   Under the terms of the resolution agreement, UCSD will take steps to prevent racial harassment on campus, respond appropriately to harassment that occurs, and eliminate any hostile environment resulting from harassment.   The university has agreed to revise its campus policies and procedures related to racial harassment to ensure they are consistent with federal civil rights laws; maintain an Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination to receive, investigate, and resolve complaints of harassment and discrimination; and provide mandatory trainings for staff and students on the university’s anti-discrimination policies and procedures.  The university also voluntarily initiated a number of additional programs to address campus climate issues, and the departments will monitor the implementation of those programs to evaluate their impact on resolving the departments’ concerns.

“Students have a right to seek and obtain an education without facing racial harassment.   UCSD, like all colleges and universities, has an obligation to make clear that racial discrimination and harassment on campus will not be tolerated, and this agreement is a significant step in the right direction,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.  “We commend the university for working with us to address this matter, and we recognize the importance of this agreement in the context of larger efforts by the UC system to create supportive and inclusive learning environments for students.   We look forward to working with UCSD as it implements the measures and programs called for in the agreement.”

“We salute UCSD for taking these steps and we hope the entire school community learns from this experience and works together to overcome ignorance and intolerance,” said Russlynn Ali, Assistant Secretary for the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights.   “America is a country that has always celebrated its diversity.   Nowhere is that more important than in our classrooms and schools – at every level – from the earliest grades to our colleges and universities. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice will continue to work cooperatively with UCSD to ensure that all students are safe from harassment and discrimination.”

TREASURY TARGETS MAJOR METHAMPHETAMINE SUPPLY ROUTE

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Major Methamphetamine Supply Route Targeted with Today’s Action

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today designated Ezio Benjamin Figueroa Vasquez and his son, Hassein Eduardo Figueroa Gomez, as Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act) for their significant role in international narcotics trafficking, as well as 16 of their companies in Mexico and Panama. The Kingpin Act prohibits U.S. persons from conducting financial or commercial transactions with these individuals and entities, and it freezes any assets the designees may have under U.S. jurisdiction. 

Figueroa Vasquez and Figueroa Gomez lead an international precursor chemical trafficking organization responsible for the diversion and importation of multi-ton quantities of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine from Europe and sub-Saharan Africa into Mexico. The organization distributes these precursor materials to major Mexican drug trafficking organizations which manufacture methamphetamine in Mexico for ultimate distribution in the United States. 

“Working closely with the Government of Mexico, OFAC is today sanctioning two significant traffickers who for years circumvented Mexican drug control laws to import massive amounts of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine into Mexico,” said OFAC Director Adam J. Szubin. “Together with our colleagues in the U.S. and Mexican governments, we will continue to target the activities of these criminals and other precursor chemical networks.”

On November 2, 2011, Figueroa Vasquez and Figueroa Gomez were indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. They are accused of conspiring to commit money laundering in connection with their alleged precursor chemical trafficking. The indictment was unsealed on April 11, 2012.

In September 2011, Mexican authorities arrested Figueroa Vasquez, and he remains in Mexican custody today. The 16 companies designated today in Mexico and Panama range in business activities from real estate and construction to pharmaceutical activity. Among these companies are Mexico City-based pharmaceutical companies Geofarma, S.A. de C.V. and Distribuidora Medica Hospitalaria, S.A. de C.V. as well as Guadalajara-based construction and housing development companies Promociones Citadel, S.A. de C.V. and Desarrollo Arquitectonico Fortia, S.A. de C.V.

Today's action would not have been possible without key support from the Drug Enforcement Administration and the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Government of Belgium also assisted OFAC in this action. This cooperation is part of a global effort to interdict Mexican drug trafficking organizations’ access to materials needed for the illicit production of methamphetamine.

“This organization for years served as a major facilitator on behalf of some of the most violent, brutal Mexico-based drug networks in the world,” said DEA Chief of Financial Operations John Arvanitis. “The biggest cartels in the world rely on organizations like this one to secure huge amounts of precursor chemicals like ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to produce massive amounts of meth that ends up in communities across the United States. Using every tool at our disposal, such as this Treasury designation, will go a long way towards ensuring that this organization is dismantled.”

Pursuant to the Kingpin Act, the Treasury Department has designated more than 1,000 individuals and entities linked to drug kingpins since June 2000. Penalties for violations of the Kingpin Act range from civil penalties of up to $1.075 million per violation to more severe criminal penalties. Criminal penalties for corporate officers may include up to 30 years in prison and fines up to $5 million. Criminal fines for corporations may reach $10 million. Other individuals face up to 10 years in prison and fines pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code for criminal violations of the Kingpin Act.

U.S. AND TWO JAPANESE DESTROYERS DURING EXERCISE MALIBAR 2012

                                                                  FROM:  U.S. NAVY
The guided-missile destroyer USS Chafee (DDG 90), left, and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyers JS Yamayuki (DD-129) and JS Yamagiri (DD-152) conduct formation drills during an Exercise Malibar 2012 passing exercise. Malabar 2012 is the latest in a continuing series of exercises conducted to advance multinational maritime relationships and mutual security issues. U.S. Navy photo by Aviation Warfare Systems Operator 3rd Class Shane Miller (Released) 120410-N-ZZ999-028

STATE DEPARTMENT ON PHASED ADAPTIVE APPROACH TO MISSILE DEFENSE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
A U.S. State Department Perspective on the Phased Adaptive Approach to Missile Defense
Remarks Frank A. Rose
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance Remarks to the Middle East Missile & Air Defense Symposium
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
April 12, 2012
As delivered
Thank you so much for inviting me to speak today. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to come to the United Arab Emirates to give remarks at this distinguished gathering of missile and air defense experts.

At the State Department, I am responsible for overseeing a wide range of defense policy issues, including missile defense. In that capacity, it was my responsibility to negotiate the details of the missile defense agreements with Poland, Romania and Turkey that will enable the United States to implement the missile defense plan for Europe that President Obama announced in September 2009 as a contribution to NATO missile defense. I will touch more on this later in my presentation, but suffice to say that I have been focused over the last couple of years on ensuring that we are able to meet the vision the President laid out in his 2009 announcement.

In my presentation today, I’d like to do two things. First, I would like to discuss some of the thinking behind the administration’s missile defense policy. Second, I’ll discuss how we are implementing that policy around the world.

Missile Defense Policy
Missile defense plays an important role in the broader U.S. international security strategy, supporting both deterrence and diplomacy. Missile defense assures our allies and partners that the United States has the will and the means to deter and, if necessary, defeat a limited ballistic missile attack against the U.S. homeland, our forward deployed troops, allies, and partners. Missile defense also may help constrain regional actors from trying to inhibit or disrupt the U.S. ability to come to the defense or assistance of its allies and partners.

The Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR), released in February 2010, set out a new policy framework and committed the United States to pursue a phased adaptive approach (PAA) to missile defense within particular regions. The BMDR set out in detail the first regional application—in Europe. Much more recently, the President and Secretary of Defense announced in January of this year the U.S. Priorities for 21st Century Defense. This document provides strategic guidance to re-balance our efforts to emphasize the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions. It states, “U.S. policy will emphasize Gulf security, in collaboration with Gulf Cooperation Council countries when appropriate …” and also notes that “… Of particular concern are the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMD).”

In its assessment of the threat, the BMDR noted that the threat from short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles to our deployed forces, allies, and partners is growing, and this threat is likely to increase in both quantity and quality in the coming years. Many states are increasing their inventories, and making their ballistic missiles more accurate, reliable, mobile, and survivable. Trends in ballistic missiles show increased ranges, more advanced propellant systems, better protection from pre-launch attack, and the ability to counter BMD systems. The proliferation of ballistic missiles and associated materials to several countries in the region remains a source of concern as it could accelerate the development of more sophisticated systems.

Recognizing the seriousness of the ballistic missile threat, the United States seeks to create an environment, based on strong cooperation with allies and partners, which will eliminate an adversary’s confidence in the effectiveness of missile attacks and thereby devalue and provide a disincentive for the development, acquisition, deployment, and use of ballistic missiles. To that end, President Obama has made international cooperation on missile defense a key priority.

Recognizing that each region has unique deterrence and defense requirements due to differences in geography, history, and relationships, the United States is pursuing a region-by-region approach based on the following three principles:

First, the United States will deter adversaries through strong regional deterrence architectures built upon solid cooperative relationships with an eye toward efficiently incorporating assets and structures that our partners already have today or are seeking.

Second, the United States will pursue a Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) within key regions that is tailored to the threats unique to that region, including the scale, scope, and pace of their development, and the capabilities available and most suited for deployment. This approach means we will phase in and implement the best available technology to meet existing and evolving threats, and adapt to situations that evolve in an unforeseen manner.

Third, in order to meet a global demand for missile defense assets that will continue to exceed supply, the United States will develop mobile capabilities that can be relocated to adapt to a changing threat, or provide surge defense capabilities where they are most needed.

Missile defense is an integral part of a comprehensive U.S. effort to strengthen regional deterrence architectures. As I mentioned, this plays a central role in the new strategic guidance the Department of Defense released in January 2012.

Europe
Let me now discuss our efforts in Europe, which have received a great deal of attention. In order to augment the defense of the United States and provide more comprehensive and more rapid BMD protection to our European Allies and U.S. deployed forces, in 2009 President Obama outlined a four-phase implementation plan for European defense. Through the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), the United States will deploy increasingly capable BMD assets to defend European population and territory against a ballistic missile threat from outside the Euro-Atlantic area that is increasing both quantitatively and qualitatively. At the 2010 NATO Summit in Lisbon Allies welcomed the EPAA as the U.S. contribution to the NATO missile defense capability.

Our NATO Allies also have systems that they can contribute to the collective defense. Some of our Allies, for example, have Aegis ships with advanced sensor capabilities that could provide valuable contributions even without SM-3 interceptors. Our Allies also possess other land- and sea-based sensors that could be linked into the system, as well as lower tier systems, such as PATRIOT, that can be integrated and used to provide point defense.

EPAA Phase 1 gained its first operational elements in 2011 with the start of a sustained deployment of an Aegis BMD-capable multi-role ship to the Mediterranean. The deployment of an AN/TPY-2 missile defense radar in Turkey was the other key part of EPAA Phase 1.

For Phase 2 of the EPAA, we have an agreement with Romania to host a U.S. land-based SM-3 interceptor site beginning in the 2015 timeframe. This site would provide protection against medium-range ballistic missiles launched from the Middle East.
We also have an agreement with Poland to place a similar U.S. SM-3 interceptor site there in the 2018 timeframe for Phase 3 of the EPAA.
Finally, with respect to Phase 4, the Department of Defense has begun concept development of a more advanced interceptor for deployment in the 2020 timeframe that will enhance our ability to counter medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles and potential future ICBM threats to the United States from the Middle East.

Russia
An update on missile defense should also include a mention of our efforts to pursue cooperation with Russia. Missile defense cooperation with Russia is a Presidential priority, and we believe it is in everyone’s interest. When President Obama announced his new vision for missile defense in Europe in September 2009, he stated that “we welcome Russia’s cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests.” Missile defense cooperation with Russia will not only strengthen our bilateral and NATO-Russia relationships, but could enhance NATO’s missile defense capabilities. Successful missile defense cooperation would provide concrete benefits to Russia, our NATO Allies, and the United States and will strengthen - not weaken – strategic stability over the long term.

This means getting Russia inside the missile defense tent now, working alongside the United States and NATO, while we are in the early stages of our efforts. This way Russia will be able to see NATO missile defense with its own eyes. Close cooperation with the United States and NATO by Russia is the best and most enduring way for it to gain the assurance that European missile defenses do not undermine Russia’s strategic deterrent. Through this cooperation, Russia would see firsthand that this system is designed for the threat from outside the Euro-Atlantic area, and that NATO missile defense systems will not threaten Russia’s strategic nuclear capabilities. This cooperation is essential to convince Russia that the NATO system does not undermine Russian strategic deterrence. Cooperation will also allow Russia to see that the EPAA is designed to be flexible. Should the ballistic missile threat from nations like Iran change, increasing or decreasing, our missile defense system can be adapted accordingly.

Russia has raised the issue of a legal guarantee with a set of “military-technical criteria” that could, in effect, create limitations on our ability to develop and deploy future missile defense systems. We certainly cannot accept limitations on our ability to defend ourselves, our allies, and our partners, including where we deploy our Aegis ships. These are multi-mission ships that are used for a variety of purposes around the world, not just for missile defense. We also will NOT accept limitations on the capabilities, and numbers of our missile defense systems. We would be willing to agree to a political framework including a statement that our missile defenses are not directed at Russia. In fact, this is what we have been saying all along: any statement will be politically binding and it would publicly proclaim our intent to cooperate and chart the direction for cooperation, not limitations. Our cooperation with Russia will not come at the expense of our plans to defend against regional ballistic missile threats or for the defense of the U.S. homeland.

Asia-Pacific
In the Asia-Pacific region, the United States is committed to working with our allies and partners to strengthen stability and security in the region.
Japan is one of our closest allies, a leader in missile defense within the region, and one of the United States’ closest BMD partners. The United States and Japan have made significant strides in interoperability. The United States and Japan regularly train together, and our forces have successfully executed cooperative BMD operations. Japan has acquired a layered integrated BMD system that includes Aegis BMD ships with Standard Missile 3 interceptors, Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) fire units, early warning radars, and a command and control system. We also worked cooperatively to deploy a forward-based X-band radar in Japan. One of our most significant cooperative efforts is the co-development of a next-generation SM-3 interceptor, called the Block IIA. This co-development program represents not only an area of significant technical cooperation but also the basis for enhanced operational cooperation to strengthen regional security.
The Republic of Korea (ROK) is also a key U.S. ally and, recognizing the North Korean missile threat, the United States stands ready to work with the ROK to strengthen its BMD capabilities. We are working together to define possible future ROK BMD requirements and the United States looks forward to taking further steps to build upon this ongoing missile defense cooperation.

Australia signed a BMD Framework MOU with the U.S. in July 2004, making it one of the first U.S. partners on BMD. Australia has been a strong supporter of bilateral technology cooperation with the United States and the Nimble Titan series of multilateral missile defense wargames. We continue to consult with Australia bilaterally regarding missile defense cooperation. Similar to some of our Allies in Europe, Australia has a class of surface combatants – the Air Warfare Destroyer – that uses the Aegis Combat System that could be upgraded in the future to provide a missile defense capability.

The Middle East
I am sure that today’s audience is most interested in our missile defense cooperation in the Middle East. In this region, the United States has had a continuous missile defense presence and seeks to strengthen cooperation with its partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The importance of this issue was demonstrated by the prominence it received by Secretary Clinton and her GCC counterparts in the first ministerial meeting of the U.S.-GCC Strategic Cooperation Forum in Riyadh on March 31 of this year. A number of states in the region already deploy PATRIOT batteries and are exploring purchases of some missile defense capabilities under the auspices of the foreign military sales (FMS) program.

The UAE continues to be a leader in the field of ballistic missile defense. On December 25, 2011, the UAE became the first international partner to purchase the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or “THAAD,” system from the United States. This robust area defense capability, in conjunction with the acquisition of PAC-3 point defense systems, will provide the UAE with a layered missile defense capability, ensure interoperability with United States forces, and contribute to regional stability. These purchases highlight the strong ties and common strategic interests between the United States and the UAE.
As our partners acquire greater missile defense capabilities, the United States will work to promote interoperability and information sharing among the GCC states. This will allow for more efficient missile defenses and could lead to greater security cooperation in the region. As Secretary of State Clinton said in Riyadh at the GCC Strategic Cooperation Forum, “we believe strongly that, in addition to the bilateral military cooperation between the United States and every member nation of the GCC, we can do even more to defend the Gulf through cooperation on ballistic missile defense.”

In sync with our BMD cooperation goals, we’re also working hard to prevent missile proliferation. The U.S. actively participates in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which serves as the global standard for controlling the transfer of equipment, software, and technology that could make a contribution to the development of WMD-capable missile and unmanned aerial vehicle delivery systems. We are also working through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and other counter-proliferation activities to help partners improve their ability to stop shipments of proliferation concern. These are just some of our ongoing efforts to tackle the missile threat and prevent missile proliferation. While much of this work is performed quietly, the impact of all of these efforts is of crucial importance to international peace and security.

Conclusion
While the title “Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense” is perhaps a new conceptual way of thinking about our efforts in Asia and the Middle East, our partnerships in missile and air defense are certainly not new. Our cooperation here in the Middle East has been strong, and continues to be dynamic and productive. As we continue to strengthen cooperation here, we know there is a strong foundation to build on. We welcome your thoughts on how this can all be done in a regional context that bolsters regional stability. We believe that better insights into each other’s operational concepts and the possibility of greater interoperability are a few of the key elements of this endeavor.

The January 2012 “Priorities for the 21st Century Defense” make it clear that we will be rebalancing our efforts to emphasize the Middle East. Over the coming months, I would hope that we will be able to offer more details on those efforts, particularly as they apply to ballistic missile defense.

The increasing threat associated with the proliferation of ballistic missiles reinforces the importance of continuing and strengthening our collaborative missile defense efforts. However, beyond bilateral cooperation, we need to develop regional missile defense architectures that will enable us to leverage our bilateral cooperation so that nations share BMD-related information and capabilities on a multilateral basis. While we think about what a phased adaptive approach would look like in the Middle East, we recognize that each region has unique factors that will likely shape our approach in ways that are different from our approach in other regions. Each region has unique threats, capabilities, history, and geography. Our allies and partners in the Middle East have their own BMD assets, their own ways of integrating them into their defense structures and each of our efforts brings different advantages to the missile defense table. We need to work together to determine how we can fully leverage those advantages to protect ourselves.
Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your questions.

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF SAYS WORLD IS "MORE DANGEROUS"

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey addresses faculty and students during a forum at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., April 12, 2012. Dempsey fielded questions regarding the global security paradox. DOD photo by D. Myles Cullen   


WASHINGTON, April 13, 2012 – The world today is less violent but also more dangerous than at any other time in human history, the nation’s senior military officer told a Harvard University audience yesterday.
That “counterintuitive combination” of peace and potential conflict is “the essence of what I like to call the security paradox,” Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the audience attending a John F. Kennedy School of Government forum in Cambridge, Mass.

“Although geopolitical trends are ushering in greater levels of peace and stability worldwide, destructive technologies are available to a wider and more disparate pool of adversaries,” Dempsey said.
In the past, the general noted, it took a nation’s power to create a national security threat: industrial progress fueled the world wars, and the threat of mutually assured destruction between superpowers kept the Cold War from getting too hot.

Today, the same rise in global trade and information technology that has increased cooperation and cut violence between nations also has put 21st century weapons in reach of smaller groups, the chairman said.

“More people have the ability to harm us or deny us the ability to act than at any point in my life - and that’s the security paradox,” he added.

While in the past only the United States could drop a bomb down a chimney, “now dozens of middleweight militaries around the world have that [precision munitions] capability,” he said.

Potential adversaries now can buy “off-the-shelf” more than 90 percent of the components needed to build an electronic warfare system, Dempsey said. That creates a risk to “the very systems that provide our battlefield edge: our computer networks, our sensors, and our precision navigation ability,” he said.

Cyber attack is another evolving threat that doesn’t require a large military to launch it, Dempsey said.

“With the right computer virus, a single person can disrupt life for … an entire city, and potentially even our entire nation,” he added.
“The message is that the margin of error is growing smaller,” the chairman warned.
The U.S. military must counter these new and elusive threats even as its budget shrinks, Dempsey noted.

“We have to make hard choices about where to put our resources — and where to pull them back,” he said.

The Defense Department strategy balances cost, force structure, mission and risk, Dempsey said. The strategy aims for a force with fewer service members, greater agility and more powerful technology, he added.

The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps need to meld service-unique strengths to build capabilities “that don’t exist unless they’re combined,” the general said.
The force will be regionally postured but globally networked, “scaled and scoped to demand,” he said.

“Finally, it will be a force that provides a degree of security in balance with what the nation needs and what the nation can afford,” Dempsey added.

The security paradox presents a difficult challenge, Dempsey said. “But challenges are nothing new to this nation,” he said. “We have adapted and re-invented ourselves many times throughout our history.”

The newly commissioned USS New York is emblematic of the nation, and of 21st century U.S. military strategy, the chairman said.

The New York is an amphibious ship that carries a Marine expeditionary unit, which combines ground, air and logistics capabilities, and usually has about 2,200 Marines and sailors assigned.

The bow of the just-commissioned ship, Dempsey said, “was forged from seven tons of steel pulled from the rubble of the twin towers. …This steel — tempered to be stronger than it was before — will carry experienced, war-tested Marines half way around the world and back.”

The New York and its crew will patrol the Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Gulf, “keeping faith with our partners and allies in port calls and conducting exercises or actual real-world operations as needed,” he said.

The ship is a testament to the nation’s resilience, the chairman said.
“When I think of the challenges we face,” Dempsey added, “I think of the USS New York. She and her crew are part of the agile and technologically advanced force we are building. They are ready to prevail in any conflict. They are the best this country has to offer.”

CONGRESSMAN CAMP SAYS "ONLY 120,000 JOBS ADDED IN MARCH"

FROM:  HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS CHAIRMAN CONGRESSMAN DAVE CAMP’S WEBSITE
On Friday, the Labor Department announced only 120,000 jobs were added in March, after an increase of 227,000 in February, and worse, there were still a large number of discouraged workers who left the labor force. Friday's numbers confirmed March recorded the fewest jobs added in five months. Congressman Camp knows this level of growth is not enough to restore economic security or make a difference for the millions of Americans who are unemployed. He is committed to working on pro-growth policies to bring certainty and opportunity to the economy. As the nation witnessed last week, it is possible for Republicans and Democrats to set aside differences with the signing of the JOBS Act to produce results for economic growth and job creation.

As Congressman said, “The JOBS Act eases the financial burdens small businesses face so that they can invest, grow and get Americans back to work. Having passed with strong bipartisan votes in the House of Representatives and Senate, with the support of the president, the bipartisan JOBS Act shows the American people that Congress can govern and Washington can work to provide the economic solutions Americans are demanding."

U.S. LABORATORIES WORK TO FIGHT OFF CYBER ATTACKS

FROM:  LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATOY
Cyber Security Exercise Puts Laboratories to the Test
LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO, April 12, 2012- Intense pressure creates diamonds from coal, they say, and for Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratory cyber security programs, it’s an apt comparison. Fending off thousands of computer attacks from around the world, controlling vast libraries of sensitive information, yet keeping the scientific flow of knowledge moving, cyber teams such as those at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and elsewhere in the government complex feel the squeeze.
Sharing insights and ideas from the teams’ experiences, however, can create a boon in cyber defense and incident management, and potentially provide useful input for other government agencies such as the new federal Joint Cyber Coordination Center, or JC3. The JC3 is focused on improving the national response to threats, leveraging complex resources, and sharing information to meet information security commitments to the nation.

Recently, Los Alamos National Laboratory hosted an information security exercise dubbed “Eventide” that put more than 100 participants from around the complex into a virtual maelstrom of bad news and worse events, as the simulation spewed sensitive data and cracked network security out into the wilderness of the internet. They had to assess what was happening and how to respond, as their systems were progressively compromised, sensitive data appeared on hostile web sites, and invisible “bad guys” revealed their nefarious plans.

“That was pretty scary … but most E-ticket rides are,” said one participant.
Coordinated by Dale Leschnitzer, LANL's “master of disaster,” Eventide brought together cyber and IT leaders from 20 sites, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the DOE, its Cyber Forensics Laboratory and National Nuclear Security Administration, and the DOE’s national laboratories, to develop recommendations on resources they need from JC3. Not only did Eventide set the stage for the complex to ask the hard (and realistic) questions, it also acted as an excellent incubator to assist the JC3 in developing a practical path forward.

Tom Harper, LANL’s chief information officer, said: “Cyber threats target our information and data, and our productivity through vulnerabilities in our IT infrastructure. They pose great risks to our organization’s security and the nation's competitiveness.”
Harper said: “We’ve had a trial by fire and it’s toughened our teams. Now we can strengthen and optimize our joint defenses to ensure we’re a national resource ready to develop responses and templates to assist government and industry.”

Harper characterized the driving factors of the exercise: “The CIO community understands through recent events that cyber threats continue to increase. And a positive feature for us is our ability to surge resources across the complex to make our response faster, bolder, and more robust.”

A player describing himself only as “a DOE detailee” pointed out that “we’re all under attack, and now we can help each other. We’ve got a lot of smart people here, and when it comes to cyber, the government’s light years ahead of much of the industry, for good reasons. Asking the tough questions makes you think. This is why you train on real attacks and valid scenarios. It’s our chance fill the voids.”
Harper noted that the past years’ work has been to improve the Laboratory’s posture and, to a degree, misperceptions about LANL’s capabilities on these issues. Harper is chairing the National Laboratory CIO Council for 2012, in which chief information officers from across the complex are working with the federal employees to ensure that defense and response are agile and proactive, and that the focus is on agility, leveraged resources, and information sharing.

“Eventide was the way to maximize input to plans by cyber and IT leaders from DOE’s national laboratories and plants,” Harper said.

Photo caption: Dale Leschnitzer, Los Alamos National Laboratory, works through a cyber-security disaster scenario with computer specialists from across the country. Photo Los Alamos National Laboratory.

CyberSecurity.jpg
About Los Alamos National Laboratory (www.lanl.gov)
Los Alamos National Laboratory, a multidisciplinary research institution engaged in strategic science on behalf of national security, is operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC, a team composed of Bechtel National, the University of California, The Babcock & Wilcox Company, and URS for the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration.

Los Alamos enhances national security by ensuring the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, developing technologies to reduce threats from weapons of mass destruction, and solving problems related to energy, environment, infrastructure, health, and global security concerns.