Free Music Sites
Free Music Online

free music at divine-music.info

Friday, October 26, 2012

Assange living in a 'space station'

From Atika Shubert, CNN
October 26, 2012 -- Updated 1338 GMT (2138 HKT)
Watch this video


 

London (CNN) -- Four months holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London has been "a little like living in a space station" but beats prison, fugitive WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said Thursday.
Assange sought refuge in the embassy in June, after losing a court battle against extradition to Sweden. Since then, he has been living in a single room with a frosted-glass window while the business of the diplomatic mission goes on around him.
"It's a little like living in a space station, because there's no natural light and you've got to make all your own stuff. You can't go out to shops and so on," Assange told CNN in an interview Thursday. "But I have been in solitary confinement. I know what life is like for prisoners. It's a lot better than it is for prisoners."
Embassy staffers would not allow CNN to view his living quarters, but Assange appeared relaxed and healthy despite his restricted circumstances. His comments came the same day WikiLeaks began disclosing a new round of U.S. military documents dealing with handling prisoners in American military custody.
Though the first of the newly published documents include no bombshells, Assange said the records his group will put out are "documents of incredible historical importance" and demonstrate a "climate of unaccountability" within the U.S. government.
Ecuador granted Assange asylum in August, amid a diplomatic row between the United Kingdom and his South American hosts. British courts have approved his extradition to Sweden, and Assange faces arrest if he sets foot outside the embassy.
Assange has not been charged with a crime, but Sweden has said it wants to question him about allegations that he sexually assaulted a woman there. Assange has denied the allegations and says they're a ruse to get him to Sweden, which would then extradite him to the United States.
A U.S. Army intelligence analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning, is currently awaiting trial on charges that he leaked hundreds of thousands of classified military and State Department documents while serving in Iraq. Many of those documents ended up on the WikiLeaks website, and Manning could be sentenced to life in prison if found guilty.
Assange said his standoff could end if the United States dropped its investigation of WikiLeaks.
"It's an immoral investigation," he said. "It breaches the First Amendment, it breaches all the principles that the U.S. government says it stands for and it absolutely breaches the principles the Founding Fathers stood for and which most of the U.S. people believe in."

Northeast in crosshairs of 'superstorm' Sandy


By Mariano Castillo and Ben Brumfield, CNN
October 27, 2012 -- Updated 0430 GMT (1230 HKT)
A satellite image of Hurricane Sandy from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) taken on Friday, October 26. 
CNN) -- No one hopes Hurricane Sandy lives up to its potential.
The storm that has already claimed nearly two dozen lives in the Caribbean churned Friday near the northern Bahamas, and meteorologists warn that it packs the potential to slam the U.S. Northeast as soon as Monday with powerful winds and pelting rain.
Worst case, Sandy could merge with a strong cold front from the west. The double threat could morph into a "superstorm" that could sit over New England for days, making untold trouble for millions of residents. Weather experts said it's a recipe not unlike 1991's "Perfect Storm."
"Expect it to move very slowly," said James Franklin of the National Hurricane Center. "The large size of the system and its slow motion will mean a long-lasting event with two to three days of impacts."
At 8 p.m. ET Friday, forecasters said Sandy was about 400 miles south-southeast of Charleston, South Carolina, heading north at 7 mph. It was a Category 1 hurricane with winds of 75 mph. It's possible, the hurricane center says, that Sandy may weaken to a tropical storm. Nonetheless, experts said, it's not to be taken lightly.Hurricane Sandy 'storm of a lifetime'
Hurricane Sandy hits Jamaica
"Forget about the category with this," said CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano. "When you have trees with leaves on them still, this kind of wind and rain on top of that, you're talking about trees that are going to come down, power lines are going to be out and the coastal flooding situation is going to be huge."
Sandy's death toll in Haiti, Jamaica and Cuba this week was 21 people.
The U.S. target area is hard to predict at this point. Some landfall computer models show the storm striking somewhere between the border separating North Carolina and Virginia north to Connecticut, some of the most densely populated areas of the country. The District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and New York have declared states of emergency, while Maine's governor signed a limited emergency declaration.
The National Hurricane Center reported tropical storm watches and warnings were in effect, covering parts of the Florida and Carolina coasts.
With a national election already under way in many early-voting states, Sandy's wrath could have a ripple effect on politics.
In Virginia Beach, a campaign rally scheduled for Sunday for GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was canceled because of Sandy. There was no word yet on the status of other events scheduled later in the week. "We're keeping an eye on it," said a senior campaign adviser.
Similarly, Vice President Joe Biden canceled his visit to Virginia Beach on Saturday, "out of an abundance of caution to ensure that all local law enforcement and emergency management resources can stay focused on ensuring the safety of people who might be impacted by the storm," according to the campaign of President Barack Obama.
Bad weather in Maryland or Washington, D.C., could make it harder for people to get out and cast their ballots. Early voting kicked off Monday in Washington and is scheduled to start Saturday in Maryland. But Friday, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley warned that his state's early voting could be affected by the pending storm, leaving open the possibility that the vote could be rescheduled, or relocated.
U.S. residents in Sandy's path, forecasters said, should prepare for the possibility of several days without power.
"There is potential for widespread power outages, not just for a couple of days but for a couple of weeks or more, if the storm stays on track," said meteorologist Kathy Orr of CNN affiliate KYW-TV in Philadelphia. The computer weather predictions are murky, but by Friday afternoon, it seemed unlikely the storm would bring freezing rain or snow to the coast. Snow is possible in mountain areas, including the Appalachians.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

When Ike faced down a rising nuclear power

By Evan Thomas, Special to CNN
October 24, 2012 -- Updated 1650 GMT (0050 HKT)
 President Dwight D. Eisenhower addresses the nation on U.S. intervention in Formosa (now Taiwan), in 1958.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower addresses the nation on U.S. intervention in Formosa (now Taiwan), in 1958.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Evan Thomas: Biggest decision for next president could be on bombing Iran's nuclear facilities
  • He says Eisenhower pondered a pre-emptive strike against a rising nuclear power: the USSR
  • He was pressed by some to strike but grasped the magnitude and decided not to do it
  • Thomas: Ike was good bluffer; faced with similar decision, will our next president fare as well?
In 1958, when he was under tremendous pressure to build more missiles to catch up the Russians, which had just launched the first satellite, Sputnik, and seemed to be creating what the press and some Democrats were calling "the missile gap," Ike seemed strangely passive. He knew that the CIA's spy plane, the U-2, had not found any Soviet ICBMs, but he wanted to keep the existence of the spy plane a secret.
The president's bland public statements disappointed even his followers and gave rise to mutterings that he was too old (68) and playing too much golf (about 100 times a year). In the winter of 1958, Eisenhower was visited by the poet, Robert Frost, who gave him a book of his poems inscribed with the notation, "The strong are saying nothing until they see." Ike wrote a friend that Frost's words were his "favorite maxim."
Eisenhower was accustomed to carrying great responsibility.
In his breast pocket on D-Day, he carried a note he had written in case the landings failed. "The responsibility is mine alone," it read. On his first day as president in 1953, Ike wrote in his diary, "Plenty of worries and difficult problems. But such has been my portion for a long time."
Neither Obama nor Romney have Eisenhower's experience or credentials. But you can see just by looking at Obama's face that he has been forced to learn on the job. He or Romney will face greater tests.
Both men have said that containment is not an option when it comes to Iran getting the bomb. Will either man strike first? Wait for Israel to strike first? Get ready to join a wider Middle East war?
The strong are saying nothing until they see.

Unanswered questions from the debate

Unanswered questions from the debate
October 23rd, 2012
05:11 PM ET
By CNN's National Security Unit
The final debate of the presidential election was notable for all the areas of foreign policy on which the two candidates seemed to agree. But in their answers were plenty of unanswered questions about how they would handle key foreign policy issues going forward.
Where do things stand on Iran?
It was hard to see concrete differences between the candidates Monday on when it will be necessary to use military force against Iran's nuclear program - the so-called "red line."
Both President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney sought to portray themselves as tough on Iran and as having Israel's back. Both suggested they would be willing to use military power if necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But neither was exactly clear about what point at which they would act to prevent that from happening.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the red line should be preventing Iran's "breakout capacity," meaning the point at which Iran has enough uranium enrichment for a nuclear weapon and the technology and know-how to fit a nuclear warhead on a delivery system, such as a long-range missile.
During the debate, Obama repeated his campaign pledge merely to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
"As long as I'm president of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon," Obama said Monday night.
Until now, the Obama administration has suggested its red line was a strategic decision by the Iranian regime to build a nuclear weapon and the move to build one. That position has caused tension with Netanyahu, who feels Obama has not sent clear enough warnings to Tehran.
But on Monday, the president injected some new language into his refrain, saying American intelligence cooperation with Israel and other countries would give Washington "a sense of when (Iran) would get breakout capacity."
"Which means we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program," Obama said.
So did the president move up the benchmark up during Monday's debate? He never did finish the thought and say either what he meant by breakout or whether he would stop it.
An administration official said Tuesday that the president's red line has not changed.
"We will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, the official said. The president's point "is that because of intelligence capabilities and IAEA efforts, we have a sense of their timeline."
Romney's position has been closer to Netanyahu, saying he would stop Iran from having break-out capacity. On Monday, he split the difference, moving closer to Obama's position.
Failing to raise the ambiguous question of the red line, Romney threatened military action if Iran developed "nuclear-weapons capability."
But it's far from clear what Romney means here: Enough uranium to build a weapon - which could take a matter of a few months –or the means to quickly assembly and deploy a nuclear warhead atop a missile? Earlier this year, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said it would take two to three years for Iran to produce a bomb and have a deliverable weapon on a missile.
The vagueness with which both candidates answered the question of when to take out Iran's nuclear program left more questions than answers.
– By Elise Labott
What's the plan to deal with Syria?
The debate focused for a few minutes on the plan for Syria. But the difference between the two candidates was negligible at best. The real question is does either have a true plan for stopping the violence by the regime of Bashar al-Assad?
Obama laid out his plan, which for the moment involves aiding the opposition but not intervening directly.
"We are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition," the president said. "But we also have to recognize that, you know, for us to get more entangled militarily in Syria is a serious step, and we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping; that we're not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or allies in the region."
Romney, for his part, seemed to have the same plan.
"The right course for us, is working through our partners and with our own resources, to identify responsible parties within Syria, organize them, bring them together in a - in a form of - if not government, a form of - of - of council that can take the lead in Syria. And then make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves," Romney explained. "We do need to make sure that they don't have arms that get into the - the wrong hands."
Romney insisted "I don't want to have our military involved in Syria. I don't think there is a necessity to put our military in Syria at this stage."
Obama was quick to point out the similarities.
"What you just heard Gov. Romney said is he doesn't have different ideas. And that's because we're doing exactly what we should be doing to try to promote a moderate Syrian leadership and a - an effective transition so that we get Assad out. That's the kind of leadership we've shown. That's the kind of leadership we'll continue to show."
For now, the most meaningful difference between the two has been on what arms to give Syrian rebels. Romney has called for supplying arms that could defend against al-Assad tanks and aircraft.
"In Syria, I'll work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and then ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks helicopters and fighter jets," Romney said in a speech earlier this month.
The Obama administration has been reluctant for even allies in the region to provide such heavy firepower for fear of who would end up with the weapons.
– By Adam Levine
What's their approach to the unraveling of the Arab Spring?
For both candidates, the Arab Spring and the forces it unleashed on the streets of the Middle East and North Africa bear close watching in the days, weeks and months ahead, they said. But for the president especially, questions remain over the administration's initial approach as well as the uncertain future of the movement.
On Tunisia, where cries for political reform from protesters in the region began, Obama said "my administration stood with them earlier than just about any country."
But did the administration show its full-fledged support for the protesters as early as Obama asserted?
After a fruit vendor set himself on fire to protest the corruption of longtime dictator President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in December 2011, it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who told Al-Arabiya that "we are not taking sides" in the protests that had been going on for almost a month at that point. Clinton added the United States hoped for a "peaceful resolution," and "I hope the Tunisian government can bring that about."
It was not until a few days later when Ben Ali had fled Tunisia for an exile in Saudi Arabia that Obama issued a statement applauding "the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people."
The abuses and excesses of the Ben Ali family did not go unrecognized by the administration however. In leaked diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks, the U.S. ambassador warned of widespread corruption in the North African country.
"By many measures, Tunisia should be a close US ally. But it is not," U.S. Ambassador Robert Godec wrote. "The problem is clear. Tunisia has been ruled by the same president for 22 years."
In a similar vein, Obama said Monday that in Egypt, the United States "stood on the side of democracy" in the uprising that eventually overthrew longtime dictator President Hosni Mubarak.
As the protests began in Cairo's Tahrir Square on January 25, and in the days immediately following, the Obama administration did not immediately call for Mubarak's stepping down from power.
In an interview with CNN on January 30, Clinton said the United States stood on the side of a "democratic Egypt that provides both political and economic rights to its people" but stopped short of calling for Mubarak to leave power.
And in a phone conversation with Mubarak on February 1, Obama spoke about an "orderly transition" in Egypt, according to a White House read out of the call, but did not call for Mubarak to step aside - the mantra of a majority of the protesters in Tahrir Square at that point.
Ten days later, following a televised address in which Mubarak announced he would delegate some of his powers but not step down until later in the year, Obama issued a statement calling on the Egyptian government to "spell out in clear and unambiguous language the step-by-step process that will lead to democracy and the representative government that the Egyptian people seek."
While there was no call for Mubarak to step down in that statement, the longtime Egyptian president did so the next day.
But the path forward for the U.S. role in the region, especially Egypt, remains unclear. Both candidates recognize the U.S. must work with Egypt's new government and help develop an economy. But how to do that, while ensuring the country does not trample the democratic rights of women and minorities, is unclear.
In the debate, Obama cited U.S. efforts to organize entrepreneurship conferences to better assist Egyptians with "rebuilding their economy in a way that's noncorrupt, that's transparent." But just after he said that, Obama said for America to be "successful in this region, there are some things that we're going to have to do here at home as well."
After more than a decade at war, Obama said it was time for the United States to look inward and further develop its own economy. "It's very hard for us to project leadership around the world when we're not doing what we need to do here," he said.
For his part, Romney sounded a similar theme as to the future of U.S. engagement with these young democracies.
"But for us to be able to promote those principles of peace requires us to be strong, and that begins with a strong economy here at home," Romney said. "And unfortunately, the economy is not stronger."
– By Jamie Crawford
What do they say about the fiscal cliff?
Defense spending continues to be a major point of contention between Obama and Romney. But the president left many wondering if he knew something nobody else did when he flatly declared during the debate that further cuts "will not happen."
The cuts, an additional $500 billion over 10 years, will go into effect if a deficit deal cannot be reached. But that's still a matter of negotiation with Congress. Romney has tried to say that sequestration, which is what the further cuts are called, is an Obama plan. The president rightly points out that it is something that Congress agreed to as a way to force them into making difficult decisions.
"First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen," Obama said during the debate.
That was surprising in its certainty. Republican's pounced. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee e-mailed out a statement questioning Obama's involvement in trying to head off sequestration.
"It is a nice line, but for more than a year, the president hasn't lifted a finger to avert the crisis," said the statement from U.S. Rep. Buck McKeon, R-California. "The president and his party in the Senate have failed to offer even a single real solution that could resolve sequestration. If the president is determined that these cuts won't happen, why has he drug it out this long?"
Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod tried to explain it when Jessica Yellin, CNN's chief White House correspondent, interviewed him after the debate.
"Well, he can be sure because when the people vote on November 6 and the president is re-elected, a strong message will be sent - sent that the American people want a balanced approach to solving this problem," Axelrod said. "There are plenty of people on both sides who want to get that done."
White House senior adviser David Plouffe told Politico that the president was merely reflecting the reality that the cuts are something everyone wants to avoid.
"Listen, you talk to Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. No one thinks it should happen. It was designed so what the parties have to do," Plouffe told Politico.
– By Adam Levine
Why was Romney agreeing to agree so often?
Perhaps one of the most surprising aspects of the third and final debate was Romney's willingness to agree with the president on variety of topics, further closing the foreign policy gap between the two candidates and making it more difficult to discern any true difference. Throughout the debate, Romney agreed to agree with Obama.
But Romney did have some more nuanced positions in areas where he appeared to overall agree with the president.
On Iraq, Romney said his desire to maintain a troop presence after the U.S. withdrawal was no different than the president's failed efforts to negotiate an agreement with the Iraq government to leave 3,000 to 5,000 troops in country. However, Romney supported having 10,000 troops stay in Iraq after the withdrawal.
On Egypt, Romney supported the president's decision to stand with the pro-democracy protesters and against then-President Hosni Mubarak. However, Romney said he wished Obama had had a better vision for the region before the Arab Spring ignited.
"I wish that, looking back at the beginning of the president's term and even further back than that, that we'd have recognized that there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world," said Romney, "and that we would have worked more aggressively with our friend and with other friends in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form government such that it didn't explode in the way that it did."
On Israel, Romney and Obama expressed strong support for the Jewish state. However, Romney took a more strident tone in response to Bob Schieffer's question: Would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States?
Whereas Obama replied the U.S. would "stand with Israel," Romney replied, "if Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily. That's number one."
On Pakistan, Romney contended the strained relationship between the United States and Pakistan was a necessary evil when it came to finding Osama bin Laden, but he noted "there was a great deal of anger even before that." Romney said the presence of terrorist groups such as the Haqqani network and the Taliban in Pakistan as well as the stockpile of nuclear weapons there means "we can't just walk away from Pakistan." But he said the more than $1 billion in aid the U.S. gives Pakistan "is going to have to be conditioned upon certain benchmarks being met."
On drones, Romney asserted his support for the president's increased use of armed unmanned aircraft to kill terrorists. However, the governor used the question on drones to continue his attack on the president's strategy in the region, citing tensions with Iran, al Qaeda's resurgent and growing presence and continued unrest in the Middle East and North Africa.
"Let me also note that, as I said earlier, we're going to have to do more than just going after leaders and ... and killing bad guys, important as that is," said Romney. "We're also going to have to have a far more effective and comprehensive strategy to help move the world away from terror and Islamic extremism."
– By Morgan Hitzig

Friday, October 19, 2012

Postcard: Why Berlin, America are kindred spirits

By Frederik Pleitgen, CNN
October 19, 2012 -- Updated 1326 GMT (2126 HKT)
Few European cities have been more recently affected by the U.S. than Berlin, where America's role in propping up West Berlin during the Cold War against Soviet Communism remains in the public conscience. Few European cities have been more recently affected by the U.S. than Berlin, where America's role in propping up West Berlin during the Cold War against Soviet Communism remains in the public conscience.
HIDE CAPTION
Election 2012: Postcard from BerliN
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
>
>>
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Few cities' recent history has been more influenced by the U.S. than Berlin
  • While Berliners have a lot to thank U.S. for, that doesn't mean they like U.S. policies
  • American policies will not divert Berlin from charting course of Europe
Editor's note: Frederik Pleitgen has been the Berlin correspondent for CNN since 2006.
(CNN) -- You'll have a hard time finding another city in Europe whose recent history has been more influenced by the United States than Berlin.
In the German capital near the Brandenburg Gate -- right where the Wall used to divide this town into communist Eastern and capitalist Western sides -- the U.S. Embassy recently set up a plaque commemorating Ronald Reagan's 1987 speech where the 40th president called on then Soviet leader Mikhael Gorbachev to, "tear down this wall."
Just a ten minute drive away you reach the former Checkpoint Charlie, the scene of a major standoff between American and Russian tanks in 1961 that brought the world close to nuclear war.
And just another ten minutes away you find the city hall of the district of Schöneberg, where John F. Kennedy held his famous speech in 1963, pledging allegiance with this city on the front line of the Cold War and finishing with the famous words, "Ich bin ein Berliner."
My own history is reflected in this special relationship Berlin has with the U.S. as well. In the late 1970's and early 1980's my father worked as the East Berlin correspondent for West German TV. I went through the Berlin Wall every morning from East to West to get to kindergarten. In 1982 we moved to Washington D.C, where America embraced us immediately and we embraced American culture. Today, my family and I live in Berlin.
Germans have a lot to thank America for. Berliners have a lot to thank America for. They know that. It does not mean they have to like all American policies or the current state of American politics.
Clemens Wergin, foreign editor of Die Welt newspaper, says most Germans are well informed about the state of the election campaigns.
"Given that America is still the superpower, people tend to inform themselves quite regularly about the states and U.S. politics," Wergin told CNN, noting that a vast majority of Germans would vote for the incumbent president if given the option.
"This is because Democrats usually are seen to be more in tune with some core European beliefs regarding welfare, the use of military force, the role of religion in society or social issues such as abortion or gun rights."
Furthermore, many Germany equate Mitt Romney with the policies of the Bush administration -- and positions he staked out during the primary season have toughened many Germans' views of the Republican nominee. Many believe Romney will further cut social programs in the U.S. and repeal Obamacare -- not the most popular stance in a country like Germany, which has a very large public health care system.
In 2008, then-Senator Obama used Berlin as a stage for a major foreign policy speech. More than 200,000 Berliners and expats showed up to watch the man promising change after eight years of George W. Bush alienated many Germans -- and led them to fundamentally question whether the U.S. and Europe were finally drifting apart for good.
Now, four years later, the mood is more subdued and the Obama hype has cooled down. "He has lost some of his appeal and people realized that he couldn't deliver the change he promised," says Wergin, an assessment many Berliners would agree with.
Interest in American politics and the upcoming election is waning not only due to a perceived decline of American power, but also because Germany and Europe are grappling with a financial crisis that has propelled Germany into the leadership role the country has tried to avoid since the end of World War II.
Therefore, it is no surprise that the race for the White House only rarely makes it to the top of the news agenda in Germany. It was may have been front page news after the presidential and vice presidential debates, but the campaign remains buried deep in the "international news" sections on most other days.
The U.S. has been all but absent as the European Union deals with the biggest economic and identity crisis in its history. Meanwhile, Germany is awkwardly finding itself in the role that the U.S. used to fulfill for many Europeans: the major power, hated for seemingly bullying smaller countries to follow its lead, but also admired because it is the only one with the stability and financial firepower to come to terms with the crisis.
Strangely, a tour around Berlin illustrates this new balance of power as well. The plaques, monuments, and historical sites that illustrate America's sacrifices for this country and this city are still here, but they're from an era that has passed. A new Berlin has risen and forged for itself a new and very unique identity as a major political and cultural center in the heart of Europe.
Germany and its capital city have grown up and evolved. They will take note of American politics, but ultimately American politics will not steer them away from the course they are charting for themselves and for Europe.