Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/08/huckabee-to-gop-make-a-deal/
political blogs canadian political parties politic politic leave political websites Obama
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Huckabee to GOP: make a deal
Washington (CNN) – Former Republican Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee advised Republicans in Congress to strike a budget deal, warning a...
Is it legal to arm the Libyan rebels?
I understand that the government believes arming the Libyan rebels may be legal in certain circumstances. Although the United Nations has backed an arms embargo on Libya, ministers believe if arming the rebels was the only way to "protect civilians", the over-riding objective of United Nations resolution 1973 - it could be legal.
The foreign secretary gave a clear indication of this in answer to a question I asked at the news conference at the end of Tuesday's London Conference:
Robinson: Do you fear that it may not be possible to protect Libyan civilians from the air? Did today's conference discuss the possibility of arming the opposition, as they have requested, or do you fear that if you did so you might be arming some at least who have al-Qaeda sympathies?
William Hague: We didn't discuss at the conference today arming the opposition - that was not one of the subjects for discussion....You're right that this subject has been raised of course by the interim transitional national council. But it is not part of any agreement today- the United Kingdom takes into account the UN Security Council resolutions on this. Those resolutions in our view apply to the whole of Libya. Although it is consistent with the UN Security Council resolution 1973 to give people aid in order to defend themselves in particular circumstances but we haven't discussed that so no new decision to communicate to you about that.
Labour have responded by circulating the prime minister's words in the Commons a few weeks ago:
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): Speaking as someone who has watched well-armed Bosnian Serb units smash through civilian populations, may I ask my right hon. Friend the prime minister whether Security Council resolution 1973 allows us, under its provision on "all necessary measures", to avoid the arms embargo and directly arm the people who are fighting against Gaddafi in Benghazi and elsewhere?
The prime minister: The first point I would make to my hon. Friend is how welcome it was that Bosnia was sitting on the Security Council and able to vote in favour of this resolution-for good historical reasons. The resolution helps to enforce the arms embargo, and our legal understanding is that that arms embargo applies to the whole of Libya. Paragraph 4 authorises member states:
"[T]o take all necessary measures...to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack" in Libya, including Benghazi. That is very strong language, which allows states to take a number of military steps to protect people and harm those who are intending to damage civilians. It could not be clearer, and the legal advice is clear."
My understanding is that the National Security Council have not yet discussed any change of policy to arm the rebels.
PS The foreign secretary has added some further detail to the perceived legality of arming the Libyan rebels, in an interview with Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight last night. The UK's reading of the UN resolution, said Mr Hague, is that "it might allow equipment to be given to the rebels purely to defend themselves in a limited way". When pressed further on what sort of equipment, he added: "only very limited ones in terms of calibre... But we're not proposing to arm the rebels in any form and not planning to do that - it raises policy as well as legal questions".
His caution was understandable - minutes later on the same programme a spokesman for the Arab League (a crucial partner in the international coalition) warned - albeit rather ambiguously - "we don't talk about arming one group against another group. We have to be careful".
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2011/03/is_it_legal_to.html
political parties political candidates political memorabilia politic processor politic real clear politics polls
The 10 Most Compelling Quotes from Peter King's Hearing
Peter King's long-awaited (and equally dreaded) hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in America were held Thursday morning in Washington D.C. It was an emotional, bizarre affair. Threats perceived, real, or otherwise aside, the discussion of a singular religion for an entire hearing by nearly an entire room full of people who aren't of that religion — the second-largest in the world — is inarguably and patently strange. As such, we wanted to present to you the ten most compelling things we heard today, removed from their context, to illustrate just how intensely bizarre and discomforting this thing was.
Source: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/peter-king-hearings-quotes-5376775?src=rss
political candidates political memorabilia politic processor politic real clear politics polls politics news
Huntsman heading to South Carolina in May
Greenville, South Carolina (CNN) - Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, a potential candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, will deliver...
Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/08/huntsman-heading-to-south-carolina-in-may/
politics cnn politics political jobs daily politics united states politics
Electricity discount money for poor, now unspent, might be used on Medicaid
The state budget passed by the House runs about $6 billion short of current funding, if you count loss of temporarily higher federal match money, recommended provider fee cuts and failure to add money for inflation and growth in use of services and enrollment. The budget shaping up in the Senate also shorts Medicaid, but not as much.
Ogden, as his panel approved last-minute items for regulatory agencies such as the Public Utility Commission, noted that the Senate budget wouldn't spend any of the fees collected on electric bills in the deregulated portions of the state for low-income ratepayer discounts. The discounts, which the GOP-controlled Legislature has shaved in size and scope in recent years, are known as the "system benefit fund." He said the House budget would spend $170 million over the next two years. Last weekend, as we blogged, a conservative House member took a pass at raiding some of the money, then backed off.
If new money for discounts is "zeroed out," Ogden told colleagues, the fund's balance could be as high as $900 million by the end of the next budget cycle.
"We're probably going to have to come back and take a hard look at our policy position on this," he said, perhaps changing the 1999 electricity-deregulation law "in such a way that we can draw down federal funds ... to help match some federal-state program that we're underfunding right now."
"This is a big pot of money out there, and we've got to be smart on it," he said.
After the meeting, Ogden told reporters that he's not sure if the Legislature can rework the law authorizing the fee this session. But he confirmed that he's primarily thinking about using the fee money, if it can be freed of strings and turned into state "general revenue," as state matching money for Medicaid.
Source: http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/04/electricity-discount-money-for.html
political consulting firms political advertisements political quiz laser politic politic political blogs
Friday, April 8, 2011
Is it legal to arm the Libyan rebels?
I understand that the government believes arming the Libyan rebels may be legal in certain circumstances. Although the United Nations has backed an arms embargo on Libya, ministers believe if arming the rebels was the only way to "protect civilians", the over-riding objective of United Nations resolution 1973 - it could be legal.
The foreign secretary gave a clear indication of this in answer to a question I asked at the news conference at the end of Tuesday's London Conference:
Robinson: Do you fear that it may not be possible to protect Libyan civilians from the air? Did today's conference discuss the possibility of arming the opposition, as they have requested, or do you fear that if you did so you might be arming some at least who have al-Qaeda sympathies?
William Hague: We didn't discuss at the conference today arming the opposition - that was not one of the subjects for discussion....You're right that this subject has been raised of course by the interim transitional national council. But it is not part of any agreement today- the United Kingdom takes into account the UN Security Council resolutions on this. Those resolutions in our view apply to the whole of Libya. Although it is consistent with the UN Security Council resolution 1973 to give people aid in order to defend themselves in particular circumstances but we haven't discussed that so no new decision to communicate to you about that.
Labour have responded by circulating the prime minister's words in the Commons a few weeks ago:
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): Speaking as someone who has watched well-armed Bosnian Serb units smash through civilian populations, may I ask my right hon. Friend the prime minister whether Security Council resolution 1973 allows us, under its provision on "all necessary measures", to avoid the arms embargo and directly arm the people who are fighting against Gaddafi in Benghazi and elsewhere?
The prime minister: The first point I would make to my hon. Friend is how welcome it was that Bosnia was sitting on the Security Council and able to vote in favour of this resolution-for good historical reasons. The resolution helps to enforce the arms embargo, and our legal understanding is that that arms embargo applies to the whole of Libya. Paragraph 4 authorises member states:
"[T]o take all necessary measures...to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack" in Libya, including Benghazi. That is very strong language, which allows states to take a number of military steps to protect people and harm those who are intending to damage civilians. It could not be clearer, and the legal advice is clear."
My understanding is that the National Security Council have not yet discussed any change of policy to arm the rebels.
PS The foreign secretary has added some further detail to the perceived legality of arming the Libyan rebels, in an interview with Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight last night. The UK's reading of the UN resolution, said Mr Hague, is that "it might allow equipment to be given to the rebels purely to defend themselves in a limited way". When pressed further on what sort of equipment, he added: "only very limited ones in terms of calibre... But we're not proposing to arm the rebels in any form and not planning to do that - it raises policy as well as legal questions".
His caution was understandable - minutes later on the same programme a spokesman for the Arab League (a crucial partner in the international coalition) warned - albeit rather ambiguously - "we don't talk about arming one group against another group. We have to be careful".
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2011/03/is_it_legal_to.html
President Obama US Secretary US Politics US Government The Power of Politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)