Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Security. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Security. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Chủ Nhật, 5 tháng 5, 2013

Security fears prompt Aerosmith to drop Indonesia concert

  • Philippines Aerosmith_Angu.jpg

    May 5, 2013: Steven Tyler of the famed Aerosmith rock band is mobbed by reporters as he makes his way to his waiting van upon arrival from Melbourne in Manila, Philippines. Tyler and his entourage are here as part of their band's world tour concert.AP

Aerosmith canceled a show in Indonesia after authorities there said they had foiled a bomb plot targeting the Myanmar Embassy.

Concert promoter Ismaya Live cited safety concerns as the reason for the cancellation, but it wasn't clear if there was a direct connection to the alleged embassy plot.

The American rockers were scheduled to perform this coming Saturday for a nearly sold-out crowd of 15,000 in the capital, Jakarta, said Helmi Sugara, event organizer spokesman.

The statement about the cancellation carried an apology from Aerosmith also saying they hoped to make it up to the fans one day. There was no immediate indication they would reschedule.

Indonesian police said Friday they had arrested two suspected militants and seized bombs the suspects were plotting to use against the Myanmar Embassy in Jakarta to protest Myanmar's treatment of Muslims.

Aerosmith started an Asia-Pacific tour in April with their first-ever concert in New Zealand and several shows in Australia. They're scheduled to play Wednesday in the Philippines.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 16 tháng 4, 2013

IMMIGRATION OVERHAUL: Senate Bill Aims to Boost Security, Legalize Millions

A bipartisan Senate immigration bill would put the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally on a 13-year path to U.S. citizenship that would cost $2,000 in fines plus additional fees, and would begin only once steps have been taken to secure the border, according to an outline of the measure released Monday.

The sweeping legislation also would remake the nation's inefficient legal immigration system, creating new immigration opportunities for tens of thousands of high- and low-skilled workers, as well as a new "merit visa" aimed at people with talents to bring to the U.S. as well as employment or family ties. Senators planned to formally introduce the bill on Tuesday, but after the tragedy at the Boston Marathon a planned press event was delayed until later in the week.

Employers would face tough new requirements to check the legal status of all workers. The bill would institute a fundamental shift in an immigration system long focused on family ties, placing more importance on prospective immigrants' skills and employment potential.

Billions of dollars would be poured into border security, and millions of people who've been waiting overseas for years, sometimes decades, in legal immigration backlogs would see their cases speeded up.

Overall, the changes represent the most dramatic overhaul to U.S. immigration law in more than a quarter-century, and also would usher in major shifts to the U.S. employment landscape.

"I've always said that Americans will be commonsense, practical and balanced toward legal immigration and the 11 million who are here, provided that they are convinced that there won't be future flows of illegal immigration, and that has been the philosophy I think that's guided our group," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "We've put together a proposal that pretty much does that."

Schumer and another leader of the group, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., were to meet with President Barack Obama Tuesday to brief him on the legislation, a top second-term priority for the president.

The bill is the result of months of secretive negotiations among eight lawmakers, equally divided between the two parties. In addition to Schumer and McCain, they are Democrats Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado, working with Republicans Marco Rubio of Florida, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

Because of the makeup of the group, including conservatives and liberals, the legislation is a painstaking attempt to balance a focus on border security and legal enforcement sought by Republicans in the group, with Democratic priorities including making citizenship widely accessible. Crafting the bill was a time-consuming process of seeking compromise and bringing together traditionally opposed groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO, and the United Farm Workers and American Farm Bureau Federation.

Its release is a major achievement on a polarizing issue, but even harder work lies ahead now that legislative language will become public for other lawmakers and groups on all sides to examine and react to.

"It's only the first step," McCain said. "There's a lot of hard things to do yet."

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the bill beginning Friday and likely move to amend and vote on it in May, with action on the Senate floor expected later in the summer. The Republican-controlled House also must act, and opposition from some conservatives there is likely to be fierce.

"The Senate proposal issues an open invitation to enter the country illegally," Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said on the House floor Monday. "Millions more will do so before the border is secure. The Senate proposal will dramatically increase illegal immigration. "

Under the bill, immigrants here illegally could gain a provisional legal status six months after enactment as long as they meet certain criteria, and if the Homeland Security Department has moved forward on plans to secure the border. They would remain in that provisional status for 10 years, able to work legally but barred from federal benefits like welfare or health care. After 10 years they could seek green cards conferring permanent legal status, and three years after that they could petition for citizenship.

They would have to pay a total of $2,000 in fines along the way, and at least hundreds more in fees, though that number has not been determined.

People brought here illegally as youths would have a faster path: they could get green cards in five years and would become eligible for citizenship immediately thereafter.

U.S. citizens would no longer be able to sponsor their siblings for eventual U.S. citizenship, a change activist groups have opposed. Also eliminated would be the government's Diversity Visa Lottery Program, which randomly awards 55,000 visas to immigrants from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.

Those are among several changes aimed at rebalancing an immigration system that now awards around 15 percent of green cards to people with employment ties, and the majority to people with family ties; to one that awards 45 percent to 50 percent of green cards based on employment ties.  Green cards are visas that make someone a lawful permanent resident and qualifies them to apply for citizenship.

The bill changes the waiting period a green card holder has to undergo before applying to citizenship from five years to three years.

There would be no limit in the number of green cards awarded to people of extraordinary ability in science, arts, education, business or athletics, or to outstanding professors, doctors and others. A new startup visa would be created for foreign entrepreneurs trying to come here to start their own companies.

The bill would create a new "merit-based visa" five years after enactment, beginning at 120,000 visas a year, and awarding points based on talent, employment and family ties.

Visas for highly skilled workers greatly in demand by technology companies would nearly double, from 65,000 a year to 110,000 a year, plus 25,000 more reserved for people with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics from U.S. schools. Low-skilled workers would be able to come in for jobs in construction, long-term care and other industries, ultimately up to 200,000 a year. A new agriculture visa program would bring farm workers to the U.S., and farm workers already here illegally would get a faster path to citizenship than others, able to seek a green card in five years, an effort to create a stable agricultural workforce.

The bill is titled the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013."

On border security, as previously reported by The Associated Press and others, the bill aims for 100 percent surveillance of the border and seeks to ensure that 90 percent of attempted border crossers are caught or turn back, tasking the Homeland Security Department with developing plans within six months for making this happen. If the 90 percent rate of apprehensions isn't achieved in high-risk border sectors within five years, a commission made of border state officials would make recommendations on how to achieve it.

After 10 years, people granted "registered provisional immigrant status" could apply for green cards granting them permanent residency -- and the ability to seek citizenship -- if certain conditions are met, including the new security and fencing plans have been completed and a mandatory employment verification system is in place and used by all employers. A new system must also be in place at airports and seaports to keep track of who is exiting the country.

In addition, the bill provides funding for 3,500 more customs agents nationwide and authorizes the National Guard to be deployed to the border to construct fencing and deploy surveillance equipment, among other tasks. Funding for border crossing prosecutions would be boosted.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 25 tháng 3, 2013

Government study finds security risks at US bio labs- Vial of hemorrhagic fever virus missing from Texas lab

Three years after a federal agency warned that the country was at risk due to sloppy standards at its labs that handle bioterror germs, such as anthrax, little has been done to fix the problem.

A 56-page report released Monday by the Government Accountability Office says federal officials have failed to develop adequate standards for lab design, operation and construction.

The report also says that the facilities, called high-containment labs, are being built to local standards because there are no national safety guidelines for them. The study released Monday is a follow-up to a similar study done five years ago.

Another government report released late last year by the USDA inspector general found several violations of regulations in bioterror labs went undetected for years. And two years before that, laboratories at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention repeatedly were called out for failing to properly secure bioterror agents, like anthrax, in private government audits.

The CDC and the USDA share responsibility for security at more than 300 government, academic and commercial organizations registered to work with toxins or germs that have bioterror potential.

The news of the lax government standards comes after officials at the University of Texas Medical Branch said a vial containing a virus that can cause hemorrhagic fever went missing from a research facility in Galveston over the weekend.

On Saturday, the Galveston National Laboratory said there was no indication of wrongdoing, but it still could not account for the missing vial at its research facility. The medical branch says the virus, native to Venezuela, is transmitted only through contact with Venezuelan rats. Experts say the disease is not transmitted person-to-person nor is it able to survive in U.S. rodents. 

CDC Director Tom Frieden told USA Today he fears the department’s budget will be slashed even more if the federal government cuts funding, which it is on course to do. He told the paper his agency will lose more than $300 million -- a painful financial hit at a time when the agency is struggling to keep up with bioterror threats and new germs.

Concerns surrounding a bioterror attack took hold of the country after the October 2001 anthrax attacks. The powdery substance was mailed to lawmakers on Capitol Hill and members of the news media in New York and Florida. By November 2001, five people were dead and 17 others sickened.

Ten years after the attacks, a report from the National Research Council said the source of the anthrax could not be verified. That conclusion contradicted some of the evidence from the FBI at the time that supported the conclusion that it came from Fort Detrick, a U.S. Army installation outside Frederick, Md. In all, the investigation into the anthrax case spanned six continents, involved more than 10,000 witnesses, 80 searches and 26,000 email subpoenas and used 29 government, university and commercial laboratories for scientific analyses.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 11 tháng 3, 2013

NOT SO TRANSPARENT: Gov't Censors Public Records, Cites Security

The U.S. government, led by the Pentagon and CIA, censored in the name of national security files that the public requested last year under the Freedom of Information Act more often than at any time since President Barack Obama took office, according to a new analysis by The Associated Press.

Overall, the Obama administration last year answered its highest number of requests so far for copies of government documents, emails, photographs and more, and it slightly reduced its backlog of requests from previous years. But it more often cited legal provisions allowing the government to keep records or parts of its records secret, especially a rule intended to protect national security.

The AP's analysis showed the government released all or portions of the information that citizens, journalists, businesses and others sought at about the same rate as the previous three years. It turned over all or parts of the records in about 65 percent of requests. It fully rejected more than one-third of requests, a slight increase over 2011, including cases when it couldn't find records, a person refused to pay for copies or the request was determined to be improper.

The government's responsiveness under the FOIA is widely viewed as a barometer of the federal offices' transparency. Under the law, citizens and foreigners can compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Anyone who seeks information through the law is generally supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose business secrets or confidential decision-making in certain areas.

The AP's review comes at the start of the second term for Obama, who promised during his first week in office that the nation's signature open-records law would be "administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails." The review examined figures from the largest federal departments and agencies. Sunday was the start of Sunshine Week, when news organizations promote open government and freedom of information.

White House spokesman Eric Schultz said in a statement that during the past year, the government "processed more requests, decreased the backlog, improved average processing times and disclosed more information pro-actively." Schultz said the improvements "represent the efforts of agencies across the government to meet the president's commitment to openness. While there is more work to be done, this past year demonstrates that agencies are responding to the president's call for greater transparency."

In a year of intense public interest over deadly U.S. drones, the raid that killed Usama bin Laden, terror threats and more, the government cited national security to withhold information at least 5,223 times — a jump over 4,243 such cases in 2011 and 3,805 cases in Obama's first year in office. The secretive CIA last year became even more secretive: Nearly 60 percent of 3,586 requests for files were withheld or censored for that reason last year, compared with 49 percent a year earlier.

Other federal agencies that invoked the national security exception included the Pentagon, Director of National Intelligence, NASA, Office of Management and Budget, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Communications Commission and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, State, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs.

U.S. courts are loath to overrule the administration whenever it cites national security. A federal judge, Colleen McMahon of New York, in January ruled against The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union to see records about the government's legal justification for drone attacks and other methods it has used to kill terrorism suspects overseas, including American citizens. She cited an "Alice in Wonderland" predicament in which she was expected to determine what information should be revealed but unable to challenge the government's secrecy claim. Part of her ruling was sealed and made available only to the government's lawyers.

"I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable Catch-22," the judge wrote. "I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret."

The AP could not determine whether the administration was abusing the national security exemption or whether the public was asking for more documents about sensitive subjects. Nearly half the Pentagon's 2,390 denials last year under that clause came from the National Security Agency, which monitors Internet traffic and phone calls worldwide.

"FOIA is an imperfect law, and I don't think that's changed over the last four years since Obama took office," said Alexander Abdo, an ACLU staff attorney for its national security project. "We've seen a meteoric rise in the number of claims to protect secret law, the government's interpretations of laws or its understanding of its own authority. In some ways, the Obama administration is actually even more aggressive on secrecy than the Bush administration."

The Obama administration also more frequently invoked the law's "deliberative process" exception to withhold records describing decision-making behind the scenes. Obama had directed agencies to use it less often, but the number of such cases had surged after his first year in office to more than 71,000. After back-to-back years when figures steadily declined, the government cited that reason 66,353 times last year to keep records or parts of records secret.

Even as the Obama administration continued increasing its efforts answering FOIA requests, people submitted more than 590,000 requests for information in fiscal 2012 — an increase of less than 1 percent over the previous year. Including leftover requests from previous years, the government responded to more requests than ever in 2012 — more than 603,000 — a 5 percent increase for the second consecutive year.

The Homeland Security Department, which includes offices that deal with immigration files, received more than twice as many requests for records — 190,589 new requests last year — as any other agency, and it answered significantly more requests than it did in 2011. Other agencies, including the State Department, National Transportation Safety Board and Nuclear Regulatory Commission performed worse last year. The State Department, for example, answered only 57 percent of its requests, down from 75 percent a year earlier.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services drove a dramatic increase in the number of times DHS censored immigration records under exceptions to police files containing personal information and law enforcement techniques. The agency invoked those exemptions more than 136,000 times in 2012, compared with more than 75,000 a year earlier. Even though USCIS is not a law-enforcement agency, officials used the exceptions specifically reserved for law enforcement.

The AP's analysis also found that the government generally took longer to answer requests. Some agencies, such as the Health and Human Services Department, took less time than the previous year to turn over files. But at the State Department, for example, even urgent requests submitted under a fast-track system covering breaking news or events when a person's life was at stake took an average two years to wait for files.

Journalists and others who need information quickly to report breaking news, for example, fared worse last year. The rate at which the government granted so-called expedited processing, which moves an urgent request to the front of the line for a speedy answer, fell from 24 percent in 2011 to 17 percent last year. The CIA denied every such request last year.

Under increased budget pressure across the government, agencies more often insisted that people pay search and copying fees. It waived costs in 59 percent of requests, generally when the amount was negligible or the release of the information is in the public interest, a decline from 64 percent of cases a year earlier. At the Treasury Department, which faced questions about its role in auto bailouts and stimulus programs during Obama's first term, only one in five requests were processed at no charge. A year earlier, it granted more than 75 percent of fee waivers. The CIA denied every request last year to waive fees.

The 33 agencies that AP examined were: Agency for International Development, CIA, Agriculture Department, Commerce Department, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Defense Department, Education Department, Energy Department, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Interior Department, Justice Department, Labor Department, State Department, Transportation Department, Treasury Department, Department of Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Election Commission, Federal Trade Commission, NASA, National Science Foundation, National Transportation Safety Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Securities and Exchange Commission, Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Postal Service.

Four agencies that were included in AP's previous analysis of FOIA performance did not publicly release their 2012 reports. They included the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Personnel Management.


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 10 tháng 3, 2013

Susan Rice top contender for national security post- Obama tosses barbs at annual Gridiron dinner

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is the leading contender to become the White House’s new national security adviser, following a failed bid to become secretary of state, a senior Obama administration official told Fox News this weekend.

President Obama could appoint Rice without the Senate confirmation needed for a Cabinet post. Rice withdrew herself from consideration for the secretary of state post in the face of withering criticism by congressional Republicans and others for her handling of the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2012, Libya terror attacks.

Five days after the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans at a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, Rice said the attacks appeared spontaneous and sparked by an anti-Islamic video.

Rice, 48, later said she gave an incorrect account, based on intelligence reports at the time. However, subsequent meetings with leading Senate Republicans appeared only to increase her lack of support for the Cabinet post.

This weekend, the administration official told Fox a Rice appointment is not imminent because the president still has to find an ambassadorship or another post for current national security adviser Thomas Donilon.  

Fox first reported last year, shortly after the outcome of the November elections, that Rice might get the NSA post –- under the assumption Donilon might become the new White House chief of staff.

Donilon did not get the job so the president must first find a new post for him before moving Rice.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 7 tháng 3, 2013

WILL IT END THREATS? UN Security Council OKs Tough N. Korea Sanctions

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Thursday for tough new sanctions to punish North Korea for its latest nuclear test, and a furious Pyongyang threatened a nuclear strike against the United States.

The sanctions drafted by North Korea's closest ally, China, and the United States send a powerful message that the international community condemns the ballistic missile and nuclear tests -- and repeated violation of Security Council resolutions.

"Adoption of the resolution itself is not enough," China's U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong said. "We want to see full implementation of the resolution." Li also urged calm and a resumption of the stalled six-party talks aimed at denuclearizing the Korean peninsula.

"The top priority now is to defuse the tensions, bring down heat ... bring the situation back on the track of diplomacy, on negotiations."

Immediately before the vote, an unidentified spokesman for Pyongyang's Foreign Ministry said the North will exercise its right for "a preemptive nuclear attack to destroy the strongholds of the aggressors" because Washington is "set to light a fuse for a nuclear war."

The statement was carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency, which issued no immediate comment after the Security Council vote.

In North Korea, Army Gen. Kang Pyo Yong told a crowd of tens of thousands that North Korea is ready to fire long-range nuclear-armed missiles at Washington, which "will be engulfed in a sea of fire."

The White House responded by saying the U.S. is fully capable of defending itself against a North Korea ballistic missile attack.

Although North Korea boasts of nuclear bombs and pre-emptive strikes, it is not thought to have mastered the ability to produce a warhead small enough to put on a missile capable of reaching the U.S. It is believed to have enough nuclear fuel, however, for several crude nuclear devices.

The United States has long been concerned that North Korea could eventually pose a missile threat to U.S. territory. It was mainly with such a potential threat in mind that the Defense Department first began to operate a ground-based missile defense system in late 2004.

The United States responded to North Korea's threat saying it will take the necessary steps to defend itself and its allies.

"Taken together, these sanctions will bite, and bite hard," U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said after the vote. "They increase North Korea's isolation and raise the cost to North Korea's leaders of defying the international community."

South Korea's U.N. Ambassador Kim Sook said North Korea's threats and inflammatory statements will be dealt with "resolutely."

"North Korea must wake up from its delusion of becoming a ... nuclear weapons state and make the right choice," he said. "It can either take the right path toward a bright future and prosperity, or it can take a bad road toward further and deeper isolation and eventual self-destruction."

Tensions have escalated following a rocket launch by Pyongyang in December and its third nuclear test on Feb. 12. Both acts defied three Security Council resolutions that bar North Korea from testing or using nuclear or ballistic missile technology and from importing or exporting material for these programs.

The resolution is the fourth sanctions resolution against North Korea since its first nuclear test in 2006.

It condemns the North's third nuclear test in February "in the strongest terms" for violating and flagrantly disregarding council resolutions. It bans further ballistic missile launches, nuclear tests "or any other provocation" and demands that North Korea return to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It condemns all of North Korea's ongoing nuclear activities, including its uranium enrichment.

But the resolution also stresses the council's commitment "to a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution" to North Korea's nuclear program and urges a resumption of six-party talks.

It strengthens inspections of suspicious cargo heading to and from the country, calls on states to step up "vigilance" of possible illegal activity by North Korean diplomats and reiterates the council's commitment to a diplomatic solution. In a measure targeted at the reclusive nation's ruling elite, the resolution bans all nations from exporting expensive jewelry, yachts, luxury automobiles and racing cars to the North.

The U.N. resolution identifies three individuals, one corporation and one organization that will be added to the U.N. sanctions list. The targets include top officials at a company that is the country's primary arms dealer and main exporter of ballistic missile-related equipment, and a national organization responsible for research and development of missiles and probably nuclear weapons.

The success of a new round of sanctions could depend on enforcement by China, where most of the companies and banks that North Korea is believed to work with are based.

According to the resolution, all countries would now be required to freeze financial transactions or services that could contribute to North Korea's nuclear or missile programs.

To get around financial sanctions, North Koreans have been carrying around large suitcases filled with cash to move illicit funds. The resolution expresses concern that these bulk cash transfers may be used to evade sanctions.

The resolution also bans all countries from providing public financial support for trade deals, such as granting export credits, guarantees or insurance, if the assistance could contribute to the North's nuclear or missile programs.

It includes what a senior diplomat called unprecedented new travel sanctions that would require countries to expel agents working for sanctioned North Korean companies.

The resolution also requires states to inspect suspect cargo on their territory and prevent any vessel that refuses an inspection from entering their ports. And a new aviation measure calls on states to deny aircraft permission to take off, land or fly over their territory if illicit cargo is suspected to be aboard.


View the original article here