U.S. Speeding Up Missile Defenses in Persian Gulf

By GottaLaff

Via the New York Times:

The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four Arab countries, according to administration and military officials. [...]

The news that the United States is deploying antimissile defenses — including a rare public discussion of them by Gen. David H. Petraeus — appears to be part of a coordinated administration strategy to increase pressure on Iran.

The deployments are also partly intended to counter the impression that Iran is fast becoming the most powerful military force in the Middle East, to forestall any Iranian escalation of its confrontation with the West if new sanctions are imposed. In addition, the administration is trying to show Israel that there is no immediate need for military strikes against Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, according to administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

By highlighting the defensive nature of the buildup, the administration was hoping to avoid a sharp response from Tehran.

Military officials said that the countries that accepted the defense systems were Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait.

Counting the seconds until we hear from the GOP about what a wuss President Obama is, and how we need to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran to smithereens.

White House says world moving toward new Iran sanctions

By GottaLaff

Let's just avoid those "pre-emptive strike" words, okay?

The United Nations nuclear agency Friday blasted Iran for obstructing investigations into its suspected nuclear weapons program and demanded that the Islamic Republic stop enriching uranium at a once-secret facility.

In response, the Obama administration suggested that world powers might be moving closer to imposing international sanctions on Iran. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called a 25-3 vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency "overwhelming" and said it "demonstrates the resolve and unity of the international community with regard to Iran's nuclear program."

"Our patience and that of the international community is limited, and time is running out," Gibbs said. "If Iran refuses to meet its obligations, then it will be responsible for its own growing isolation and the consequences."[...]

Tehran's refusal to carry out a tentative deal in October to ship most of its nuclear fuel to Russia and France for reprocessing leaves other nations with two ways to try to ensure that Iran doesn't obtain nuclear weapons: tough sanctions and pre-emptive military action. [...]

One U.S. senior official said any sanctions that might be considered would look to hurt the Iranian regime, not everyday Iranians, but he didn't elaborate.

The administration said that Iran has until the end of the year to engage cooperatively; after that it may face a "package of consequences."

Orly Taitz Sanctioned for $20,000

By GottaLaff

(click on image to enlarge)

Ya can't say you werent' warned, Birther Orly. See, when you waste everyone's time and resources, you kinda run into problems like, well, being called "delusional":

Counsel Orly Taitz is hereby ordered to pay $20,000.00 to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of the date of this Order as a sanction for her misconduct in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Here are some excerpts from the official document that shows how willful and negligent Mental Taitz was. Oh, and for the record, this judge was appointed by Boy Georgie W:

The Court finds that counsel’s conduct was willful and not merely negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the rules and to respect the Court. Counsel’s pattern of conduct conclusively establishes that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly violated Rule 11. Her response to the Court’s show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional. She expresses no contrition or regret regarding her misconduct. To the contrary, she continues her baseless attacks on the Court.

Ouch! Then again, I wonder if any of that will even penetrate Taitzless' thick skull.

Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court. [...] The Clerk’s Office was burdened by Ms. Taitz’s inability to follow the Court’s rules regarding pro hac vice admission and the Court’s rules for electronic filing. On five separate occasions in a short period, the Clerk’s Office personnel error-noticed counsel for her failure to follow simple rules. At the hearing, counsel failed to make coherent legal arguments but instead wasted the Court’s time with press conference sound bites and speeches.

I hear the real estate biz is about to pick up. Taitzless should really think about going back to her day job.

H/t: AltaKocker

Federal judge threatens to sanction ObamAdministration over secrecy

By GottaLaff

Was the judge watching the Rachel Maddow Show, because Rachel's been steaming mad over issues like this one:

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco warned the Obama administration on Friday of severe sanctions if it does not comply with the court’s order to turn over a secret document an Islamic group says proves they were illegally spied upon.

The case, Al-Haramain v. Obama (see also: Al-Haramain V. Bush), springs out of a government mistake in which a secret document detailing the wiretapping of calls between attorneys and Saudi charity Al-Haramain was turned over to the charity’s counsel.

The document was taken back by the government, and the Department of Justice has since maintained that the attorneys who read it should not be allowed to use their memories to pursue litigation over the illegal spying.

There's that S word again.

“The Court noted the government was ‘continuing to assert legal positions already specifically rejected by the court in previous orders’ and ‘government officials in one or more defendant agencies, including the NSA Director … are refusing to cooperate with the court’s orders,’” noted the Electronic Frontiers Foundation. “Judge Walker ordered the government to show cause as to ‘why, as a sanction for failing to obey the court’s orders’ the government ’should not be prohibited … from opposing the liability’ for spying without warrants and that the ‘court should not deem liability … established and proceed to determine the amount of damages to be awarded to plaintiffs.’ A hearing is set for June 3, 2009 in the San Francisco federal court.”

That should do it, right? Not so fast:

Should Walker rule in favor of Al-Haramain, it would not fully satisfy the group’s legal aims, but “it would be a stiff rebuke to an administration that has pledged to reconsider Bush’s broad claims of secrecy in all cases touching on national security,” noted Bob Egelko at The San Francisco Chronicle.

Now let's see if Rachel mentions this on her next show.

UN Security Council Nations Agree to Condemn N. Korea's Rocket Launch

By GottaLaff

A message to L'il Kim:

Key Security Council nations reached agreement Saturday on a statement that would condemn North Korea's rocket launch and toughen sanctions against the reclusive communist nation, council diplomats said.

The five permanent veto-wielding members -- the U.S., China, Russia, Britain and France -- and Japan met after Tokyo backed down from a demand that the Security Council adopt a new resolution, the strongest response from the U.N.'s most powerful body.

A presidential statement is considered a weaker reaction by the council. The draft statement condemns North Korea's April 5 rocket launch and makes clear that it was a violation of a Security Council resolution adopted after the North conducted a nuclear test in 2006 which bans any missile tests by the country, the diplomats said.

The statement calls for freezing the assets of companies or organizations involved in transactions related to the import or export of missiles, nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, the diplomats said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations took place behind closed doors

China and Russia, the North Koreans' strongest allies, refused to go along with a new resolution, which the United States was also seeking. But while Japan kept insisting on a resolution, the U.S. indicated it would also accept a strong presidential statement from the council, the diplomats said. [...]

North Korea has warned that any move to censure it at the U.N. could prompt its withdrawal from the nuclear disarmament talks, which involve China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the U.S.

A presidential statement must be approved by consensus, meaning that all 15 council members must approve it before it is read at a formal council meeting by its president. It becomes part of the council's official record, unlike a press statement. The U.S. and others argue that presidential statements, like resolutions, are legally binding. [...]

Under the draft, the Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against North Korea would be given two weeks to agree on the companies, material and technologies to be banned, the diplomats said. If the committee failed to come up with a list, the Security Council itself would then come up with its own list, the diplomats said.

Obama renews US sanctions on Iran

By GottaLaff

Extending a hand? Nope. Extending sanctions? Yep:

US President Barack Obama has extended sanctions against Iran for one year, saying it continues to pose a threat to US national security.

In a message to the US Congress, Mr Obama said Iran was acting contrary to US interests in the region.

The sanctions, which ban US companies from trading or investing with Iran, have been renewed annually since 1995.[...]

Although the Obama administration is reviewing its policy towards Iran, not extending the sanctions would have constituted a major break with the past, says BBC state department correspondent Kim Ghattas in Washington.

Mr Obama has talked of engagement with Iran but has not made clear how that might take place.

Shortly after coming to office in January, Mr Obama said "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fists, they will find an extended hand from us".

Tying Obama's hands: US a step closer to Iran blockade

By GottaLaff

He may only have a few months left in office, but that's plenty of time to create havoc for the next president... and the entire world:

The United States government has imposed new sanctions on Iran, this time targeting its shipping industry, by blacklisting the main shipping line and 18 subsidiaries, accusing the maritime carrier of being engaged in contraband nuclear material, a charge vehemently denied by Iran.

While the economic impact of the measures against Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) will be minimal in light of the near absence of any connection between the shipping company and US businesses, this latest US initiative against Iran sends a strong signal about the US's intention to escalate pressure on Iran, even unilaterally if need be. And, perhaps, it is a prelude for more serious and dangerous actions in the near future, above all a naval blockade of Iran to choke off its access to, among other things, imported fuel.

The outgoing George W Bush administration is slowly but surely taking strident actions that will effectively tie the hands of the next US president, particularly if that happens to be Democratic candidate Senator Barack Obama, who in the past has expressed an interest in direct dialogue with Tehran.

Should the new sanctions prove as catalysts for more aggressive US actions against Iran in international waters or the Persian Gulf, as called for by some members of US Congress seeking the interdiction of Iranian cargo ships, then by the time Bush's successor takes over at the Oval Office next January, the climate in US-Iran hostility may have degenerated to such depths that it would take a monumental effort to undo what appears to be Bush's last hurrah.

Who might benefit from this little maneuver?

On the other hand, on the eve of US presidential elections in November, more tensions between the US and Iran are tantamount to greater prioritization of national security issues by the average American voter, something that benefits Obama's Republican rival, "bomb, bomb Iran" John McCain.

Indeed, the coupling of crisis in Georgia and the Iran crisis represents a major bonus for McCain and his "get tough" approach toward the US's external foes.

Or we could interpret this "get tough" approach as, you know, "insane".

[T]he US's action may be in violation of the terms and ambit of UN sanctions imposed by the Security Council on Iran over its nuclear program. For instance, these sanctions exempt the Bushehr power plant in Iran, thus allowing the shipment of nuclear material for the Russian-made plant nearing completion.

This means that the US might seek to seize Russian nuclear goods bound for Iran, thus raising the ire of Moscow and using this as a payback for Russia's offensive in pro-West Georgia. Alternatively, the US could use the threat of such action as leverage with regard to both Tehran and Moscow. Russia, from Washington's point of view, needs to be brought into line on Iran. [...]

In conclusion, as tough new decisions on Iran are being plotted in Washington and Tel Aviv, the fate of peace and stability in the volatile oil region of the Persian Gulf seems once again on the verge of being compromised in the drive towards open confrontation with Iran.

H/t: CLG