FDA panel votes for more restrictions on Vicodin

WASHINGTONFederal health advisors want new restrictions on hydrocodone, the highly addictive ingredient found in Vicodin and other widely abused prescription painkillers.

The Food and Drug Administration's panel of drug safety specialists voted to subject hydrocodone drugs to the same restrictions as narcotics like oxycodone and morphine.




Play Video


Headlines: Vicodin may face tighter controls



The panel voted 19-10 in favor of the move, which is supported by the Drug Enforcement Agency. The FDA will weigh the vote in its decision-making process.

Hydrocodone is sold in combination pills like Vicodin, which mixes the drug with non-addictive painkillers like acetaminophen. The drug belongs to a family of drugs known as opioids, which include morphine, heroin, oxycodone, codeine and methadone.

Doctors prescribe the medicines to treat pain from injuries, surgery, arthritis and other ailments such as coughs.

Hydrocodone consistently ranks as the first or second most-abused medicine in the U.S. each year, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency.

Panelists who voted for new restrictions said it would send a signal to doctors about the potential dangers of hydrocodone drugs.

"I don't think reclassification is a panacea for the opioid abuse problem in this country, but I think it's an important step to get doctors to rethink their prescribing practices," said Mary Ellen Olbrisch, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University.

The DEA has asked the FDA to reclassify hydrocodone as a schedule II drug, limiting which kinds of medical professionals can write a prescription and how many times it can be refilled. The Controlled Substances Act, passed in 1970, put hydrocodone combination drugs in the schedule III class, which is subject to fewer controls.

An April, 2012 Drug Enforcement Administration report showed that 42 tons of pure hydrocodone were prescribed across U.S. pharmacies in 2010, enough to give 24 5-milligram Vicodins to every person in the United States.

In 2011, U.S. doctors wrote more than 131 million prescriptions for hydrocodone, making it the most prescribed drug in the country.

Currently a prescription for hydrocodone-containing Vicodin can be refilled five times before the patient has to see a physician again. If the drug is reclassified patients could only receive a single 90-day prescription, similar to oxycodone. The drug could also not be prescribed by nurses and physician assistants.

Panelists who voted against the classification change said it would have unintended consequences, driving addicted patients to obtain the drugs illegally.

"If prescribing decreases, illicit opioid use will increase, with dire consequences," said Dr. John Mendelson, of St. Luke's Hospital in San Francisco. "I think this is a mistake and we will be back here with other problems."

Several physician and pharmacist groups also argued that new restrictions would burden medical professionals and disrupt patient care.

"Rescheduling the products to Schedule II would create significant hardships for all - leading to delayed access for vulnerable patients with legitimate chronic pain," said the National Community Pharmacists Association, in a statement.

The FDA is not required to follow the advice of its expert panelists, though their input is often critical in its decisions.

FDA officials closed the meeting by acknowledging the difficulty of combating hydrocodone abuse, while keeping the drugs available for patients who legitimately need them.

"There is an unquestioned epidemic of opioid abuse, overdose and death in this country, an epidemic we need to address as a society," said Douglas Throckmorton, FDA's deputy director for regulatory programs.

Read More..

'Hot' Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says













Christmas is the one day of the year that Wal-Mart is closed, but for a group of four New Mexico burglars, it was the perfect time to stop in for some firearms.


Video surveillance cameras caught the masked burglars red-handed, stealing rifle after rifle. Police arrested the four men, and were able to recover the guns. But all too often, stolen weapons end up in the hands of criminals.


The New Mexico caper is part of a flood of gun thefts nationwide. And it's not only commercial gun dealers vulnerable to theft.


Guns are a top target for home burglars looking for something they can easily sell on the street.


An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice.


"Any burglar that goes in a house and finds guns, their eyes are going to light up," says former ATF Assistant Director Mike Bouchard. "That's the first thing they're going to take."


The statistics for commercial thefts show that nearly 25,000 guns per year are lost or stolen from gun dealers.


According to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), more than 4,000 gun stores and retailers have been targeted in the last three years, with 74,000 guns reported stolen or lost. And criminals will use any method possible to get their hands on some weapons, either for their own use, or to sell on the black market.






Minnesota Public Radio, Jeffrey Thompson/AP Photo











Obama on Gun Violence Measures: 'This Is Common Sense' Watch Video











Kansas Gun Shop Owner Reacts to Obama's Proposed Plan Watch Video





Recently, thieves have taken to using a stolen vehicle to ram down the front doors of a gun store. In North Charleston, S.C., for example, burglars smashed a stolen truck right through Guns and Gold Trading Post, stealing $4,500 worth of guns before making a quick getaway.


"Gun stores are like candy stores for criminals," says Mike Bouchard.


2012 was a record year for gun sales, with more than 19.5 million background checks run for gun purchases, up almost 20% from the previous year. But while legitimate sales skyrocket, huge numbers of illegal guns are hitting the streets.


According to the Justice Department, more than 1.4 million guns were stolen or lost between 2005 and 2010.


Former ATF Assistant Director Bouchard says crooks have easy access to cheap stolen guns on the street.


"If you talk to any criminal, they can find a gun within an hour or two. Cheaper guns that were stolen can be sold for $50. On the street, a typical good handgun will run you $200 to $300," Bouchard said.


Some thieves have even targeted gun shipments, stealing the weapons before they get to market.


Last November, for example, a rogue truck driver allegedly stole a shipment of 111 guns he was supposed to deliver from the Smith and Wesson factory in Springfield, Mass.


When police caught him, they recovered 28 of the stolen guns, but some had already been used in crimes.


When police arrested the alleged stick-up robber known as the Black Jacket Bandit, they found one of the stolen guns was allegedly used by him in a convenience store robbery within weeks of the delivery heist.


In November, more than 100 powerful AK-47s were stolen from a rail yard in Atlanta. The guns were in a box car containing more than 1,000 guns being shipped from an overseas manufacturer to a major U.S. distributor, authorities say.


A few of the weapons have been recovered, but police are deeply concerned about having scores of new assault rifles falling into the wrong hands.


Given all the gun thefts, police say it is critical for gun owners to secure their weapons in gun safes or locked cases. And authorities are urging gun retailers to fortify their buildings, to try to prevent "smash and grab" type robberies.



Read More..

Neanderthal cloning? Pure fantasy




A display of a reconstruction of a Neanderthal man and boy at the Museum for Prehistory in Eyzies-de-Tayac, France.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Arthur Caplan: It would be unethical to try and clone a Neanderthal baby

  • Caplan: Downsides include a good chance of producing a baby that is seriously deformed

  • He says the future belongs to what we can do to genetically engineer and control microbes

  • Caplan: Microbes can make clean fuel, suck up carbon dioxide, clean fat out of arteries




Editor's note: Arthur Caplan is the Drs. William F and Virginia Connolly Mitty professor and director of the Division of Bioethics at New York University Langone Medical Center.


(CNN) -- So now we know -- there won't be a Neanderthal moving into your neighborhood.


Despite a lot of frenzied attention to the intentionally provocative suggestion by a renowned Harvard scientist that new genetic technology makes it possible to splice together a complete set of Neanderthal genes, find an adventurous surrogate mother and use cloning to gin up a Neanderthal baby -- it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.


Nor should it. But there are plenty of other things in the works involving genetic engineering that do merit serious ethical discussion at the national and international levels.



Arthur Caplan

Arthur Caplan



Some thought that the Harvard scientist, George Church, was getting ready to put out an ad seeking volunteer surrogate moms to bear a 35,000-year-old, long-extinct Neanderthal baby. Church had to walk his comments back and note that he was just speculating, not incubating.


Still cloning carries so much mystery and Hollywood glamour thanks to movies such as "Jurassic Park," "The Boys From Brazil" and "Never Let Me Go" that a two-day eruption of the pros and cons of making Neanderthals ensued. That was not necessary. It would be unethical to try and clone a Neanderthal baby.



Why? Because there is no obvious reason to do so. There is no pressing need or remarkable benefit to undertaking such a project. At best it might shed some light on the biology and behavior of a distant ancestor. At worst it would be nothing more than the ultimate reality television show exploitation: An "Octomom"-like surrogate raises a caveman child -- tune in next week to see what her new boyfriend thinks when she tells him that there is a tiny addition in her life and he carries a small club and a tiny piece of flint to sleep with him.


The downsides of trying to clone a Neanderthal include a good chance of killing it, producing a baby that is seriously deformed, producing a baby that lacks immunity to infectious diseases and foods that we have gotten used to, an inability to know what environment to create to permit the child to flourish and a complete lack of understanding of what sort of behavior is "normal" or "appropriate" for such a long-extinct cousin hominid of ours.


When weighed against the risks and the harm that most likely would be done, it would take a mighty big guarantee of benefit to justify this cloning experiment. I am willing to venture that the possible benefit will never, ever reach the point where this list of horrible likely downsides could be overcome.




Even justifying trying to resurrect a woolly mammoth, or a mastodon, or the dodo bird or any other extinct animal gets ethically thorny. How many failures would be acceptable to get one viable mastodon? Where would the animal live? What would we feed it? Who would protect it from poachers, gawkers and treasure hunters? It is not so simple to take a long dead species, make enough of them so they don't die of isolation and lack of social stimulation and then find an environment that is close enough and safe enough compared with that which they once roamed.


In any event the most interesting aspects of genetic engineering do not involve making humans or Neanderthals or mammoths. They involve ginning up microbes to do things that we really need doing such as making clean fuel, sucking up carbon dioxide, cleaning fat out of our arteries, giving us a lot more immunity to nasty bacteria and viruses and helping us make plastics and chemicals more efficiently and cheaply.


In trying to make these kinds of microbes, you can kill all you want without fear of ethical condemnation. And if the new bug does not like the environment in which it has to exist to live well, that will be just too darn bad.


The ethical challenge of this kind of synthetic biology is that it can be used by bad guys for bad purposes. Biological weapons can be ginned up and microbes created that only infect people with certain genes that commonly associate with racial or ethnic groups.


Rather than worry about what will happen to real estate values should a new crop of "Flintstones" move in down the street, our public officials, religious groups and ethicists need to get serious about how much regulation the genetic engineering of microbes needs, how can we detect what terrorists might try to use, what sort of controls do we need to prevent accidents and who is going to pay if a bug turns out to cause more harm than good.


We love to think that the key to tomorrow lies in what humanity can be designed or empowered to do. Thus, the fascination with human cloning. In reality, at least for a long time to come, the future belongs to what we can do to design and control microbes. That is admittedly duller, but it is far better to follow a story that is true than one such as Neanderthal cloning that is pure, speculative fantasy.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Arthur Caplan.






Read More..

Japan's inflation slips in 2012






TOKYO: Japan's inflation rate slipped 0.1 per cent in 2012, data showed Friday just days after the Bank of Japan set a new target to beat the deflation that has haunted the world's third-largest economy for years.

The figures marked the fourth straight annual price decline. The core index, which excludes volatile prices of fresh food, slipped 0.2 per cent in December alone, meeting the market's expectation.

Deflation is bad for the economy because it encourages consumers to put off spending in the belief their intended purchases will be cheaper in the future, softening demand and hurting producers and their own capital investment plans.

On Tuesday, Japan's central bank adopted a two-per cent inflation target and set out plans for indefinite monetary easing in a bid to turn the economy around, although analysts have been mixed on whether it would stoke growth.

Switching from an inflation "goal" to a more explicit "target" was driven by the "importance of flexibility in the conduct of monetary policy in Japan", the Bank of Japan said.

However, two of the nine BoJ policy board members voted against the new inflation target demanded by the country's hawkish new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who swept to power last month on a promise to heap pressure on the bank for more aggressive policy action as part of his plan to fix the long-suffering economy.

- AFP/fa



Read More..

N. Korea plans nuke test in U.S. threat


























Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military


Kim Jong Un and his military





<<


<





1




2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19



>


>>







STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • NEW: U.S. places sanctions on Korean financial entities

  • The U.S. secretary of defense says predicting a North Korean test is difficult

  • Pyongyang says it plans a new nuclear test and further long-range rocket launches

  • North Korea is upset by a recent U.N. Security Council resolution, an analyst says




Seoul, South Korea (CNN) -- North Korea said Thursday that it plans to carry out a new nuclear test and more long-range rocket launches, all of which it said are a part of a new phase of confrontation with the United States.


The North's National Defense Commission said the moves would feed into an "upcoming all-out action" that would target the United States, "the sworn enemy of the Korean people."


Carried by the state media, the comments are the latest defiant flourish from the reclusive North Korean regime, whose young leader, Kim Jong Un, has upheld his father's policy of pursuing a military deterrent and shrugging off international pressure.


U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Thursday there are no "outward indications" that North Korea is about to conduct a nuclear test, but he admitted it would be hard to determine that in advance.


"They have the capability, frankly, to conduct these tests in a way that makes it very difficult to determine whether or not they are doing it," he said in a Pentagon press conference.


"We are very concerned with North Korea's continuing provocative behavior," he said, but he added that the United States is "fully prepared" to deal with any provocations.


Read more: U.N. Security Council slams North Korea, expands sanctions


North Korea's statement prompted France and Great Britain to express exasperation with the secretive regime.


Britain's mission to the United Nations called on North Korean leaders to "refrain from further provocation." France said it "deplores" North Korea's statement, telling its leaders that they need not to threaten, but instead to work toward dismantling their nuclear and missile programs.


In addition to Panetta's statement, the United States responded by adding sanctions against more bank officials and a business linked to the regime's nuclear weapons program.


The Treasury Department announcement targets two Beijing-based representatives of Tanchon Commercial Bank and a company -- Leader (Hong Kong) International Trading Limited -- that the U.S. government says shipped machinery and equipment in support of North Korea's nuclear program.


The organizations are "part of the web of banks, front companies and government agencies that support North Korea's continued proliferation activities," said Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen.


"By continuing to expose these entities, and the individuals who assist them, we degrade North Korea's ability to use the international financial system for its illicit purposes," he said.


North Korea's statement followed a U.N. Security Council resolution approved Tuesday that the United States pushed for, condemning a recent rocket launch by North Korea and expanding existing sanctions.










Read more: North Korea silences doubters, raises fears with rocket launch


The statement "should have been the expected outcome" from the U.N. decision, said Daniel Pinkston, senior analyst for the International Crisis Group covering Northeast Asia.


"I think they are completely outraged and insulted by it," he said.


Read more: N. Korea's launch causes worries about nukes, Iran and the Pacific


North Korea, which often issues bellicose statements in its state media, said Thursday that it rejects all Security Council resolutions concerning it, describing the most recent resolution as "the most dangerous phase of the hostile policy" toward it.


Read more: U.S. official: North Korea likely deceived U.S., allies before launching rocket


Analyst: Threat meant as a deterrence


The threats toward the United States, a constant theme in the North's propaganda, have more to do with deterrence than a desire for full conflict, Pinkston said.


"I don't believe they have the capability, the intention or the will to invade or destroy the United States," he said. "They wish to deter interference from the U.S. or any outside powers."


Read more: North Korea's rocket launches cost $1.3 billion


North Korea's successful rocket launch last month nonetheless changed the strategic calculations for the United States, showing that the North's missile program is advancing despite an array of heavy sanctions imposed on it.


Analysts say it still has a lot of work to do to master the technology necessary to mount a nuclear warhead on a missile or accurately target it.


At the same time, Pyongyang has been hinting for a while that a new nuclear test could be in the cards.


Read more: South Korean officials: North Korean rocket could hit U.S. mainland


Just before the North sent out its latest hostile statement Thursday, a U.S. State Department official was telling reporters in Seoul that Washington hoped Pyongyang wouldn't go ahead.


"We think that that would be a mistake, obviously," said Glyn Davies, the U.S. special envoy on North Korea. "We call on North Korea, as does the entire international community, not to engage in any further provocations."


North Korea has carried out two previous nuclear tests, in 2006 and 2009, both of which were condemned by the United Nations.


Read more: Huge crowds gather in North Korean capital to celebrate rocket launch


Pyongyang didn't say Thursday when exactly it would carry out a third test, but it could happen "at any time," according to Pinkston.


He said it is hard for anybody outside the North Korean nuclear sector to know if the country is technically ready to carry out the test, but that politically, "it seems an appropriate time."


Demands unlikely to sway North


South Korean defense officials said last year that they believed the North was in a position to carry out a new test whenever leaders in Pyongyang gave the green light.


North Korea's nuclear program is "an element of threat to peace not only for Northeast Asia but also for the world," Park Soo-jin, deputy spokeswoman for the South Korean Unification Ministry, said Thursday.


"North Korea should immediately stop its nuclear test and other provocation and should choose a different path by cooperating with the international community," Park said.


That appears unlikely at this stage, though.


After a failed long-range rocket launch in April, North Korea ignored international condemnation and carried out a second attempt last month. That one succeeded in putting a satellite in orbit, Pyongyang's stated objective.


But the launch was widely considered to be a test of ballistic missile technology. And it remains unclear if the satellite, which the North insists is for peaceful purposes, is functional.


Both North Korea's previous nuclear tests took place weeks or months after long-range rocket launches.


Those tests were carried out under the rule Kim Jong Il, the deceased father of the current leader, and the man who channeled huge amounts of money into North Korea's nuclear and missile development programs.


Kim Jong Il died in December 2011 after 17 years in power, during which the North Korean people became increasingly impoverished and malnourished.


Economically, the country relies heavily on trade with its major ally, China.


On Tuesday, China's Foreign Ministry appealed for calm.


Spokesman Hong Lei urged North Korea and the West to "keep calm, remain cautious and refrain from any action that might escalate the situation in the region."


The U.S. Treasury Department on Thursday prohibited future transactions between Americans and two North Korean bankers and one financial service company the agency said support North Korea's nuclear program.


Read more: For the U.N. and North Korea: Game on


CNN's K.J. Kwon reported from Seoul, and Jethro Mullen from Hong Kong. CNN's David Hawley in Seoul contributed to this report.






Read More..

Battery expert: "I would not fly in a Dreamliner"

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - Investigators say they still don't know what caused batteries to burn in two Boeing 787 Dreamliners, and until they figure that out and how to fix the problem, none of the planes will be allowed to fly.

More than any other plane, the Dreamliner relies on lithium ion batteries to help power its advanced electrical system. They're lighter and more powerful than older battery types, but they contain a highly flammable liquid electrolyte.

U.S. officials defend handling of 787 mishaps
Boeing 787 probe turns to battery companies

Boeing plans to carry on with Dreamliner production

Federal investigators are examining the disassembled battery from the 787 that caught fire in Boston January 7, spewing molten electrolyte.

George Blomgren worked for Eveready, a batteries and flashlights company, for 40 years. He says lithium ion batteries are bundled together for the 787, and that increases the risk.

"These fires burn at very high temperatures, so they are just very dangerous fires," he said.


George Blomgren, a battery expert for Eveready

George Blomgren, a battery expert for Eveready


/

CBS News

The Boston fire, and the burned-out battery on a Dreamliner in Japan, is not the first time lithium ion batteries have caused problems.

In 2011, a Chevy Volt lithium ion battery was damaged in a crash test. Three weeks later, it burst into flames. Chevrolet installed a number of fixes to prevent fires.

Safety features also were added to lithium ion batteries in some cell phones and laptops after 56 million were recalled for risk of overheating and exploding.

Boeing says lithium ion batteries "best met the performance and design objectives of the 787" and "Based on everything we know at this point, we have not changed our evaluation."

Blomgren considers the safety of lithium ion batteries on planes questionable.

"From what I know about incidents, I would not fly in a Dreamliner tomorrow. I just wouldn't feel that it was appropriate or safe," Blomgren said.

Many experts believe in the promise of lithium ion batteries, including for airlines, but they just aren't sure its safety has been perfected.

Read More..

Will Women Register for Selective Service?


Jan 24, 2013 5:53pm







ap women combat nt 130124 wblog Will Women Register for Selective Service?


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta today lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions, opening the door to more than 200,000  new military posts and raising a number of important questions, including: Will women eventually be eligible for the draft?


By law, all male U.S. citizens and permanent residents must register with the Selective Service System within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Registration puts those “male persons” on the list the government uses if ever the draft returns and conscription in the military is deemed necessary in a time of war.


As of a 1994 review, women were still exempt from registering because they did not serve in combat positions. Today’s change in Pentagon policy, however, could ultimately result in a change to the law.


But it will take more than just the stroke of the defense secretary’s pen for the Selective Service Act to include mention of women.


With any change to personnel policies, the Defense Department  is “required to provide an analysis of its impact on the Selective Service Act,” said a senior Pentagon official said on the condition of anonymity.  “So that will be part of the notification to Congress.”


But what comes next is  unclear.


“With regard to what will happen from there, I can’t say,” said the official.


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta later admitted to reporters that he, too, did not know the potential impact of the change to the Selective Service Act.


“That’s not our operation,” said Panetta.


Known for his use of colorful language, Panetta then said, “I don’t know who the hell controls Selective Service, if you want to know the truth.”


“But, you know,” Panetta added. “Whoever does, they’re going to have to exercise some judgment based on what we just did.”


The Selective Service System is a federal agency independent of the Department of Defense.




SHOWS: World News







Read More..

Benghazi blame-game is useless



























































Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years





<<


<





1




2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25




26




27




28




29




30




31




32




33




34




35




36




37




38




39




40




41




42




43




44




45




46




47




48




49




50




51




52



>


>>







STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Anthony Cordesman: Questions for Hillary Clinton on Benghazi attack inevitable, important

  • But political blame game useless, a discouraging message to diplomats, military advisers, he says

  • He says in hindsight, warnings, pleas for support mistakenly make crisis seem obvious

  • Writer: U.S. must focus forward: encourage, support risk-takers doing crucial work in field




Editor's note: Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Follow CSIS on Twitter.


(CNN) -- Politics are politics, and partisan congressional challenges over the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, last September were inevitable.


But while some of the questions Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked in her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee bordered on politics at their worst, some represented democracy at its best: A legitimate challenge of how the government works. The fact is, we do need to ask serious questions about the way our diplomats function, how they are deployed and protected.


In her responses, Clinton took responsibility, as the top official in every department always must. The question now, however, is what, if anything, will we really learn from the events that led to the deaths of Stevens and his colleagues?



Anthony H. Cordesman

Anthony H. Cordesman



Do we actually learn something from their courage and sacrifice, and the similar experience of other American diplomats and officers that have faced similar attacks in the past? Or do we go on playing a pointless blame game, creating a climate that discourages our diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams and intelligence officers from taking necessary risks -- and relies even more on fortifying our embassies.


Three lessons here. The first: Virtually every post mortem that relies on the blame game has the same result. There is always someone who asked for more resources and warned of the risk before the event. There are always enough intelligence indicators so that once you go back -- knowing the pattern of actual events -- it becomes possible to predict the past with 20-20 hindsight.


The problem is that the post mortems and hearings tend to be useless. Every prudent security officer has always asked for more; the indicators that could provide warning with 20-20 hindsight will still be buried in a flood of other reporting that warns of crises that don't take place; U.S. officials will still have to deal with what intelligence experts call "noise" -- the vast amount of reporting and other data that make it impossible to sort out the right information until the event actually occurs and the patterns are known. All of this makes it hard to know what request or warning ever matters.


Opinion: Algeria hostage crisis shows jihadists on rise


Yes, intelligence and warning can always be improved if the post mortem is realistic and objective. But the resulting improvements will never be enough. No one will ever assess all the risks correctly, U.S. diplomats and other Americans will be vulnerable when they operate in a hostile environment, and risk-taking will remain inevitable.



The second lesson is that we cannot deal with crises like the political upheavals in the Arab world, or the more direct threats that countries like Iran and North Korea can pose, unless our diplomats and military advisers take risks -- and more casualties -- in the process.


Stevens and those around him did what had to be done. These are the teams that can help lead unstable countries towards democracy and stability. They are the crucial to our counterterrorism efforts in the field and to building up the military security capabilities of developing states. They are key to uniting given factions, creating effective governance, and persuading states to move toward development and greater concern for human rights.


They can only be effective if they are on the scene, work with the leaders and factions involved, and often go into harms way where there are terrorist and military threats. Like Stevens, they cannot wait for perfect security, stay in a safe area, or minimize risks and deal with the realities of Libya, filled with local power struggles, extremist elements and potential threats.


We need risk-takers. We need them in any country that is going through the kind of upheavals taking place in Libya, as well as in countries where our enemies operate, and semi-war zones like Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. We need diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams, and intelligence officers that reach far beyond our embassies and go into high risk zones. We need to reward and honor those risk-takers, not those who shelter in safety and avoid the risks they should take or fear their career will be damaged if anyone is killed or hurt.


Opinion: Algeria crisis is a wakeup call for America








The third lesson is that we do need to steadily strengthen our ability to provide secure mobility, better intelligence, better communications, and better protection for those diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams and intelligence officers. We need to be able to better provide emergency help to those American NGO personnel and businessmen who take similar risks.


We need both an administration and a Congress that look beyond the blame game and understand that some things are worth spending money on. We need them to understand that what we once called the Arab Spring is clearly going to be the Arab Decade, and we face different but equally real risks in the field in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.


It is far better -- and cheaper even, in the medium term -- to fund strong U.S. country teams, military advisers, counterterrorism teams and development efforts than to let nations collapse, to let extremists take over, to lose allies, and see American NGOs and businesses unable to operate.


We need to see what new methods and investments can protect our people in the field and reduce the risks they should be taking. The answer may be special communications, intelligence system, helicopters and armored vehicles, emergency response teams and new career security personnel to replace contractors and foreign nationals.


What the answer is not is partisan blame, risk avoidance, punishing those who do take risks for the result, and failing to make the improvements in security for risk takers -- while building larger fortress embassies. If you want to honor the Americans lost in the line of duty, focus on the future and not the past.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Anthony Cordesman






Read More..

Assange hits out at WikiLeaks movie






LONDON: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange hit out on Wednesday at a Hollywood film about his secret-spilling website, calling the movie "a massive propaganda attack".

Speaking to students at Britain's prestigious Oxford University by videolink from the Ecuadoran embassy in London, Assange revealed that he had acquired a copy of the script for "The Fifth Estate", due to be released in November.

"It is a lie upon lie. The movie is a massive propaganda attack on WikiLeaks and the character of my staff," the Australian Internet activist told the audience at the university's Oxford Union debating club.

Assange, 41, also blasted the movie for "fanning the flames" of war against Iran by implying that the Islamic republic was working on a nuclear bomb.

Reading from the script, he said the opening scene was set inside a military complex in Iran with documents containing nuclear symbols.

"How does this have anything to do with us?" Assange said from the embassy, where he has been holed up since June after claiming asylum in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces allegations of sex crimes.

DreamWorks Studios announced on Tuesday that it had begun shooting the WikiLeaks movie, which stars British actor Benedict Cumberbatch as Assange.

A photo released by the company showed Cumberbatch with lank hair dyed the same platinum shade as the WikiLeaks founder's, with German actor Daniel Bruehl standing beside him as former WikiLeaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

"'The Fifth Estate' traces the heady, early days of WikiLeaks, culminating in the release of a series of controversial and history changing information leaks," DreamWorks said, adding that the movie would open in the United States on November 15.

Director Bill Condon, who directed the final two instalments in the "Twilight" vampire saga, said the movie "won't claim any long view authority on its subject, or attempt any final judgement".

"We want to explore the complexities and challenges of transparency in the information age and, we hope, enliven and enrich the conversations WikiLeaks has already provoked," he said.

Ecuador granted asylum to Assange in August but Britain refuses to grant him safe passage out of the country, leaving the former computer hacker stuck inside the embassy.

Britain says it is obliged to see Assange extradited to Sweden. Assange denies the sex crime allegations, which he says are a politically-motivated attempt to see him sent to the United States and prosecuted.

WikiLeaks enraged the United States in 2010 by publishing hundreds of thousands of classified documents on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a huge cache of US diplomatic cables that embarrassed governments worldwide.

- AFP/jc



Read More..

Clinton angrily rejects GOP criticism on Benghazi






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • NEW: Secretary of state completes more than five hours of sometimes contentious hearings

  • Libya wanted to provide security, but lacked the capacity, Clinton said

  • "I take responsibility," Clinton tells Senate committee

  • Clinton's appearance before Congress was delayed due to health issues




Washington (CNN) -- At times angry and choked with emotion, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday took on Republican critics of her department's handling of the September terrorist attack in Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, but repeatedly distanced herself from a direct role in specific situations.


"As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility," Clinton told two long-anticipated congressional hearings examining the attack that became a major issue in the November presidential election.


Conservative Republicans challenged Clinton on the lack of security at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others were killed, as well as the erroneous account provided four days later by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice that the attack grew spontaneously from a protest over an anti-Islam film produced in the United States.












Sen. Ron Johnson, a tea party backed Wisconsin Republican serving his first term, persistently questioned Clinton on Wednesday morning about what he described as Rice "purposely misleading" the American people.


Security Clearance: Clinton lays out daunting security challenges in North Africa


"We were misled that there were supposedly protests and something sprang out of that, an assault sprang out of that and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact," Johnson said, adding that "the American people could have known that within days."


Shouting and gesturing with her arms in frustration, Clinton shot back: "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided they'd go kill some Americans?"


Her fists shaking, she continued: "What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator."


Another conservative, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, told Clinton she should have been fired for not reading cables from Stevens and others in Libya.


Later in the day, conservative GOP Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina accused Clinton of "national security malpractice" by letting the Benghazi consulate "become a death trap."


Duncan also questioned Clinton's claim of taking responsibility, noting she still had her job and the State Department officials cited for culpability by an independent review also remained on the payroll, though on forced leave pending possible further steps.


#whatdifferencedoesitmake: Clinton quote goes viral on Twitter


At both hearings, which together totaled more than five hours, Clinton acknowledged the "systemic breakdown" cited by an Accountability Review Board she appointed and noted she had accepted all 29 of its recommendations, adding her department was taking additional steps to increase security at U.S. diplomatic facilities around the world.


However, she also told both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee that she had no direct role in the handling of requests by Stevens and other diplomats for increased security that were denied, saying: "I didn't see those requests. They didn't come to me."


In reference to the erroneous talking points by Rice that were aired on September 16, Clinton told the Senate panel that she was focused at that time on ensuring the safety of U.S. personnel at other facilities where protests were taking place.


"I was pretty occupied about keeping our people safe, doing what needed to be done," Clinton said, adding "I wasn't involved in the talking points process."


Ticker: What Benghazi hearing could say about 2016 White House


At one point, Clinton attempted to wrap up the issue, saying: "If you wish to fault the administration, it's that we didn't have a clear picture, and we probably didn't do as clear a job explaining that we did not have a clear picture, until days later, creating what I think are legitimate questions."


The independent report from the review board said it did not find "that any individual U.S. government employee engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities" leading up to the attack. However, one State Department official resigned and three others were placed on administrative leave after the report was released in December.


One of the GOP's harshest critics of the administration over the Benghazi attack, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, called Clinton's testimony unsatisfactory.


He said her department had yet to fully disclose all e-mails and other communication from Stevens and others in Benghazi, noting the American people, including the family and loved ones of those killed, deserved full answers.


Critics also complain the assailants remain at large, and Clinton noted that "we continue to hunt the terrorists responsible for the attacks in Benghazi and are determined to bring them to justice."


She told Wednesday's hearings that the FBI is pursuing what she called "very positive leads."


In her opening statement to both panels, Clinton said the Benghazi attack didn't happen in a vacuum but was part of a "broader strategic challenge in North Africa and the wider region."


Clinton's Benghazi statement: 'Not just a matter of policy -- it's personal'


She defended her department's response, saying there was "timely" and "exceptional" coordination between the State Department and the Pentagon on the night of the attack


"No delays in decision making. No denials of support from Washington or from the military," Clinton said. The review panel's report "said our response saved American lives in real time -- and it did," she added.


Clinton also said she directed the response to the attack from the State Department that night and "stayed in close contact with officials from across our government and the Libyan government."


In addition, Clinton said she immediately took steps to beef up security at U.S. posts around the world and to implement the review panel's 29 recommendations.


Clinton made clear that the security situation in North Africa and the Middle East remained threatening in the wake of the Arab Spring upheaval, with longtime leaders ousted in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.


The fledgling Libyan leadership turned out to be unable to fulfill traditional security commitments to the U.S. diplomatic compound, she said.


"What I found with the Libyans was willingness but not capacity," she said.


Clinton also warned that weapons from Libya have turned up in Algeria and elsewhere, adding that "this Pandora's Box if you will" represented a major security threat.


"The Arab Spring has ushered in a time when al Qaeda is on the rise," she said. "The world in many ways is even more dangerous because we lack a central command [in al Qaeda] and have instead these nodes that are scattered throughout North Africa and other places."


Clinton expressed particular concern at events in Mali, where well-armed Tuareg militia, who had been working for former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, came home just as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) gravitated toward the area.


The size and topography of northern Mali, with its endless desert and caves, made for a long but necessary struggle, she said, adding that "we cannot permit northern Mali to become a safe haven."


Overall, she said, at least 20 U.S. diplomatic outposts "are under a serious threat environment as I speak to you."


Wednesday's committee appearances were some of the last acts for Clinton before she leaves her post as long planned, and Clinton showed a personal side in discussing what happened.


"For me, this is not just a matter of policy," she told the Senate panel. "It's personal."


In reference to the return of remains of the four slain Americans, Clinton said in a voice choked with emotion: "I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews. I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters."


Democrats on both panels made a point of praising Clinton's service and noted that House Republicans have voted to cut funding for diplomatic security. However, Republicans rejected any connection between budget resources and vulnerability at the Benghazi compound, citing a report by a State Department financial officer.


Clinton faces hearings with numbers on her side


The hearings provided Republicans with a final opportunity to question Clinton, considered a possible presidential contender in 2016, on camera before she leaves office. After the September attack, conservative Republicans focused on the issue to attack the Obama administration's handling of the Libyan revolution and the overall Arab Spring upheaval.


Several legislators made references on Wednesday to Clinton's possible political future, with Republican Steve Chabot of Ohio drawing a laugh from the secretary when he said: "I wish you the best in your future endeavors. Mostly."


Polls show strong public support for Clinton and her performance as secretary of state, with an ABC News/Washington Post survey released Wednesday showing 67% of respondents had a favorable impression of her.


Clinton was originally scheduled to testify last month but postponed her appearance as she was treated for illness, a concussion and a blood clot near her brain. The country's top diplomat returned to work just over two weeks ago.


Pentagon releases official timeline of Benghazi attack


CNN's Jake Tapper, Elise Labott, Tim Lister and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.






Read More..