Amplify’d from gawker.com

The Harrowing Tale of an Amtrak Train Stuck on the Rails for 10 Hours

A train from Baltimore to Philadelphia stalled on the tracks for ten hours last night. With doors locked and electricity waning, passengers cried and fought for emergency rations. A local news reporter happened to be on board, and tweeted it.

D.C. reporter Stephen Tschida, of ABC affiliate WJLA-TV, was on the train as rations fell short, cold set in, and passengers swelled into an anarchic mob. As @ABC7Stephen, he chronicled it all, 140 characters at a time. Here is our brave correspondent's story, unabridged and arranged chronologically:

Politico's Ben Smith called the ordeal "the Donner Party of Amtrak." 12/16/10-12/17/10: Never Forget. [@ABC7Stephen, Atlantic Wire, image via AP] Send an email to Maureen O'Connor, the author of this post, at maureen@gawker.com. Read more at gawker.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/ipi2

Amplify’d from gawker.com

Today in Horrible Things: The Railroad Overpass

Three young men aged 15, 17, and 27 were hanging out at their usual spot, a railroad overpass in Commerce, California. They heard a train coming, so they moved to the opposite tracks. They didn't hear the other train coming.

So these guys, just regular guys who used to hang out on the railroad overpass and tag things and smoke weed or whatever, moved onto the opposite tracks, "but the roar of the freight train may have masked the sound of an Amtrak passenger train approaching in the opposite direction. And with their backs to the Amtrak train, police said, they probably didn't see it barreling their way."

All three died in the accident. Here's what Yesenia Rosales, the mother of 15 year-old Tony Sandoval, told the LA Times about her deceased son:

She said he had been a troublemaker since he was young and had in recent years been in and out of juvenile hall for vandalism and underage drinking. "Was he heading in the right direction?" she asked. "No." ... Rosales said she too had been in trouble with the law and that she struggles with addiction. "It's like, what you see is what you do," she said. "He probably thought, 'Well, my mom did it, so why can't I do it?' "

[LAT. Pic: pheanix]

Contact information for this author is not available. Read more at gawker.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/iphz

Israeli expert: Israel can't defeat Hezbollah

Amplify’d from news.yahoo.com

Israel can't defeat Hezbollah: Israeli expert

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israel cannot defeat Hezbollah in a direct engagement and the Lebanese guerrilla group would inflict heavy damage on the Israeli home front if war broke out, a former Israeli national security adviser said Thursday. Though outnumbered and outgunned, Hezbollah held off Israel's advanced armed forces in a 2006 war and fired more than 4,000 rockets into Israeli territory. The group has a domestic political base and has since bolstered an arsenal that Israel describes as a strategic threat. Tensions between Israel and Hezbollah's Iranian and Syrian backers have stoked expectations of renewed violence in Lebanon. "Israel does not know how to beat Hezbollah," said Giora Eiland, an army ex-general who served as national security adviser to former prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. "Therefore a war waged only as Israel-versus-Hezbollah might yield better damage on Hezbollah, but Hezbollah would inflict far worse damage on the Israeli homefront than it did 4-1/2 years ago," he told Israel Radio. Echoing serving Israeli officials, Eiland said: "Our only way of preventing the next war, and of winning if it happens anyway, is for it to be clear to everyone ... that another war between us and Hezbollah will be a war between Israel and the state of Lebanon and will wreak destruction on the state of Lebanon. "And as no one -- including Hezbollah, the Syrians or the Iranians -- is interested in this, this is the best way of creating effective deterrence." Except for a deadly August skirmish between Israeli forces and the regular Lebanese army, the border has been mostly quiet. But Israelis have been watching for signs that Hezbollah, should it be named in an impending U.N. indictment over the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, will push back by consolidating power in Beirut. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has argued that Hezbollah's role in governing Lebanon would make the country fair game in any future war involving the Shiite militia. Eiland said such a scenario would have "the entire world crying out for a ceasefire within two days," which would be more in the Israeli interest "than having to deal directly with every one of (Hezbollah's estimated) 40,000 rockets." (Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by Michael Roddy)

Play Video Mideast Video:Hamas: Will never recognize Israel Reuters Play Video Mideast Video:Israeli army keeps Palestinian factory running AFP Play Video Mideast Video:Group claim police targeting Palestinian minors Reuters Read more at news.yahoo.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/iphq

Amplify’d from www.haaretz.com

Israel shoots down 'suspicious flying object' near Dimona nuclear reactor

IDF spokesperson says IAF warplane shot down the object, probably a balloon, in south; official says it flew over the Dimona nuclear reactor, a no-fly zone.

By Reuters

An Israel Air Force warplane on Thursday shot down an apparently unmanned balloon that flew over the Dimona nuclear reactor, a security official said.

"It definitely flew over Dimona, although we are still trying to determine what that entailed and the military is now handling the matter," the official said.

An IDF spokeswoman said an Israeli warplane "shot down a suspicious flying object, probably a balloon, in southern Israel". Israeli media reports said the balloon was unmanned but powered by an engine.

Airspace over the reactor, where Israel is believed to have built more than 200 nuclear warheads, is a no-fly zone.

Last October, IDF warplanes intercepted an Israeli ultralight aircraft that accidentally flew into the area and forced it to land at an airstrip in southern Israel.

During the 1967 Middle East war, an Israeli surface-to-air missile downed a crippled Israeli fighter-bomber that strayed into the restricted zone. Its pilot was killed.

The nuclear power plant in Dimona. Read more at www.haaretz.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/ipho

Amplify’d from www.reuters.com

UPDATE 1-U.S. missile-defense test fails over Pacific

* Test was a repeat of a failed exercise in January

* No preliminary explanation of failure provided

* System is sole US defense against long-range missiles (Updates throughout, adds companies involved)

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON, Dec 15 (Reuters) - A test of the sole U.S. defense against long-range ballistic missiles failed on Wednesday, the second failure in a row involving the system managed by Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), the Defense Department said. "The Missile Defense Agency was unable to achieve a planned intercept of a ballistic missile target during a test over the Pacific Ocean today," Richard Lehner, an agency spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement. No preliminary explanation of the failure was provided. The miss brought the so-called ground-based midcourse defense's batting record to eight intercepts out of 15 tries, as reckoned by the Missile Defense Agency. "This is a tremendous setback for the testing of this complicated system," Riki Ellison, head of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, a booster group, said in a statement. He said it raised troubling questions about the reliability of the 30 or so interceptor missiles deployed in silos in Alaska and California. The test was a repeat of a Jan. 31 exercise in which an advanced sea-based radar had not performed as expected. In the test on Wednesday, an intermediate-range ballistic missile target flew successfully from a test site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, as did a long-range interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, the agency said. The sea-based X-Band radar and all sensors performed as planned, and the interceptor successfully deployed a "kill vehicle" designed to collide with the target, the statement said. It said officials will conduct an extensive investigation to pin down the cause of the failure to intercept. The next flight test will be determined after the failure's cause is identified, it added. A Boeing spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a reqeust for comment. The multibillion-dollar ground-based bulwark is designed to shoot down a limited number of long-range ballistic missiles that could be tipped with chemical, biological or nuclear warheads. The system is part of a layered hedge against countries such as North Korea and Iran. It networks systems on land, at sea and sensors in space and is meant to counter ballistic missiles of all ranges. The United States has spent more than $10 billion a year on a range of missile defense programs in recent years. In October, a converted Boeing 747 jumbo jet equipped with a chemical laser failed to knock out a target ballistic missile over the Pacific, marking that system's second such failed intercept test in a row. The flying laser has been scaled back to a kind of science experiment, no longer a development program aimed at eventual deployment. Boeing's chief subcontractors on the ground-based midcourse defense include Raytheon Co (RTN.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Orbital Sciences Corp (ORB.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz). A team led by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Raytheon is competing to oust Boeing next year and take over continued development, manufacturing, test, training, operations support and sustainment of the ground-based defense. The contract is worth about $4.2 billion over seven years. (Reporting by Jim Wolf; Editing by Cynthia Osterman) Read more at www.reuters.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/iphl

Amplify’d from www.reuters.com

Washington subway police to begin random bag checks

WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Officers will start random bag inspections on the sprawling Washington subway system, the Washington Metro Transit Police said on Thursday, a week after a man was arrested for making bomb threats to the rail system.

Metrorail police officers plan to randomly select bags before passengers enter subway stations and they will swab them or have an explosives-sniffing dog check the bags, according to the Metro police.

There is "no specific or credible threat to the system at this time," Metro said in a statement. Passengers who refuse to have their bags inspected will be denied entry into the subway system.

"The program will increase visible methods of protecting our passengers and employees, while minimizing inconvenience to riders," Metro Transit Police Chief Michael Taborn said in a statement announcing the new checks.

The decision to launch the new security checks, similar to programs in New York and Boston, comes after two people were arrested in recent months, accused separately of threatening to explode bombs in the Washington subway system.

The Washington Metro system consists of five separate rail lines with 86 stations that stretch from Maryland through the capital city and into Virginia. Passengers have made some 217 million trips through the system so far this year, Metro said.

A Virginia man was arrested last week for allegedly making threats to use explosives in the Washington area including the subway.

Two months earlier, another Virginia man was arrested in a sting operation, accused of trying to help who he thought were al Qaeda militants bomb Metrorail stations.

U.S. security officials have been increasingly worried about terrorism plots being launched in the United States, particularly by individuals who have no direct affiliation with militant groups but sympathize with their causes and have adopted their ideologies.

(Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky; editing by Mohammad Zargham) Read more at www.reuters.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/iphe

Spanish Researchers Want to Tag Human Embryos With Bar Codes

Amplify’d from www.foxnews.com

Spanish Researchers Want to Tag Human Embryos With Bar Codes

By Loren Grush

Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona

In futuristic movies like "Aliens 2" and "12 Monkeys," prisoners are bar coded for easy identification. But today's reality is even wilder: Scientists have proposed bar-coding embryos.

Researchers from the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona in Spain have just finished testing a method for imprinting microscopic bar codes on mouse embryos -- a procedure they plan to test soon on humans. The venture is meant to avoid mismatches during in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer procedures. But privacy experts and children's rights advocates were instantly concerned by the concept of "direct labeling" of embryos, calling for transparency in the process.

“An embryo is a human life, so we have to move forward with this very, very cautiously,” Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum, told FoxNews.com. “Obviously we can’t ask the embryo what it wants, so the individual making the donation must consent to this as well as the individual receiving the donation. There’s got to be a lot of public discussion.”

The researchers insist that their technique is perfectly safe, claiming that the bar codes simply evaporate as the embryo develops into a fetus. Dr. Arthur Caplan, the director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said that as long as development is not affected, any improvement on embryo transfer would be extremely beneficial -- since mistakes can be heartbreaking.

“When you’re talking about mismatch, those kinds of errors are psychologically and emotionally devastating,” Caplan told FoxNews.com. “You have parents who want to reject the child saying that the child clearly isn’t the same race as they are. There’s also a danger that the donor may change their mind and want to get involved in parenting. People really want that biological connection. So I think this is a terrific idea to reduce those difficulties.”

The bar codes aren't hidden or concealed -- in fact, they're easily observed through a standard microscope, and the research team hopes to develop an automatic code reading system when they perfect their technique for labeling mouse embryos.

And once that’s done, testing on human embryos will begin.

“We’re very enthusiastic about it,” said Elena Ibáñez, one of the researchers for the project -- a collaboration with researchers from the Institute of Microelectronics of Barcelona and the Spanish National Research Council. “It’s something that if it works out, it could be extremely helpful for embryologists. Right now, fertility clinics are simply labeling the Petri dish. We’re just making an improvement on that system,” she told FoxNews.com.

The process involves injecting the bar codes, made from silicon, in the perivitelline space of embryos, the space between an embryo’s cell membrane and its protective outer cover, known as the zona pellucida. When the embryo attaches to the uterine wall, it frees itself from the zona pellucida, and the codes are meant to disappear right along with it, the researchers say.

This final stage has proven to be the most difficult for the researchers to polish, however; they’d like to find a more efficient means of “stamping” the embryos.

“We see in the mice that some of the codes get attached to the embryo itself,” said Ibáñez. “So one of the things we’re trying next is to implant the code directly on the outside cover rather than inside of it. That way we’ll be 100 percent sure that the code doesn’t remain.”

If the research team wants to be able to make the leap from mice to humans, they'll need to be certain that the code detaches. Dixon says that it would be a definite invasion of privacy if there were any indication that that the bar code would remain. She urged researchers to explore alternative means of identification before moving forward with this technique.

“The outcome of this isn’t necessarily going to be positive,” Dixon told FoxNews.com. “Just because it’s an advanced technology doesn’t mean it’s going to make things mistake-proof. I think there are other alternatives that are less invasive that can provide the same function. Plus I can see many women who would not wanted to be implanted with a bar-coded embryo.”

But Ibáñez assures that the procedure is perfectly safe and that no one should feel apprehensive about utilizing the new system.

“If there’s any concern that this could harm the embryo, remember that the silicon we use is completely harmless,” said Ibáñez. “The embryos develop normally and once we’ve perfected everything, they will lose the code after implantation," she told FoxNews.com.

"So you won’t be producing a baby with code on it,” she said.

Most Active Most Read Most Commented Most Read Google Expands to a New Frontier: The Human Body December 17, 2010 Beam Me Up: 'Teleportation' Is Year's Biggest Breakthrough December 17, 2010 One of the World's Biggest Telescopes Is Buried Beneath the South Pole December 17, 2010 Porn Company Creates Interactive Sex Game for Microsoft Kinect December 16, 2010 8,270-Year-Old Skeletons Found in Argentina December 17, 2010 Most Commented Hackers Target WikiLeaks 'Enemies': Mastercard, Twitter, Paypal, Even FoxNews.com Government OKs Controversial Research Into Artificial Life Forms Navy Goes for World Record With Incredible, Sci-Fi Weapon - FoxNews.com The Death of the Hard Drive WikiLeaks Supporters Launch Cyber Attack on Amazon Read more at www.foxnews.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/iph9

Science of man-made life can proceed: White House

Amplify’d from www.breitbart.com

Science of man-made life can proceed: White House

This undated handout illustration shows the DNA double helix. The White Hou...

The White House on Thursday said the controversial field of synthetic biology, or manipulating the DNA of organisms to forge new life forms, poses limited risks and should be allowed to proceed. An expert panel convened by President Barack Obama advised vigilance and self-regulation as scientists seeks ways to create new organisms that could spark useful innovations in clean energy, pollution control and medicine. The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues "concluded that synthetic biology is capable of significant but limited achievements posing limited risks," it said in its first report. "Future developments may raise further objections, but the Commission found no reason to endorse additional federal regulations or a moratorium on work in this field at this time." The panel was created by Obama last year. Its first order of business was to consider the issue of synthetic biology after the J. Craig Venter Institute announced in May it had developed the first self-replicating bacteria cell controlled by a synthetic genome. Critics said the discovery was tantamount to "playing God," creating organisms without adequate understanding the ramifications, and upsetting the natural order. Announcing the creation of the "first synthetic cell," lead researcher Craig Venter said at the time it "certainly changed my views of the definitions of life and how life works." But the commission said Venter's team had not actually created life, since the work mainly involved altering an already existing life form. "Thoughtful deliberation about the meaning of this achievement was impossible in the hours that elapsed between the breaking news and the initial round of commentaries that ensued," it said in its report. "Of note, many scientists observe that this achievement is not tantamount to 'creating life' in a scientific sense because the research required a functioning, naturally occurring host cell to accept the synthesized genome." Read more at www.breitbart.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/ipg2

Amplify’d from www.wnd.com

Warning: Obamacare gives feds 'state police power'

'There is no power in the Constitution the federal government can regulate decisions'

By Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily

There simply is no authority in the U.S. Constitution that allows bureaucrats in Washington to regulate "decisions," according to arguments that challenge the legality of Obamacare and have been handed in to a federal appeals court.

They also warn affirmation of the law would give the federal government what amounts to "state police power."

"Contrary to the district court's decision, there is no enumerated power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to mandate that plaintiffs and other American 'residents' purchase health-care coverage or face a penalty," said the brief submitted by the Thomas More Law Center to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeal is from a decision by Judge George Steeh to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the law center and several individuals challenging Obamacare as going far beyond what authority the government actually has.

The appeal said, "No matter how convinced defendants – or even the American public in general – may be that the Healthcare Reform Act is in the public interest, their political objectives can only be accomplished in according with the Constitution."

Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

Obama's plan, which effectively nationalizes health-care decision-making, "represents an unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of all Americas, including plaintiffs, by imposing unprecedented governmental mandates that restrict their personal and economic freedoms."

The case is among the first in a series of cases headed for the appellate level on the dispute that most expect ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Another district judge has agreed with Steeh, but just days ago another judge in Virginia ruled that the "individual mandate" – the plan's requirement that every person must buy the government-approved insurance or be penalized, is unconstitutional.

Those disputes also are heading for the appellate level, and even as these challenges were being presented to the 6th Circuit court, attorneys were arguing in Florida in another lawsuit, by 20 states, that Obamacare is unconstitutional.

TMLC said it is asking the appeals court to reverse Steeh's ruling.

"While the court below recognized that the Individual Mandate is unprecedented in that it penalizes the mere status of being uninsured (in fact, it punishes the mere status of 'being'), the lower court took it upon itself to extend the Supreme Court's extant Commerce Clause jurisprudence beyond its current limits of commercial or economic activity," the center argued, "the lower court has created a new kind of Commerce Clause power not previously known to the jurisprudence, which effectively grants the federal government state police power, thereby rendering any notion of the constitutionally mandated federalism dead..."

"We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men," said Robert Muise, senior trial counsel who is handling the case.

The results of the dispute will, the center warned, "forever impact the fundamental relationship between the power of the federal government and the liberty interests of those it governs. … At its core, it is about the constitutional limits of the federal government," the brief states.

"When Congress acts beyond those limits, as here, the judicial branch must exercise its authority as the guardian of our Constitution and enjoin the illicit acts," the brief suggested. "For the first time in our history, Congress has cited the Commerce Clause as authority to regulate a man or woman sitting in the privacy of his or her own home doing absolutely nothing but 'living' and 'breathing.'

"The court obviously and necessarily ignores the pregnant question raised in plaintiffs' arguments below: if the federal government has the authority to require Americans to purchase health insurance, it has the power … to require the same citizenry to act in specifically defined ways to safeguard their health in the first instance. Thus, the federal government could mandate that we all join a health club and indeed impose a penalty for not actually attending the club, to take multi-vitamins daily, and to dine only in government-approved 'health' restaurants," the arguments say.

Joining in support of the arguments was the American Center for Law and Justice.

"Without question, the individual mandate provision violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ. "A federal district court in Virginia this week understood that the key provision in Obamacare is constitutionally flawed and is beyond the scope of Congress's authority. It's our hope that the federal appeals court in this Michigan case reaches that same conclusion."

Its amicus brief contends the Commerce Clause "authorizes Congress to regulate economic activity, not economic decisions."

"As such, the Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to regulate the inactivity of American citizens by requiring them to buy a good or service (such as health insurance) as a condition of their lawful residence in this country. Because the individual mandate provision of the PPACA requires citizens to purchase health insurance or be penalized, the PPACA exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause."

The legal challenges are far from the only resistance to Obamacare. WND has reported that one legislative proposal in Texas calls for jail time for enforcing Obamacare.

A bill that has been prefiled for the 2011 state legislative session creates penalties of up to $5,000 in fines and up to five years in jail for anyone guilty of the "felony" of attempting "to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation" of Obamacare, the president's plan that effectively nationalizes the health-care decision making process.

The plan by Texas Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, effectively would nullify the federal health care legislation in his state.

An analysis of the issue by Michael Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center explains that there already is a widespread dissatisfaction across the United States from the mandates of Obamacare.

"The passage of the health care act opened the eyes of many previously apathetic citizens, making them aware of the rapidly expanding scope and influence of the federal government and its intrusiveness into their everyday lives," he explained.

"They intuitively understand that requiring them to purchase health insurance falls far beyond the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Suddenly awake and alarmed by the fact that the federal government has grown so far out of control, and frustrated by what they see as the lack of responsiveness by politicians in D.C., many Americans find themselves looking for answers," he said.

He noted there are dozens of claims and lawsuits challenging Obamacare.

Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, said under the Constitution and a historic understanding of the rights and responsibilities of states, Berman's plan is reasonable.

"There is nothing more extreme than having a federal government that refuses to abide by the laws that we the people of the several states delegated to it in the Constitution," he said. "The important point here is that it's up to the people of each state to determine what the best response may be.

"One state, as Wyoming did with its Firearms Freedom Act, may decide that penalties on federal agents is the rightful response. Another, such as California with medical marijuana, may choose to create an environment conducive to non-compliance by masses of people. Either way – or somewhere in between – that's the beauty of the American system. We can have widely varying actions, responses and viewpoints in different states while all living together in peace. One-size-fits-all solutions are actually the problem, and state-by-state decision-making is the natural response," he said.

A year ago, Wyoming adopted legislation pioneered in the state of Montana that exempts guns made, sold and kept in the state from any federal regulations. Then lawmakers attached a penalty of up to two years in jail or $2,000 in fines for "federal agents" who would try to enforce regulations that violate state law.

Judge Henry Hudson's decision rejecting Obamacare's individual mandate said, "A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme."

And he warned, "The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers." Read more at www.wnd.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/ipfo

Analysts fear START doc holds something prez wants concealed

Amplify’d from www.wnd.com

Analysts fear START doc holds something prez wants concealed

Obama's urgent treaty push called 'contempt of Congress'

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev

Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND. Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.

Concern is mounting among experts in the arena of international treaties that the Obama administration is forcing U.S. senators to ram through a new strategic arms reduction document with the Russians without fully understanding the implications or its provisions – described by critics as unverifiable, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

"(President Barack Obama's) demand that senators approve this defective accord during the few days remaining in the lame-duck session amounts to contempt of Congress," said Frank Gaffney who is president of the Center for Security Policy. "It must not be tolerated, let alone rewarded."

Critics say the treaty could "restrict" the nation's ability to defend itself, and suggest that there may be provisions Obama doesn't want members of the Senate to analyze, and possibly oppose.

Gaffney, a former acting assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, is versed in START treaties; he was involved in arms reduction negotiations during the Reagan administration.

He claims that senators have not had time to review the extensive negotiating record which reflected Russian opposition to U.S. positions while the administration decided to push for its approval anyway.

He and other critics claim that the treaty sets up a Bilateral Consultative Commission that will affect the treaty's terms materially – and make those changes without giving the Senate its constitutionally outlined advise and consent process.

The Senate requires a two-thirds vote, or approval by 67 members, before it is ratified.

Now, the Senate leadership has announced that it will hold a weekend session in an effort to ratify the treaty.

But critics are alarmed the treaty draft establishes a relationship between missile offense and missile defense, and as the U.S. shrinks its inventory of strategic nuclear weapons, it presents less latitude to beef up U.S. defenses against potential missile attacks not just from the Russians but other countries as well.

Critics are concerned that limitations in this treaty will preclude bolstering missile defenses against such countries as North Korea and Iran which are developing their own intercontinental ballistic missiles that soon could reach the U.S.

The net effect of any changes that could occur without U.S. approval would restrict U.S. missile defenses and make other reductions in U.S. nuclear deterrent forces, Gaffney said.

Other former leaders from the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, along with top nuclear weapons and arms control experts, oppose the new START.

In a Dec. 13 letter to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, they raised objections to consideration of START, especially in a lame-duck session, given all of the issues that still persist with the treaty draft.

"It is our considered professional judgment that this treaty and the larger disarmament agenda which ratification would endorse are not consistent with the national security interests of the United States, and that both should be rejected by the Senate," they wrote.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

For the complete report and full immediate access to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, subscribe now. Read more at www.wnd.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/ipea