PBN News

PBN News The official page of PBN News

Updated every day with top stories, videos, photos, blogs, special reports and political news .

US Senate Mulls Barriers to Closing GuantanamoCAPITOL HILL—The U.S. Senate is considering legislation that could make it...

US Senate Mulls Barriers to Closing Guantanamo

The U.S. Senate is considering legislation that could make it even tougher for President Barack Obama to fulfill a central pledge from his 2008 campaign: closing the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Senate began debate Wednesday on the National Defense Authorization Act, a policy bill that sets forth congressional guidance for all Pentagon spending and operations for 2016.

Championed by John McCain of Arizona, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the bill allows for closing Guantanamo – but only if the president submits a plan for doing so that both houses of Congress approve.

The NDAA also erects hurdles for transferring detainees out of the camp.

“President Obama has said from day one of his presidency that he wants to close Guantanamo, but 6½ years into his administration, the president has never provided a plan to do so,” McCain said.

“That plan would have to include a case-by-case determination on the disposition of each detainee at Guantanamo Bay. The plan would also have to address how the Defense Department would ensure the continued detention and intelligence collection from future combatants captured under the laws of war," he added.

Established by the former George W. Bush administration after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Guantanamo Bay facility once held nearly 800 enemy combatants captured in the war on terrorism. That number has dwindled to 122, and nearly half of those have been approved for transfer to other countries.

Harmful or indispensable?

Obama has long maintained the facility does more harm than good by staining America’s reputation on the world stage and serving as a recruiting tool for terrorist groups.

Republican backers of Guantanamo Bay said it is an indispensable tool for holding and interrogating America’s enemies, and note that some detainees released from the camp have again taken up arms against the United States.

The facility has spawned protracted political battles on Capitol Hill and legal battles that reached the Supreme Court. To this day, it serves as a dividing line on thorny questions surrounding national security, civil liberties, due process of law, the use of torture, and the lengths to which America can or should go to fight terrorism.

The White House has threatened a veto of the NDAA in its current form, objecting to budgetary provisions and other elements.

On Guantanamo, the administration said the bill would set back the effort to close the camp and infringe on executive branch prerogatives in handling individual detainee cases.

Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, echoed those concerns, saying parts of the bill would “take us backwards.”

“In the 2014 NDAA, the committee granted the secretary of defense more flexibility and streamlined authorities for overseas transfers of detainees,” Reed said. “Unfortunately, the bill before us today would undo that progress and reimpose restrictions.

“These backward-looking restrictions create an unnecessary roadblock for disposing of the 57 detainees currently at Guantanamo who have been approved for overseas transfer, most of whom were approved nearly five years ago," he said.

Carter's views

The man charged with carrying out the president’s policies – and abiding by laws Congress passes on Guantanamo Bay – is Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

At his Senate confirmation hearing this year, Carter acknowledged America’s need to hold terror suspects but did not say whether Guantanamo was best suited to do so.

“If not Gitmo, where are they going to be incarcerated?” Carter asked. “Because what’s plain as day is that they need to be incarcerated in a super-max [maximum security] type place.”

National security analysts say a politically divided Washington further complicates shuttering the camp.

“There is no question that closing Guantanamo before President Obama leaves office will be difficult, but it can still happen,” said Ken Gude at the Center for American Progress, a public policy research group in Washington.

“There is ample time this year, before any new restrictions are passed by Congress, to transfer a large number of detainees out of the prison – large enough so that we are talking about less than 50 that remain in Guantanamo, and once we get down to that size, the answers become much more realistic than when we are talking about more than 100," Gude said.

Location is issue

Gude noted that even if Guantanamo were closed, several dozen detainees deemed most dangerous to America would remain in U.S. custody.

“The choice is never [between] the U.S. getting rid of all detainees and holding no one," he said. "It’s whether or not the remaining detainees are located at Guantanamo or some other location.”

Congress did not act to close Guantanamo during the first two years of the Obama administration, when both houses were controlled by the president’s Democratic Party.

Now that Republicans control both chambers, Gude is especially doubtful that any proposal to close the camp will pass.

He said years of legislative resistance to the idea pointed to a pitfall that existed from the start of the detainee program, which diverged from traditional prisoner-of-war operations.

“The Bush administration removed all those detainees from the area in which they were captured and located them far away in Guantanamo, and created this entirely new construct [for holding prisoners],” Gude said.

“Both the Bush and the Obama administrations have had policies of trying to close Guantanamo now for almost a decade, and we can’t seem to do it.”

UN sex abuse scandal: Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announces new inquiryFaced with a growing uproar over the United Nat...

UN sex abuse scandal: Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announces new inquiry

Faced with a growing uproar over the United Nations’ handling of allegations of child sexual abuse by non-U.N. peacekeepers in the Central African Republic, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has suddenly scrambled to announce an “external, independent review” panel to examine that issue, along with “a broad range of systemic issues related to how the U.N. responds to serious information of this kind.”

Ban, who declared himself “deeply disturbed” by the situation, said on Wednesday his intent was “to ensure that the United Nations does not fail the victims of sexual abuse, especially when committed by those who are meant to protect them.”

In fact, Fox News has learned, Ban’s action was also urged on him two days earlier by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power, as U.N. member states dickered in committee over a resolution that criticized Ban for the “perceived lack of timely information” he had provided on the abuse issue and the “lack of protection of whistleblower” associated with the CAR incidents.

At the time of Ban’s announcement, U.S. and European diplomats were still offering up alternative wordings in committee to temper the harsher language.

Ban’s spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, told Fox News that “the need to set up such a review has been in discussion for a long time,” but the specific terms of reference of the inquiry and its membership were not revealed in Ban’s announcement, though he did specify it would look into “the treatment of the specific report of abuse in the Central African Republic.”

According to Dujarric, both the terms of reference and the membership of the probe will be revealed “as soon as possible” –a fairly clear indication that Ban’s sparse announcement was intended more as an initial fire-fighting gesture than a fully-planned response to the sex-abuse crisis.

Another way to look at it is that the U.N.’s top bureaucrat was trying to keep the explosive sex abuse issue from spinning further out of control, amid a gout of document leaks, finger-pointing and U.N. investigations criticized as focused on hushing up leakers than on protecting additional young and starving children in the war-torn CAR from rape, sodomy and other predatory offenses.

Moreover, the CAR controversy is only the latest crest in a swelling critique of the U.N.’s ability to protect the innocent from sex abuse where its blue-and-white flag is flying—a critique that includes a long-suppressed report of U.N.-appointed experts who have decried a “culture of impunity” in U.N. peacekeeping missions when it comes to such crimes.

The latest controversy has been further fueled by U.N. document leaks that raised the possibility of retaliatory collusion by the organization’s independent Ethics Officer; the head of its main independent internal watchdog, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS); the U.N.’s High Commissioner for Human Rights; and Ban’s top deputy against Anders Kompass, a senior U.N. human rights official who first brought the Central African Republic scandal into the daylight.

That interpretation was strenuously denied by one senior U.N. official, who requested anonymity, while for her part, the U.N. Ethics Officer, Joan Dubinsky, declined comment saying “I don’t believe it is appropriate to comment on leaked documents.”

U.N. spokesman Dujarric told Fox News that an investigation of Kompass by OIOS for “possible staff misconduct,” initiated in March, would nonetheless continue in parallel with the still-unformed inquiry panel. “Any relevant information of a broad systemic nature that will come out of that investigation will be considered by the review,” he declared.

Kompass has already been asked to resign at the behest of the U.N.’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein. He refused.

Kompass was then briefly suspended from his work—until a U.N. tribunal reversed the action-- in conjunction with his investigation by OIOS for passing on transcripts by U.N.-collected testimony from children who described their sexual abuse and exploitation by French and African peacekeepers in the chaos-shattered CAR in 2013 and 2014. The children were aged from 9 to 13.

The troops were from a multinational contingent that preceded the current U.N. peacekeeping mission in CAR—the U.N. forces took over in September 2015-- but were operating with U.N. Security Council approval.

Kompass got the U.N. report on the childrens’ testimony on July 15, 2014. He told a French diplomat about it roughly a week later, and in a written declaration has said he told his immediate superior in the U.N.’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) about his disclosure “shortly thereafter.”

Kompass has subsequently made no secret of the fact that he passed on the raw testimony to French military authorities by the end of that month, bypassing his own superiors, who said they discovered the action when French investigators approached the U.N. It was more than eight months later that he was asked to resign.

In a wave of claims and counter-claims, U.N. and French officials have each blamed the other for delays in investigating the allegations, but while the U.N. has claimed that it has cooperated fully, its interviewers only answered written questions from the French military probers.

The investigative waters were roiled even further with the publication of internal emails and documents that showed top U.N. officials, including Ethics Office head Dubinsky, along with OIOS head Carman LaPointe, Zaid, and Ban’s chef de cabinet, Susana Malcorra, grappling with how to cope with the Kompass actions.

The documents were published by a non-government organization named AIDS-Free World, as part of a campaign called Code Blue. The campaign calls for an “entirely independent, external Commission of Inquiry, with full access to the U.N. as well as subpoena power, to examine every facet of sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping operations” and an automatic end to diplomatic immunity for any U.N. official or peacekeeper accused of such abuse.

Among the documents were emails that summarized a meeting among the officials on the periphery of a March 19-20 Ban Ki-moon retreat in Turin, Italy, where they agreed to ask Kompass to “document the sequence of events that he believed supported” a claim to whistleblower status—a designation that ultimately is made by the Ethics Officer, independently of other U.N. branches.

Other emails document a dispute within OIOS over who would authorize Kompass’ investigation—a responsibility claimed by Lapointe personally.

The documents also underline a profound confusion among the officials about what they were even supposed to be discussing—for much of the conversation at least some of them believed they were discussing malfeasance in Mali.


According to a senior U.N. official, the internal discussions about Kompass and his case were no more than a routine sorting-out of the responsibilities involved in dealing with an employee who had already admitted his actions while simultaneously claiming protected whistleblower status for them.

In the U.N.’s case, establishing that status often involves notification of the established chain of command of perceived wrongdoing before going elsewhere with the information, which Kompass did not do.

At the same time, the official noted, OIOS’ investigations division is a “mess” that is rife with dissention and back-biting, which made its proper functioning nearly impossible.

For critics, however, the same documentation is proof that the ostensible independence of OIOS and the U.N. Ethics Office in investigating wrong-doing and protecting whistle-blowers is only a sham.

“The Code Blue documents show that Malcorra and others at the most senior levels of the UN were entirely indifferent to the welfare of little boys as young as nine years old being subjected to the most egregious sexual abuse,” argues Peter Gallo, a former OIOS investigator who left the organization in March.

“The very essence of whistleblower protection is to protect staff members from retaliatory actions by management, but in the UN, it is now clear that the Ethics Office and management are on the same side.”

“There should be a solid wall between these people,” Paula Donovan, co-founder of AIDS-Free World, told Fox News. “The regulations are very clear. They are supposed to be impartial.” And when they were joined by Zaid—Kompass’ boss—and his deputy “that was completely against the rules.”

Instead, she argued, the evidence points to the conclusion that they were “investigating the best way” to get rid of him.

(Unrelated to the Code Blue documents, another U.N. official, Miranda Brown, who worked directly under Kompass and was aware of his decisions, has charged that she was forced out of her job by means of an unwanted transfer to Fiji the day before she was scheduled to talk with OIOS investigators.)

The propriety of the meetings and emails concerning Kompass was also criticized by Robert Appleton, the former head of investigations for the U.N. Procurement Task Force, a special anti-corruption unit within OIOS that existed between 2006 and 2009.

The communications are “deeply troubling,” Appleton, a highly-regarded former U.S. prosecutor, told Fox News. “Their priorities appear to be quite skewed.”

Among other things, he said, during his tenure at OIOS, “we did not coordinate with the Ethics Office - -other than to recommend that they pursue whistleblower retaliation claims.”

In addition, “OIOS is independent for a reason,” Appleton asserted, “in part so that the process not only is, but appears to be, fair, objective and free of bias and influence.

“Investigations are conducted in confidence so as not to prejudice the process , prejudice the subject, or the outcome, and so as not to create a conflict with the administration that potentially needs to carry on with disciplinary processes following the investigation.”

The same questions of confidence are going to surround Secretary-General Ban’s newly announced “external independent review.”

A spokesman for the Code Blue campaigners, for example, “welcomed” the announcement and then added provisos, starting with “No member of existing U.N. staff should be appointed to investigate nor to act as the investigators’ secretariat,” and the notion that the broader the inquiry, the better.

To be credible, the spokesman added, the inquiry should include an examination of “top members of the Secretary-General’s own staff,” singling out by title Dubinsky, LaPointe and Malcorra.

But there should also be plenty of other grist for the panelists’ work, including a report that OIOS itself has promised to make public by mid-June, entitled an “Evaluation of protection against sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping operations.”

Based on recent U.N. experience, the news it brings is unlikely to be good.

Eight of ten Pakistan militants purportedly jailed for shooting teen activist Malala Yousafzai already free, report says...

Eight of ten Pakistan militants purportedly jailed for shooting teen activist Malala Yousafzai already free, report says

Eight of ten Taliban militants purportedly given lengthy prison sentences for the attempted murder of teenage activist Malala Yousafzai have already been released, according to a published report.

Britain's Daily Mirror, citing senior security sources inside Pakistan, reported Friday that the announced prison sentences for those deemed responsible for the October 2012 attack was "a tactic to get the media pressure away from the Malala case, because the whole world wanted convictions for the crime."

The trial had absolutely no credibility as nobody was there to witness it but a public prosecutor, a judge, the army and the accused," the source continued, adding that the eight were later "released quietly, to avoid a media fuss."

Malala, who gained international attention by blogging about her experiences growing up under militant rule in Pakistan's remote Swat Valley, was shot in the head on her school bus by members of the Pakistani Taliban in retaliation for her calls for education for women and girls.

The then-14-year-old was originally treated in Pakistan by visiting British doctors before being flown to Birmingham, England, where she still lives with her family. Malala was awarded the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts.

According to the Mirror, when its reporter contacted the chief of police in the Swat Valley, the official confirmed the source's account, saying "two were convicted and eight acquitted." The Pakistan High Commission in London also confirmed that eight of the accused were convicted due to lack of "adequate evidence."

Pakistan authorities said this past September that they had arrested ten people in connection with Malala's attempted murder. Then, on April 30, a public prosecutor announced that all ten had been found guilty and given sentences of at least 25 years in jail. The prosecutor, Sayed Naeem, said the court had heard the case at an undisclosed location due to security reasons.

None of the men accused of taking part in the attempt on Malala's life are believed to have been the militants who boarded the school bus and pulled the trigger. The Mirror reports that those responsible for that are believed to have fled to neighboring Afghanistan, where they remain at large.


San Jose, CA


Be the first to know and let us send you an email when PBN News posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to PBN News:


Nearby media companies

Other Media/News Companies in San Jose

Show All