North Korean Threat Not So Imminent?

By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service.

Analysts for the Brookings Institution gathered to assess the North Korean threat on America and its allies in reaction to N.Korea's recent underground nuclear bomb detonation and the launch of two short-range missiles.

The think tank was pressed into discussing the matter following North-Korea’s acceleration in its military activity.

Pyongyang had already caught the international community’s attention in October 2007 by unsuccessfully testing a nuclear weapon.

However the threat posed by the North Asian state has reached new heights after N.Korea announced that it had conducted underground nuclear tests on Monday, followed by two short-range missiles (a ground-to-ship missile and a ground-to-air missile) launched from an east-coast base on Tuesday.

Michael O’Hanlon, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution warned that although “Their options are limited,” threats must be taken seriously, they must be mitigated.

Richard Bush, a Senior Fellow and Director for the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, confirmed that “They have a problem though, and that is that deterrence is not yet credible; their missiles don’t fly far enough and accurately enough, the weapons design is not yet perfect and so they need to test, that's the only way they can demonstrate to others that they have the capability to inflict harm on the United States and on Japan.”

If the production of the missiles is one leap closer to achieving significant nuclear capabilities, O’Hanlon explained that “The real issue is the size of the weapon and how deliverable it would be by the North Koreans, if they were to choose to deliver it some day.”

Additionally, “[The missile] has to survive the stresses of missile flight, which are no trivial,” said O’Hanlon.

However, according to the analysts, this does not mean that a threat is nonexistent but rather that the U.S should not be concerned by missiles coming from North Korea directly.

O’Hanlon said “I would say the most worrisome question is the sale of nuclear material because if they attack South Korea, their regime will end.”

O’Hanlon concluded that “The only thing they can plausibly get way with is the sale.”

Tortured On The Order Of U.S. Government

By Kayleigh Harvey - Talk Radio News Service

If you were being tortured, both physically and mentally to the point of near-death, if your wife had been threatened with rape and your family with abuse would you sign a statement admitting to criminal offenses that you did not commit?

This may be the situation with Naji Hamdan, 47, a U.S. citizen, who claims that he admitted to perpetrating terror related crimes whilst under torture.

“[Hamdan] was placed in a blindingly white room, where he was unable to differentiate the day from the night for three months. In the room the AC was constantly on full-blast and Naji was denied a blanket or even a jacket to keep warm. For the three months that Naji was in state security custody the U.A.E. interrogators would alternate between placing him in solitary confinement for weeks at a time and taking him out blind-folded and handcuffed and torturing him,” said Reem Salahi, Hamdan’s lawyer from ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union).

According to Salahi the only evidence against Hamdan that the U.A.E. will present are confessions to crimes signed under torture.

Hamdan who lived for 20-years in Southern California, moved to the United Arab Emirates to expand his business in 2008. Today he faces life imprisonment under U.A.E. law for terror related crimes.

The FBI first investigated Hamdan in 1999, when he was placed under surveillance and taken in for questioning. Hamdan was never charged for any crime, but his lawyers say he was unfairly questioned because he is a Muslim activist.

In August 2008, after visiting family in Lebanon, Hamdan was taken and detained by U.A.E. security forces for three months. Salahi said “During that time he was interrogated about the years he spent in the U.S. and about information only U.S. federal agents would have. He was tortured severely. At least one American official participated in his interrogation and witnessed his torture,” Salahi said.

Salahi accuses the American government of allowing the U.A.E. to detain and interrogate Hamdan “knowing he would be subject to torture.”

In November 2008, the ACLU filed a habeas petition in the D.C. District Court alleging that the U.S. government was responsible for his improper detention and subjection to torture. One week after filing the petition Hamdan was charged in the U.A.E with “terror related crimes, based on nothing more than his forced confessions,” Salahi said.

On November 26, 2008 Hamdan was transferred to the U.A.E. criminal custody, a normal prison, where he was able to speak to family and legal representatives for the first time in three months since being detained. Salahi said, “the timing of this transfer is most certainly not coincidence, but a clear attempt of the U.S. government to avoid the reach of our lawsuit.”

Salahi added, “Naji Hamdan is a victim of the U.S. government’s policy and practice under the Bush administration, of requesting a foreign government to arrest and detain terrorism suspects, who we cannot arrest and detain ourselves under our laws.”

Salahi accused the American government of “asking another government to do its dirty work.”

Hamdan’s case will be heard in the U.A.E Supreme Court and no appeal following the decision will be granted.

Salahi is currently in Washington D.C. talking to Member’s of Congress about Hamdan’s trial. The ACLU is asking Congress for “Mr. Hamdan’s release because he is a victim of torture and the evidence against him was obtained through torture....If prosecuted in the U.A.E., ensure that Mr. Hamdan receives a fair trial and that evidence obtained under torture is not used against him....Investigate the role of the United States in Mr. Hamdan’s detention and torture.”

Speaking in support of Hamdan’s case, Dbraham Romey from The Muslim American Society (MAS) said, “We are saying to the Congress of the United States, to the President of the United States, to the Attorney General, to the Secretary of State, to leaders of the U.S. military, that we will not be silent and complicit in the ongoing abomination that is torture.”

The ACLU has made contact with Congressman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) who, as Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has written to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning this case. A response is still forthcoming from both Cabinet members.

Whilst in D.C. Salahi will contact other Members’ to ask for their support in releasing her client.

An U.A.E. Supreme Court trial date for Hamdan looks set to be given in the near future.

The Right to Defend Oneself

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

“We all have an inherent right to self defense in international waters,” according to Senator Jim Webb (D-VA). This remark came out of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that saw testimony from Richard Phillips, Captain of the Maersk Alabama. Phillips received international media attention several weeks ago while being held hostage by pirates off of the coast of Somalia.

Both the Senators and the witnesses acknowledged that Piracy off of the coast of Somalia has been on the rise recently. Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said that America’s “ability to project naval power and to help ensure the free passage of goods and humanitarian aid is as important as ever.”

Phillips acknowledged that more needs to be done to secure vessels of the merchant marine, specifically arming the crew.

“In my opinion, arming the crew cannot and should not be viewed as the best or ultimate solution to the problem. At most, arming the crew should only be one component of a comprehensive plan and approach to combat piracy,” he said.

The comprehensive approach the committee discussed could include increased U.S. Navy presence in the most dangerous areas, the creation of a protected corridor that civilian ships can travel within, the rooting out of pirates in their land based sanctuaries and the “hardening” of ships, to make the ships structurally more resistant to pirates. “Hardening” measures include razor wire on railings, fire hoses to repel the pirates, and unbolting ladders that lead onto the boat. Phillips does not believe this will stop the pirates, but rather, that they will find a way to adapt.

Maersk Chaiman John Clancey, also present at the hearing, does not believe that arming the crews is a good idea.

“Our belief is that arming merchant sailors may result in the acquisition of even more lethal weapons and tactics by the pirates, a race that merchant sailors cannot win. In addition, most ports of call will not permit the introduction of forearms into their national waters,” Clancey said.

Clancey also posed that greater liability may be assumed by the companies if sailors are traveling with weapons. Neither Chairman Kerry nor Phillips felt that this argument was strong, because of the intense amount of training that mariners go through already. Kerry, a former member of the U.S. Navy, feels that the benefits outweigh the risks, and that multinational agreements can be reached to work out the issue of bringing weapons into port.

Richard Phillips is scheduled to testify next week before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Six-party talks only alternative for peace in North Korea?

by Christina Lovato, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

The planned rocket launch in defiance of international law by North Korea should not hinder U.S. hopes of achieving the peaceful denuclearization of the North, an opinion backed by senior-level U.S. diplomats.

“Korea and the U.S. are fully at one voice now in tackling the North Korea missile launch and also in pushing forward the six-party process,” said Han Duk-soo, Korean Ambassador to the United States.

“The six-party talks should be promoted. That is at present the only alternative to the peaceful denuclearization of North Korea,” said Han Duk-soo. “Peace and security and prosperity in this region is very crucial not only for this region but also for the global community.”

Lee Ki-Taek, Vice Chairman of the National Unification Advisory Council said that the launch was a threat. But “It does not matter whether it was a satellite or missile for it was clearly not hope,”he said.

Charles L. Pritchard, President of the Korea Economic Institute in Washington, D.C. said that the Obama administration has shown a “conservative” response to what’s been going on with North Korea.

“The United States, it has been said here already, intends to maintain the six-party talks as the basis of engagement of North Korea. That may not turn out to be quite as accurate as they hoped,” Pritchard said.

Pritchard said that the U.S. has made an emphasis on bilateral ties, and has been directly engaged in the consultation process with North Korea and Japan.

Pritchard suggested that the continuation of the tri-lateral coordination is necessary, but that the idea of withholding visas for North Koreans as a form of punishment should be tossed out the window.

Bond “cautiously optimistic” over Obama approach to Pakistan

by Christina Lovato, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio New Service

This morning at a discussion on issues related to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Senator Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-MO) broke away from his Republican colleagues by praising one of President Barack Obama’s policies.

The plan that was unveiled last Friday would increase U.S. support in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bond says the only way to address the long-term threat of terrorism in the region is to take a “smart power-counter insurgency approach.”

Recent attacks in Pakistan “underscore that the threats emanating from the region are one of the greatest national security threats and challenges of our time,” Bond said.

“The reason my optimism is guarded is because the President has split the baby between two competing camps in Washington and I believe in the White House today. The first camp focuses strictly on counter terrorism, or CT, and the second which takes a counter insurgency or coin strategy approach,” Bond said.

“We will not have success eliminating extremist elements in Afghanistan if we cannot confront them in western Pakistan. To do this we must fully engage Pakistan,” he said, adding that cooperation from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is vital to success.

“NATO must supply more military and civilian assistance personal and remove cumbersome constraints on their people in the field,” Bond said.

But, Bond said, the U.S. “must work with Pakistan to find out what will be required to achieve genuine and measurable progress against terrorists and insurgents in the federally administered tribal areas and other border regions in Pakistan.

“There are three legs of the stool that need to be addressed in the region; security, development and governance,” said Bond, adding that security will only be truly established when local Afghan and Pakistan security forces are able to hold territory themselves and when they have the incentives to do so.

Additionally, “We need to have USAID and other development organizations coordinate better with our military forces to provide what local leaders want and not just deliver to them, one year later, what we tell them they need. This means working with local councils or tribal gurges to insure we are meeting their needs.”