Gay marriage battle rages as N.Y. senators debate taxes and rent

New York (CNN) -- A day after state lawmakers were due to head home, a pair of controversial issues seem to stubbornly postpone their summer recess.

The first is something that many call a quintessential New York battle: Whether to enact the first statewide cap on property taxes. The cap is linked to the extension of rent control laws that apply to roughly 1 million apartments, most of them in New York City.

The second is the subject of national debate: Should New York become the sixth state in the union to adopt same-sex marriage laws?

Monday was technically the last official day of the legislative session, but the votes are still pending.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos said lawmakers had reached a "framework for an agreement" on the rent and tax issues, but acknowledged that same-same sex marriage was not a part of those deliberations.

The Senate has struggled to bring to the floor a bill that would legalize the unions, but separate talks continued Tuesday, according to a spokesman for Skelos.

A vote on the measure, which the state Assembly passed Wednesday night, has been stalled in part by Republican concerns over protections for religious institutions against the potential for litigation in the wake of the proposed law.

Republicans, led by Skelos, have expressed concerns over the "unintended consequences" of a bill that redefines the legal parameters of marriage.

On Monday, hundreds of demonstrators filled the state Capitol in Albany in anticipation of the vote, chanting slogans and wielding signs for and against the controversial measure.

At last public count, 31 senators, including two Republicans, were in favor of the bill. Its backers need one more GOP member to vote in favor for it to pass.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who proposed the bill, says it would grant same-sex couples equal rights to marry "as well as hundreds of rights, benefits and protections that are currently limited to married couples of the opposite sex."

The first-term governor has lobbied opposition and undecided senators in an effort to secure the lone vote needed for the bill's passage.

Meanwhile, Greg Ball -- one of several Republican senators who are considered on the fence over the pending vote -- reiterated his party's concerns about the legislation's potential impact on religious institutions.

"I'm not going to vote for a bill where Catholic adoption agencies or religious organizations are shut down or are opened up to lawsuits," he said Friday, noting that adoption agencies were closed after same-sex marriage laws were adopted in other states. He declined to elaborate.

Democrat Tom Duane, an openly gay member of the state Senate, countered Friday that there are "already laws on the books in New York state which protect people of faith."

"Marriage is a civil right. People get married, and it is recognized in government," he said. "We're talking about the government recognizing same-sex equality."

But the passage of same-sex marriage laws faces a daunting history in the New York state legislature.

The Senate rejected a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in 2009 and has blocked the last three attempts by the state's lower house to get the proposed legislation signed into law.

Although New York currently does not grant same-sex marriages, a 2008 appellate court ruling upheld the right of couples to have their same-sex marriages recognized if they are performed elsewhere.

The current measure would amend the state's Domestic Relations Law to say, among other changes, that "no application for a marriage license shall be denied on the ground that the parties are of the same or a different sex."

Five states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire -- and the District of Columbia currently grant same-sex marriage licenses.

CNN's Dana Garrett contributed to this report.

CNN

Obama 'overruled lawyers' in Libya war debate (AFP)

WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama overruled two senior government lawyers in deciding that he had the authority to continue US military operations in Libya without Congressional approval, The New York Times has reported.

In reaching his conclusion Obama rejected the opinions of Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department?s Office of Legal Counsel, The Times reported late Friday, citing unnamed officials familiar with the deliberations.

Johnson and Krass both told the White House they believed that US military activity in the NATO-led air war over Libya amounted to "hostilities."

Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution (WPR), a president has 60 days to get authorization from Congress -- which under the US constitution has the authority to declare war -- for a military deployment. Failing that, the Resolution sets a further 30 days to withdraw US forces from harm's way.

Obama however agreed with two other top government lawyers -- White House counsel Robert Bauer and State Department legal adviser Harold Koh -- who said the US military action in Libya did not amount to "hostilities" because it was in a support role.

The White House said it would not comment on the Times report, but spokesman Eric Schultz described the deliberations as "a robust process."

The WPR "has been subject to intense debate since it was first enacted in 1973, and even critics of the administration's position concede the legitimacy of different points of view," said Schultz, adding that "there was a full airing of views within the administration."

He said the White House would not discuss the internal process in which Obama receives legal advice, but said: "It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict."

Reports of internal disagreements, despite being downplayed by the White House, are certain to fuel the building political row in Washington over the US role in NATO's Libya mission, and claims in Congress that the president overstepped his powers in ordering the conflict.

That Obama is reported to have overruled a top Pentagon lawyer will also likely add to speculation of differences of approach on some national security issues between the White House and the Defense Department -- key figures including Defense Secretary Robert Gates were seen as skeptical of US intervention in Libya from the outset.

The White House on Wednesday made their case for participating in the NATO-led assault on Moamer Kadhafi's forces in a 30-page report to lawmakers.

The document was compiled after Republican House Speaker John Boehner sent a scathing letter to the president warning that US operations would be illegal come Sunday because they lacked formal congressional approval.

"US forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition," the White House report said, noting that the use of force was being used solely to protect civilians, enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.

A senior administration official added: "we are not engaged in any of the activities that typically over the years in war powers analysis has been considered to constitute hostilities within the meaning of the statute."

Yahoo! News

Muslim weightlifter triggers debate

Kulsoom Abdullah wants to keep her body covered during official competitionsThe International Weightlifting Federation will consider her complaintRules specify outfits must be collarless and must not cover the elbows or kneesThe USOC has received some messages opposing a rule change

Atlanta (CNN) -- Kulsoom Abdullah is a 35-year-old with a doctorate in electrical and computer engineering. But it's her passion outside of work that has put her at the center of a debate -- one that could affect athletic competitions worldwide, even the Olympics.

Later this month, the International Weightlifting Federation will take up the question of whether Abdullah may take part in officially sanctioned tournaments while keeping her entire body covered, aside from her hands and face, in keeping with her Muslim faith.

"It's what I believe in. It's what I've chosen to do," Abdullah tells CNN of her decision to wear modest garb. "I've always dressed this way publicly."

Abdullah is not an Olympic athlete, but enjoys lifting weights. She can deadlift 245 pounds (111 kg) and get up 105 pounds (47.5 kg) in the snatch, in which the competitor lifts the barbell from the floor to over her head in a single motion. She likes to compete with other women in her weight class -- she generally weighs in the 106-pound (48 kg) or 117-pound (53 kg) classifications.

"It guess it's empowering," she says. "There's a lot of technique involved, so someone who's this big muscular person -- it's possible I could lift more than they do. There's speed and timing to it -- you have to be explosive. I think it's great just for confidence building ... I guess I got hooked."

The Atlanta resident wants to take part in tournaments in the United States, including one coming up in July. But USA Weightlifting informed her that those events are governed by IWF rules. And those rules preclude her dressing in keeping with her beliefs.

Abdullah generally wears loose, long pants past the ankles, a long-sleeve, fitted shirt with a loose T-shirt over it, and a hijab, or head scarf, covering her hair.

The outfits -- officially called "costumes" -- worn at competitions must be collarless and must not cover the elbows or knees, according to the IWF's technical and competition rules.

The IWF constitution also states that no distinction is made among individuals based on religion.

Mark Jones, a spokesman for the U.S. Olympic Committee -- which oversees USA Weightlifting and many other sports -- explained part of the challenge is that judges need to see that a competitor's elbows and knees are locked during a lift.

But the USOC also understands the dilemma Abdullah faces. After CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- a Washington-based group that advocates for Muslims and Muslim causes -- contacted the USOC on Wednesday, Jones said, his group reached out to the IWF.

"I think their (CAIR's) language is to 'advocate' on the athlete's behalf with the international federation, and we have done that," Jones told CNN. "The Olympic movement is all about the universal values of equality. We value that greatly, but we also respect the rules of sport -- especially those set forth for competitive reasons. So we're looking to see if there's some way to accommodate -- not just this one particular athlete," he said, adding, "this is an issue that has some wider implications."

The International Weightlifting Federation has agreed to include the issue on the agenda of its next meeting, later this month in Malaysia, Jones said. The group's technical committee will hold a debate, and then present a recommendation to the IWF board, Jones said.

"Awesome!" Abdullah responded, when CNN informed her Thursday of these developments. "That's wonderful."

The news came after months of pushing for change, she said. In April, USA Weightlifting responded to an e-mail from her, explaining that it had to reject her request due to IWF rules. In that e-mail, there was no suggestion that the group or the USOC might take up the issue with the IWF.

John Duff, CEO of USA Weightlifting, issued a statement Thursday reiterating that the organization abides by the IWF rules on uniforms, and that the "issue has been brought to the attention of the IWF and the IWF Technical Committee has agreed to place the matter on the agenda of the next meeting, which will take place on June 26 in Penang, Malaysia, for consideration."

The IWF did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Abdullah says she understands the need to make sure she isn't wearing anything under her clothes to give her a competitive advantage. She says judges could check to make sure she is not wearing something on her elbows, for example, that might help her.

And she says she's willing to wear a "snug" shirt -- though not skin tight -- underneath a loose singlet, so judges could "see that there's lockout" in her arms when she does her lifts.

Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR, which sent out a news release about Abdullah on Wednesday, praised the USOC Thursday for taking action.

"It sounds like they've really done exactly what we asked them to do, which is advocate on behalf of this Muslim athlete," Hooper said.

"The ultimate result is a very reasonable compromise that allows the Muslim athlete to follow her religious beliefs and practices and maintain the legitimate rules and policies of Olympics and sports in general."

While Abdullah was happy to hear the IWF will consider her situation, there is no guarantee the IWF will alter its rules.

Although there were no immediate, organized protests against the USOC's decision to bring Abdullah's case to the IWF, USOC spokesman Jones said his agency has received messages from people opposing any change in the rules. He did not characterize what the messages said or how many there were.

Numerous athletic agencies have faced similar questions in the past and, in some cases, have determined that allowing special clothing violates fairness or equality among all contestants.

FIFA, the international federation governing soccer, recently refused to allow Iran's women's soccer team to wear headscarves while playing in an Olympic qualifying round in Amman, Jordan.

Abdullah told CNN her effort is not just about herself. "I should at least try," she said, "if not for me then maybe for other women who -- if they have my faith or another faith -- dress a certain way."

CNN

Europe locked in 'chaotic' debate over Greece (AP)

BRUSSELS – European officials are locked in a heated debate over whether — and how — to give more aid to debt-ridden Greece just as a much-delayed examination of the country's finances draws to a close.

Experts from the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund will likely conclude their review of Greece's accounts and austerity program over the next 24 to 48 hours, a European official said Tuesday.

Their report is set to show huge funding gaps in Greece's budget over the next two years, despite euro110 billion ($157 billion) in rescue loans granted only a year ago. It will also spell out new austerity measures and detail plans to privatize public real estate and corporate assets as the Greek government struggles to hit deficit targets set out in the bailout program.

In parallel to the review carried out in Athens, European governments and financial institutions are wrangling over different proposals that would make potential new loans to the struggling country more secure.

So far there is no consensus among eurozone countries on whether to give Greece new aid and how, the official said, despite increased pressure in recent days from the European Commission, the ECB and other financial leaders.

"It's really very chaotic," a second European official said of the talks between representatives from eurozone finance ministries, the ECB and the EU. "There are loads of proposals but all proposals are opposed by some."

Both officials were speaking on condition of anonymity because discussions were still ongoing.

Many of the richer countries in the 17-nation eurozone are frustrated with Greece's slow implementation of the economic reforms and some euro50 billion in privatizations that were supposed to help its economy grow again and cut down a national debt of some 150 percent of economic output. They want assurances that they will get their money back as their own taxpayers are unhappy with what they see as undeserved help for less disciplined countries.

The ministry representatives, who will meet again Wednesday in Vienna, are discussing potential "technical assistance" for Greece in tax collection and the privatization program, the two officials said. Such international involvement in the internal financial affairs of a eurozone country would constitute an unprecedented intervention likely to face strong opposition within Greece.

On top of that, some countries have pushed for Greece to provide collateral for any further loans which could be cashed in if the government fails to repay the aid.

Earlier this month, European policymakers also raised the possibility of asking private creditors like banks and investment funds to give Greece more time to repay its bonds, but such a move has been strictly opposed by the ECB.

ECB officials have warned that even such a "soft restructuring" or "reprofiling" could be seen by investors as a default, triggering panic on financial markets similar that seen after the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Despite those concerns, the two officials said that asking private investors to extend the maturities of the bonds they hold was still on the table.

Any final agreement on new aid will depend on which of the countries and institutions will give in eventually and would have to be hammered out by finance ministers in June, one of the officials said. In addition to a scheduled get-together on June 20, there is a "strong likelihood" of a special meeting the week before that, he added.

Eurozone governments expect Greece to come up with new measures that will help it cut its deficit to the 3 percent of economic output allowed under EU rules by 2014. Last year, it posted a deficit of 10.5 percent and at the current rate the EU estimates it will have a funding shortfall of some 9.5 percent this year, 2 percentage points above target.

Any new aid would not relieve Greece from implementing the painful and unpopular austerity and reform measures but only give it more breathing space by keeping it out of international debt markets for a little longer.

Greece was supposed to raise some euro27 billion next year and a similar amount in 2013 to start covering some of its bills again, but with interest rates for 10-year bonds above 16 percent that prospect now seems unrealistic.

Yahoo! News

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Chile: Will Allende's Exhumation Put Death Debate to Rest? (Time.com)

In the early afternoon of Sept. 11, 1973, with Chile's presidential palace in the pall of a coup d'Etat's smoke and gunfire, President Salvador Allende, the world's first democratically elected Marxist President, bid his country farewell in a radio address and, after ordering the palace defenders to surrender, entered the Independence Hall alone.

What happened next is the subject of myth and mystery. The official version, cobbled together from bits and pieces of testimony, and an autopsy conducted under extreme duress by two doctors - one of them a gynecologist - says the 65-year-old Allende placed an AK-47 given to him by Fidel Castro under his chin and pulled the trigger. But discrepancies surrounding the autopsy and absence of multiple witnesses have made the tale of his suicide difficult for many to accept. (See TIME's cover featuring Allende's death.)

After 38 years of heated debate, a team of domestic and international forensic specialists will attempt to shed light on what is perhaps the defining event of contemporary Chilean history. On Monday, Allende's body will be exhumed under court order, upon the request of Allende relatives, to set straight once and for all if indeed he did pull the trigger, paying "with my life the loyalty of the people," becoming a martyr. Or was he murdered by General Augusto Pinochet's troops in a bloody coup?

To be clear, says Isabel Allende, the President's daughter and now a Chilean Senator, the family "has no doubt about the suicide of my father," explaining that it was a decision he made to die with dignity rather than surrender. Above all, the exhumation is an opportunity to clear up lingering doubts and conduct an official investigation, which has never been done, and place his death in the context of the violence on that day. "In a sense, Allende is the first disappeared, he's the first victim whether he kills himself or not," said Ariel Dorfman, a Chilean novelist who served as cultural adviser to the President. "It really was his death that inaugurates the time of terror, of lying and of hiding the truth in Chile." (See how Chile's right is trying to shake its dark past.)

Dorfman, like many Allende supporters, once rejected the idea that the President had taken his own life, which he discussed in his memoir Heading South, Looking North. He said he chose to cling to the myth of the good king killed by the treacherous person, embodied in this case by the commander in chief of the army that he had appointed. While the symmetry appealed to Dorfman for a while, he said that over time it wasn't sufficient. After listening to Dr. Patricio GuijOn, a member of Allende's medical staff who claims to have witnessed Allende shoot himself, Dorfman says he has now adopted another myth, that of the king who tells his people that "my sacrifice will not be in vain," taking his own life so that others may live.

According to the government, more than 3,000 people disappeared or were killed by the regime of Pinochet, whose 17-year dictatorship was Latin America's longest. If Allende was among the first victims, his case is also one of the last investigated. But there are others. For years the Group of Families of the Politically Executed pressured Chilean courts to bring to justice the perpetrators of human rights violations and end "the national shame we suffered for years" under judicial cowardice, according to Alicia Lira Matus, the group's president. A current set of judges, led by Judge Mario Carroza, has given the group renewed hope, Lira says, starting with an official investigation into 726 human rights complaints, a number that includes Allende's. (See Pinochet's legacy.)

Carroza requested that Chile's Legal Medical Service review the original autopsy, and based on its report, he authorized Allende's exhumation. Dr. Patricio Bustos Streeter, national director of the service, is wary of getting caught up in the emotionally charged events that are about to transpire. "Although we are an institution, we're also citizens," he says. "We are impartial, but we aren't neutral," he says, looking over his spectacles to emphasize his point.

Time and oxygen will have worn away flesh and ligament, complicating somewhat the job of forensics. It should not prove insurmountable, Bustos says, pointing out that two years ago specialists determined the details of the brutal torture and death of Chilean folk singer Victor Jara, who was killed in 1973 as well.

Still, even with the latest technology, an absolute truth may prove elusive if evidence has been lost, says Dr. Luis Ravanal Zepeda, a forensic specialist in Chile who reviewed the original autopsy report in 2008 for lawyers investigating Dr. JosE Luis VAsquez FernAndez, one of its authors. Ravanal concluded that Allende's wounds "were not compatible with suicide," further clouding the matter. He found that the description of the President's wounds suggested there were two gunshot wounds: one from a smaller weapon, likely a pistol, and a much larger wound, from a rifle like an AK-47. What concerns Ravanal most is that vital skull fragments were lost or thrown out when Allende was transferred from the coastal city of ViNa del Mar to the General Cemetery in Santiago upon the return to democracy in 1990. "If that's the case, they would have thrown in the trash an important part of our country's history," Ravanal says. (Read TIME's 1973 cover story "The Bloody End of a Marxist Dream.")

On one overcast fall afternoon, 74-year-old Juan Rebolledo, groundskeeper at the General Cemetery, lazily piles fallen leaves into an aged wicker basket, the same task he's performed thousands of times before. Rebolledo remembers the wonderful fountain at Patio 40 that Allende's mausoleum replaced, watching as the line of visitors has slowed to a trickle. After a life spent among the dead, he questions the value in disturbing Allende's remains. "If it were my family, I would let the dead rest," Rebolledo says.

Then again, the autopsy is more about the living than the dead. If you have something from the dead, a message, there is a chance at closure, at least to move on in some way, according to Dorfman. As jets bombarded the palace and tanks closed in, Allende may have offered such a message in his final radio address. "These are my last words, and I am certain that my sacrifice will not be in vain, it will be a moral lesson that will punish felony, cowardice and treason."

See the world's most influential people in the 2011 TIME 100.

See TIME's 140 best Twitter feeds.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Yahoo! News

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Obama nixes bin Laden photo release, but debate continues

Washington (CNN) -- Despite mounting pressure from some lawmakers and dissent within the ranks of his top advisers, President Barack Obama decided not to release photos of Osama bin Laden's dead body, a White House spokesman said Wednesday.

"It is not in our national security interest ... to allow these images to become icons to rally opinion against the United States," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters.

"We have no need to publish those photographs to establish that Osama bin Laden was killed," he said.

Shortly after U.S. officials announced the decision, a news agency published photographs it said were taken by a Pakistani security official shortly after the raid.

The images, published by Reuters Wednesday, showed three men lying in pools of blood and the wreckage of a U.S. helicopter abandoned during the assault. None of the pictures appeared to show bin Laden's dead body.

White House officials remained firm in their assertion that releasing graphic photos of bin Laden could incite more violence.

To further explain the controversial choice, Carney read Obama's remarks from the transcript of a Wednesday afternoon interview.

"That's not who we are. We don't trot out this stuff as trophies. The fact of the matter is that this is someone who is deserving of the justice he received. ... We don't need to spike the football," Obama told CBS News.

Obama's decision settles the debate over whether the United States will release the images. But opinions about whether the U.S. government's photographs should be public were anything but unanimous among U.S. lawmakers and members of the public at home and abroad.

Some argued releasing the images would put to rest any critics or conspiracy theories, while others countered that the graphic photos would only inflame jihadists.

A senior Democratic official close to the White House told CNN that the president was "never in favor" of releasing the photos, even as CIA chief Leon Panetta made it sound like their release was imminent.

Carney said Obama consulted Cabinet and security officials before he made his choice Wednesday morning, and a majority of them weighed in against releasing the photographs.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were among those who supported Obama's inclination to keep the pictures classified, the senior Democratic official said.

But Panetta said Tuesday he thought a photograph of bin Laden's body would be released at some point. "I just think it's important -- they know we have it -- to release it," the CIA director said.

The president's inner circle was not happy with those remarks, the senior Democratic official said.

But a senior Obama administration official said debates over the pros and cons of releasing the photos were "not at all contentious." The official admitted that "leaks are possible," but said that did not sway the president from reaching his decision.

Carney stressed that Obama wanted to hear differing perspectives to inform his choice.

"He wanted to hear the opinions of others, but he was very clear about his view on this," Carney said.

"There are obviously arguments to be made on either side."

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina called the decision a "mistake."

"I know bin Laden is dead. But the best way to protect and defend our interests overseas is to prove that fact to the rest of the world," he said in a written statement. "I'm afraid the decision made today by President Obama will unnecessarily prolong this debate."

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, also said Obama made the wrong choice about the photos.

"I want to see them, personally," he said. "I did three tours. I'm not talking as a member of the Armed Services Committee -- (but) as a Marine who did three tours because of 9/11. As Americans we deserve to see them."

But House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said he shares the president's view.

"In my opinion, there's no end served by releasing a picture of someone who has been killed, and I think there is absolute proof that Osama bin Laden was in fact the person ... killed," he said.

Lawmakers involved in national security began debating the issue well before Obama's decision.

The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee has argued they should be made public right away.

"I think the question is, what's the negative that could come from it?" asked Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. "One of these days they're going to be released; it's a question of whether it be now on our terms or (let) somebody else do it."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, who chairs the Armed Services Committee -- and who has not seen the photos -- had argued that the United States should wait to allow the emotions of people around the world who may be sympathetic to bin Laden to cool down.

"I'd let a little time pass so we that we don't play into the hands of people who want to retaliate with what obviously will be a sensational picture. I would not want to feed that sensation, so I'd wait days or weeks," he said.

Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson suggested temporarily keeping the photos confidential, but releasing them eventually.

In a letter sent to the White House Wednesday, he proposed establishing a review process "to release all relevant photographs as early as 10 years from now," or when the president "determines their release would no longer endanger the lives of Americans."

While some Republican leaders criticized Obama, the debate over the photographs did not entirely split along party lines.

Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers of Michigan said he was against releasing any photos, saying that he didn't want to make the job of U.S. troops abroad "any harder than it already is."

"Imagine how the American people would react if al Qaeda killed one of our troops or military leaders, and put photos of the body on the Internet. Osama bin Laden is not a trophy -- he is dead and let's now focus on continuing the fight until al Qaeda has been eliminated," he said.

House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King, a Republican from New York who has argued that the photographs should not be classified, said he understood Obama's call.

"While I have said that a photo release may be a good way to combat the predictable conspiracy theories about bin Laden's death, this is a decision for the President to make, and I respect his decision," he said in a statement.

Obama's choice comes as a poll shows that a majority of Americans support making the photographs public.

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Tuesday, 56% of those asked said yes, the government should release a photo of bin Laden's body. Another 39% said no. The poll of 700 adults had a sampling margin of 3.5%.

The government has said it matched DNA to confirm that the body was bin Laden's, and most have accepted that news as evidence of the outcome of the operation.

Some groups, however -- including the Taliban -- have questioned the assertion.

"Obama has not got any strong evidence that can prove his claim over killing of the Sheikh Osama bin Laden," Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mojahed said. "And secondly, the closest sources for Sheikh Osama bin Laden have not confirmed" the death.

And at a university in the affluent Pakistani town where U.S. officials say troops killed bin Laden, a group of students clamored to tell CNN why they doubted the al Qaeda leader had been killed in the raid.

"If it is true, then why they are not showing his body?" one asked.

Similar doubt and demands for evidence that bin Laden is dead echoed on the streets of Islamabad.

"I believe this is all fake," one man said. "Wherever he is, he's alive."

But the White House has dismissed such criticisms.

"There are going to be some folks who deny it. The fact of the matter is, you will not see bin Laden walking on this Earth again," Obama told CBS.

None of the photos published by Reuters appeared to show bin Laden. One photo shows a man, clad in a T-shirt, lying in a large pool of blood that appears to spread from the back of his head. Two other men pictured appear to have died from extensive head and chest wounds.

The White House has received three sets of photographs, according to a senior U.S. official. One batch, which clearly shows bin Laden's body, was taken at a hangar in Afghanistan, the official said.

The official described one of the images as a clear, but gruesome, picture of the al Qaeda leader's face. Bin Laden is shown with a massive open head wound across both eyes, the official said, adding that the image would not be appropriate for the front pages of newspapers.

The other photos include the raid on the compound and bin Laden's burial at sea, according to the official.

CNN's Ed Henry, John King, Jessica Yellin, Ted Barrett, Ed Hornick, Dana Bash, Dan Lothian, Susan Candiotti, Nick Paton Walsh and Leone Lakhani contributed to this report.

CNN

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Gulf disaster renews debate over Arctic oil spill

it would be nearly impossible to respond on the scale that was needed last year to stop a runaway oil well and clean up the mess. That means the burden to respond would rest to an even greater degree on the company doing the drilling.

Like a backcountry camper, an oil company drilling off Alaska would have to bring all the equipment needed to the isolated drilling site. And the federal government, at least in the early stages, would be far away from the scene.

Unlike the Gulf, where tens of thousands of oil wells and runoff have tainted the waters for decades, a spill in the Arctic risks tainting a pristine and sensitive landscape, one that has not been as well studied and where drilling in federal waters is limited. That makes it harder to determine what toll a spill would have on the endangered polar bears, migrating whales and other wildlife that make use of the oil-rich seas.

While critics of offshore drilling in Alaska have long raised the specter of a massive spill, the accident in the Gulf last April highlighted shortcomings in spill preparedness. In the aftermath, experts such as Thad Allen

View the Original article

States debate Internet cafe gambling

By Pat Jarrett, for USA TODAY

Natasha Summers, 18, crosses her fingers while playing a slot machine game at Richard's Internet Access and Sweepstakes in Harrisonburg, Va.

EnlargeCloseBy Pat Jarrett, for USA TODAY

Natasha Summers, 18, crosses her fingers while playing a slot machine game at Richard's Internet Access and Sweepstakes in Harrisonburg, Va.

In trying to build her business, she offered an online sweepstakes -- giving 100 chances for every hour of Internet time purchased. Customers could see if they won by playing video slot machines online and redeem winning chances for cash prizes of $10, $25 or $100.

Authorities said it looked a lot like gambling, and the city's police department shut her cafe down three months after she opened.

STORY: D.C. to offer Internet gamblingEighteen months later, the state attorney for Brevard County has dropped the gambling charges for a lesser misdemeanor for not properly advertising her sweepstakes promotion. Marceau accepted the deal this month. And the City Council that had her investigated has decided to make electronic gaming establishments legal.

"It's not gambling," says Marceau, who says she plans to reopen under the new ordinance. "The sweepstakes is just a way to get them in to use the computers."

Palm Bay's debate over Internet gaming cafes mirrors the problems cities and counties across the USA are having. The question is whether the casino-style video slot games are gambling under state law and whether the state allows that kind of gambling.

Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, says it is gambling.

"What we've seen a lot with these Internet sweepstakes cafes is it's a way to get around gambling laws," Whyte said. "The only reason people are going to these facilities and spending so much time and money is because it's gambling. If it wasn't gambling, it wouldn't be popular."

The assumption, he said, is people are going primarily to gamble and not to use the Internet, make copies or fax documents.

Last year, North Carolina's Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue signed a bill making the 900 or so cafes in the state illegal as of Dec. 1. She has subsequently said she would consider regulating the industry.

William Thevaos, president of the Entertainment Group of North Carolina -- an association representing Internet sweepstakes centers in the state -- says regulated Internet sweepstakes could generate $500 million a year for the state.

In other states:

•A bill introduced by Virginia state Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, that would make sweepstakes stores illegal was passed by the General Assembly last month. Gov. Bob McDonnell wanted the law to take effect immediately, but the General Assembly turned him down, said Jeff Caldwell, spokesman for the Republican governor. The governor will have 30 days to review the measure before signing it or vetoing it.

Jim Sutherland, a co-owner of Richards Internet Center in Harrisonburg, Va., says he had planned to open a second center in Newport News and had applied for a supplemental use permit.

"Then this law came along, and they tabled it," he said.

•Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine is working with the Legislature and the Ohio Casino Control Commission to license and regulate Internet cafes so people won't be ripped off. "Internet cafes and sweepstakes that are skirting the law are growing in many of our communities," he said.

In March, police in Salt Lake City and Ogden, Utah, raided cybercafes suspected of online gambling. Attorney Elizabeth Dunning has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Blue Sky Entertainment challenging the "fringe gambling" law.

•A federal judge in Texas convicted three men earlier in March of participating in an Internet gambling conspiracy using "computerized gambling machines using sweepstakes to attract patrons under the guise of internet cafes and e-business centers " U.S. Attorney John Bales said.

Even as Palm Bay officials consider legalizing Internet sweepstakes promotions, Florida Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, has introduced a bill that would make it illegal statewide.

"Anybody that goes into those places is obviously not checking their e-mail or their friends on Facebook," Plakon said.

Danny Black, a regional manager for Allied Veterans of the World, which has 38 cafes in Florida, said customers have the option of going to a quick open page to reveal all their chances at once to see if they won anything. The video games "are a more entertaining way" to find out what you won, he said.

No one in Florida has been convicted of gambling related to running an Internet cafe.

Marceau hopes it stays that way so she can reopen.

"I just want to run my little business, provide Internet and copy services," Marceau says. "I've done nothing wrong."

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters

View the Original article

Obama Debt Plan Revives Debate Over Bush-Era Tax Cuts

AP

April 13: President Barack Obama outlines his fiscal policy during an address at George Washington University in Washington.

Unveiling his plan to cut the national debt by $4 trillion over the next 12 years, President Obama noticeably stumbled over the part of his carefully crafted speech that revealed his core philosophy about income taxes.

The original wording, provided to news media outlets on an embargoed basis, called for the president to reaffirm his belief that

View the Original article

Medicare at the center of budget debate

By Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP

President Obama outlines his fiscal policy during an address Wednesday at George Washington University in Washington.

EnlargeCloseBy Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP

President Obama outlines his fiscal policy during an address Wednesday at George Washington University in Washington.

But not on Medicare.

The government

View the Original article

Larger debt debate looms on the Hill

By Chris Butler, AP

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform says Republicans will be held to pledges against raising taxes.

EnlargeCloseBy Chris Butler, AP

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform says Republicans will be held to pledges against raising taxes.

Even as the White House and congressional leaders work to finalize their latest deal, a bipartisan group of senators is seeking to cut $4 trillion from federal deficits over the next decade — 120 times more than the amount being sought to avert a shutdown.

Their efforts represent the most serious assault on federal deficits since a 1997 deal between President Clinton and a Republican Congress led to four years of surpluses. Since then, a decade of tax cuts, wars and recessions have sent the nation deeper and deeper into debt.

DEBT: Who's who in the fight to reduce the deficit Beginning this week in the House, Congress will attempt to reverse that trend. The effort faces opposition from conservative groups opposed to higher taxes and liberal groups seeking to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But a coalition of business leaders, budget experts and former government officials is pushing for bold action on the national debt this year.

Three debates on deck Late last month, 64 senators signed a letter to President Obama urging that he support deficit-reduction talks. Last week, budget watchdogs tried to get the same number of former government officials and experts to sign a similar letter. They exceeded expectations when the number quickly grew to 69.

"Not only is momentum building, it's really starting to feel unstoppable," says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which led the latest letter-writing effort. "I don't think we have until after the election to wait."

As the White House and lawmakers search for cuts from within one-eighth of the 2011 budget devoted to annually funded domestic programs, three broader debates loom over the budget, which includes entitlement programs, defense spending and soaring interest costs:

•The 2012 budget. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., plans to release a Republican budget plan for 2012 on Tuesday that will attempt to rein in government entitlement programs. Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future" features dramatic changes that could boost Medicare costs and reduce Social Security benefits for Americans now under 55.

•The federal debt limit. The government's $14.3 trillion debt limit will be reached this month or in May, forcing Congress to raise it or risk the country defaulting on its obligations. Defaulting would be unprecedented, but many Republicans such as freshman Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida say they won't support more debt without a commitment to major cuts in spending.

•A long-term debt-reduction plan. The best chance for bipartisan action on the debt could come later this year if a group of six senators working in private produces a plan to cut $4 trillion over the next decade that both Democrats and Republicans can support. Led by Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., the group is trying to turn the December call for spending cuts and tax increases from Obama's commission into legislation.

Fueling the bipartisan talks: fear of the economic crisis that would result if the soaring U.S. debt caused international investors to sour on Treasury bonds. On Tuesday, dozens of senators will hear from Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, whose recent paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research warns of future crises.

"This time really is different," Warner says. "There is a sense in the country that we are on as thin ice as any time in my lifetime."

Still, moving consensus from a group of six senators to majorities in the Senate and House appears unlikely, particularly with the 2012 elections approaching and groups on the right and left working against compromise.

On the right, anti-tax advocates such as Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, say they'll hold Republicans such as Chambliss to previous pledges against raising taxes.

"Right now, these people are having impure thoughts about tax increases. They haven't actually voted for one," Norquist says.

Tea Party activists want to prevent Republicans from compromising on a deficit-reduction package including higher taxes.

"Somebody here has to be the conscience of the conservatives," says Dick Armey, a former House GOP leader who now heads the anti-tax group FreedomWorks.

On the left, groups representing seniors and the poor are fighting reductions in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

"One thing you can say about seniors is they vote," warns Edward Coyle, head of the Alliance for Retired Americans.

Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts in Ryan's plan would "start to ration health care by income."

Cuts and increases redefined To get around the opposition, those favoring major deficit reduction are trying to change the terms of the debate. Chambliss says "tax increases, pure and simple" won't pass the Senate — but he views eliminating special-interest tax breaks as "a spending issue. It's a tax expenditure."

Former Republican senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who co-chaired Obama's fiscal panel, says: "You don't use the word 'cut' in Social Security. You use the words 'restoring solvency.' "

The wildcard in the deficit talks is the White House. Obama has vowed to act upon some commission recommendations, including corporate tax changes But his proposed 2012 budget had few specific proposals.

Many experts say major action on the deficits and debt may have to await a market-induced crisis.

"The markets, in my view, will force our hand," says Steve Bell, senior director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a veteran of congressional budgets. "We only respond to crises that are palpable."

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters

View the Original article

Lawmakers Look for Foothold in Libya Debate Using Power of Purse

AP

Sen. Rand Paul speaks to a crowd in a Kentucky Senate committee room in Frankfort, Ky., on Feb. 22.

Congressional lawmakers, after watching from afar as the Obama administration sent U.S. forces into Libya, have started to weigh in with legislation aimed at exercising some control over the direction -- or at least the funding -- of the mission. 

After returning from recess, lawmakers are looking at drafting a proposal that would put Congress on record for or against U.S. military involvement. Those writing it want Congress to authorize the involvement, but they acknowledge such a debate would open the door for opponents who think President Obama overstepped his bounds and want to rein him in. 

So far, those skeptics have targeted the funding for the military operation. Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed Thursday that the mission had run up a $550 million bill as of Monday, and would continue to cost about $40 million a month, now that NATO has taken the lead. 

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, delivering a lengthy speech Thursday on the House floor, said he wants to offer an amendment to ban funding for the Libya campaign outright. 

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., just introduced a bill aimed at ensuring the Libya operation does not add to the deficit -- at a time when lawmakers are wrangling over how much to cut from the rest of the 2011 budget and try to slow the pace at which the country adds to its $14 trillion debt. 

The Bartlett proposal would require the president to provide Congress with a list of proposed cuts from the discretionary, non-military section of the budget to cover the military's expenses in Libya. 

The role of Congress is still unclear. Obama administration officials claim they don't need Congress' permission to launch what they describe as kinetic military activity. But critics, who want to know how the Libya action is different from war, have demanded a vote, and supporters of the president's actions have started to work on a resolution, to be on the safe side. 

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he is working with Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass, GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., to make sure any resolution they develop contains "language that can receive an overwhelming vote in the Senate. It would not be a good signal, otherwise." 

The group, which is working with the administration, has "not yet decided" whether the resolution will be a symbolic measure, known as a "sense of the Senate" resolution, or something binding. 

An aide to McCain said the group wants to introduce something "sooner rather than later," as there is a growing concern that some senators could introduce a resolution to force an end to the current mission in the north African nation. 

One of those skeptical senators, Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, on Wednesday introduced a nonbinding resolution that states the president "does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." 

Paul said earlier that the president's decision stood as a "very serious breach of our Constitution." 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., acknowledged Tuesday that launching a debate on a resolution authorizing military force after the fact could open the door for opponents to rally against the resolution. But lawmakers are acting out of concern for the provisions of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states Congress, even after the fact, must formally declare war or authorize the use of force within 60 days. It provides flexibility in certain circumstances. 

Kerry said Thursday he's not sure if Congress needs to pass the resolution but said lawmakers are beginning to draft one. 

Meanwhile, Gates made clear Thursday that the Defense Department cannot afford to pay for the operation on its own and would likely need to request a supplement budget to fund the operation. 

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed concern Thursday that the conflict could inflame the deficit. 

"We find ourselves in a situation where Congress is debating cuts in domestic programs to make essential progress on the deficit, even as President Obama has initiated an expensive, open-ended military commitment in a country that his defense secretary says is not a vital interest," Lugar said in a statement.

Related Links State Department 'Pursuing' Libyan Official for Information on Lockerbie Bombing Obama Administration Criticizes U.N. Human Rights Council, but Still Wants to Keep Its Seat Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet View ArticleLeave a CommentSort: NewestSort: Oldest Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. You must login to comment.

View Article

View All Comments

Latest Politics VideosMore »

View the Original article