Search

band annie's Weblog

I have a parallel blog in French at http://anniebannie.net

Category

OBAMA

Does Obama’s Kingly Power to Kill US Citizens Extend to Domestic Suspects?

John Glaser, February 05, 2013

The leaked Justice Department memo detailing the Obama administration’s legal rationale for killing US citizens without charge or trial or judicial review or any publicly available evidence of their guilt has raised a lot of questions.

One of them, which doesn’t get fleshed out in the memo, is whether this kingly authority to play Judge, Jury, and Executioner and deprive Americans of their life without due process of law applies only to Americans abroad or also to citizens that are inside the United States. The memo does say that one prerequisite to putting an American on the kill list is if their capture is “not feasible.” Presumably that wouldn’t happen in the US, but since it isn’t specified in the memo, nobody has really been able to give an informed opinion on this. And even if the authority is not currently used in this way, unless there is an explicit prohibition in the current legal rendering, it could conceivably be used this way in the future.

Micah Zenko at the Council on Foreign Relations cites a really terrifying exchange with FBI Director Robert Mueller from about a year ago:

REPRESENTATIVE TOM GRAVES: So I guess from a historical perspective, does the federal government have the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil, or just overseas?

FBI DIRECTOR ROBERT MUELLER: I am going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice.

The FBI’s mission is “to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.” Mueller has held his position since the week before 9/11 and has been intimately involved in virtually every significant counterterrorism decision of the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. If the director of the FBI does not know—or is unwilling to testify under oath—where the U.S. government has the authority to kill its citizens, then who does? It is worth noting that Holder argued that there are no limits to the “geographic scope of our ability to use force.”

Read the whole post, which contains other relevant nuggets like the fact that “President Obama authorized the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen several months before its legal justification existed.”

source

GO ALSO TO DEMOCRACY NOW

Obama’s torture policy

January 23, 2013 § Leave a Comment

Al Jazeera’s excellent Fault Lines returns:

[youtube http://youtu.be/IcDFrBUA-5I?]
As a candidate for president, Barack Obama promised a new direction. Just days after taking office, the new US president issued a series of executive orders banning all acts of torture, discontinuing the use of CIA black sites, and calling for the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay to be closed.

But what will it really take to dismantle the Bush administration’s legacy of torture when there is the same leadership at the Pentagon, the same rhetoric about protecting “state secrets”, and the same refusal to allow victims of rendition to file lawsuits in US courts – not to mention a fully functional US military prison at Bagram air base in Afghanistan?

Among other things, since taking office, the Obama administration has asserted in court that prisoners held at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan have no right to challenge their detentions in US courts, pre-empted a supreme court ruling on whether a legal US resident can be imprisoned indefinitely without trial, and argued to dismiss cases brought by alleged victims of rendition on the grounds that they might pose a threat to US “national security”.

The litany of disappointing actions on human rights and civil liberties seems to be growing longer every day.

This week on Fault Lines, we talk to people on all sides of the so-called “war on terror” – from human rights lawyers to former Bush administration officials; from a former US detainee who was rendered to torture to the CIA analyst who helped author his fate.

Where at first glance the US appears to be heading in a new direction, to what extent has the Obama administration turned its back on the abusive

source

Dirty Wars: Jeremy Scahill and Rick Rowley’s New Film Exposes Hidden Truths of Covert U.S. Warfare

< Previous Story |

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

click on image
amyg   Premiering this week at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, the new documentary “Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield” follows investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill to Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen as he chases down the hidden truths behind America’s expanding covert wars. We’re joined by Scahill and the film’s director, Rick Rowley, an independent journalist with Big Noise Films. “We’re looking right now at a reality that President Obama has essentially extended the very policies that many of his supporters once opposed under President Bush,” says Scahill, author of the bestseller “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army” and a forthcoming book named after his film. “One of the things that humbles both of us is that when you arrive in a village in Afghanistan and knock on someone’s door, you’re the first American they’ve seen since the Americans that kicked that door in and killed half their family,” Rowley says. “We promised them that we would do everything we could to make their stories be heard in the U.S. … Finally we’re able to keep those promises.” [includes rush transcript]
Guests:

Jeremy Scahill, producer and writer of the documentary film Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, which just premiered here at the Sundance Film Festival. He is national security correspondent for The Nation, author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Richard Rowley, director of the documentary film Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, which just premiered here at the Sundance Film Festival. He is an independent journalist with Big Noise Films.

522761_500364233318950_1595629151_n

Obama’s Middle East Cynicism

MJ Rosenberg

The U.S. vote against raising the status of Palestine at the United Nations was a deeply cynical move. It was cynical because there is not a chance that President Obama believes that he did the right thing. It is also cynical because, in the name of friendship for Israel, Obama led Israel closer to the cliff.

The last thing a true friend of Israel would have done would be to stand by as Israel demonstrated its almost complete international isolation. Just eight countries backed the Israeli position – the US, Panama, Palau, Canada, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Czech Republic and Micronesia – while 138 voted with the Palestinians. Was this display helpful to Israel?

But Obama was not trying to be helpful. The administration enabled this “disaster” (from Israel’s point of view) because Obama seems to truly not care about Israelis or Palestinians.

Take the two most recent examples. The first was his absolute refusal to express a word of sympathy for the Palestinians killed in the Gaza war. Under previous administrations, certainly under every Democratic administration, sympathy was expressed for the dead and injured on both sides along with a call for an end to the fighting. But Obama would not do that. Even when asked directly his spokesperson at the State Department would only speak of Israel’s pain. (To her credit, Secretary of State Clinton did say that she felt for both sides.)

But not Obama. He is determined not only to demonstrate that there is “no daylight” separating the two countries but that no amount of darkness separates us either.

The argument that he has to behave this way because of the power of the lobby doesn’t hold up. I would be the last person in the world to deny that the lobby is a powerful force in the making of U.S. Middle East policy. But, unless there is some mysterious element to the lobby’s power that I am missing, its ability to intimidate ends when a president is re-elected.

Believing that Obama is worried about Congressional Democrats being punished in 2014 is just as inaccurate. One: that is two years away. Two: Obama has rarely demonstrated (like almost all presidents before him) much concern for the Congressional wing of his party. And, three: the November 6th election demonstrated yet again that Jewish voters do not cast their ballots (or make campaign contributions) based on Israel. Nor do Israel’s fundamentalist Christian backers. Jews are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats and Christian Zionists are conservative Republicans. Those facts seem never to change.

Besides, does Obama really believe that he would lose votes or campaign contributions from Jews and other pro-Israel Americans if he expressed sympathy for dead Palestinian children? Or called on both sides to stop the violence. I hold no brief for the lobby but Obama could have said what he no doubt felt without losing anyone’s support. Even the lobby does not demand that politicians withhold human sympathy.

As for the United Nations vote, Obama could have prevented the huge embarrassment inflicted on both Israel and the United States by telling Israel to “chill.” I am glad he didn’t because I think the vote will be seen by history as a significant step toward Palestinian statehood. But it also delegitimized Israel in the eyes of the world which is a terrible defeat for those of us who care about Israel ultimately achieving peace and security alongside the Palestinians.

And it could easily have been averted if Obama had told Israel that the United States would vote for the resolution and that Israel should, too. In that case, the vote for Palestine’s elevated status would have been unanimous which would have rendered the Palestinian victory meaningless. Unanimous backing for any measure almost always demonstrates the measure’s insignificance. Instead, Israel’s hysteria and America’s arm-twisting against the resolution gave the Palestinians a big victory, a victory that the United States and Israel both elevated to historic proportions.

So why did Obama behave the way he did? I am afraid it is because he does not think Israelis or Palestinians are worth the hassle. If he can avoid dealing with Netanyahu and his vocal backers here, he will. He has more important fish to fry – like the domestic economy and preserving the social safety net.

I understand that but nonetheless ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian issue – by simply parroting the Israeli line – has done terrible damage to America’s standing in the world. Look at the UN vote which was neatly summed up by the front-page New York Times headline: “UN Assembly, In Blow To U.S., Elevates Status of Palestine.” Perhaps it is of no concern of Obama’s that Israel appears utterly isolated, but so does the United States. To put it in crude terms: we look like Israel’s tool.

I will not conclude by expressing the hope that Obama will now do the right thing for Israel, Palestine and, most importantly, the United States by convening negotiations and acting as an “honest broker.” I doubt he can do that anymore both because he has entirely lost the trust of the Arab world and because events have demonstrated, in large part due to this administration, that history can move on without us. But primarily because I do not think President Obama cares enough to invest any time or energy in Middle East peacemaking. He seems not to care that resolving conflict in a vital region of the world is not just some favor we do for people 6000 miles away; it is something we do to defend America’s interests. It’s sad. But above all, it is just cynical.

Postscript: Prime Minister Netanyahu reciprocated President Obama’s misplaced kindness today when he announced that he will build 3000 new settler housing units in the E-1 corridor of the West Bank. This housing, designed to permanently separate the southern West Bank from the northern part and to separate both from Jerusalem would destroy any chance of achieving the two-state solution. It also breaks a specific promise Netanyahu made to Obama.

Additionally, AIPAC is rushing to get Congress to “punish” Palestinians for going to the UN by blocking aid. Netanyahu and his lobby now believe (probably correctly) that Obama will permit them to do whatever they want. This is what the United States gets for its “no daylight” policy and what we taxpayers get for $3.5 billion a year in aid.

source

Barack Obama: Dying to Give a Damn

by Richard Silverstein on November 19, 2012 · 67 comments

 

Day 6: 95 Palestinians killed, 720 wounded.

The title of this post is harsh.  But the one I first considered was even more so: “Barack Obama, go to Hell.”  I am so glad I didn’t vote for this man for president.  At the time I cast my vote I did it thinking I was doing the right thing.  But in my heart regretting it.  If I had voted for him, now I my heart would be turning bitter as gall.

Here is what this sorry excuse for a leader had to say today in Thailand:

“[T]here is no country on earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders. So we are fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself from missiles landing on people’s homes…

Let’s understand what the precipitating event here was that’s causing the current crisis, and that was an ever-escalating number of missiles that were landing not just in Israeli territory but in areas that are populated.”

I also discovered this statement which appears to have been made separately and covers related, but different ground:

“Israel has every right to expect that it does not have missiles fired into its territory,” President Barack Obama said at a news conference in Bangkok at the start of a three-nation visit to Asia.

“If that can be accomplished without a ramping up of military activity in Gaza, that’s preferable,” Obama said. “It’s not just preferable for the people of Gaza. It’s also preferable for Israelis, because if Israeli troops are in Gaza, they’re much more at risk of incurring fatalities or being wounded.”

Let’s address this lame excuse for a political argument.  First, it could’ve been (and possibly was) drafted by an Aipac staffer.  It’s directly taken from pro-Israel talking points.  You’ve heard the same bullshit from Michael Oren a hundred times.  What this argument omits is that Israel has Gaza in a stranglehold.  It has turned the enclave into a virtual prison having no economy, no exports, no ability to travel in or out.  Gaza is occupied in effect by Israel.  This occupation is illegal.  Any nation has a right to resist such an occupation.

I do not support firing missiles from Gaza into Israel.  But I do not support Israel’s occupation of Gaza either.  I do not expect Gazans to roll over and play dead for Israel’s benefit or for the benefit of a U.S. president who has his head up his ass.

The real issue isn’t whether Israel has a right to attack Gaza.  The issue is how to get at the root causes of this conflict and resolve it.  F-16s, drones, targeted assassinations and helicopter gunships only kick the football farther down the road, as Mitt Romney so aptly put it (who’d have ever thought that Obama would actually follow a Mideast policy outlined by Romney).

Obama says he’s opposed to an Israeli invasion not because many Gazans will be killed (he clearly doesn’t care about that) but because Israelis will die.  Have you ever heard anything so callous?  Yes, I suppose in all the history of this conflict there have been far more callous statements.  But by a U.S. president?  Not so many.

Barack Obama: go to Hell.  You don’t give a damn.  You don’t have a moral bone in your body.  Give back that Nobel Peace Prize.  You don’t deserve it. In fact, you’ve pissed on it and turned it from gold to (cast) lead.

netanyahu election war(Guardian, Steve Bell)

Former Israeli national security advisor Gen. Giora Eiland, on the other hand, made an amazingly forthright statement about what should be the outline for a fair resolution of the current impasse in Gaza.  For that reason, of course, it will be ignored by those in power.  But it still deserves a fair hearing:

“Israel’s bottom line interest toward Gaza is a security issue – that they won’t fire at us,” said Eiland, who also served as the head of Israel’s National Security Council. “Consequently, if we can reach an arrangement, it’s preferable to give ground on certain political issues in exchange for a better security arrangement.”

This sort of agreement would include “a mutual cease-fire and an Egyptian guarantee of not just quiet, but also that no weapons will enter Gaza,” Eiland said, adding that “this arrangement would be guaranteed by additional parties, for example, Qatar and Turkey.”

Among the political compromises that could be made in exchange for such a security arrangement, Eiland listed lifting the naval blockade of Gaza “so that the European Union member countries could send under supervision dinghies into Gaza’s port.”

Eiland also suggested that Israel recognize Gaza as a state under Hamas’ rule. “This is a country a ruled by an elected government and I expect that this government will act in a responsible manner, like a state would,” Eiland said.

“It’s not enough to say ‘Hamas will surrender,’” Eiland continued. “We need to give something, if not to Hamas, then to others. It’s impossible to reach a point where one side will surrender. Sometimes we become captive to slogans like ‘We won’t talk with Hamas.’ I say the opposite. It’s a fact that Hamas rules Gaza and that Gaza is a state. We need to recognize this and utilize the advantages this situation presents.”

The thinking is that if Israel recognizes Hamas as ruler of Gaza, it will place the onus on the Islamist group to run Gaza and fully control what happens there.  In effect, Eiland is saying to make Hamas put their money where their mouth is: you want to rule this place–do it.  And if you don’t, we and the world community who are enforcing this agreement will hold you accountable.

There is also a strategic element to his thinking that is unspoken.  If Israel breaks Palestine into two entities, then Palestinian strength and aspirations for statehood will be even more fragmented than they are now.  Hamas will have less interest in creating a coalition government with Fatah because it will control its own fiefdom in Gaza.  The West Bank and Gaza may be permanently severed.  That part of Eiland’s strategy is pernicious in the long-term.  But it doesn’t mean that much of what he’s saying wouldn’t make things better than they are now in Gaza itself.

I can’t tell you how refreshing this breeze is.  It’s a bit of truth.  And coming from a general bristling with medals and lots of dead Israeli enemies under his belt.  This is not some peacenik or “Arab lover.”  This is the very same dude who whitewashed the Mavi Marmara massacre on behalf of the IDF, for whom he investigated it.

I do have to say though that there’s a strange dynamic at work in Israeli politics: when you’re an official and within the system, you lie and say things that make you and your country sound like an idiot.  When you leave the system, all of a sudden you become a seer and things you didn’t appear to know or couldn’t say come tripping off your tongue.  The same phenomenon occurred with Ehud Olmert after he resigned his prime ministership. While he was in office he tried to sell Mahmoud Abbas a bill of goods in the guise of a legitimate peace agreement.  After he left, he called the settlements a cancer eating at Israel’s insides.

So some of this may be at work in Eiland’s change of heart, if you can call it that.  But who cares?  Truth is truth whether it comes from a sane person or a mad man.

Something further that is interesting here is that Eiland is making these statements–ones that cut to the heart of the weakness of Israel’s “mowing the grass” approach to Gaza–only five days after the start of hostilities and even before the expected invasion.  In other words, the general is already saying the emperor has no clothes.  The way this usually works is that the critics wait until a few weeks in after the soldiers and civilians have started dying in significant numbers.  That’s the time when the body politic becomes more receptive to such contrarian thinking.  So Eiland is bucking this trend and deserves credit for doing so.

al dalou gaza massacre

al-Dalou family children massacred in Gaza (Harry Fear)

When you read the following you will understand my outrage directed against Barack Obama.  Today should be the Kfar Kana or the al-Samouni moment in this war.  The former was the tragedy during the 2006 war when Israel attacked a Lebanese village near a UN base killing scores of civilians.  After that atrocity, the war was essentially over though Israel didn’t realize it at the time.  My fear is that the murder of 12 Gaza civilians in a bombing that flattened a 3-story apartment building filled with civilians will not be enough of a tragedy to end this growing madness.  More of the innocent may have to die before the world tells Israel: Dayenu!

The al-Dalou family was sheltering in its home from the bombardment.  Earlier, two male family members had left to procure supplies because they feared an imminent invasion.  They survived.  Five women, four children (all between two and five years-old) and two men died.  One of the women was 81 years old:

Khalil al-Dallu screams. “They said Mohammed was alive!” he shouts as emergency workers pull the body of a young man from a Gaza City home levelled by an Israeli strike on Sunday.  His face quickly crumples into tears as the emergency staff tell him that his cousin is in fact dead — one of six members of the Dallu family killed when an Israeli missile struck the Nasser neighbourhood, flattening the three-story building where they lived.

“The whole family is martyred!” he cries, as the body of 35-year-old Mohammed al-Dallu is placed in an ambulance.

“What was the sin of the children and the infants, Israel?” he screams, raising his hands to the sky.

The emergency workers carry on with their grim task. By the time their work is done they have pulled 11 bodies from the pancaked building and others around it.  The body of Mohammed’s wife is also retrieved, as well as those of five of their children. The body of another woman, also a family member, is also pulled out although she is not immediately identified.

The strike has also killed two of their neighbours from the Muzzana family.

Mohammed’s father, Jamal, and his 17-year-old son Abdullah, are among the survivors. When the Israeli strike happened, they were out buying food to boost the family’s stocks because they feared an Israeli ground invasion.

Jamal leans on a bloody electricity pole for support, overwhelmed at the horror and loss in front of him, his relatives crowding around as pieces of his grandchildren are plucked from their former home.  Near hysterical with anger and sorrow, Ibrahim shouts: “Don’t tell his brother Abdullah, the trauma will kill him!”  The brother, 26-year-old Abdullah, is currently studying in Turkey to become a doctor.

…  Ahmed Hato, 13, is still dazed by the sudden death visited on the family.”I was playing with the sons of the neighbours at the entrance to the street. There was a huge explosion, the earth shook and dust and rocks went everywhere. I don’t know how, but I ended up on the ground and without injuries,” he says.

Ahmed’s father can’t watch the rescue efforts, and doesn’t answer his phone. Instead he cries openly for Mohammed, whom he saw just an hour before the strike.  Mohammed, a Hamas police officer, “was a good man, moral and kind to everyone,” he says. “Everyone loved him. His death is a huge loss for the family.”

It turns out, as it often does in these sorts of IDF incursions, that the IAF was trying to assassinate the head of Hamas’ rocket warfare unit, Yechiya Rabiah (must be the guy who took over from Dirar Abusisi after his “forced retirement” at the hands of the Mossad and Ukrainian intelligence), who lives nearby.  Ooops, they got the wrong house.  Another intelligence failure.  Only killed 12 innocent civilians as a result.  Terribly regrettable.  But if Rabiah would only do the IDF the favor of living in an open field so it could kill him cleanly, these sorts of things wouldn’t have to happen.  You know how that Hamas uses civilians as human shields.

What created even more bitter irony is that just as when it dropped a bunker buster bomb during the 2006 war on Hassan Nasrallah’s Beirut hiding place, the IDF crowed that it’d taken out yet another terrorist bad guy.  Turns out that Nasrallah and Rabiah are very much alive.  What do you say in the midst of such insanity: woops?

Even an IDF journalist-stenographer like Avi Issacharoff writing in Haaretz concedes the Gaza operation is “starting to get into trouble” because too many civilians are dying.  All I can say is boker tov buddy, civilians were dying from the first moment of the fighting.  It’s just that now they’re starting to pile up like cordwood.  But if Issacharoff wants to wake up only today on day six, it’s better than sleep walking through an entire war before realizing 1,400 Gazans have been slaughtered as happened during Cast Lead.

At what point does Barack Obama become moved enough, or boxed in enough by this suffering that he’s finally got to get off his ass and do something?

By the way, Israeli polls find that while 90% of Israelis support the Gaza war (only 16% support a ceasefire), only 46% support an invasion while 32% are opposed.  That’s a sizable minority viewpoint.

source

The debate and Syria


..

Debate Ends Abruptly as Obama Punches Romney in Face

  • The Borowitz Report
October 22, 2012
Posted by
obama-debate-233.jpgBOCA RATON (The Borowitz Report)—The third and final Presidential debate ended in dramatic fashion tonight as President Obama punched Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the face, knocking him unconscious before a national television audience.

As Mr. Romney lay motionless on the floor at Lynn University with 35:06 remaining in regulation, moderator Bob Schieffer declared the debate over, calling Mr. Obama’s punch “a clean shot.”

The President’s uncharacteristic explosion of anger came after Mr. Romney repeatedly needled him about going on a global “apology tour” on behalf of the U.S.

As the former Massachusetts Governor continued his harangue, TV viewers witnessed Mr. Obama glaring at his Republican opponent, a vein visibly throbbing on the President’s forehead.

Still, few observers were prepared for the sight of Mr. Obama leaping across the table and cold-cocking Mr. Romney, dropping him to the floor.

Moments later, Vice-President Joe Biden jumped onstage to congratulate Mr. Obama with a jubilant high-five.

“You literally cleaned his clock,” Mr. Biden said. “I only wish I’d done the same thing to that punk Ryan.”

After the debate, the usually mild-mannered Obama was at pains to explain why exactly he had struck Mr. Romney in the face: “I guess I just couldn’t take it any more, and I sort of snapped. It wasn’t optimal. But he was being such a dick.”

Minutes after Mr. Romney was carried out on a stretcher, the debate was declared a victory for Mr. Obama by all the major networks except Fox News, who called it a draw.

Get the Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox.

Photo by Jewel Samad/AFP

President Barack Obama Jokes and One Liners at Al Smith Dinner with Mitt Romney

[youtube http://youtu.be/jtzKXw-aZ7M?]

Mitt Romney, Barack Obama to trade jabs at Al Smith dinner

The two presidential candidates took a break from the caustic criticism of the campaign trail to score political points with biting humor last night in New York City.

President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney peeled off the stump Thursday to attend the annual Al Smith Dinner at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel. During presidential election years, the event brings the candidates to the same stage to trade barbs and self-deprecating zingers as the race enter its final weeks.

The white-tie affair raises millions for the Gov. Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation and is organized by the Catholic Archdiocese of New York to benefit needy children.

More than 1,600 were scheduled to attend the dinner. The menu includes poached lobster tail and dark chocolate tropical fruit cadeau. Tickets start at $2,500.

The diocese hopes to raise $5 million in grants this year. Last year it gave out $2 million in grants.

President Barack Obama also taped an episode of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” while he’s in Manhattan. The show aired late yesterday.

Comedy Central host Jon Stewart pressed Obama over the government’s changing explanation about the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, according to the Associated Press. When Stewart suggested that even Obama would concede his administration’s coordination and communication had not been “optimal,” Obama said: “If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. We’re going to fix it. All of it.”

Romney has questioned Obama’s handling of the matter and his honesty about it to voters. On “The Daily Show,” Obama insisted information was shared with the American people as it came in, the AP said. The attack is under investigation, he said, and “the picture eventually gets filled in.”

Last night’s Smith dinner fell two days after Obama and Romney exchanged heated jabs during their second presidential debate at Hofstra University. After what many observers thought was an inspired performance by Romney, and a lackluster one by the president, in Denver during the first debate, campaign watchers gave the edge to Obama after Tuesday night.

The latest polling shows the race as virtually tied.

This year’s event also come during the same year as New York’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan has clashed with the president over a federal mandate that insurance cover the cost of contraception for church affiliated institutions, like Catholic colleges and hospitals.

The mandate is part of the president’s health care reform law known as the Affordable Care Act.

More than a dozen archdioceses from around the country have filed lawsuits claiming the contraception mandate would require church leaders to violate religious beliefs to implement the law.

In March during a speech at Holy Trinity Diocesan High School in Hicksville, Dolan called the mandate a “government intrusion into the church.”

The Al Smith Dinner has been a necessary stop for politicians since World War II. The event is named for the unsuccessful Democratic presidential nominee in 1928, who was the first Catholic to run for president. Smith was a four-term governor of New York.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑