The Jim Bakker Show

Philippine defense chief says Duterte may be ‘misinformed’ on U.S. alliance

MANILA (Reuters) – The Philippine defense minister sought to patch up cracks in a military alliance with the United States on Wednesday, saying President Rodrigo Duterte, who has appeared intent on scrapping joint programs, might be misinformed about their value.

Referring to recent strongly worded comments by Duterte, in which he has declared that the Philippines military gained little from U.S. security ties, Defence Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said the armed forces were still weak and the country got a lot out of the U.S. relationship.

“That’s why I said the president was misinformed, because I think the information he is getting is incomplete,” Lorenzana told reporters, a day after the launch of the latest round of PHIBLEX military exercises involving troops from both sides.

“Maybe, the defense ministry and the armed forces were remiss in providing him the correct information. This, we will address in the coming days.”

The United States has been on the receiving end of a torrent of hostility from Duterte, who was angered by U.S. expressions of concern over his war on drugs.

On Tuesday, Duterte said U.S. President Barack Obama should “go to hell” and that in his time, he might “break up” with Washington, with which Manila has had a security treaty since 1951.

Last week, he also caused a stir when he said the PHIBLEX exercises would be “the last one” and on Sunday said a U.S.-Philippines Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement would be reviewed.

That deal includes setting up storage facilities for maritime security, humanitarian and disaster response operations and grants U.S. troops some access to Philippine bases.

Lorenzana said the ongoing exercises gave Philippine troops exposure to new guns, technology and body armor and training in warfare tactics, marksmanship and quick responses to natural disasters.

“According to him, only the American troops are benefiting from those exercises,” he said, referring to his president.

“But based on what we gathered from the GHQ (general headquarters) and army, there are (benefits).”

U.S. officials have played down Duterte’s remarks, focusing instead on the decades-long alliance which they have sought to bolster in recent years in response to China’s moves to enforce its claims over the South China Sea.

The White House said on Tuesday the United States had not received any formal communications from Duterte’s government about changing the relationship.

(Reporting by Martin Petty; Editing by Robert Birsel)

White House seeks improved tribal relations as pipeline fight lingers

Protesters demonstrate against the Energy Transfer Partners' Dakota Access oil pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, in Los Angeles

By Valerie Volcovici

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The leaders of hundreds of Native American tribes will meet with President Barack Obama at his eighth and final Tribal Nations Conference at the White House next week, while thousands of activists are encamped on the North Dakota prairie protesting a $3.7 billion oil pipeline.

The conference, designed to improve the relationship between Washington and the tribes, offers the last chance for this administration to hear from tribal leaders about the shortcomings of the current consultation system, which has been a source of conflict over the pipeline and other projects.

Federal agencies take different approaches to consulting with the tribes.

Obama, who will leave office in January, likely wants to do what he can before his term ends to fix the consultation system.

The North Dakota encampment represents the largest Native American protest in decades.

Along with environmentalists, the tribes say the 1,100-mile (1,886-km) Dakota Access pipeline, being developed by Energy Transfer Partners LP <ETP.N>, would threaten the water supply and sacred sites of the Standing Rock Sioux.

The administration stepped in unexpectedly on Sept. 9 to temporarily block construction of the pipeline and called for “a serious discussion” about how the tribes are consulted by the government in decisions on major infrastructure projects.

“There are going to be hundreds of tribes interested in this consultation process. It will not be easy logistically, politically or substantively,” said Gabe Galanda, an attorney in Seattle who represents tribal governments.

VARYING APPROACHES

At present, the Army Corps of Engineers, which manages many infrastructure projects for the government, takes one approach to consulting Native American tribes. The Interior Department and its Bureau of Indian Affairs take another. Laws overlap.

The result can be confusion and sometimes anger, as with Dakota Access, said Bryan Newland, a lawyer and former adviser to the assistant secretary for Indian Affairs at the Interior Department until 2012.

A goal of the upcoming discussions will likely be simply to clarify what is meant by “consultation.”

The Interior Department and Bureau of Indian Affairs tend to hold face-to-face bilateral meetings with tribal leaders. The Corps often is accused of “checking marks on a checklist and moving on with what the developer intends to do,” said Galanda.

Ron His Horse is Thunder, spokesman for the Standing Rock Sioux, said: “There’s an issue between what the Corps believes is consultation and what the tribe believes is consultation.”

Before the Dakota Access protest erupted, tribe members voiced specific concerns with the government about the proximity of the pipeline to sacred burial sites, but these concerns were ignored, according to His Horse is Thunder.

But Amy Gaskill, public affairs chief for the Corps’ northwest division, said the tribe canceled several scheduled meetings. This was documented in a judge’s decision to reject the tribe’s request for an injunction, she said.

“We redoubled our efforts to work with the tribe to make sure their voice was heard in the process,” Gaskill said.

Energy Transfer Partners said last week it remained committed to the pipeline project, which had been slated to begin carrying oil south from the Bakken shale field by the end of 2016.

TOWARD REFORM

Sixteen years ago, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order requiring agencies to consult with Native Americans on matters affecting them. Obama in 2009 issued a memo intended to strengthen consultations with the tribes.

But doing that requires constant attention, said David Hayes, a former deputy secretary of the Interior under Clinton and Obama. “It is the kind of thing that requires diligence in terms of federal officials ensuring they are not simply treating tribes like any other stakeholder,” Hayes said.

Some agencies do not treat the tribes as sovereign nations, as they should under law, said Wizipan Garriott Little Elk, a former Department of Interior official.

“So often you see the agency request the consultation with the president of a tribal nation, but the agency will send a low-level bureaucrat to the meeting and simply check off the consultation box,” Garriott said.

The Corps also weighs a narrower geographic scope for projects than other agencies, so it can overlook impacts outside the immediate range of a reservation, Newland said.

Talks between tribal leaders and the administration are likely to expose a consultation system that makes tribes feel disadvantaged, said Emily Mallen, a lawyer with Van Ness Feldman specializing in pipelines.

“It is unknown how the federal government might seek to resolve this issue. The only thing that is sure is that the tribal consultation process will likely see significant changes as a result,” she said.

(Additional reporting by Ruthy Munoz in Washington; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Matthew Lewis)

White House names retired Air Force general as first cyber security chief

By Dustin Volz

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House on Thursday named a retired U.S. Air Force brigadier general as the government’s first federal cyber security chief, a position announced eight months ago that is intended to improve defenses against hackers.

Gregory Touhill’s job will be to protect government networks and critical infrastructure from cyber threats as federal chief information security officer, according to a statement.

The administration of President Barack Obama has made bolstering federal cyber security a top priority in his last year in office. The issue has gained more attention because of high-profile breaches in recent years of government and private sector computers.

U.S. intelligence officials suspect Russia was responsible for breaches of Democratic political organizations and state election systems to exert influence on the Nov. 8 presidential election. Russia has dismissed the allegations as absurd.

Obama announced the new position in February alongside a budget proposal to Congress asking for $19 billion for cyber security across the U.S. government. The job is a political appointment, meaning Obama’s successor can choose to replace Touhill after being sworn in next January.

Touhill is currently a deputy assistant secretary for cyber security and communications at the Department of Homeland Security.

He will begin his new role later this month, a source familiar with the matter said. Touhill’s responsibilities will include creating and implementing policy for best security practices across federal agencies and conducting periodic audits to test for weaknesses, according to the announcement.

Grant Schneider, who is the director of cyber security policy at the White House’s National Security Council, will be acting deputy to Touhill, according to the announcement.

(Reporting by Dustin Volz; editing by Cynthia Osterman and Grant McCool)

Republican lawmakers approve $1.1 billion in new Zika funds

By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday agreed to $1.1 billion to fight the Zika virus, short-changing President Barack Obama’s $1.9 billion funding request and angering Democrats by making other cuts to pay for it.

The House approved a funding deal that had been agreed to on Wednesday by Republicans from both the House and Senate. But the bill’s future was uncertain in the Senate, where the Democratic minority has more power to stop legislation, and Democratic leader Harry Reid has declared his opposition.

“It is a responsible plan that assures the administration will continue to have the needed resources to protect the public,” Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said. Republicans said the deal included funding for fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

But the White House said the allocation fell short.

“This plan from congressional Republicans is four months late and nearly a billion dollars short of what our public health experts have said is necessary to do everything possible to fight the Zika virus, and steals funding from other health priorities,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement before the House voted.

Earnest said the Republican plan would limit needed birth control services for women seeking to prevent Zika, which can be spread through unprotected sex — “a clear indication they don’t take seriously the threat from the Zika virus.”

Democrats have been urging Republicans for months to agree to more Zika funding, and the Obama administration has already reprogrammed nearly $600 million that had been set aside to fight Ebola.

House Democrats said they could not go along with the deal because of $750 million in budget cuts elsewhere that the Republicans want to use to pay for the Zika spending.

Senate Democrats also voiced displeasure, clouding the outlook for it passing.

“A narrowly partisan proposal that cuts off women’s access to birth control, shortchanges veterans and rescinds Obamacare funds to cover the cost is not a serious response to the threat from the Zika virus,” Reid said.

Still, Ryan urged the Senate to move on the bill.

According to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, $543 million of the $1.1 billion would come from unspent funds set aside for implementing Obamacare in U.S. territories, while $107 million would come from unused funds to fight another virus, Ebola. Another $100 million would come from unused administrative funds at the Department of Health and Human Services, he said.

(Reporting by Susan Cornwell and Susan Heavey; Editing by Toby Chopra)

Exclusive: Justice Department opposes new Obama proposal on Guantanamo

By Charles Levinson

NEW YORK (Reuters) – President Barack Obama is again facing dissent from within his administration – this time from Attorney General Loretta Lynch – over his plans to shutter the Guantanamo Bay military prison, according to senior administration officials.

Lynch, a former federal prosecutor whom Obama appointed to head the Justice Department two years ago, is opposing a White House-backed proposal that would allow Guantanamo Bay prisoners to plead guilty to terrorism charges in federal court by videoconference, the officials said.

Over the past three months, Lynch has twice intervened to block administration proposals on the issue, objecting that they would violate longstanding rules of criminal-justice procedure.

In the first case, her last-minute opposition derailed a White House-initiated legislative proposal to allow video guilty pleas after nearly two months of interagency negotiations and law drafting. In the second case, Lynch blocked the administration from publicly supporting a Senate proposal to legalize video guilty pleas.

“It’s been a fierce interagency tussle,” said a senior Obama administration official, who supports the proposal and asked not to be identified.

White House officials confirmed that President Obama supports the proposal. But the president declined to overrule objections from Lynch, the administration’s top law-enforcement official.

“There were some frustrations,” said a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The top lawyer in the land has weighed in, and that was the DOJ’s purview to do that.”

If enacted into law, the Obama-backed plan would allow detained terrorism suspects who plead guilty to serve their sentences in a third-country prison, without setting foot on U.S. soil. The plan would thus sidestep a Congressional ban on transferring detainees to the United States, which has left dozens of prisoners in long-term judicial limbo in Guantanamo, the American military enclave in Cuba.

Obama has vowed to close the prison on his watch. But while he has overseen the release of some 160 men from the prison, the facility still holds 80 detainees.

The video plea plan has broad backing within the administration, including from senior State Department and Pentagon officials. A Defense Department spokesman declined to comment.

The most enthusiastic backers of the plan have been defense lawyers representing up to a dozen Guantanamo Bay detainees who are eager to extricate their clients from seemingly indefinite detention.

Republicans in Congress have opposed the president’s plans to empty the prison, on the grounds that many of the detainees are highly dangerous. But there is some bipartisan support for the proposal as well, a rarity in the Guantanamo debate.

Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Senator Lindsey Graham, a leading Republican voice on defense and national security issues, said Graham was “intrigued” by the proposal.

While support from a Republican senator would by no means guarantee the votes needed to pass, it does give the proposal a better chance than schemes that would transfer detainees from the Cuban enclave to the United States.

Obama views the video feed proposal as a meaningful step toward closing the facility and making good on one of his earliest pledges as president, administration officials said.

Of the 80 prisoners remaining in Guantanamo, roughly 30 have been approved for transfer to third countries by an interagency review board. Most of those 30 men are expected to be released from Guantanamo in coming weeks, according to administration officials.

The officials said they think that as many as 10 more prisoners could be added to the approved-for-transfer list by the review board. Finally, another 10 detainees are standing trial in military commissions.

That leaves roughly 30 detainees whom the government deems too dangerous to release but unlikely to be successfully prosecuted in court. As a result, those men would likely have to be transferred to detention in the United States if the prison were closed.

Administration officials say that allowing video feeds could reduce that number to somewhere between 10 and 20. The administration believes that with such a small number of prisoners requiring transfer to the United States, it would be easier to win support for closing the facility, which is run by a staff of 2,000 military personnel.

“This is the group that gives the president the most heartburn,” said the senior administration official.

Lynch and her deputies at the Justice Department argued that the laws of criminal procedure do not allow defendants to plead guilty remotely by videoconference.

Even if Congress were to pass the law, Lynch and her aides have told the White House that federal judges may rule that such pleas are in effect involuntary, because Guantanamo detainees would not have the option of standing trial in a U.S. courtroom.

A defendant in federal court usually has the option to plead guilty or face a trial by jury. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, the only option they would likely face is to plead guilty or remain in indefinite detention.

“How would a judge assure himself that the plea is truly voluntary when if the plea is not entered, the alternative is you’re still in Gitmo?” said a person familiar with Lynch’s concerns about the proposal. “That’s the wrinkle.”

Lawyers for Guantanamo detainee Majid Khan, a 36-year-old Pakistani citizen, first proposed allowing Khan to plead guilty by videoconference in a legal memo submitted to the Department of Justice in November. In 2012, Khan confessed in military court to delivering $50,000 to Qaeda operatives who used it to carry out a truck bombing in Indonesia, and to plotting with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, on various planned strikes.

Senate investigators found internal CIA documents confirming that Khan’s CIA interrogators subjected him to forced rectal feedings. Khan’s lawyers say the experience amounted to rape. He was also water-boarded.

That treatment makes it difficult for the Department of Justice to successfully prosecute Khan in federal court, according to administration officials.

When White House officials learned that Khan and other detainees were ready to plead guilty to terrorism charges in federal court, they thought they had found a solution.

Efforts to try detainees, including Mohammed and other Sept. 11 suspects, in military tribunals at Guantanamo have bogged down over legal disputes. Only eight defendants have been fully prosecuted. Three verdicts have been overturned.

“The beauty of a guilty plea is you don’t need a trial,” said the senior administration official who supports the video plea proposal.

In February, senior Obama aides proposed pushing ahead with video guilty pleas at an interagency meeting at the White House on the closure of Guantanamo, according to officials briefed on the meeting.

Justice Department officials said they opposed video guilty pleas. Matthew Axelrod, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, said the proposal would violate laws of criminal procedure, according to the officials.

The meeting ended with an agreement to pursue new legislation allowing the guilty pleas, the officials said, which the Department of Justice supported.

One week later, President Obama rolled out his plan to close the prison in a nationally televised announcement from the Roosevelt Room. Obama’s plan included seeking “legislative changes … that might enable detainees who are interested in pleading guilty” in U.S. federal courts.

Administration officials spent much of the next two months drafting the new law. On a Friday afternoon in mid-April, White House staff emailed all the involved agencies with a final draft of the bill, according to the officials. The bill would be submitted to Congress the following Monday, the White House email said.

That weekend, Lynch intervened unexpectedly and said the Justice Department opposed the bill. The eleventh-hour move frustrated White House staff. Deciding again to not overrule Lynch, the White House shelved the bill.

In late May, White House officials found a sympathetic lawmaker who inserted language authorizing video pleas into the annual defense spending bill. The White House drafted a policy memo publicly supporting the proposal, which is known as a Statement of Administration Policy, or SAP.

Lynch opposed the idea, according to administration officials, sparking renewed tensions between the Justice Department and White House.

A SAP is the president’s public declaration on the substance of a bill, according to Samuel Kernell, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego. Without one, it’s often more difficult to get lawmakers on the fence to vote the way the White House wants.

The White House again bowed to Lynch’s objections and declined to issue the SAP.

(Additional reporting By David Rohde. Editing by Michael Williams)

House Speaker Ryan: All options open on Zika funding

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – House Speaker Paul Ryan on Wednesday said a range of options to provide funds to fight Zika, adding that lawmakers take the threat seriously but have not yet decided the best way to allocate resources to prevent and combat the deadly virus.

“We’re looking at all different options,” adding that the White House has begun providing congressional staff with answers to questions over President Barack Obama’s funding request. “The administration has a bit of a track record of over-requesting what they need.”

(Reporting by Susan Heavey)

Syrian peace talks limp on to next week without opposition

By John Davison and Stephanie Nebehay

BEIRUT/GENEVA (Reuters) – The U.N. special envoy for Syria has vowed to take fragile peace talks into next week despite a walkout by the main armed opposition, a breakdown in a truce and signs that both sides are gearing up to escalate the five-year-old civil war.

Staffan de Mistura, who dismissed the opposition’s departure as “diplomatic posturing”, expected the delegation to return to the negotiating table. The opposition declared a “pause” this week because of a surge in fighting and too little movement from the government side on freeing detainees or allowing in aid.

Asked whether talks would carry on, de Mistura said on Thursday night: “We cannot let this drop. We have to renew the ceasefire, we have to accelerate humanitarian aid and we are going to ask the countries which are the co-sponsors to meet.”

The talks at U.N. headquarters in Geneva aim to halt a conflict that has allowed for the rise of the Islamic State group, sucked in regional and major powers and created the world’s worst refugee crisis.

In an interview with French-language Radio Television Suisse (RTS), de Mistura said 400,000 people had been killed in the war, far higher than the previous U.N. toll which has varied from 250,000 to 300,000.

The war was tilted in Assad’s favor late last year by Russia’s intervention, supported on the ground by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps who have been bolstered recently by the arrival of members of Iran’s regular army.

WASHINGTON CONCERNED BY RUSSIAN MOVES

The White House has expressed concern that Russia has repositioned artillery near the disputed city of Aleppo.

The Russian military moves have sharpened divisions in Washington over whether President Vladimir Putin genuinely backs the U.N.-led initiative to end the war or is using the talks to mask renewed military support for Assad.

“The regime is so reliant on external support that it is inconceivable that its allies don’t have the leverage to change its approach,” Britain’s envoy to the Syria peace talks, Gareth Bayley, said on Friday.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday that the decision by the opposition High Negotiations Committee (HNC) to quit Geneva was not a loss for anyone except the HNC itself.

“If they want to ensure their participation (in the peace talks) only by putting ultimatums, with which others must agree, it’s their problem,” Lavrov said, adding:

“For God’s sake, we shouldn’t be running after them, we must work with those who think not about their career, not about how to please their sponsors abroad, but with those who are ready to think about the destiny of their country.”

The head of the Syrian delegation, Bashar Ja’afari, confirmed he met de Mistura to discuss humanitarian issues on Friday and would be meeting with him again on Monday.

Moscow and Washington sponsored the fragile cessation of hostilities that went into effect on Feb. 27 to allow talks to take place but has been left in tatters by increased fighting in the past week.

In Aleppo, government air strikes in different parts of the city killed at least 10 people and wounded dozens more on Friday, with the death toll expected to rise due to serious injuries, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

Further southwest in Hama province, warplanes targeted rebel-held areas in the strategic Ghab plain that borders Latakia province, Assad’s coastal heartland.

Insurgents announced a new battle in Latakia earlier this week which they said was in response to ceasefire violations by the government side, launching fierce assaults there. Fighting raged in the area on Friday, said the British-based Observatory, which monitors the conflict with a network of sources on the ground.

ASSAD MAIN ISSUE

Endorsed by the U.N. Security Council, the Geneva peace talks marked the most serious effort yet to resolve the war, but failed to make progress on political issues, with no sign of compromise over the question of Assad’s future.

Government negotiators say Assad’s presidency is non-negotiable. Underlining confidence in Damascus, a top Assad aide reiterated its view that local truce agreements and “destroying terrorism” were the way toward a political solution.

The opposition wants a political transition without Assad, and says the government has failed to make goodwill measures such as releasing detainees and allowing enough aid into opposition-held areas besieged by the military.

The HNC, which is backed by Western nations and key Arab states, had this week urged more military support for rebels after declaring the truce was over and said talks would not re-start until the government stopped committing “massacres”.

All the main HNC members had left Geneva by Friday, leaving a handful of experts and a point of contact behind.

With violence escalating, peace talks might not resume for at least a year if they are abandoned, one senior Western diplomat said.

Syria is now a patchwork of areas controlled by the government, an array of rebel groups, Islamic State, and the well-organized Kurdish YPG militia.

On Friday, rare clashes between YPG fighters and government-allied forces and militiamen took place for nearly a third day, the Observatory said, in fighting which a Syrian Kurdish official said had killed 26 combatants. Kurdish and government forces have mostly avoided confrontation in the past.

(Additional reporting by John Irish in Geneva; writing by Peter Millership; editing by Peter Graff)

Number of U.S. government ‘cyber incidents’ jumps in 2015

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. government was hit by more than 77,000 “cyber incidents” like data thefts or other security breaches in fiscal year 2015, a 10 percent increase over the previous year, according to a White House audit.

Part of the uptick stems from federal agencies improving their ability to identify and detect incidents, the annual performance review from the Office and Management and Budget said.

The report, released on Friday, defines cyber incidents broadly as “a violation or imminent threat of violation of computer security policies, acceptable use policies, or standard computer security practices.” Only a small number of the incidents would be considered as significant data breaches.

National security and intelligence officials have long warned that cyber attacks are among the most serious threats facing the United States. President Barack Obama asked Congress last month for $19 billion for cyber security funding across the government in his annual budget request, an increase of $5 billion over the previous year.

The government’s Office of Personnel Management was victim of a massive hack that began in 2014 and was detected last year. Some 22 million current and former federal employees and contractors in addition to family members had their Social Security numbers, birthdays, addresses and other personal data pilfered in the breach.

That event prompted the government to launch a 30-day “cyber security sprint” to boost cyber security within each federal agency by encouraging adoption of multiple-factor authentication and addressing other vulnerabilities.

“Despite unprecedented improvements in securing federal information resources … malicious actors continue to gain unauthorized access to, and compromise, federal networks, information systems, and data,” the report said.

(Reporting by Dustin Volz; Editing by Alistair Bell)

White House hesitant to call Islamic State’s actions genocide

The White House does not believe the Islamic State’s actions against Christians in the Middle East have risen to the level of genocide, a spokesman told reporters in Washington this week.

Speaking at a press briefing on Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the administration was “concerned by the way that ISIL attempts to target religious minorities” — including Christians — in Iraq and Syria. But when a reporter asked the spokesman if the White House was prepared to call the situation genocide, he declined to give the acts that distinction.

“My understanding is, the use of that word involves a very specific legal determination that has at this point not been reached,” Earnest told reporters, according to a transcript published on the White House website. “But we have been quite candid and direct about how ISIL’s tactics are worthy of the kind of international, robust response that the international community is leading. And those tactics include a willingness to target religious minorities, including Christians.”

ISIL is an acronym for the Islamic State, which controls large swaths of land in Iraq and Syria and has been accused of widespread atrocities and human rights abuses in those areas.

The European Parliament and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have recently adopted resolutions that accuse the organization’s operatives of committing genocide, which is outlawed under a 1948 United Nations treaty that defines the crime as certain acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

Those actions include murdering or inflicting serious harm upon a group’s members.

According to ADF International, there are now 1.8 million fewer Christians living in Iraq and Syria than there were a few years ago. The religious freedom advocacy group places the current population at 775,000, down from 2.65 million, and says Yazidis have nearly been wiped out.

The European Parliament’s resolution, adopted last month, accuses the Islamic State of “committing genocide against Christians and Yazidis, and other religious and ethnic minorities, who do not agree with” the group’s radical interpretation of Islam. It states the Islamic State has slaughtered, beaten, extorted, enslaved and forcibly converted many minorities, and its operatives have also vandalized cemeteries, monuments, churches and other places of worship.

The resolution called for the United Nations Security Council to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court, which would formally investigate the genocide allegations. The court would also prosecute and try the accused, and impose punishments upon a guilty verdict.

ADF International has issued a similar call for action.

The United States has also been asked to characterize the Islamic State’s actions as genocide.
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent commission that makes recommendations to politicians, in December asked the government to designate Christians and four other groups as victims of Islamic State genocide in Iraq and Syria. So far, though, the White House has yet to place the label on the Middle East situation.

“In that region of the world, Christians are a religious minority, and we certainly have been concerned,” Earnest said during the press briefing on Monday. “That’s one of the many reasons we’re concerned with ISIL and their tactics, which is that it’s an affront to our values as a country to see people attacked, singled out or slaughtered based on their religious beliefs.”

The Omnibus spending bill approved by Congress in mid-December includes a provision that says the Secretary of State, John Kerry, must submit an evaluation on the Islamic State’s attacks on Christians and other people of faith in the Middle East to lawmakers within 90 days. That evaluation must include if the situation “constitutes mass atrocities or genocide,” the bill states.

The deadline for that report falls in mid-March.

White House announces major background checks overhaul following data breach

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. government will set up a new agency to do background checks on employees and contractors, the White House said on Friday, after a massive breach of U.S. government files exposed the personal data of millions of people last year.

As a part of a sweeping overhaul, the Obama administration said it will establish a National Background Investigations Bureau. It will replace the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Federal Investigative Services (FIS), which currently conducts investigations for over 100 Federal agencies.

The move, a stiff rebuke for FIS and OPM, comes after last year’s disclosure that a hack of OPM computers exposed the names, addresses, Social Security numbers and other sensitive information of roughly 22 million current and former federal employees and contractors, as well as applicants for federal jobs and individuals listed on background check forms.

Unlike FIS, the new agency’s information systems will be handled by the Defense Department, making it even more central to Washington’s effort to bolster its cyber defenses against constant intrusion attempts by hackers and foreign nationals.

“We can substantially reduce the risk of future cyber incidents” by applying lessons learned in recent years, said Michael Daniel, White House cyber security policy coordinator, on a conference call with reporters.

The White House gave no timeline for implementing the changes, but said some would begin this year. It will seek $95 million more in its upcoming fiscal 2017 budget for information technology development, according to a White House fact sheet.

‘NOT THERE YET’

Officials have privately blamed the OPM data breach on China, though security researchers and officials have said there is no evidence Beijing has maliciously used the data trove.

Controversy generated by the hack prompted several congressional committees to investigate whether OPM was negligent in its cyber security practices. OPM Director Katherine Archuleta resigned last July as the government intensified a broad push to improve cyber defenses and modernize systems.

“Clearly we’re not there yet,” Admiral Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, said at a cyber security event in Washington this week when asked about U.S. preparedness against hacks. The damage done by cyber attacks, he added, “is going to get worse before it gets better.”

OPM has been plagued by a large backlog of security clearance files, prompting it to rely on outside contractors for assistance, possibly compromising cyber security.

The Defense Department and OPM did not respond when asked if the government will still rely on support from contractors.

Representative Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of a House of Representatives panel that has been looking into the issue, said Friday’s announcement fell short.

“Protecting this information should be a core competency of OPM,” Chaffetz said in a statement. “Today’s announcement seems aimed only at solving a perception problem rather than tackling the reforms needed to fix a broken security clearance process.”

(Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball and Andrea Shalal; editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Susan Heavey and Alan Crosby)

Sign up for Jim Bakker Show