Daily Archives: September 25, 2015

Fifth Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII …

Posted: September 25, 2015 at 6:50 pm

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional limits on police procedure. The Framers derived the Grand Juries Clause and the Due Process Clause from the Magna Carta, dating back to 1215. Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: grand juries for capital crimes, a prohibition on double jeopardy, a prohibition against required self-incrimination, a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial, and a promise that the government will not seize private property without paying market value. While the Fifth Amendment originally only applied to federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's provisions as now applying to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Grand juries are a holdover from hundreds of years ago, originating during Britain's early history. Deeply-rooted in the Anglo-American tradition, the grand jury originally served to protect the accused from overly-zealous prosecutions by the English monarchy.

Congressional statutes outline the means by which a grand jury shall be impaneled. Ordinarily, the grand jurors are selected from the pool of prospective jurors who potentially could serve on a given day in any juror capacity. At common-law, a grand jury consists of between 12 and 23 members. Because the Grand jury was derived from the common-law, courts use the common-law as a means of interpreting the Grand Jury Clause. While state legislatures may set the statutory number of grand jurors anywhere within the common-law requirement of 12 to 23, statutes setting the number outside of this range violate the Fifth Amendment. Federal law has set the federal grand jury number as falling between 16 and 23.

A person being charged with a crime that warrants a grand jury has the right to challenge members of the grand juror for partiality or bias, but these challenges differ from peremptory challenges, which a defendant has when choosing a trial jury. When a defendant makes a peremptory challenge, the judge must remove the juror without making any proof, but in the case of a grand juror challenge, the challenger must establish the cause of the challenge by meeting the same burden of proof as the establishment of any other fact would require. Grand juries possess broad authority to investigate suspected crimes. They may not, however, conduct "fishing expeditions" or hire individuals not already employed by the government to locate testimony or documents. Ultimately, grand juries may make a presentment. During a presentment the grand jury informs the court that they have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a crime.

The Double Jeopardy Clause aims to protect against the harassment of an individual through successive prosecutions of the same alleged act, to ensure the significance of an acquittal, and to prevent the state from putting the defendant through the emotional, psychological, physical, and financial troubles that would accompany multiple trials for the same alleged offense. Courts have interpreted the Double Jeopardy Clause as accomplishing these goals by providing the following three distinct rights: a guarantee that a defendant will not face a second prosecution after an acquittal, a guarantee that a defendant will not face a second prosecution after a conviction, and a guarantee that a defendant will not receive multiple punishments for the same offense. Courts, however, have not interpreted the Double Jeopardy Clause as either prohibiting the state from seeking review of a sentence or restricting a sentence's length on rehearing after a defendant's successful appeal.

Jeopardy refers to the danger of conviction. Thus, jeopardy does not attach unless a risk of the determination of guilt exists. If some event or circumstance prompts the trial court to declare a mistrial, jeopardy has not attached if the mistrial only results in minimal delay and the government does not receive added opportunity to strengthen its case.

The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may "plead the Fifth" and not answer if the witness believes answering the question may be self-incriminatory.

In the landmark Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the United States Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment protections to encompass any situation outside of the courtroom that involves the curtailment of personal freedom. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Therefore, any time that law enforcement takes a suspect into custody, law enforcement must make the suspect aware of all rights. Known as Miranda rights, these rights include the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the right to have a government-appointed attorney if the suspect cannot afford one.

If law enforcement fails to honor these safeguards, courts will often suppress any statements by the suspect as violative of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, provided that the suspect has not actually waived the rights. An actual waiver occurs when a suspect has made the waiver knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. To determine if a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver has occurred, a court will examine the totality of the circumstances, which considers all pertinent circumstances and events. If a suspect makes a spontaneous statement while in custody prior to being made aware of the Miranda rights, law enforcement can use the statement against the suspect, provided that police interrogation did not prompt the statement.

After Congress passed the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, some felt that the statute by implication overruled the requirements of Miranda. Some scholars also felt that Congress constitutionally exercised its power in passing this law because they felt that Miranda represented a matter of judicial policy rather than an actual manifestation of Fifth Amendment protections. In Dickerson v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this arguments and held that the Warren Court had directly derived Miranda from the Fifth Amendment.

The guarantee of due process for all citizens requires the government to respect all rights, guarantees, and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution and all applicable statutes before the government can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. Due process essentially guarantees that a party will receive a fundamentally fair, orderly, and just judicial proceeding. While the Fifth Amendment only applies to the federal government, the identical text in the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly applies this due process requirement to the states as well.

Courts have come to recognize that two aspects of due process exist: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process aims to ensure fundamental fairness by guaranteeing a party the right to be heard, ensuring that the parties receive proper notification throughout the litigation, and ensures that the adjudicating court has the appropriate jurisdiction to render a judgment. Meanwhile, substantive due process has developed during the 20th century as protecting those right so fundamental as to be "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

While the federal government has a constitutional right to "take" private property for public use, the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause requires the government to pay just compensation, interpreted as market value, to the owner of the property. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined fair market value as the most probable price that a willing but unpressured buyer, fully knowledgeable of both the property's good and bad attributes, would pay. The government does not have to pay a property owner's attorney's fees, however, unless a statute so provides.

In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a controversial opinion in which they held that a city could constitutionally seize private property for private commercial development. 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

See constitutional amendment.

See constitutional clauses.

Link:
Fifth Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII ...

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on Fifth Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII …

Second Amendment

Posted: at 6:50 pm

The Second Amendment

Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nations military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nations armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

The law has also changed. While states in the Founding era regulated gunsblacks were often prohibited from possessing firearms and militia weapons were frequently registered on government rollsgun laws today are more extensive and controversial. Another important legal development was the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Although there is substantial evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in United States v. Cruikshank (1876).

Until recently, the judiciary treated the Second Amendment almost as a dead letter. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), however, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing handguns in the nations capital. A 54 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia.

The dissenters disagreed. They concluded that the Second Amendment protects a nominally individual right, though one that protects only the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. They also argued that even if the Second Amendment did protect an individual right to have arms for self-defense, it should be interpreted to allow the government to ban handguns in high-crime urban areas.

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court struck down a similar handgun ban at the state level, again by a 54 vote. Four Justices relied on judicial precedents under the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas rejected those precedents in favor of reliance on the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but all five members of the majority concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.

Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in Heller and McDonald, they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of presumptively lawful regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Many issues remain open, and the lower courts have disagreed with one another about some of them, including important questions involving restrictions on carrying weapons in public.

The right to keep and bear arms is a lot like the right to freedom of speech. In each case, the Constitution expressly protects a liberty that needs to be insulated from the ordinary political process.

Gun control is as much a part of the Second Amendment as the right to keep and bear arms. The text of the amendment, which refers to a well regulated Militia, suggests as much.

Not a Second Class Right: The Second Amendment Today by Nelson Lund

The right to keep and bear arms is a lot like the right to freedom of speech. In each case, the Constitution expressly protects a liberty that needs to be insulated from the ordinary political process. Neither right, however, is absolute. The First Amendment, for example, has never protected perjury, fraud, or countless other crimes that are committed through the use of speech. Similarly, no reasonable person could believe that violent criminals should have unrestricted access to guns, or that any individual should possess a nuclear weapon.

Inevitably, courts must draw lines, allowing government to carry out its duty to preserve an orderly society, without unduly infringing the legitimate interests of individuals in expressing their thoughts and protecting themselves from criminal violence. This is not a precise science or one that will ever be free from controversy.

One judicial approach, however, should be unequivocally rejected. During the nineteenth century, courts routinely refused to invalidate restrictions on free speech that struck the judges as reasonable. This meant that speech got virtually no judicial protection. Government suppression of speech can usually be thought to serve some reasonable purpose, such as reducing social discord or promoting healthy morals. Similarly, most gun control laws can be viewed as efforts to save lives and prevent crime, which are perfectly reasonable goals. If thats enough to justify infringements on individual liberty, neither constitutional guarantee means much of anything.

During the twentieth century, the Supreme Court finally started taking the First Amendment seriously. Today, individual freedom is generally protected unless the government can make a strong case that it has a real need to suppress speech or expressive conduct, and that its regulations are tailored to that need. The legal doctrines have become quite complex, and there is room for disagreement about many of the Courts specific decisions. Taken as a whole, however, this body of case law shows what the Court can do when it appreciates the value of an individual right enshrined in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment also raises issues about which reasonable people can disagree. But if the Supreme Court takes this provision of the Constitution as seriously as it now takes the First Amendment, which it should do, there will be some easy issues as well.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) is one example. The right of the people protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like the right[s] of the people protected by the First and Fourth Amendments. The Constitution does not say that the Second Amendment protects a right of the states or a right of the militia, and nobody offered such an interpretation during the Founding era. Abundant historical evidence indicates that the Second Amendment was meant to leave citizens with the ability to defend themselves against unlawful violence. Such threats might come from usurpers of governmental power, but they might also come from criminals whom the government is unwilling or unable to control.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) was also an easy case under the Courts precedents. Most other provisions of the Bill of Rights had already been applied to the states because they are deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition. The right to keep and bear arms clearly meets this test.

The text of the Constitution expressly guarantees the right to bear arms, not just the right to keep them. The courts should invalidate regulations that prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying weapons in public, where the vast majority of violent crimes occur. First Amendment rights are not confined to the home, and neither are those protected by the Second Amendment.

Nor should the government be allowed to create burdensome bureaucratic obstacles designed to frustrate the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The courts are vigilant in preventing government from evading the First Amendment through regulations that indirectly abridge free speech rights by making them difficult to exercise. Courts should exercise the same vigilance in protecting Second Amendment rights.

Some other regulations that may appear innocuous should be struck down because they are little more than political stunts. Popular bans on so-called assault rifles, for example, define this class of guns in terms of cosmetic features, leaving functionally identical semi-automatic rifles to circulate freely. This is unconstitutional for the same reason that it would violate the First Amendment to ban words that have a French etymology, or to require that French fries be called freedom fries.

In most American states, including many with large urban population centers, responsible adults have easy access to ordinary firearms, and they are permitted to carry them in public. Experience has shown that these policies do not lead to increased levels of violence. Criminals pay no more attention to gun control regulations than they do to laws against murder, rape, and robbery. Armed citizens, however, prevent countless crimes and have saved many lives. Whats more, the most vulnerable peopleincluding women, the elderly, and those who live in high crime neighborhoodsare among the greatest beneficiaries of the Second Amendment. If the courts require the remaining jurisdictions to stop infringing on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, their citizens will be more free and probably safer as well.

The Reasonable Right to Bear Arms by Adam Winkler

Gun control is as much a part of the Second Amendment as the right to keep and bear arms. The text of the amendment, which refers to a well regulated Militia, suggests as much. As the Supreme Court correctly noted in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the militia of the founding era was the body of ordinary citizens capable of taking up arms to defend the nation. While the Founders sought to protect the citizenry from being disarmed entirely, they did not wish to prevent government from adopting reasonable regulations of guns and gun owners.

Although Americans today often think that gun control is a modern invention, the Founding era had laws regulating the armed citizenry. There were laws designed to ensure an effective militia, such as laws requiring armed citizens to appear at mandatory musters where their guns would be inspected. Governments also compiled registries of civilian-owned guns appropriate for militia service, sometimes conducting door-to-door surveys. The Founders had broad bans on gun possession by people deemed untrustworthy, including slaves and loyalists. The Founders even had laws requiring people to have guns appropriate for militia service.

The wide range of Founding-era laws suggests that the Founders understood gun rights quite differently from many people today. The right to keep and bear arms was not a libertarian license for anyone to have any kind of ordinary firearm, anywhere they wanted. Nor did the Second Amendment protect a right to revolt against a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment was about ensuring public safety, and nothing in its language was thought to prevent what would be seen today as quite burdensome forms of regulation.

The Founding-era laws indicate why the First Amendment is not a good analogy to the Second. While there have always been laws restricting perjury and fraud by the spoken word, such speech was not thought to be part of the freedom of speech. The Second Amendment, by contrast, unambiguously recognizes that the armed citizenry must be regulatedand regulated well. This language most closely aligns with the Fourth Amendment, which protects a right to privacy but also recognizes the authority of the government to conduct reasonable searches and seizures.

The principle that reasonable regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment has been affirmed throughout American history. Ever since the first cases challenging gun controls for violating the Second Amendment or similar provisions in state constitutions, courts have repeatedly held that reasonable gun lawsthose that dont completely deny access to guns by law-abiding peopleare constitutionally permissible. For 150 years, this was the settled law of the landuntil Heller.

Heller, however, rejected the principle of reasonableness only in name, not in practice. The decision insisted that many types of gun control laws are presumptively lawful, including bans on possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on concealed carry, bans on dangerous and unusual weapons, restrictions on guns in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and commercial sale restrictions. Nearly all gun control laws today fit within these exceptions. Importantly, these exceptions for modern-day gun laws unheard of in the Founding era also show that lawmakers are not limited to the types of gun control in place at the time of the Second Amendments ratification.

In the years since Heller, the federal courts have upheld the overwhelming majority of gun control laws challenged under the Second Amendment. Bans on assault weapons have been consistently upheld, as have restrictions on gun magazines that hold more than a minimum number of rounds of ammunition. Bans on guns in national parks, post offices, bars, and college campuses also survived. These decisions make clear that lawmakers have wide leeway to restrict guns to promote public safety so long as the basic right of law-abiding people to have a gun for self-defense is preserved.

Perhaps the biggest open question after Heller is whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public. While every state allows public carry, some states restrict that right to people who can show a special reason to have a gun on the street. To the extent these laws give local law enforcement unfettered discretion over who can carry, they are problematic. At the same time, however, many constitutional rights are far more limited in public than in the home. Parades can be required to have a permit, the police have broader powers to search pedestrians and motorists than private homes, and sexual intimacy in public places can be completely prohibited.

The Supreme Court may yet decide that more stringent limits on gun control are required under the Second Amendment. Such a decision, however, would be contrary to the text, history, and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms.

Read this article:
Second Amendment

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Second Amendment

NATO | Military.com

Posted: at 1:45 am

Politics of Deployment Pose Challenge for NATO's New Spearhead Force

Stars and Stripes | Jul 02, 2015 | by John Vandiver

When NATO granted new powers to its top military commander last week, enabling Gen. Philip Breedlove to mobilize quick-reaction troops for deployment against a gathering threat, it marked a step forward in the alliances attempt to transform itself into a more fleet-footed fighting force. Breedloves new powers essentially mean that when he see... more

Stars and Stripes | Jun 24, 2015 | by John Vandiver

BRUSSELS -- Expanding NATO's crisis-response force and giving the alliance's top military commander the power to deploy forces on short notice are among a series of measures expected to be approved by NATO defense ministers during two days of talks that open Wednesday. The moves are part of the alliance's ongoing attempts to better position its... more

Associated Press | Jun 23, 2015 | by Regina Garcia Cano

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. NATO leaders are working with a telemedicine hub in southeast South Dakota to develop a multinational system that could deliver medical services remotely during natural or manmade disasters. Representatives from NATO nations, including Romania, the United Kingdom and the U.S., are visiting Avera Health's telemedicine center... more

Stars and Stripes | Dec 11, 2014 | by Michael S. Darnell

GRAFENWHR, Germany NATOs Allied Land Command has finally reached full operational capacity, LANDCOM commander Lt. Gen. John Nicholson said at the close on Wednesday of NATOs largest training exercise since the end of the Cold War. One aim of the exercise, Trident Lance, was to test how well a fully operational LANDCOM which is charged wi... more

UPI | Sep 29, 2014

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen bid farewell to NATO members and NATO staff as he prepares to step down Tuesday. At a ceremony in Brussels on Friday to mark the end of his five-year term, Fogh Rasmussen acknowledged the soldiers who comprise NATO forces as "the backbone of our Alliance" and laid a wreath in honor of those who paid ... more

2015 Military Advantage

The rest is here:
NATO | Military.com

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO | Military.com

NATO | London, UK – Embassy of the United States

Posted: at 1:45 am

NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization

10 July 2015 Designation of Tunisia as a Major Non-NATO Ally (State.gov) On May 21, President Obama announced his intent to designate Tunisia as a Major Non-NATO Ally during the visit to Washington of Tunisian President Caid Essebsi. Today, the Administration announced that the designation process is complete, making Tunisia the 16th Major Non-NATO Ally of the United States.

22 June 2015 Defense Secretary Carter Outlines U.S. Support for NATO Task Force U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that the U.S. will provide multiple capabilities to NATO's Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, a component of its Response Force, while speaking at a news conference in Munster, Germany.

08 June 2015 Multinational Baltic Defense Exercise Showcases Interoperability The U.S. has joined 16 other NATO and partner nations in a Baltic regional maritime exercise, Baltic Operations 2015 (BALTOPS). BALTOPS is an annual multinational exercise to enhance flexibility, interoperability and demonstrate the resolve of Allied and partner forces to defend the Baltic region.

26 May 2015NATO Secretary General thanks President Obama for strong U.S. leadership NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and US President Barack Obama discussed the Alliances response to key security challenges at the White House in Washington D.C. on Tuesday.

26 May 2015 Obama, NATOs Stoltenberg After Their Meeting

13 May 2015 Kerrys Remarks to Press at NATO Ministerial Event in Turkey "[] The United States stands very firmly behind the Wales commitments, with respect to NATO. We believe very strongly in NATOs role, particularly on the southern flank in dealing with Libya, in dealing with some of the problems of migrants."

12 May 2015 U.S. European Command and Georgia Join for Exercise 'Noble Partner' The Defense Department announced today the start of Exercise Noble Partner between U.S. European Command and the Republic of Georgia, which will assist in fulfilling troop commitments to the NATO Response Force.

21 April 2015 United States Welcomes Polish Missile Defense Tender The United States welcomes today's announcement from the Polish Ministry of Defense that Raytheons PATRIOT system has been awarded the Vistula integrated air and missile defense tender.

26 March 2015 State's Blinken at the Atlantic Council's NATO Transformation Seminar 2015 "These principles, that the borders and territorial integrity of a democratic state cannot be changed by force; that is it is the inherent right of citizens in a democracy to make their countrys decisions and determine its future; that linguistic nationalism, something we thought was confined to the dustbin of history, must not be allowed to be resurrected; and that all members of the international community are bound by common rules and should face costs if they dont live up to the solemn commitments they make and I want to pause on this last one for just a second because it resonates particularly and in interesting ways in the context of the Ukraine crisis."

03 March 2015 Leaders Discuss Keeping NATO Strong in Challenging World NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed Slovak President Andrej Kiska to NATO on March 3 for talks on current security challenges.

25 February 2015 NATO Commander on European Security Challenges (via IIPDigital)

06 February 2015 Hagel: NATO Must Continue to Change in Face of New Threats The NATO alliance is transforming to address new threats, and it must continue to do so, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in Brussels.

The NATO symbol and flags of the NATO nations mark the entrance to NATO headquarters in Brussels, site of the June 2014 NATO Foreign Ministerial meeting.

16 December 2014 Secretary-General Tells Ukrainian PM, NATO Stands with You (via IIPDigital)

03 December 2014 NATO Foreign Ministers Announce Interim Spearhead Force NATO foreign ministers announced that an interim Spearhead Force would be operational early in 2015 to improve the alliances readiness, and they agreed to maintain a continuous NATO presence in the eastern part of the alliance through 2015.

02 December 2014 NATO Stands with Ukraine, Increases Support NATO foreign ministers stated their political and practical support for Ukraine as its new government embarks on key reforms. The NATO ministers held talks with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin, who participated in the meeting via video link from Kyiv.

06 November 2014 NATO Chief to Afghans: 'You Will Not Stand Alone' The new head of NATO made an unannounced visit to Kabul on Thursday, telling Afghans that the Western military alliance would continue supporting the country after foreign combat troops withdraw at the end of the year.

06 October 2014 NATO Will Defend Every Ally, Secretary-General Stresses in Poland (via IIPDigital)

08 September 2014 Hagel: U.S. Backs Georgias New NATO Standing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel made his first official visit to Georgia on following his participation at the NATO Summit in Wales, meeting with government and military leaders and congratulating the U.S. military partner on its new status as an enhanced NATO partner.

06 September 2014 NATO Wales Summit Declaration "Our Alliance remains an essential source of stability in this unpredictable world. Together as strong democracies, we are united in our commitment to the Washington Treaty and the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Based on solidarity, Alliance cohesion, and the indivisibility of our security, NATO remains the transatlantic framework for strong collective defence and the essential forum for security consultations and decisions among Allies."

04 September 2014 FACT SHEET: Wales Summit NATOs Changing Role in Afghanistan At the Wales Summit, NATO Allies and partners reaffirmed their intent to conduct a non-combat train, advise, and assist mission in Afghanistan beyond 2014, known as Resolute Support, contingent upon the Afghans signing a Bilateral Security Agreement and a status of forces agreement with NATO.

03 September 2014 President Obama on Defending Baltic Allies Against Russia (IIPDigital)

03 September 2014 Obama Stresses NATO Commitment to Baltics (IIPDigital)

01 September 2014 Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will begin his 16th international trip Includes Wales NATO Summit

28 August 2014 NATO Wales Summit: Family of Nations Committed to Peace, Freedom This blog post by Douglas E. Lute, the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, was originally published on the State Department's blog.

14 August 2014 NATO Head Says It Must Adapt to New Security Challenges NATO must adapt to security challenges such as Russias illegal actions in Ukraine, Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said during a visit to Norway. For the first time since the end of the second world war, one country in Europe has seized the land of another by force, and we have to adapt, Rasmussen said.

05 August 2014 British Prime Minister Joins NATO Heads to Discuss Ukraine British Prime Minister David Cameron joins NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove to discuss the impact of the Ukraine crisis on NATOs collective security.

16 July 2014 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Allied Land Component (LANDCOM) Operational Update

26 June 2014 Foreign Ministers Finalize Plans for NATO Mission in Afghanistan NATO foreign ministers and their counterparts from International Security Assistance Force partner nations met in Brussels to review progress in the ISAF mission, take stock of the ongoing election process and firm up operational plans for the launch of a new NATO-led mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan security forces after 2014. United Kingdom to Host 2014 NATO Summit in Wales Afghanistan Transition Tops 2014 NATO Summit Agenda

25 June 2014 NATO Foreign Ministers Agree Alliance Is Open to New Members NATO foreign ministers have agreed that the Alliances door remains open to new members, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said June 25 at the start of the second day of ministerial talks. Over dinner on June 24, the ministers reviewed the progress made by the four aspirant countries; Georgia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

24 June 2014 NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting to Focus on Ukraine, Afghanistan NATOs support to Ukraine and the implications of Russias actions, the future of its mission in Afghanistan, and preparations for the NATO Summit in Wales top the agenda of a two-day meeting of the alliances 28 foreign ministers in Brussels that starts June 24. A more detailed discussion on the summit will be held on June 25 during the first working session of the North Atlantic Council, according to a June 23 NATO press release.

20 June 2014 Hagel, German Defense Minister Discuss NATO, Security Challenges Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen met June 19 at the Pentagon, reaffirming the two nations strong friendship and alliance, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Admiral John Kirby said in a statement.

18 June 2014 NATO, Partners Mark 20th Anniversary of Partnership for Peace (via IIPDigital) The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) met June 17 to mark the 20th anniversary of the Partnership for Peace, which has transformed Euro-Atlantic security and NATO itself by erasing dividing lines, inspiring reforms and building peace and security through consultation and cooperation based on common democratic values.

05 June 2014 Hagel Urges European NATO Members to Boost Defense Budgets NATO European allies must dedicate more money to defense spending, and all are ready to do their part in the follow-on operation in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said at NATO headquarters in Brussels on June 4.

03 June 2014 European Reassurance Initiative and Other U.S. Efforts in Support of NATO Allies and Partners Since early March, the United States has taken action, both bilaterally and through NATO, to reassure allies of our solemn commitment to their security and territorial integrity as members of the NATO Alliance. A persistent U.S. air, land, and sea presence in the region, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, is a necessary and appropriate show of support to allies who have contributed robustly and bravely to Alliance operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere and who are now deeply concerned by Russias occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea and other provocative actions in Ukraine. A Persistent Presence: American's Continued Commitment to European Security

20 May 2014 NATO Defense Chiefs to Discuss Russia, Afghanistan The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, will discuss the situation in Eastern Europe, Europes southern flank, and the way forward in Afghanistan during the NATO Chiefs of Defense meetings in Brussels this week. The NATO Chiefs of Defense meetings are held twice a year, and this one is a lead-in to the NATO Summit thats slated in Wales in September.

15 May 2014 NATO Secretary-General Calls on Allies to Remain Vigilant NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says the NATO allies have to remain vigilant and ensure they are able to defend freedom, democracy and the rule of law in Europe.

08 May 2014 NATO Justified in Reinforcing Allies, Secretary-General Says Washington NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance was fully justified in reinforcing the defense of Poland and other allies in the wake of the Ukraine crisis

03 May 2014 Hagel Calls for NATO Meeting on Defense Investment At a Wilson Center forum here May 2 on NATOs 21st-century security challenges, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called for the creation of a new NATO ministerial meeting focused on defense investment that includes finance ministers or senior budget officials.

02 May 2014 Hagel on NATO Enlargement, European Security (IIPDigital)

01 May 2014 NATO's Relevance to Peace Remains Strong, Biden Says NATO remains as relevant to the peace and security of Europe as it did when it was founded 65 years ago, says U.S. Vice President Biden. Speaking before NATO foreign ministers, ambassadors and other government officials, Biden said: The growth of the Euro-Atlantic community has turned out to be one of the greatest forces in human history for advancing peace, prosperity, security and democracy.

29 April 2014 Hagel Steps Up Consultations With Eastern European Allies (via DoD.gov) Hagel is committed the defense of NATO allies and has also directed U.S. European Command Commander Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove to consult with allies to update defense plans as the security situation in Europe evolves.

29 April 2014 Kerry at Atlantic Council on NATO, Ukraine "If we want a Europe that is both whole and free, then we have to do more together immediately, with a sense of urgency, to ensure that European nations are not dependent on Russia for the majority of their energy."

29 April 2014 Events in Ukraine a Wake-up Call for NATO, Kerry Says The crisis in Ukraine now calls us back to the role that this alliance was originally created to perform, and that is to defend alliance territory and advance trans-Atlantic security, Kerry said in remarks delivered April 29 at a conference hosted by the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based nonpartisan think tank.

28 April 2014 RAF deploys Typhoon jets to bolster NATO air policing mission (via gov.UK) Four Royal Air Force Typhoons have deployed today to take part in the Nato Baltic air policing mission over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. [UK] Defence Secretary Philip Hammond announced this to the House of Commons in March. The deployment forms part of a series of measures taken by Nato to support and reassure its eastern member states.

15 April 2014 NATO Leader Emphasizes Defense Cooperation NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that the Ukraine crisis has amplified the need to strengthen cooperation between NATO, the European Union and close partners.

14 April 2014 NATO Leader to Russia: De-escalation Starts on the Ground "Today, Russia is speaking and behaving not as a partner, but as an adversary. ... In recent weeks, Russian officials have accused NATO of breaking its promises, interfering in Ukraines internal affairs, and escalating the crisis. It is time to see these claims for what they are: a smokescreen designed to cover up Russia's own broken promises, interference and escalation."

11 April 2014 Russia's accusations -setting the record straight (PDF, 400Kb, 4 pages) Russias aggression against Ukraine has led to Russias international isolation, including NATOs suspension of all practical cooperation with Russia. To divert attention away from its actions, Russia has levelled a series of accusations against NATO which are based on misrepresentations of the facts and ignore the sustained effort that NATO has put into building a partnership with Russia. Russia has also made baseless attacks on the legitimacy of the Ukrainian authorities and has used force to seize part of Ukraines territory.

11 April 2014 NATO Defends Accuracy of Satellite Images With Additional Proof (via NATO.int) "NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) defends the accuracy of the images that were released to media on April 10, 2014. The dates of the images released by SHAPE were collected by the DigitalGlobe satellite 'Constellation' between late March and early April 2014. The images are unclassified and are commercially available in DigitalGlobe's public archive. SHAPE did not alter or edit the images in any way prior to release." Related: NATO Tumble images here and here

02 April 2014 Kerry Says Crimean Crisis is Wake-Up Call for NATO NATO is facing one of its toughest challenges from Russia since the end of the Cold War in the 1990s. ... NATO foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on April 1 announced that the alliance will suspend all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.

01 April 2014 Secretary Kerry's Press Conference at NATO Foreign Ministerial in Brussels

31 March 2014 Secretary Kerry on Anniversaries of NATO Enlargement "On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I welcome the five, ten, and fifteen-year anniversaries of three rounds of NATO enlargement. I am proud to celebrate the important milestones in NATOs history that have strengthened the Alliance."

27 February 2014 Hagel Says U.S. Defense Strategy Demands Closer European Ties Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels that U.S. defense strategy calls for a closer partnership with European allies while protecting readiness and enhancing modernization. Hagel added, Ahead of this years Wales Summit, the [NATO] secretary-general is putting a focus on improving NATOs military capabilities so that we can make a down payment on meeting shortfalls. Hagel Press Briefing at NATO Headquarters in Brussels

03 February 2014 NATO Secretary General in London for talks on Wales Summit (via NATO.int) NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen discussed preparations for this Septembers NATO Summit in Wales and thanked the United Kingdom for hosting the high-level meeting in talks with Prime Minister David Cameron. This summit will shape the future of our Alliance. We will make sure that NATO has the equipment and skills we need to deal with the threats we face, such as terrorism, unstable states, piracy, missile and cyber attacks, said the Secretary General.

2013

04 December 2013 Kerry Cites Goals for 2014 NATO Summit The 27-member NATO alliance is preparing for a 2014 summit in Britain and is focusing on three crucial issues: its future supporting Afghanistan security, future military capabilities and its partnerships with more than 44 nations, Secretary of State John Kerry says.

03 December 2013 Background Briefing on NATO Ministerial, Kerrys Trip in Europe The foreign ministers are expected to discuss Afghanistan and NATOs plans to train, advise and assist Afghan security forces after forces from the United States and NATO are withdrawn in 2014, according to a senior State Department official. The ministers are also expected to discuss how best to sustain NATOs military capability after operations conclude in Afghanistan. Secretary Kerry's Solo Press Availability at NATO

15 November 2013 NATO Secretary General announces dates for 2014 Summit (via NATO.int) " I am pleased to announce that the next NATO Summit will take place on September 45, 2014. I also welcome the recent announcement by the British Prime Minister David Cameron that the UK will host NATO Heads of State and Government in South Wales."

24 October 2013 NATO Defense Ministers Lay Groundwork for 2014 Summit NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels October 2223 focused on laying the groundwork for the 2014 summit that will be hosted by British Prime Minister David Cameron. NATO leaders will review implementation of the alliances Strategic Concept, which the leaders agreed to during the 2010 Lisbon Summit, and pursue NATOs transformation to ensure it builds the capabilities to address future challenges.

23 October 2013 Hagel, NATO Defense Ministers Gather at "Inflection Point" NATO defense ministers are meeting this week as the alliance faces what many here call an inflection point: how to preserve hard-earned NATO operational capabilities while winding down operations in Afghanistan over the coming months.

22 October 2013 Hagel in Brussels for NATO Defense Meetings Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel arrived here October 21 for a gathering of NATO defense ministers set to start October 22 and continue through the next day.

03 June 2013 Hagel Arrives in Brussels for NATO Defense Meetings Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel arrived June 3 to join NATO and partner defense ministers for discussions on topics including Afghanistan, cybersecurity, a possible Libya training mission and collective defense. Senior defense officials traveling with the secretary noted the ministerial gathering here comes at a time when NATO capabilities and members defense spending are important issues.

31 May 2013 Obama, NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen After Their Meeting President Obama and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen discuss the bilateral relationship, Afghanistan and NATO forces in remarks after their meeting.

23 April 2013 NATO Allies in Agreement on Afghanistan, Syria, North Korea The United States and its NATO allies are in unanimous agreement about Afghanistan never again becoming a haven for terrorists, about the need for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to leave power and for the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea to cease its provocations, according to Secretary of State John Kerry.

23 April 2013 Kerry at NATO Headquarters in Brussels "Europe is America's partner of first resort, and this alliance is a vibrant and critical institution for ensuring the security not just of our region but all across the globe."

22 April 2013 Senior State Dept. Official on NATO Ministerial in Brussels

18 April 2013 Implementation of the European Phased Adaptive Approach Deputy Assistant Secretary Rose , Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, speaking at the Polish National Defense University, Warsaw, Poland.

28 March 2013 Obama on Nomination of Next Supreme Allied Commander Europe "Today I am proud to announce my intention to nominate General Philip Breedlove as the next Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and Commander of U.S. European Command.If confirmed by the Senate, General Breedlove will replace Admiral Jim Stavridis as the Supreme Allied Commander in late Spring.

25 March 2013 Admiral Presses for More NATO-Russia Dialogue Noting increased cooperation between NATO and Russia in several key areas, the top NATO and U.S. European Command commander emphasized March 25 the importance of working through stumbling blocks in what he called a complicated partnership.

23 February 2013 Final Drawdown to Begin After Afghan Elections, Panetta Says The United States will maintain more than 60,000 troops in Afghanistan through the spring and summer fighting season, cutting to 34,000 by February 2014 and staying at that strength through the Afghan elections set for 2014, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said here today.

22 February 2013 NATO Secretary-General Pledges New Afghan Mission Post-2014 Anders Fogh Rasmussen spoke February 22 to open the session of NATO and non-NATO troop-contributing nations here on the last day of a two-day NATO defense ministers meeting. The International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan will end late in 2014, when Afghan forces will have assumed security responsibility for their nations people, he said.

17 January 2013 Panetta Urges New Focus for NATO As the International Security Assistance Force transitions to a sustaining role in Afghanistan by the end of 2014, will NATO retreat from its responsibilities, or innovate to develop and share the capabilities needed to meet growing, global security challenges? Defense Secretary Panetta delivered a speech at King's College here today, built around that question.

15 January 2013 In Europe Remarks, Panetta Stresses NATO Commitment In a joint news conference here with Spanish Defense Minister Pedro Morenes Eulate, and in an earlier event today with Portuguese Defense Minister Jose Pedro Aguiar-Branco, the secretary praised NATO allies resolve over the past 10-plus years of war, and urged their continued commitment to the transatlantic alliance.

2012

05 December 2012 Clinton Applauds NATO for Global Security Cooperation Secretary of State Clinton and her counterparts from the NATO alliance discussed a wide range of global economic, security and political issues during a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels. The meeting of the NATO-Russia Council covered the groups extensive cooperation with Russia in places like Afghanistan. Clinton said members also spoke frankly about areas of disagreement between NATO and Russia, including Georgias sovereignty and territorial integrity and the need for a political transition in Syria

11 October 2012 Panetta at NATO Cites Significant Progress in Afghanistan Speaking at a NATO defense ministers conference Panetta said a surge of U.S. and International Security Assistance Force forces has concluded and was successful in regaining control of ground under Taliban insurgent control in 2011 and preventing the Taliban from regaining any of those areas. In addition, the surge forces were successful in pushing the Taliban out of even more areas in 2012, he said.

10 October 2012 Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta's Statement to NATO Defense Ministers

03 October 2012 NATO Extends Rasmussen's Term as Secretary General The North Atlantic Council has extended Anders Fogh Rasmussens four-year term as NATO secretary general for another year, until July 31, 2014, the council announced today.

18 September 2012 ISAF clarifies information on partnering with ANSF (via NATO.int) Recent media coverage regarding a change in ISAF's model of Security Force Assistance (SFA) to the Afghan National Security Forces is not accurate. ISAF remains absolutely committed to partnering with, training, advising and assisting our ANSF counterparts. The ISAF SFA model is focused at the battalion level and above, with exceptions approved by senior commanders. Partnering occurs at all levels, from Platoon to Corps. This has not changed.

06 July 2012NATO to Strengthen Ability to Act with Global Partners NATO seeks to assume a more global perspective, play its part globally and strengthen its ability to act with partners around the globe, says Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. In a speech at Chatham House, Rasmussen said forging closer links with partners in Asia, Africa and elsewhere is crucial to guaranteeing future security in the Euro-Atlantic area.

24 June 2012 Secretary Clinton on Syrian Shoot-Down of Turkish Aircraft "The United States condemns this brazen and unacceptable act in the strongest possible terms. It is yet another reflection of the Syrian authorities' callous disregard for international norms, human life, and peace and security."

21 May 2102 NATO Announces Interim Missile Defense Capability NATO members announced that the alliance has achieved an interim ballistic missile defense capability, with plans for it to be fully operational in 2018. The capability is designed to defend NATOs European populations and territories from a missile attack; the alliance said it is not directed against Russia and will not undermine Russias strategic deterrence capabilities. White House Fact Sheet on NATO Capabilities President Obama on Results of NATO Summit NATO's Chicago Summit Declaration

21 May 2102 NATO Allies: Afghan Forces Will Take Security Control in 2013 President Obama and leaders of the United States NATO allies have formally agreed to transfer security responsibility across Afghanistan to Afghan forces in 2013, a significant step toward transition as U.S. and international forces prepare to end their combat mission in the country in 2014. White House Fact Sheet on NATO and Afghanistan After 2014 NATO Summit Declaration on Afghanistan

20 May 2102 Panetta Meets With UK Counterpart Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta met with his counterpart from the United Kingdom, Secretary of State of Defense Philip Hammond. The top defense officials met during the first day of the 25th NATO Summit, the largest and broadest in the alliances history.

20 May 2012 Obama at Opening of North Atlantic Council Meeting "I look forward to our meeting with NATOs neighbors and our partners around the world who have been so critical to NATO operations as in Afghanistan and Libya. It will be another reminder that NATO is truly a hub of a network of global security partners. There is nothing else like it on Earth."

20 May 2012 Obama, NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen Before Meeting at 2012 Summit

14 May 2012 NATO Summit to Focus on Afghanistan, Missile Defense Afghanistan will top the agenda items at the upcoming NATO Summit in Chicago as coalition members consider an agreement on a long-term strategic partnership that promotes security and stability there, said Navy Admiral James Stavridis, NATOs supreme allied commander for Europe.

10 May 2012 NATO Summit to Reaffirm Afghan Transition Plan The May 2021 NATO Summit in Chicago will focus on the alliances mission in Afghanistan, including its shift from a combat role to a supporting role for Afghan security forces, as well as defense capabilities and partnerships among member nations to meet the security challenges of the 21st century.

18 April 2012 Secretaries Clinton, Panetta at NATO Headquarters in Brussels Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta discuss Afghanistan and Syria during a press briefing at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

03 April 2012 Remarks of Secretary Clinton to the World Affairs Council 2012 NATO Conference

21 March 2012 Fact Sheet on May NATO Summit in Chicago The United States will host the NATO Summit May 20-21, in Chicago, Illinois. President Obama looks forward to welcoming leaders from NATO member and partner nations to his hometown for the Summit of the worlds most successful Alliance. At the NATO Summit, leaders will discuss the next major phase of transition in Afghanistan, agree to further steps to ensure NATO has the capabilities necessary to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and further broaden and deepen its relationships with non-NATO partners.

12 March 2012 Obama: 2012 G8 and NATO Summits Scheduled for May President Obama says he will host the 2012 Group of Eight (G8)summit of advanced economies outside Washington at the Maryland presidential retreat of Camp David to discuss long-term global economic recovery. He will also host the 28-member NATO Summit in Chicago this spring for talks on defense and security cooperation. When the two summits werefirst announced, the White House had said it would host both events back-to-back in Chicago, the presidents hometown. But the president said during a news conference recently that splitting the two summits was an idea proposed to him after the initial announcement.

02 February 2012 Panetta Describes U.S. Military Transition in Afghanistan Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says the United States is aiming to draw down combat forces from Afghanistan starting this year and end its combat role by late 2013, with a measured transition throughout 2014 to one of training and advising local security forces.

01 February 2012 Panetta to Meet With NATO Leaders in Brussels Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said today he will stress during this weeks NATO defense ministers conference that ongoing coalition commitment is essential to success in Afghanistan. One of the pillars of our strategy is to build on successful partnerships, and NATO is, without question, one of the most successful military alliances in history, the secretary told reporters traveling with him to Brussels.

2011

08 November 2011 Obama, NATO Chief Discuss Libya, Afghanistan President Obama and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen met to discuss NATOs just-ended mission to support Libya and to discuss goals for the 2012 Chicago summit, which will feature discussions on Afghanistan. A significant part of their meeting in the Oval Office was focused on NATOs defense capabilities to meet future security threats, which is expected to be a dominant theme at the next summit. Obama is hosting the 25th NATO summit May 2021 in Chicago.

07 October 2011 Panetta Cites Progress, Gaps in NATO Defense Countries of the NATO alliance must work together to defend common security interests now and in the future, said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. At his final press conference of the NATO defense ministerial, Panetta summarized key issues, praised the alliance and its success in Afghanistan and Libya, and detailed work that is needed to fill gaps in the alliances military capabilities.

06 October 2011 Panetta Details Guidelines for Ending Libya Mission Consensus exists among NATO members about how to decide when to end Operation Unified Protector in Libya, based on guidelines that can be used to evaluate conditions on the ground there.

Go here to read the rest:
NATO | London, UK - Embassy of the United States

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO | London, UK – Embassy of the United States

NATO signs agreements with Ukrainian government

Posted: at 1:45 am

NATOs secretary general has taken part in a meeting of Ukraines National Security and Defence Council, during which a number of agreements were signed.

They included partnership in communications and agreement on the status of NATOs Mission in Ukraine. Ukraines President Petro Poroshenko said he might bring up the issue of peacekeepers in the Donbass at the upcoming UN General Assembly.

Russian troops are present in Ukraine. And they continue to support separatists with training, with equipment, with command and control. And therefore I call on Russia to withdraw all its forces from Eastern Ukraine and to fully implement the Minsk agreements, said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

Russia continues to deny involvement in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, but from being more than 60% against NATO membership before fighting began, Ukrainian public opinion has changed dramatically.

About 64% of Ukrainian voters said they would vote for joining NATO. They indicated: the main reason for joining was that it would guarantee the safety of the country in future. The second reason was that NATO membership would be the first step on the road to join the EU, said Sociologist Maria Zolkina from the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation.

Earlier Poroshenko and Stoltenberg reviewed troops at the Peacekeeping and Security Centre of the Ukrainian army in Lviv in western Ukraine. however NATO once again declined to supply Ukraine with weapons.

Petro Poroshenko has announced that Ukraine will hold a referendum on joining the military alliance. However, the poll will not take place in the near future. Before the referendum is held, the state needs to implement a number of serious reforms. First of all, Ukraine should reestablish peace and stability in its eastern regions and bring Ukrainian Armed Forces in line with NATO standards, reports euronews Maria Korenyuk.

Originally posted here:
NATO signs agreements with Ukrainian government

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO signs agreements with Ukrainian government

Welcome to the SCSlowpitch.com!

Posted: at 1:44 am

Written by admin Tuesday, 09 September 2008 22:02

Why Play NSA in 2015?

Why should you and your team consider playing NSA in 2015? - SC NSA is nationally governed by NSA, which has been in operation for over 25 years. - SC NSA offers only the highest quality tournament playing facilities. -SC NSA Umpires are trained and certified through a national program. - NSA has a NATIONALLY recognized rule book. - NSA goes above and beyond manufacturerbat testing with its own bat testing program.

- NSA World Series events draw teams from every state. -SC NSA offers tournaments for teams of all level of play. -SC NSA conducts its business with uncomprimised honesty and integrity. -SC NSA is dedicated to meeting the needs of our teams, coaches, spectators, sponsors, and park owners. -SC NSA appreciates and treats all individuals with dignity and respect. -SC NSA continually strives for excellence in all we do.We invite your team to give NSA a try and experience the NSA difference in 2015.

Read the rest here:
Welcome to the SCSlowpitch.com!

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on Welcome to the SCSlowpitch.com!

CarolinaNSA Slowpitch Softball

Posted: at 1:44 am

September 26, 2015

NSA Church World Series

Burlington City Park in Burlington, NC

Church World $300 3ggplus 2015 sanction fee

of $25 if not sanctioned. All church and ministry teams welcomed.

See prize package on the New Message Board

September 26, 2015

NSA Fall Battle of the Bats (see Message Board)

Why should you and your team consider playing NSA in 2015? - NC NSA is nationally governed by NSA, which has been in operation for over 32 years. - NC NSA Umpires are trained and certified through a national program. - NSA has a NATIONALLY recognized rule book. - NSA goes above and beyond manufacturerbat testing with its own bat testing program. - NSA World Series events draw teams from every state. - NC NSA offers tournaments for teams of all level of play. - NC NSA conducts its business withhonesty and integrity. - NC NSA is dedicated to meeting the needs of our teams, coaches, spectators, sponsors, and park owners. - NC NSA appreciates and treats all individuals with dignity and respect. - NC NSA continually strives for excellence in all we do. We invite your team to give NSA a try and experience the NSA difference in 2015.

The rest is here:
CarolinaNSA Slowpitch Softball

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on CarolinaNSA Slowpitch Softball

Fourth Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII …

Posted: at 1:44 am

FOURTH AMENDMENT: AN OVERVIEW

I. INTERESTS PROTECTED

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect peoples right toprivacy and freedom from arbitrary governmentalintrusions. Private intrusions not acting in the color of governmental authority areexempted from theFourth Amendment.

To havestanding to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment, one mustfirst demonstrate an expectation of privacy, which is not merely a subjective expectation in mindbut an expectationthat society is prepared to recognized as reasonable under the circumstances. For instance, warrantless searches ofprivate premises are mostly prohibited unless there are justifiable exceptions; on the other hand,a warrantless seizure of abandoned property usually does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment protection does not expand to governmental intrusion and information collection conducted upon open fields. AnExpectation of privacy in an open field is not considered reasonable. However, there are some exceptions where state authorities granted protection to open fields.

A bivens action can be filed against federal law enforcement officials for damages resulting from an unlawful search and seizure. States can always establish higher standards for searches and seizures than theFourth Amendmentrequires, but states cannot allow conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment.

The protection under the Fourth Amendment can be waived if one voluntarily consents to or does not object to evidence collected during a warrantless search or seizure.

II. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES UNDER FOURTH AMENDMENT

The courts must determine what constitutes asearchorseizureunder theFourth Amendment. If the conduct challenged does not fall within theFourth Amendment, the individualwill not enjoy protection under Fourth Amendment.

A. Search

A search under Fourth Amendment occurs when a governmental employee or agent of the government violates an individual's reasonableexpectation of privacy.

Strip searches and visual body cavity searches, including anal or genital inspections, constitute reasonable searches under theFourth Amendment when supported by probable cause and conducted in a reasonable manner.

Adog-sniff inspectionis invalid under theFourth Amendmentif the the inspection violates areasonable expectation of privacy. Electronic surveillance is also considered a search under theFourth Amendment.

B. Seizure of a Person

A seizure of a person, within the meaning of theFourth Amendment, occurs when the police's conduct would communicate to a reasonable person, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the encounter, that the person is notfree to ignore the police presence and leave at hiswill.

Two elements must be present to constitute a seizure of a person. First, there must be a show of authority by the police officer. Presence of handcuffs or weapons,the use of forceful language, andphysical contact are each strong indicators of authority. Second, the person being seized must submit to the authority. An individualwho ignores the officers request and walks away has not been seized for Fourth Amendment purposes.

An arrest warrant is preferred but not required to make alawful arrest under theFourth Amendment. A warrantless arrest may be justified whereprobable cause and urgent need are presentprior to the arrest. Probable cause is present when the police officer has a reasonable beliefin the guilt of the suspect based on the facts and information prior to the arrest. For instance, a warrantless arrest may be legitimate in situations where a police officer has a probable belief that a suspect has either committed a crime or is a threat to the public security. Also, apolice officer might arrest a suspect to prevent the suspects escape or to preserve evidence. A warrantless arrest may be invalidatedif the police officer failsto demonstrate exigent circumstances.

The ability to makewarrantless arrests are commonly limited by statutes subject to the due process guaranty of theU.S. Constitution. A suspect arrested without a warrant is entitled toprompt judicial determination, usually within 48 hours.

There are investigatory stops that fall shortof arrests, but nonetheless, theyfall within Fourth Amendmentprotection.For instance, police officers can perform aterry stop or a traffic stop. Usually, these stops provide officers with less dominion and controlling power and impose less of an infringement of personal liberty for individual stopped. Investigatory stops must be temporary questioning for limited purposes and conducted in a manner necessary to fulfill the purpose.

Anofficers reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify brief stops and detentions. To determine if the officer has met the standard to justify the seizure, the court takes into account the totality of the circumstances and examines whether the officer has a particularized and reasonable belief for suspecting the wrongdoing. Probable cause gained during stops or detentions might effectuate a subsequent warrantless arrest.

C. Seizure of Property

A seizure of property, within the meaning of theFourth Amendment, occurs when there is some meaningful interference with anindividuals possessory interests in the property.

In some circumstances, warrantless seizures of objects in plain view do notconstitute seizures within the meaning of Fourth Amendment. When executing a search warrant, an officer might be able to seize an item observed in plain view even if it is not specified in the warrant.

III. WARRANT REQUIREMENT

A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and illegal without a warrant, subject to only a few exceptions.

To obtain a search warrant or arrest warrant, the law enforcement officer must demonstrate probable causethata search or seizure is justified. Anauthority, usually a magistrate, will consider the totality of circumstances and determine whether to issue the warrant.

The warrant requirement may be excused in exigent circumstances if an officer has probable cause and obtaining a warrant is impractical. For instance, in State v. Helmbright 990 N.E.2d 154, Ohiocourt held that awarrantless search of probationer's person or place of residence complies with the Fourth Amendment if the officer who conducts the search possesses reasonable grounds to believe that the probationer has failed to comply with the terms of hisprobation.

Other well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement include consensual searches, certain brief investigatory stops, searches incident to a valid arrest, and seizures of items in plain view.

There is no general exception to theFourth Amendment warrant requirement in national security cases. Warrantless searches are generally not permitted in exclusively domestic security cases. In foreign security cases, court opinions might differ on whether to accept the foreign security exception to warrant requirement generallyand, if accepted, whether the exception should include bothphysical searches and electronic surveillance.

IV. REASONABLENESS REQUIREMENT

All searches and seizures under Fourth Amendment must be reasonable. No excessive force shall be used. Reasonableness is the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a search or seizure.

Searches and seizures with a warrant satisfy the reasonableness requirement. Warrantless searches and seizures are presumed to be unreasonable unless they fall within a few exceptions.

In cases of warrantless searches and seizures, the court will try to balance the degree of intrusion on the individuals right toprivacy and the need to promote government interests and special needs. The court will examine the totality of the circumstances to determine if the search or seizure was justified. When analyzingthe reasonableness standard, the court uses an objective assessment and considers factors including the degree of intrusion by the search or seizure andthe manner in which the search or seizure is conducted.

V. EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Under the exclusionary rule, any evidence obtained inviolation of theFourth Amendmentwill be excluded from criminal proceedings. There are a few exceptions to this rule.

VI. ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

In recent years, the Fourth Amendment's applicability inelectronic searches and seizures has received much attention from the courts. With the advent of the internet and increased popularity of computers, there has been anincreasing amount of crime occurring electronically. Consequently, evidence of such crime can often be found on computers, hard drives, or other electronic devices. TheFourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure ofelectronic devices.

Many electronic search cases involvewhether law enforcement can search a company-owned computer that an employee uses to conduct business. Although the case law is split, the majority holds that employees do not have a legitimate expectationof privacy with regard to information stored on a company-owned computer. In the 2010 case ofCity of Ontario v. Quon (08-1332), the Supreme Court extended this lack of an expectation of privacy to text messages sent and received on an employer-owned pager.

Lately, electronic surveillance and wiretapping has also caused a significant amount of Fourth Amendment litigation.

VII.THE USA PATRIOT ACT

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress and the President enacted legislation to strengthen the intelligence gathering communitys ability to combat domestic terrorism. Entitled the USA Patriot Act, the legislations provisions aimed to increase the ability of law enforcement to search email and telephonic communications in addition to medical, financial, and library records.

One provision permitslaw enforcement to obtain access to stored voicemails by obtaining a basic search warrant rather than a surveillance warrant. Obtaining a basic search warrantrequires a much lower evidentiary showing. A highlycontroversial provision of the Act includespermission for law enforcement to use sneak-and-peak warrants. A sneak-and-peak warrant is a warrant in which law enforcement can delay notifying the property owner about the warrants issuance. In an Oregon federal district court case that drew national attention, Judge Ann Aiken struck down the use of sneak-and-peak warrants as unconstitutional and inviolation of the Fourth Amendment. See 504 F.Supp.2d 1023 (D. Or. 2007).

The Patriot Act also expanded the practice of using National Security Letters (NSL). An NSL is an administrative subpoena that requires certain persons, groups, organizations, or companies to provide documents about certain persons. These documents typically involve telephone, email, and financial records. NSLs also carry a gag order, meaningthe person or persons responsible for complying cannot mention theexistence of the NSL. Under the Patriot Act provisions, law enforcement can use NSLs when investigating U.S. citizens, even when law enforcement does not think the individual under investigation has committed a crime. The Department of Homeland Security has used NSLs frequently since its inception. By using anNSL, an agency has no responsibility to first obtain a warrant or court order before conducting its search of records.

See constitutional amendment.

Read more from the original source:
Fourth Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII ...

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on Fourth Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII …

10 Signs of a Transhuman Future – Zen Gardner

Posted: at 1:43 am

by Maciamo

Most adults alive today grew up without the Internet or mobile phones, let alone smartphones and tablets with voice commands and apps for everything. These new technologies have altered our lifestyle in a way few of us could have imagined a few decades ago. But have we reached the end of the line ? What else could turn up that could make our lives so much more different ? Faster computers ? More gadgets ? It is in fact so much more than that. Technologies have embarked on an exponential growth curve and we are just getting started. In 10 years we will look back on our life today and wonder how we could have lived with such primitive technology. The gap will be bigger than between today and the 1980s. Get ready because you are in for a rough ride.

Ray Kurzweil, Googles director of engineering, predicts that by 2029 computer will exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to that of a human, and that by 2045 computers will be a billion times more powerful than all of the human brains on Earth. Once computers can fully simulate a human brain and surpass it, it will cause an intelligence explosion that will radically change civilization. The rate of innovation will progress exponentially, so much that it will become impossible to foresee the future course of human history. This point in time is called the singularity. Experts believe that it will happen in the middle of the 21st century, perhaps as early as 2030, but the median value of predictions is 2040.

The X Prize Foundation, chaired by Peter Diamandis, co-founder of Singularity University in the Silicon Valley, manages incentivized competitions to bring about radical breakthroughs for the benefit of humanity. One of the current competitions, the Nokia Sensing XCHALLENGE, aims at developing a smartphone-like device that can test vitals like cholesterol, blood pressure, heart rate or allergies, analyse your DNA for genetic risks, diagnose medical conditions, and predict potential diseases or the likelihood of a stroke. All this without seeing a doctor. The device could be used by you or your relatives anywhere, anytime. All this is possible thanks to highly sensitive electronic sensors and powerful AI.

Google is working on an AI that will be able to read and understand any document, and learn the content of all books in the world. It will be able to answer any question asked by any user. This omniscient AI will eventually become peoples first source of knowledge, replacing schools, books and even human interactions. Just wonder about anything and the computer will provide you with the answer and explain it to you in a way you can easily understand, based on your current knowledge.

Once AI reaches the same level of intelligence as a human brain, or exceeds it, intelligent robots will be able to do a majority of human jobs. Robots already manufacture most products. Soon they will also build roads and houses, replace human staff in supermarkets and shops, serve and perhaps even cook food in restaurants, take care of the sick and the elderly. The best doctors, even surgeons, will be robots.

It might still be a decade or two before human-like androids start walking the streets among us and working for us. But driverless cars, pioneered by Google and Tesla, could be introduced as early as 2016, and could become the dominant form of vehicles in developed countries by 2025. The advantages of autonomous cars are so overwhelming (less stress and exhaustion, fewer accidents, smoother traffic) that very few people will want to keep traditional cars. That is why the transition could happen as fast as, if not faster than the shift from analog phones to smartphones. Robo-Taxis are coming soon and could in time replace human taxi drivers. All cars and trains will eventually be entirely driven by computers.

AI will translate documents, answer customer support questions, complete administrative tasks, and teach kids and adults alike. It is estimated that 40 to 50% of service jobs will be done by AI in 2025. Creative jobs arent immune either, as computers will soon surpass humans in creativity too. There could still be human artists, but artistic value will drop to zero when any design or art can be produced on demand and on measure by AI in a few seconds.

Once computer graphics and AI simulation of human behaviours become so realistic that we cant tell if a person in a video is real or not, Hollywood wont need to use real actors anymore, but will be able to create movie stars that dont exist and the crazy thing is no one will notice the difference !

3D printers are the biggest upheaval in manufacturing since the industrial revolution. Not only can we print objects in three dimensions, they can now be printed in practically any material, not just plastics, but also metals, concrete, fabrics, and even food. Better still, they can be printed in multiple materials at once. High-quality 3D printers can copy electronic chips in the tiniest detail and have a functional chip. High-tech vehicles like the Koenigseggs One:1 (the worlds fastest car) or EDAGs Genesis are already being made by 3D Printing. Even houses will be 3D-printed, for a fraction of the costs of traditional construction.

In a near future we wont need to go shopping to buy new products. We will just select them online, perhaps tweak a bit their design, size or colour to our tastes and needs, then we will just 3D print them at home. More jobs going down the drain ? Not really. Retail jobs were already going to be taken by intelligent robots anyway. The good news is that it will considerably reduce our carbon footprint by cutting unnecessary transport from distant factories in China or other parts of the world. Everything will be home-made, literally. Since any material can be re-used, or recycled in a 3D printer, it will also dramatically reduce waste.

3D printing is also good news for medicine. Doctors can now make customized prosthetics, joint replacements, dental work and hearing aids.

The other advances in robotics, AI, 3-D printing and nanotechnologies all converge in the field of bioengineering. Human cyborgs arent science-fiction anymore. Its already happening.

Regenerative medicine offers even more promises than artificial limbs and body parts. What if instead of having a robotic arm, you could regrow completely your original arm ? Sounds impossible ? It isnt. Lizard regrow their tails. Axolotls regrow severed legs. We now understand how they do it: stem cells. These pluripotent undifferentiated cells have the power to repair any body part. Using organ culture, stem cells can regrow any organ as fresh as new through. In the future it will be possible to regrow limbs or organs directly on a person, as if the body was simply healing itself.

Combing 3-D printing and stem cell regeneration paves the way to the printing of human organs, a field known as bioprinting (read articles on the topic in New Scientist and The Economist).

Genetics has progressed tremendously too over the last 15 years. From the sequencing of the first full human genome in 2003, we have now entered the era of personal genomics, gene therapy and synthetic life, and could be approaching the age of genetically enhanced humans.

Gene therapy is perhaps the most revolutionary of all the medical advances, as it will effectively allow to fix any disease-causing gene and to engineer humans that are better adapated to the modern nutrition, life rythmn, and technology-dominated lifestyle. Not only will all diseases and neuropsychological problems with a genetic cause disappear, but humans will also become more resistant to stress, fatigue and allergens, and could choose to boost their potential mental faculties and physical abilities, creating superhumans. This is known as transhumanism.

MORE>>

+++

ZenGardner.com

Read more from the original source:
10 Signs of a Transhuman Future - Zen Gardner

Posted in Transhuman News | Comments Off on 10 Signs of a Transhuman Future – Zen Gardner

What Could the Mars Colonization Transport (MCT) SpaceX …

Posted: at 1:43 am

(Article by Richard Heidmann, English translation by Pierre Brisson)

In the second half of 2014, we ventured into the perilous exercise of a Mars Colonization Transport (MCT) study, on the basis of the few hints that SpaceX released about its intent (study published (French) on planete-mars.com, the APM website). The major point among the few available data, was a definition of the launcher then apparently considered, a three core Falcon Super Heavy, reusable, with cores of 10 m in diameter each, equipped with 9 Raptor engines of 450 tons unit thrust and capable (we checked) of putting 300 tons into low earth orbit (LEO). This performance level allows sending about 100 tons towards Mars and, ultimately, if we assume that the ship is a fully reusable shuttle, to land on the surface of Mars a payload of a little less than 20 tons.

These results led to a conclusion of inconsistency with the very objective assigned by Elon Musk, of landing a payload of 100 tons. But the announced launcher looked already such a daring size that one could wonder whether the scope of the project should not, by necessity, be scaled down.

The statements of Elon Musk at the beginning of this year 2015 show that this is not the case, at least for the time being:

While remaining aware of the limits of the exercise, we wondered about the consequences of these new guidelines, trying to figure out the concept to which they could lead. The result we get leads to very odd proportions, up to the point that we may wonder whether other innovations should not be introduced for the sake of making the project more realistic.

Table of Contents

1. Single core MCT launcher Concept 1.1. The shuttle 1.2. Single core launcher 2. Multi core MCT launcher Concept 2.1. The shuttle 2.1.1.Classic return option 2.1.2.Immediate return option 2.2.Multi core launcher Conclusion

Read this article:
What Could the Mars Colonization Transport (MCT) SpaceX ...

Posted in Mars Colonization | Comments Off on What Could the Mars Colonization Transport (MCT) SpaceX …