Gunfire, crash kill 3 in Vegas

By CNN Staff

updated 1:58 PM EST, Thu February 21, 2013

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Casino visitor to KLAS: I "could see the fireball" out my window


• A gunman in an SUV shoots at a car on the Las Vegas strip, causing a multivehicle crash


• Three were dead following the shooting and crash at Las Vegas Boulevard and Flamingo Road


• Police are looking for a black Range Rover Sport with large black rims

(CNN) -- Three people were dead and at least three others injured after a shooting and fiery six-vehicle crash along the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada early Thursday, police said.

The incident began about 4:20 a.m. when someone in an SUV -- stopped at a stoplight on Las Vegas Boulevard near Caesars Palace and a number of other casinos -- fired into a Maserati that also had stopped at the light, Las Vegas police said.

The Maserati moved into the intersection with Flamingo Road and collided with a taxi, starting a chain of crashes that involved four other vehicles, police said.

Fire swept through the taxi, where the driver and a passenger were trapped. The taxi's two occupants and the Maserati's driver died, Las Vegas Police spokesman Jose Hernandez said.

A passenger in the Maserati suffered gunshot wounds and was being treated at a hospital, police said. At least two other people in the other crashed vehicles suffered light to moderate injuries, they said.

John Lamb, who was inside Caesars Palace, told CNN affiliate KLAS he heard the commotion and saw the taxi on fire from a window.

"There was a loud bang, and I hear two other booms. I looked out my window at Caesars Palace ... and could see the fireball," he told KLAS.

Police are looking for the occupants of the SUV, described as a black Range Rover Sport with tinted windows, large black rims and a dealer license plate not from Nevada, said Las Vegas Police Sgt. John Sheahan.

Hernandez said he didn't have information on what led to the shooting. The names of the dead and the injured were not immediately released.

Man kills 3, himself in Southern California shooting

CNN's Carol Costello, Jason Hanna and Deanna Hackney contributed to this report.

Read More..

Movement in budget cuts battle?

Play Video

Sequestration poses threat to government agency budgets

For the first time since the waning days of the "fiscal cliff" battle in late December, President Obama reached out to congressional Republican leaders to talk about next week's impending budget cuts known as the sequester.

"He placed calls earlier today to [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell and [House] Speaker [John] Boehner," White House spokesman Jay Carney announced today. "Had good conversations, but I have no further readout of those calls for you."

Both Boehner's and McConnell's offices confirmed the calls took place but neither would give details about what was discussed. An aide to Boehner said "the last substantive conversation" he had with the president was on Dec. 28; McConnell's office told CBS News it was Mr. Obama's first outreach to McConnell since New Year's Eve.

Today on Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show, Mr. Obama said, "We continue to reach out to the Republicans and say 'this is not going to be good for the economy and it's not going to be good for ordinary people,' but I don't know if they're going to move. And that's what we're going to have to try to keep pushing over the next seven, eight days."

"Whether or not we can move Republicans at this point to do the right thing is what we're still trying to gauge," Mr. Obama said.

The calls come a day after Boehner wrote an op-ed criticizing the president charging that the public "might not realize from Mr. Obama's statements is that [the sequester] is a product of the president's own failed leadership."

The $1.2 trillion sequester cuts, which were initially set to kick in on Jan. 1, emerged out of Congress' 2011 budget negotiations. Congress agreed that if a congressional "supercommittee" couldn't come up with an acceptable deficit reduction plan, Congress would just slash $1.2 trillion from the budget over 10 years -- half coming from defense spending and half from non-defense. Nearly everyone in Washington agrees that indiscriminately slashing $1.2 trillion would damage the economy, but lawmakers can't agree on a deficit reduction package with which to replace the cuts.

Given the economic damage the sequester would inflict, Congress this year stalled the cuts for two months -- which is why they're set to go into effect on March 1. Unless Congress acts before then, $85 billion in across-the-board cuts will kick in this year.

Read More..

Las Vegas Hotel Fight Led to Attack on Maserati

Police believe an altercation at a Las Vegas hotel led to a deadly drive-by shooting on the occupants of a Maserati sports car on the city's glitzy strip early this morning that left three people dead, including two who died when their taxi was struck by the careening sports car and exploded into flames.

The occupants of a Range Rover SUV shot at two people in the Maserati, which caused a multi-car accident. Police have not released the model of the Maserati, but the price of a new Maserati ranges from $123,000 to $142,000.

When asked if authorities knew any more about the altercation that led to the shooting, Officer Bill Cassell of the Las Vegas Metropolitan police said, "We believe we do at this point, but we are not putting that information out."

Cassell could not yet say which hotel the altercation took place at. He said police are planning on releasing more information later today.

Steve Marcus/Las Vegas Sun/AP Photo

California Man's Carjacking Spree Takes 3 Victims Watch Video

Chicago Teen Killed Day of Obama's Anti-Violence Speech Watch Video

Dallas Courthouse Shooting Manhunt Intensify Watch Video

Police said that they believe a group of men riding in a black Range Rover Sport SUV pulled up alongside the Maserati around 4:20 a.m. today and fired shots into the car, striking the driver and passenger, according to Officer Jose Hernandez of the Las Vegas Metropolitan police department.

The Maserati then swerved through an intersection, hitting at least four other cars. One car that was struck, a taxi with a driver and passenger in it, caught on fire and burst into flames, trapping both occupants, Hernandez said.

The SUV then fled the scene, according to cops.

The driver of the Maserati died from his gunshot wounds at University Medical Center shortly after the shooting, according to Sgt. John Sheahan.

The driver and passenger of the taxi both died in the car fire.

At least three individuals, including the passenger of the Maserati, were injured during the shooting and car crashes and are being treated at UMC hospital.

Police are scouring surveillance video from the area, including from the strip's major casinos, to try and identify the Range Rover and its occupants, according to police.

They do not yet know why the Range Rovers' occupants fired shots at the Maserati or whether the cars had local plates or were from out of state.

No bystanders were hit by gunfire, Hernandez said.

"We're currently looking for a black Range Rover Sport, with large black rims and some sort of dealership advertising or advertisement plates," Hernandez said. "This is an armed and dangerous vehicle."

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority had no immediate comment about the safety of tourists in the wake of the shooting today.

Read More..

Obama can't kick his legacy down road

President Obama has a small window of opportunity to get Congress to act on his priorities, Gloria Borger says.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Gloria Borger: Prospect of deep budget cuts was designed to compel compromise


• She says the "unthinkable" cuts now have many supporters


• The likelihood that cuts may happen shows new level of D.C. dysfunction, she says


• Borger: President may want a 2014 House victory, but action needed now

(CNN) -- So let's try to recount why we are where we are. In August 2011, Washington was trying to figure out how to raise the debt ceiling -- so the US might continue to pay its bills -- when a stunt was hatched: Kick the can down the road.

And not only kick it down the road, but do it in a way that would eventually force Washington to do its job: Invent a punishment.

Gloria Borger

If the politicians failed to come up with some kind of budget deal, the blunt instrument of across-the-board cuts in every area would await.

Unthinkable! Untenable!

Until now.

In fact, something designed to be worse than any conceivable agreement is now completely acceptable to many.

And not only are these forced budget cuts considered acceptable, they're even applauded. Some Republicans figure they'll never find a way to get 5% across-the-board domestic spending cuts like this again, so go for it. And some liberal Democrats likewise say 8% cuts in military spending are better than anything we might get on our own, so go for it.

Opinion: Forced budget cuts a disaster for military

The result: A draconian plan designed to force the two sides to get together has now turned out to be too weak to do that.

And what does that tell us? More about the collapse of the political process than it does about the merits of any budget cuts. Official Washington has completely abdicated responsibility, taking its dysfunction to a new level -- which is really saying something.

We've learned since the election that the second-term president is feeling chipper. With re-election came the power to force Republicans to raise taxes on the wealthy in the fiscal cliff negotiations, and good for him. Americans voted, and said that's what they wanted, and so it happened. Even the most sullen Republicans knew that tax fight had been lost.

Points on the board for the White House.

Now the evil "sequester" -- the forced budget cuts -- looms. And the president proposes what he calls a "balanced" approach: closing tax loopholes on the rich and budget cuts. It's something he knows Republicans will never go for. They raised taxes six weeks ago, and they're not going to do it again now. They already gave at the office. And Republicans also say, with some merit, that taxes were never meant to be a part of the discussion of across-the-board cuts. It's about spending.

Politics: Obama more emotional on spending cuts

Here's the problem: The election is over. Obama won, and he doesn't really have to keep telling us -- or showing us, via staged campaign-style events like the one Tuesday in which he used police officers as props while he opposed the forced spending cuts.

What we're waiting for is the plan to translate victory into effective governance.

Sure, there's no doubt the president has the upper hand. He's right to believe that GOP calls for austerity do not constitute a cohesive party platform. He knows that the GOP has no singular, effective leader, and that its message is unformed. And he's probably hoping that the next two years can be used effectively to further undermine the GOP and win back a Democratic majority in the House.

Slight problem: There's plenty of real work to be done, on the budget, on tax reform, on immigration, climate change and guns. A second-term president has a small window of opportunity. And a presidential legacy is not something that can be kicked down the road.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Gloria Borger.

Read More..

Cycling: Armstrong refuses to cooperate with USADA

WASHINGTON: Lance Armstrong said Wednesday that he will not cooperate with a US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) investigation into dope cheats in cycling but would be willing to help other anti-doping inquiries.

The move greatly diminishes Armstrong's chances of having his life ban from World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-sanctioned sport reduced even as it forces USADA to move ahead without his help in looking into others involved in doping.

"For several reasons, Lance will not participate in USADA's efforts to selectively conduct American prosecutions that only demonize selected individuals while failing to address the 95 percent of the sport over which USADA has no jurisdiction," Armstrong said in a statement released through attorney Tim Herman.

Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles after a USADA probe uncovered overwhelming evidence he was at the heart of a major doping conspiracy, including testimony from 26 witnesses, was released last October.

After admitting in a television interview last month that the titles he won from 1999-2005 were helped by performance-enhancing substances, Armstrong said he would cooperate with anti-doping officials.

He repeated that offer on Wednesday even as he made it clear he would not go through USADA to do so.

"Lance is willing to cooperate fully and has been very clear: He will be the first man through the door, and once inside will answer every question, at an international tribunal formed to comprehensively address pro cycling, an almost exclusively European sport," the statement said.

"We remain hopeful that an international effort will be mounted, and we will do everything we can to facilitate that result."

USADA chief executive Travis T. Tygart had given Armstrong a February 6 deadline to testify under oath on what he knew about such subjects as cycling team manager Johan Bruyneel's role in the conspiracy, details of how the scheme unfolded or if International Cycling Union (UCI) officials knew about it.

Armstrong said he would not be able to meet that deadline so Tygart extended the deadline to Wednesday, only to learn Armstrong would not be coming when the disgraced cyclist released his statement to the media.

"Today we learned from the media that Mr. Armstrong is choosing not to come in and be truthful and that he will not take the opportunity to work toward righting his wrongs in sport," Tygart said in a statement.

"At this time we are moving forward with our investigation without him and we will continue to work closely with WADA and other appropriate and responsible international authorities to fulfill our promise to clean athletes to protect their right to compete on a drug free playing field."

Failing to cooperate with USADA all-but dooms Armstrong's chance of reducing his life ban to an eight-year ban, only a possibility for providing substantial assistance to anti-doping authorities under WADA's code.

"We have provided Mr. Armstrong several opportunities to assist in our ongoing efforts to clean up the sport of cycling," Tygart said.

"Following his recent television interview, we again invited him to come in and provide honest information and he was informed in writing by WADA that this was the appropriate avenue for him if he wanted to be part of the solution.

"Over the last few weeks he has led us to believe that he wanted to come in and assist USADA, but was worried of potential criminal and civil liability if he did so."

Armstrong, 41, faces two major lawsuits that could be impacted by any testimony he gives under oath.

A Texas insurance firm sued Armstrong on February 7 seeking $12 million for bonus money paid to Armstrong for the Tour de France triumphs that are now null and void.

Former Armstrong teammate Floyd Landis, himself an admitted dope cheat who lost the 2006 Tour de France crown because of doping, is suing Armstrong on grounds that Armstrong deceived sponsors US Postal Service by claiming to be winning his titles without using performance-enhancing drugs.

In his television confessional to Oprah Winfrey last month, Armstrong contradicted several parts of USADA's investigation, saying he had stopped doping after 2005 and was not a ringleader in the doping programme.

Tygart, in a later television interview, said Armstrong had lied to Winfrey because USADA evidence showed he was doping when he rode in the Tour de France two final times in 2009 and 2010.

According to Tygart, expert reports based on the variation of Armstrong's blood values make it a "one to a million chance that it was due to something other than doping."

-AFP/ac

Read More..

Jesse Jackson Jr.: 'Guilty, your honor'

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• NEW: Sandra Jackson pleads guilty to filing false tax returns


• Jesse Jackson Jr. dabs at his eyes as he admits guilt in court


• Jackson will have to forfeit $750,000 in misused funds


• The former congressman acknowledges he has been under psychiatric care

Washington (CNN) -- Dabbing at his eyes with a handkerchief, former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. pleaded guilty on Wednesday to one federal charge related to years of using campaign funds for personal expenses that included purchases of Michael Jackson memorabilia and a Rolex watch.

"Guilty, your honor," Jackson responded to U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins after looking back at family members in the courtroom, including his father, civil rights activist Jesse Jackson.

"I used monies that should have been used for campaign purposes," Jackson acknowledged to the judge. When Wilkins asked if Jackson realized that the guilty plea meant giving up the right to a trial, he responded: "I have no interest in wasting the taxpayers' time or money."

Wilkins set sentencing for June 28.

At a separate hearing later Wednesday, Jackson's wife, former Chicago Alderman Sandra Stevens Jackson, pleaded guilty to filing false tax returns in connection with the misuse of her husband's campaign funds.

She could receive up to three years in prison and a maximum $250,000 fine when sentenced on July 1.

Wednesday's hearings completed the fall of the once politically powerful Chicago couple. Jackson won won re-election to Congress last year despite personal problems, including a mood disorder, that caused him to drop out of sight for months during the campaign.

That was also the time that he was under investigation for the campaign fund irregularities that dated back several years.

He resigned a few weeks after the election, while his wife resigned her position as a Chicago alderman in January.

At Jackson's hearing in the morning, he responded to standard legal questions about his soundness of mind by acknowledging his treatment by a psychiatrist.

The treatment was not for alcohol or drug abuse, Jackson said, adding that he had a beer on Tuesday night but "I have never been more clear in my life than I am now."

"I fully understand the consequences of my actions," he said.

Jackson pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud and false statements.

That charge carries a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, but Wilkins noted that prosecutors and defense attorneys said sentencing guidelines indicated an appropriate sentence of 46 to 57 months in prison and a fine of between $10,000 and $100,000.

However, Wilkins said he was not bound by sentencing guidelines, telling Jackson: "The bottom line is, I don't know what sentence you're going to get and you don't know what sentence you're going to get."

Jackson's lawyer, Reid Weingarten, told reporters after the hearing that he would mount a strong legal case for a fair sentence, noting his client is the father of two young children and has the health problems mentioned in court.

"It turns out that Jesse has serious health issues," Weingarten said. "... We are going to talk about them extensively with the court and those health issues are directly related to his present predicament. That is not an excuse. That is just a fact. And Jesse has turned a corner there as well."

Neither Jackson nor his wife spoke to reporters when they arrived at the courthouse in Washington on Wednesday morning, or after the hearings concluded in the afternoon.

Last week, prosecutors filed charges against the couple in separate criminal informations, which are used when parties strike plea agreements.

The documents say the former Democratic congressman from Illinois misused about $750,000 in campaign funds from August 2005 through approximately July 2012.

According to court documents, Jackson's campaign credit cards were used for $582,772 in personal expenditures. Jackson's purchases included a gold-plated men's Rolex watch costing more than $43,000 and almost $10,000 in children's furniture.

As part of the plea agreement Jackson, 47, will have to forfeit the $750,000 in improperly used funds and assorted memorabilia that prosecutors said he bought with campaign cash.

The items include two hats belonging to the late singer Michael Jackson costing more than $8,000; a $5,000 football signed by U.S. presidents; and memorabilia involving the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and martial artist Bruce Lee.

Another expenses incurred using the campaign credit card were a five-day stay at Martha's Vineyard Holistic Retreat in 2008 for $5,687.75, and a $4,272.78 charge in 2006 for on-board cruise expenses to Navigator of the Sea, according to court documents.

Jackson issued a statement through his attorneys on Friday that said, in part: "I offer no excuses for my conduct and I fully accept my responsibility for the improper decisions and mistakes I have made."

Jackson's wife is not mentioned by name in the document outlining misuse of campaign funds.

But there are references to her as "Co-Conspirator 1," a former consultant and later the manager of Jackson's re-election campaign. According to the court documents, "Co-Conspirator 1" bought $5,150 worth of fur capes and parkas and had them shipped from Beverly Hills, California, to Washington.

Jesse Jackson Jr. had served in Congress since 1995. His name came up during the investigation of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, linked to allegations that Blagojevich attempted to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama when he became president.

No charges were filed against Jackson, but the House Ethics Committee decided to look into whether Jackson or an associate offered to raise a large amount of money for Blagojevich in exchange for Jackson getting the Senate seat.

Jackson dropped out of sight last spring and his office later said he was being treated at the Mayo Clinic for a mood disorder, depression and gastrointestinal problems. He was re-elected in November but resigned a few weeks later.

His father recently said his son was "taking his medication and handling his challenges."

Read More..

Pistorius prosecution: Error in "testosterone" testimony

PRETORIA, South AfricaThe investigating officer in the Oscar Pistorius murder case made an error in his court testimony Wednesday when he identified a substance found in the athlete's bedroom as testosterone, the national prosecutor said.

Medupe Simasiku, the spokesman for South Africa's National Prosecution Agency, told The Associated Press that it was too early to identify the substance as it was still undergoing laboratory tests.

"It is not certain (what it is) until the forensics." Simasiku said, adding that it wasn't certain if it was "a legal or an illegal medication for now."

Play Video

Pistorius case: Police say they found testosterone, needles in bathroom

19 Photos

Olympic athlete charged with murder

Detective Warrant Officer Hilton Botha, the investigating officer, said earlier in court during Pistorius' bail hearing that police found two boxes of testosterone and needles in the bedroom of the Olympic athlete, who is charged with premediated murder in the Feb. 14 shooting death of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

It was a mistake to identify the substance now, Simasiku said, as it was still unknown. He said the discovery of needles was in Botha's statement, however.

Pistorius denies murder, saying in an affidavit Tuesday that the Valentine's Day shooting was accidental because he thought there was an intruder in his house.

In response to Botha's claim, the defense said Wednesday, the second day of Pistorius' bail hearing at Pretoria Magistrate's Court, that the substance found was not a steroid or a banned substance but an herbal remedy.

Pistorius' lawyer Barry Roux had slammed Botha's testimony earlier, saying police "take every piece of evidence and try to extract the most possibly negative connotation and present it to the court."

International Paralympic Committee spokesman Craig Spence told the AP soon after the substance claims that Pistorius — the world's most famous disabled athlete — was drug tested twice in London last year by the IPC, on Aug. 25 and Sept. 8. Both test results were negative, Spence said.

The Aug. 25 test was an out-of-competition test, and the Sept. 8 one in-competition, a day before the end of the London Paralympics.

The International Olympic Committee said it didn't test Pistorius at the Olympics, but referred the AP to the IPC's negative tests. International athletics body the IAAF and the World Anti-Doping Agency would not comment because it was an ongoing legal case.

"Bearing in mind the ongoing police investigation, WADA must refrain from making any statement at present," WADA said.

Giving testimony, Botha said police made the discovery of testosterone in bedroom of the double-amputee runner and multiple Paralympic champion's upscale Pretoria house after the shooting of Steenkamp but offered no further details or explanation. State prosecutor Gerrie Nel also had to correct Botha when he initially called it "steroids."

Simasiku later told the AP that the detective, Botha, thought it was testosterone by reading the first few letters of the label.

Pistorius' lawyer Roux, said on questioning the detective — who has 16 years' experience as a detective and 24 years with the police — that it was not a banned substance and that police were trying to give the discovery a "negative connotation."

"It is an herbal remedy," Roux said. "It is not a steroid and it is not a banned substance."

The debate over the substance added another dramatic twist to a case that has already gripped the world's attention since Steenkamp's killing at Pistorius' home last Thursday.

Prosecutor Nel also had to clarify that police were not saying that Pistorius was using the substance, only that it was discovered along with the needles in his bedroom.

Pistorius said Tuesday in a written affidavit and read in court by Roux that he mistakenly killed model Steenkamp in the early hours of Valentine's Day when he fired four shots into a locked toilet door, hitting his girlfriend three times after thinking she was a dangerous intruder.

The prosecution claims Pistorius intended to kill the 29-year-old Steenkamp after they had a fight.

Read More..

Arias Can't Remember Gory Death of Ex-Boyfriend

Accused murderer Jodi Arias told an Arizona jury today that her ex-boyfriend became enraged when she dropped his new camera, body slammed her to a tile floor and threatened to kill her, and in the frantic struggle that followed she remembers a gun being fired accidentally but does not remember stabbing him.

Her version of Travis Alexander's death was the culmination of more than a week of testimony in which Arias, 32, has tried to convince the jury she killed Alexander, 27, in self-defense during a violent episode in what she has described as an increasingly abusive relationship. She is on trial for murder and could face the death penalty if convicted.

Arias said that Alexander lost his temper when she dropped his camera on his bathroom floor while taking nude photos of him. Enraged, he picked her up and body slammed her onto the floor, screaming at her, she told the jury.

She ran to his closet to get away from him, and then exited through the closet's second door into Alexander's office where she grabbed a gun that she knew he kept on a top shelf.

She tried to keep running, but as Alexander came after her she said she pointed the gun at him in an attempt to ward him off.

"I pointed it at him with both of my hands. I thought that would stop him, but he just kept running. He got like a linebacker, he got low and grabbed my waist, and as he was lunging at me the gun went off. I didn't mean to shoot. I didn't even think I was holding the trigger," she said.

Jodi Arias Testifies Ex Assaulted Her, Broke Her Fingers Watch Video

Jodi Arias Gives Explicit Details About Doomed Relationship Watch Video

Jodi Arias Murder Trial: Why She Said She Did It Watch Video

"But he lunged at me and we fell really hard toward the tile wall, so at this point I didn't even know if he had been shot. I didn't see anything different. We were struggling, wrestling, he's a wrestler.

"So he's grabbing at my clothes and I got up, and he's screaming angry, and after I broke away from him. He said 'f***ing kill you bitch,'" she testified.

Catching Up on the Trial? Check Out ABC News' Jodi Arias Trial Coverage

Timeline of the Jodi Arias Trial

Asked by her lawyer whether she was convicted Alexander intended to kill her, Arias answered, "For sure. He'd almost killed me once before and now he's saying he was going to." Arias had earlier testified that Alexander had once choked her.

Arias said that she has no memory of stabbing or slashing Alexander whose body was later found with 27 stab wounds, a slit throat and two bullets in his head. She said she only remembered standing in the bathroom, dropping the knife on the tile floor, realizing the "horror" of what had happened, and screaming.

"I have no memory of stabbing him," she said. "There's a huge gap. I don't know if I blacked out or what, but there's a huge gap. The most clear memory I have after that point is driving in the desert."

Arias said that she remembered driving away from Mesa, Ariz., where she had killed Alexander, and realizing that he was likely dead. She said she threw the gun she used out of her window and into the desert and kept driving to Utah, where she was supposed to meet up with friends and a new romantic interest.

"I don't remember anything else after that. I just couldn't believe what had happened, that I couldn't take anything back that had happened, I couldn't rewind the clock," she said.

Arias' defense rests heavily on the description of Alexander's death, as her attorneys have argued she was forced to kill Alexander in self-defense. She has described what she said were Alexander's increasingly abusive and rage-filled outbursts toward her in the weeks leading up his death.

The prosecution alleges that Arias murdered Alexander in a jealous rage, and has attempted to prove that the killing was pre-meditated. They will cross-examine Arias after she is done testifying for the defense.

Read More..

How can U.S. deal with cyber war?

Michael Hayden says lack of domestic agreement is driving U.S. to take the offense on cyber attacks.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Obama administration beefing up effort to counter cyberattacks


• Michael Hayden says emphasis is on striking first, as the U.S. does with drone attacks


• Ex-CIA director says drone policy reflects lack of consensus on handling prisoners


• Hayden: Is killing terrorists preferred because of division over how to try them?

Editor's note: Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was appointed by President George W. Bush as CIA director in 2006 and served until February 2009, is a principal with the Chertoff Group, a security consulting firm. He serves on the boards of several defense firms and is a distinguished visiting professor at George Mason University.

(CNN) -- Human decisions have complex roots: history, circumstance, personality, even chance.

So it's a dangerous game to oversimplify reality, isolate causation and attribute any particular course of action to one or another singular motive.

But let me tempt fate, since some recent government decisions suggest important issues for public discussion.

Michael Hayden

Over the past several weeks, press accounts have outlined a series of Obama administration moves dealing with the cyberdefense of the United States.

According to one report, the Department of Defense will add some 4,000 personnel to U.S. Cyber Command, on top of a current base of fewer than a thousand. The command will also pick up a "national defense" mission to protect critical infrastructure by disabling would-be aggressors.

A second report reveals another administration decision, very reminiscent of the Bush Doctrine of preemption, to strike first when there is imminent danger of serious cyberattack against the United States.

Both of these represent dramatic and largely welcome moves.

But they also suggest the failure of a deeper national policy process and, more importantly, the failure to develop national consensus on some very difficult issues.

Chinese military leading cyber attacks

Let me reason by analogy, and in this case the analogy is the program of targeted killings supported and indeed expanded by the Obama administration. Again, I have no legal or moral objections to killing those who threaten us. We are, as the administration rightly holds, in a global state of war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.

But at the level of policy, killing terrorists rather than capturing them seems to be the default option, and part of that dynamic is fairly attributable to our inability to decide where to put a detainee once we have decided to detain him.

Congress won't let him into the United States unless he is going before a criminal court, and the administration will not send him to Guantanamo despite the legitimate claim that a nation at war has the right to detain enemy combatants without trial.

Failing to come to agreement on the implications of the "we are at war" position, we have made it so legally difficult and so politically dangerous to detain anyone that we seem to default to killing those who would do us harm.

Clearly, it's an easier path: no debates over the location or conditions of confinement. Frequently such action can be kept covert. Decision-making is confined to one branch of government. Congress is "notified." Courts are not involved.

Besides, we are powerful. We have technology at our fingertips. We know that we can be precise, and the professionalism of our combatants allows them to easily meet the standards of proportionality and distinction (between combatants and noncombatants) in such strikes, despite claims to the contrary.

And we also believe that we can live with the second and third order effects of targeted killings. We believe that the care we show will set high standards for the use of such weapons by others who will inevitably follow us. We also believe that any long-term blowback (akin to what Gen. Stanley McChrystal calls the image of "arrogance" such strikes create) is more than offset by the immediate effects on America's safety.

I agree with much of the above. But I also fear that the lack of political consensus at home can drive us to routinely exercise an option whose long-term effects are hard to discern. Which brings us back to last week's stories on American cyberdefense.

In the last Congress, there were two prominent bills introduced to strengthen America's cyberdefenses. Neither came close to passing.

In the Senate, the Collins-Lieberman Bill created a near perfect storm with the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Chamber of Commerce weighing in strongly against the legislation. That two such disparate bodies had issues with the legislation should suggest how far we are from a national consensus.

In the House, a modest proposal from the Intelligence Committee to enhance cybersharing between the private sector and the National Security Agency was met with a presidential veto threat over alleged privacy concerns and was never even considered by the Senate.

Indeed, my preferred option -- a more active and well-regulated role for NSA and Cyber Command on and for American networks -- is almost a third rail in the debate over U.S. cybersecurity. The cybertalent and firepower at Fort Meade, where both are headquartered, are on a short leash because few dare to even address what we would ask them to do or what we would permit them to do on domestic networks.

And hence, last week's "decisions." Rather than settle the roles of these institutions by dealing with the tough issues of security and privacy domestically, we have opted for a policy not unlike targeted killing. Rather than opt for the painful process of building consensus at home, we are opting for "killing" threats abroad in their "safe haven."

We appear more willing to preempt perceived threats "over there" than spill the domestic political blood that would be needed to settle questions about standards for the defense of critical infrastructure, the role of government surveillance or even questions of information sharing. And we seem willing to live with the consequences, not unlike those of targeted killings, of the precedent we set with a policy to shoot on warning.

I understand the advantage that accrues to the offense in dealing with terrorists or cyberthreats. I also accept the underlying legality and morality of preemptive drone or cyberstrikes.

I just hope that we don't do either merely because we don't have the courage to face ourselves and make some hard decisions at home.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Michael Hayden.

Read More..

Apple hit by hackers

SAN FRANCISCO: Apple on Tuesday said it was hit by hackers who wormed their way into the California company's system but evidently failed to steal any data.

The maker of iPhones, iPads, iPods, and Macintosh computers said it is working with law enforcement officials to hunt down the hackers, who appeared tied to a series of recent cyber attacks on US technology firms.

"The malware was employed in an attack against Apple and other companies, and was spread through a website for software developers," Apple said in an email response to an AFP inquiry.

"We identified a small number of systems within Apple that were infected and isolated them from our network."

The malicious software, or malware, took advantage of vulnerability in a Java program used as a "plug-in" for Web browsing programs.

A "small number" of computer systems at Apple were infected but they were isolated from the main network, according the Silicon Valley based company.

"There is no evidence that any data left Apple," Apple said. "We are working closely with law enforcement to find the source of the malware."

Apple took the added steps of releasing a Macintosh computer operating system update that disables Java software that hasn't been used for 35 days or longer and a tool for finding and removing the malware.

Word of hackers hitting Apple came just days after leading social network Facebook said it was "targeted in a sophisticated attack" last month, but that it found no evidence any user data was compromised.

Facebook said Friday that the malware came from an infected website of a mobile developer and that "we remediated all infected machines, informed law enforcement, and began a significant investigation that continues to this day."

It was unclear whether it was the same website blamed for the attack on Apple.

The attackers used a previously unseen exploit taking advantage of a flaw in Java software made by Oracle, which was alerted to the situation and released a patch the first of February, according to Facebook.

The hackers appeared to be targeting developers and technology firms based on the website they chose to booby-trap with malicious code.

"Facebook was not alone in this attack," the Northern California-based company said.

"It is clear that others were attacked and infiltrated recently as well."

Early this month Twitter said it was hammered by a cyber attack similar to those that recently hit major Western news outlets, and that the passwords of about 250,000 users were stolen.

"This attack was not the work of amateurs, and we do not believe it was an isolated incident," Twitter information security director Bob Lord said in a blog post at the time.

Lord said there was an "uptick in large-scale security attacks aimed at US technology and media companies."

The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal recently said that they had been hacked, and pointed to attackers from China.

Brazen cyberattacks on US media and technology firms revived concerns over Chinese hackers, who analysts say are likely linked to the secretive Beijing government.

China's army controls hundreds if not thousands of virulent and cutting-edge hackers, according to a report Tuesday by a US Internet security firm that traced a host of cyberattacks to an anonymous building in Shanghai.

Mandiant said its hundreds of investigations showed that groups hacking into US newspapers, government agencies, and companies "are based primarily in China and that the Chinese government is aware of them".

The report focused on one group, which it called "APT1" from the initials "Advanced Persistent Threat."

"We believe that APT1 is able to wage such a long-running and extensive cyber espionage campaign in large part because it receives direct government support," Mandiant said.

The group, it said, was believed to be a branch of the People's Liberation Army called Unit 61398, and digital signatures from its cyberattacks were traced back to the direct vicinity of a nondescript, 12-story building on the outskirts of Shanghai.

China's foreign ministry rejected "groundless accusations" of Chinese involvement in hacking and also said China was itself a major victim, with most overseas cyberattacks against it originating in the US.

The Pentagon declined to comment directly on the report but said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta voiced US dismay over digital threats in his visit to Beijing last year.

-AFP/ac

Read More..