– The macabre story of the pregnant woman who was stoned to death by her own family on Tuesday in Pakistan just got far more twisted: Mohammad Iqbal has revealed to CNN that he murdered his first wife so he could wed Farzana Parveen. Officials confirm that his first wife was indeed killed, some six years ago; the Guardian reports she was strangled. Iqbal's 20-something son reportedly went to police after the killing, and Iqbal spent a number of weeks on the run before being arrested. The son says his father served a year in jail; police say he was freed after reaching a "compromise" with his family as allowed by Pakistani law. Iqbal says, "I wanted to send a proposal to Farzana so I killed my wife." The timeline of the events remains a bit murky in terms of when Iqbal met Parveen, with the Guardian previously reporting the two were engaged for nearly two years before marrying this January. CNN does clarify some details about Iqbal and Parveen's involvement, per Iqbal: He says that the woman's mother died in December, and her father and brothers then changed their mind about the agreed-upon marriage, preferring she wed a cousin instead. The two opted to elope on Jan. 7, and her furious family demanded more money on top of what Iqbal had initially paid in exchange for their lives. Iqbal says his refusal to pay led to an abduction charge against him, and Parveen was planning to testify when she was attacked outside the court. According to a preliminary police report, her own brothers bashed her head with bricks.

Expand this summary.

Muhummad Iqbal, who is demanding justice after his pregnant second wife was killed by her family, admits his own crime

 A Pakistani man demanding justice after his pregnant wife was murdered outside Lahore's high court this week admitted on Thursday to strangling his first wife, in an admission that is likely to focus even more attention on the prevalence of so-called "honour" killings in the country.

 Muhummad Iqbal, the 45-year-old husband of Farzana Parveen, who was beaten to death by 20 male relatives on Tuesday, said he strangled his first wife in order to marry Parveen.

 He avoided a prison sentence after his family used Islamic provisions of Pakistan's legal system to forgive him, precisely those he has insisted should not be available to his wife's killers.

 "I was in love with Farzana and killed my first wife because of this love," he told Agence France-Presse.

 Police confirmed that the killing had happened six years ago and that he was released after a "compromise" with his family.

 Iqbal has also claimed that Parveen's family killed another one of their daughters some years ago. Speaking to a researcher from the Aurat Foundation, a women's rights organisation, he claimed that Parveen's father, Muhammad Azeem, had poisoned the other woman after falling out with her husband-in-law.

 The foundation has been unable to confirm Iqbal's claim about a second killing.

 The extraordinary twists to the affair came after Pakistan's prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, ordered an urgent investigation into the killing of Parveen, a woman who had enraged her family after marrying without their consent.

 In a statement he said the crime was "totally unacceptable and must be dealt with in accordance with the law promptly".

 He also ordered the chief minister of Punjab province, his younger brother Shahbaz Sharif, to take immediate action and launch an urgent investigation.

 The deadly attack on Parveen, which reportedly lasted for around 15 minutes, began soon after she and Iqbal arrived at the court where she was due to testify against her father's claim that she had been kidnapped and coerced into marriage.

 Her father, who is the only one of the group to be have been arrested so far, told police that his daughter had been killed because he had dishonoured her family.

 Iqbal has claimed that Parveen's father only withdrew his support for their marriage after demanding more money than had initially been agreed at the start of a long engagement. Sharif's intervention followed international uproar, including a lengthy and stinging condemnation from the UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, who said Pakistan must take "urgent and strong measures to put an end to the continuous stream of so-called 'honour killings' and other forms of violence against women".

 She said: "The fact that she was killed on her way to court shows a serious failure by the state to provide security for someone who – given how common such killings are in Pakistan – was obviously at risk."

 The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said that the media had reported that nearly 900 women had been killed in "honour" crimes in 2013 alone, but the actual figure is likely to be far higher.

 Until Thursday there had been little comment on the case domestically, with newspapers and television stations focussing on other stories.

 One journalist, an editor of an Urdu national paper who did not want to be named, said the country's media reflected its audience.

 "Although we have some educated people, most are still living in semi-tribal societies in far-flung rural areas," he said. "In a country where people are being killed every day by miscreants and militants it is not so important when one woman is killed by one husband."

 Some members of the public in Lahore clearly share the media's ambivalence.

 Muhammad Yaqub, a student at a private university in the city, said he understood the loss of honour for the family but disliked the brutal way the woman had been killed.

 "He did some right and some wrong," he said. ||||| Story highlights Husband of slain woman says he killed his first wife

 Pakistani Prime Minister orders full report on the killing

 Farzana Parveen, 3 months pregnant, was stoned Tuesday in a public area of a big city

 Her father, brothers and cousins participated in the stoning

 The husband of Farzana Parveen, the Pakistani woman stoned to death for refusing to participate in an arranged marriage, told CNN he killed his first wife so he could marry Parveen.

 Authorities said the first wife was killed six years ago.

 "I wanted to send a proposal to Farzana, so I killed my wife," Mohammad Iqbal said Thursday in an interview with CNN.

 Zulfiqar Hameed, district inspector general for the Punjab police, said Iqbal's son from the first marriage alerted police to the slaying six years ago.

 Iqbal was arrested but later released on bail because his son forgave him, Hameed said.

 JUST WATCHED Fighting honor killings in Muslim world Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Fighting honor killings in Muslim world 05:19

 JUST WATCHED Pregnant Pakistani woman stoned to death Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Pregnant Pakistani woman stoned to death 02:00

 JUST WATCHED Human rights activist speaks on violence Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Human rights activist speaks on violence 01:20

 The son, Aurengzeb, who is in his 20s, confirmed his father's statements to CNN. He said his father served a year in jail.

 Parveen, who was three months pregnant, was beaten to death with bricks Tuesday in the eastern city of Lahore by a group of about 20 people, including her brothers, father and cousin, police said. Police have arrested Parveen's father and are searching for the other killers in this all-too-common crime.

 Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has requested that Punjab's chief minister, Shahbaz Sharif, submit a report on the incident.

 The United Nations estimates 5,000 women are murdered worldwide by family members each year in "honor killings," so named because the woman's actions are considered to have brought shame on her family. But women's advocacy groups say the crime is underreported and the figure could be around 20,000 a year.

 "Most 'honor' crimes can be traced to inflexible and discriminatory attitudes about women's roles, especially around sexuality," said Rothna Begum of Human Rights Watch. "Women or couples seen as having brought 'dishonor' on the community face violence, which is then held out as a chilling example for others."

 Most honor killings in the Middle East and Central Asia occur in rural areas. Tuesday's attack was unusual because it happened in a public area of a big city.

 Iqbal, a neighbor of Parveen's family, said he and Parveen were supposed to marry, with the family's approval, last year. As part of the arrangement, Iqbal said, he'd given Parveen's father 80,000 rupees and gold jewelry.

 Last December, Parveen's mother died and her father and brothers changed their minds about the marriage, Iqbal said.

 The family decided Parveen, who came from a village in Punjab, should marry a cousin, police said.

 Parveen, 25, and Iqbal eloped and were married January 7 in a court ceremony. He said she liked the color white and that she was a "beautiful and good wife."

 "We were happy," he said, though they were constantly worried about their safety.

 "She loved us," said Aurengzeb, Parveen's stepson. "She always made the most delicious meat stew for us."

 The marriage enraged her family, Iqbal said, and they demanded he pay them 100,000 rupees (about $1,000) to let the couple stay alive.

 Iqbal, a farmer in the village in Jurranwala, Punjab, didn't have the money.

 The family had challenged Parveen's marriage to Iqbal in the courts, accusing him of abducting her.

 "They left my office around 7:40 a.m.," the lawyer, Rai Ghulam Mustafa, said. "They arrived at the main gate of the High Court around 7:45 a.m. The opposite party, the family members of Farzana Parveen, had been lying in wait for her among the cars. They suddenly attacked her, repeatedly hit her with bricks and killed her."

 One family member made a noose of rough cloth around her neck while her brothers smashed bricks into her skull, said Mushtaq Ahmed, a police official, citing the preliminary report on the killing.

 Iqbal witnessed the attack and tried to protest, but was held back.

 Police said they had arrested Parveen's father, whose name they gave only as Azeem. They said he had admitted to the killing and expressed no regret.

 Senior Police Officer Umar Cheema told CNN that law enforcement agents are conducting raids in areas near the village to find the other killers.

 Iqbal said nobody helped when the stoning began. People just stood around and watched.

 Farzana Bari, a human rights activist based in Islamabad, said in many cases people outside the family don't step in to protect the victim "because it's a private matter."

 Bari said the number of honor killings is probably much higher than studies show because many families don't report the killings, and the killers often avoid prosecution.

 Under an Islamic element of Pakistani law, known as the law of Diyat, the family of a victim is allowed to forgive the perpetrator, according to the human rights commission's report.

 Lawyer Maliha Zia told CNN that "blood money" is also part of criminal law in Pakistan.

 In certain cases, when both parties agree to reach a financial settlement, the court can take the settlement into consideration instead of jail time. Also, the courts can order financial reparations instead of imprisonment, Zia said.

 Honor-based violence has been reported in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Iraq, Iran, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda, the United Kingdom and the United States, the U.N. said in a report titled "Global Violence Against Women in the Name of 'Honour.'"

 Hameed said Iqbal was on the run for several weeks after killing his first wife and eluded arrest, and those facts would be incorporated into the report on Parveen's killing. |||||


Write a summary based on this article:

Photo by Dennis Brack-Pool/Getty Images.

 Hurricane Sandy has yet to make landfall in the United States, but it's already impacting next week's election.

 Josh Voorhees Josh Voorhees is a Slate senior writer. He lives in Iowa City.

 For starters, it has forced President Obama and Mitt Romney to rework their carefully planned campaign schedules, and election officials in Maryland and the District of Columbia to temporarily suspend early voting.

 Advertisement

 While it's obviously too early to say for certain just how much the storm could impact early voting between the East Coast and the Great Lakes, it doesn't exactly take a giant leap to imagine a scenario where the answer to that question is somewhere between "some" and "a whole lot." If nothing else, the storm is providing one final unscripted moment for a campaign that appeared to be largely in auto-drive heading into the final week.

 But what about what the storm will do to voters' psyches? For an answer to that question, we point you to this 2011 paper from Boston University's Andrew Reeves and Carnegie Mellon's John Gasper: "Make It Rain? Retrospection and the Attentive Electorate in the Context of Natural Disasters." (h/t Mother Jones' Adam Serwer)

 Here's the summary, emphasis ours:

 Are election outcomes driven by events beyond the control of politicians? Democratic accountability requires that voters make reasonable evaluations of incumbents. Although natural disasters are beyond human control, the response to these events is the responsibility of elected officials. In a county-level analysis of gubernatorial and presidential elections from 1970 to 2006, we examine the effects of weather events and governmental responses. We find that electorates punish presidents and governors for severe weather damage. However, we find that these effects are dwarfed by the response of attentive electorates to the actions of their officials. When the president rejects a request by the governor for federal assistance, the president is punished and the governor is rewarded at the polls. The electorate is able to separate random events from governmental responses and attribute actions based on the defined roles of these two politicians.

 And a little more detail from later in the paper (pg. 351):

 "[P]residents are punished for severe weather damage. For example, $20,000 in weather damage in a county of 10,000 voters would result in a modest decrease of a quarter point in the two-party popular vote. This finding also holds even when accounting for a federal response to weather damage. In all specifications of the model we find evidence supporting a responsive electorate and our retrospection of outcomes hypothesis. Even though electorates reward politicians for taking action, they also punish the incumbent for so-called acts of God. The model also shows that presidents receive an electoral boost for disaster declarations, but one that is substantially smaller than the one received by the governor."

  ||||| I’m not sure whether I render the greater disservice by contemplating the political effects of a natural disaster — or by ignoring the increasingly brisk winds whipping outside my apartment in Brooklyn. Still, I thought it was worth giving you my tentative thoughts on how Hurricane Sandy might affect the runup to next Tuesday’s election.

 We may see a reduction in the number of polls issued over the coming days. The Investor’s Business Daily poll has already announced that it will suspend its national tracking poll until the storm passes, and other cancellations may follow. And certainly, any polls in the states that are most in harm’s way, including Virginia, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania, will need to be interpreted with extreme caution.

 But what about the national polls that remain in the field? Could the storm affect their results?

 Imagine that 15 million people are essentially off-limits to pollsters because of the hurricane, because they are without power, displaced from their homes or otherwise are well-adjusted human beings who are more interested in looking after their families than in answering a political survey. The Northeast is Democratic leaning, of course: imagine that these voters would prefer Barack Obama to Mitt Romney by a net of 20 percentage points, on average.

 Fifteen million Americans represent about one-twentieth of the American population. If one-twentieth of Americans, who are 20 points Democratic-leaning, are unable to reply to surveys, Mr. Obama’s standing in the polls would be negatively impacted by a net of one percentage point as a result.

 That calculation assumes, however, that pollsters are reporting their results verbatim. Instead, almost all polling firms weight their polls to cover non-response among different demographic groups. Some also weight their polls by geography, or might begin to do so because of Hurricane Sandy. This might mitigate the effects, although perhaps in unpredictable ways, since the weighting algorithms that different pollsters use are as much an art form as a science.

 Some analysts have also expressed concern that the storm could depress turnout along the Eastern Seaboard on Election Day itself. Since the affected states are Democratic-leaning, and since many of them are so Democratic-leaning that they are likely to vote for Mr. Obama even in a low turnout, it is thought that this might reduce Mr. Obama’s national popular vote without hurting his standing in the Electoral College much, potentially increasing the risk of a split outcome.

 This is a plausible argument, but let me offer a pair of cautions against it.

 First, the Northeast is a wealthy party of the country, and wealthier regions have better infrastructure than impoverished ones, allowing them to recuperate more quickly after a disaster. Were the hurricane expected to hit at the same time next week, it would almost certainly be profoundly disruptive to the election. But the effects might be more modest a week from now.

 Second, although the storm surge represents the most immediate threat from the hurricane, inland areas are under considerable risk as well. Hurricane Sandy could potentially flood riverbanks and other low-lying areas, both because of the storm surge carrying forth into them and then because of the potential for large amounts of rainfall. Moreover, these inland regions may be less well prepared to deal with the storm’s effects, especially given the news media’s tendency to focus its alerts on the impact to major, coastal cities and then to ignore the impact of a storm once it passes through them. (Hurricane Irene in 2011 produced more deaths in landlocked Vermont than in New York City.) Thus, Sandy’s after-effects could be felt in red-leaning areas like central Pennsylvania and West Virginia, along with others that are more Democratic-leaning.

 Along the same lines, it is probably unwise to anticipate what effects the storm might have within particular states, such as whether it might affect the Democratic parts of Pennsylvania more than the Republican ones. Hurricane Sandy is just too large a storm, and has such unpredictable destructive potential, to make reliable guesses about this.

 The storm, of course, will also affect the plans of the campaigns and the tenor of news coverage about them.

 Academic studies on the effects of natural disasters on elections have produced somewhat ambiguous results, but don’t contradict the intuitive notion that a disaster response that seems well managed could help an incumbent, while a botched response (especially if the storm damage is severe) could harm him. However, most of these studies seek to evaluate the political effects of disasters on elections held months or even years later, so their utility for understanding the immediate political consequences of a disaster may be limited.

 More important: if you are in an affected region, take the weather forecast very seriously and make sure that you’re safe and secure. Public officials, from mayors to presidents, unfortunately may have their incentives corrupted by political considerations, and will not always provide the best guidance to the public as a result. Err strongly on the side of caution; FiveThirtyEight will be here when your power is back on. |||||

– President Obama is assuring Americans that there has been "extraordinarily close coordination" between state, local, and federal officials in the response to Hurricane Sandy, he said in a press conference this afternoon. But "millions of people are going to be affected," he cautioned. "The most important message that I have for the public right now is please listen to what your state and local officials are saying. When they tell you to evacuate, you need to evacuate." At the end of the press conference, a reporter asked what impact the storm might have on the election. "I am not worried at this point about the impact on the election, I'm worried about the impact on families," first responders, the economy, and transportation, Obama said. "The election will take care of itself next week." Of course, lots of people are worried about the impact on the election. Slate points to a study showing that the public tends to "punish the incumbent for so-called acts of God." Nate Silver reads the studies differently, saying they indicate that a well-run response can help an incumbent. But the storm, he notes, will also wreak havoc on polling.


A New York restaurant has a pulled a dessert called ‘Roofie Colada’ from its menu after angry backlash over social media.

 The Phunky Elephant in Staten Island is known for its decadent after dinner creations like its Cookie Crumble Martini and Milky Way cocktail. The ‘Roofie Colada’ was a dessert-drink hybrid made with coffee ice cream, Kahlua, vanilla vodka, caramel, chocolate syrup, topped with donuts and whipped cream. The name is allegedly derived from a joke on the cartoon “Family Guy,” reports Advance media via SILive.com.

 Seen at The Phunky Elephant on Staten Island. Complaints can be registered on their FB page. http://t.co/1tKOMdxzyC pic.twitter.com/S7noMYHiaZ — Ilyssa Silfen (@IlyssaSilfen) June 15, 2014

 The dessert has been on the menu since the summer, appearing after the episode when the joke originally aired. Patricia Gaja, who owns the gastropub, admitted that she had been receiving complains about the dish for months, but felt that recent backlash was getting out of hand.

 “Even with all that whipped cream you can't make a rape joke palatable. Roofie Colada = Not Funny,” user Lauren Marie posted.

 Ilyssa Silfen, a patron who dined at the restaurant called out the restaurant on their Facebook page and received what she called a flip response:

 “For the record, you know that there aren't any 'date rape' drugs in this dessert, right?" the Facebook response from The Phunky Elephant stated. "Just to be clear because I think you're taking this a little too far."

 But now the restaurant has changed its attitude amid a string of more complaints. On Tuesday, page administrators posted an apology and said the drink will be taken off the menu until a suitable name replacement is found.

 "The Phunky Elephant is a place with a unique atmosphere. We treat our guests with the utmost respect and we are always open to feedback to make our restaurant a welcoming and comfortable place with a touch of humor and quirkiness,” the message reads “

 “We certainly did not intend to create an impression of reckless or negligent behavior by presenting the desert at question to our guests nor did we mean to make anyone feel uncomfortable or insulted. This desert name was simply a homage to an adult cartoon and there was no malice. We obviously do not support date rape or any sort of violence for that matter."

 "We humbly apologize if we have offended anyone and we appreciate the community around us and its awareness toward the cause. Please be advised that the dessert is currently off the menu until it is appropriately renamed." ||||| STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — A controversial dessert name at the Phunky Elephant bar and restaurant has been removed from the menu after residents called the item offensive and insensitive.

 The Rosebank restaurant's "Roofie Colada" dessert — with whipped cream, coffee ice cream and vanilla vodka — was a nod to the comedy of Fox's "Family Guy" animated series. But many say regardless of the original joke, the drug linked to date rape is nothing to take lightly.

 "Even with all that whipped cream you can't make a rape joke palatable," wrote Lauren Marie Cappello on the restaurant's Facebook review page.

 In response to an inquiry from the Advance, Patricia Gaja, the owner of Phunky Elephant, said the restaurant would be renaming the item, which has been receiving complaints since it debuted on the menu in June.

 "We certainly did not intend to create an impression of reckless or negligent behavior by presenting the desert at question to our guests nor did we mean to make anyone feel uncomfortable or insulted," Gaja wrote.

 Critics of the dessert's name say the reference was harmful because it normalized "roofies" as a date rape drug, making it acceptable to joke about a type of behavior that often leads to rape or sexual assault.

 Gaja said she thought the criticism had "gotten a little bit out of hand," but she said she does "understand where people are coming from."

 She and the restaurant staff came up with the name over the summer, after the Family Guy episode which mentioned the joke aired. She said she had only heard of one in-person complaint, but saw many on social media.

 Prior to its removal from the menu, several patrons voiced their disapproval to restaurant employees. Up until Tuesday, the response was generally unsympathetic, said Stapleton resident Jeremiah Jurkiewicz. He spent his birthday at the restaurant with a group of friends over the summer. When they noticed the dessert, one of his friends expressed concern to a restaurant employee.

 "They just said, 'we really like Family Guy here,'" Jurkiewicz said.

 Other patrons told the Advance that when they tried to speak to restaurant employees about the item, the staff referenced the Family Guy episode. A friend of Jurkiewicz's, Ilyssa Silfen, publicly commented on the restaurant's Facebook page about the dessert. The response from the company was dismissive and insensitive, Silfen said.

 "For the record, you know that there aren't any 'date rape' drugs in this dessert, right?" the Facebook response stated. "Just to be clear because I think you're taking this a little too far."

 The message went on to criticize the public nature of the message she wrote, saying their response may have been different if she had sent them a private message.

 Silfen said the response "showed me that they don't care about how they're trivializing the deadly serious issue of rape in our society as well as the pain and trauma of those who have been assaulted this way."

 The Phunky Elephant's public apology stated that the naming of the dessert was not meant to condone rape.

 "This desert name was simply a homage to an adult cartoon and there was no malice," the statement read. "We obviously do not support date rape or any sort of violence for that matter. We humbly apologize if we have offended anyone and we appreciate the community around us and its awareness toward the cause."

 The dessert item was shared on social media and has stirred a debate among patrons, many of whom see no problem with the name of the dessert and have encouraged others not to get offended by the joke. When local musician Carl Gallagher posted a picture of the item from his visit on Saturday, it drew more than 90 comments.

 "People generally either agree that it's in poor taste or say 'lighten up, it's just a joke,'" he said. "I can see both points of view. I think the issue here is this: an individual can say anything he wants and offend whomever he wishes. But an establishment has a responsibility to listen to the people whose money keeps them in business."

 Gallagher and his girlfriend raised the issue with a restaurant employee during their meal, but said the employee laughed it off.

 Several of Gallagher's friends responded that the intent was not malicious.

 "I think that people hate the name, and associate 'roofie' instantly with date rape, which is probably not what the owners had in mind," local musician and north shore resident Rob Carey told the Advance.

 The mixture of responses is troubling to residents like Jurkiewicz, who said it would be easy to change the name of the item instead of justify it.

 "It just shows how people don't take things like rape and sexual assault seriously," Jurkiewicz said.

 Gaja said the restaurant is in the process of creating a new seasonal menu now, which won't include the Roofie Colada.

 "We'll put a little more thought into things and make sure we don't make anyone feel uncomfortable," she said. "The last thing we want is for people to feel uncomfortable by the name of something on our menu." |||||

Write a summary.

– Family Guy humor works on the Family Guy, but not, apparently, on a drinks' menu. A Staten Island bar and restaurant has retired its "Roofie Colada" and apologized to patrons offended by what they saw as a date-rape joke, reports Fox News. The Phunky Elephant put the vokda and kahlua drink on the menu over the summer as a salute to the animated show, whose character Quaqmire is known to order it for his dates. Complaints began surfacing in person and online, but the restaurant initially shrugged them off, reports Staten Island Live. "For the record, you know that there aren't any 'date rape' drugs in this dessert, right?" went one Facebook reply from the restaurant a while back. But with criticism gathering social-media steam, Patricia Gaja pulled the drink and said it would be renamed. "We certainly did not intend to create an impression of reckless or negligent behavior," she wrote. "Nor did we mean to make anyone feel uncomfortable or insulted."


Article:

Ryan Adams' 2014 self-titled album was one of the more downcast, melancholic LPs in the singer-songwriter's vast catalog. While much of Ryan Adams' moodier tone was likely the result of his struggle with the debilitating Ménière's disease and the death of his grandmother, this too perhaps informed his latest album: Ryan Adams and Mandy Moore announced they are divorcing after nearly six years of marriage. Us Weekly confirms that the unlikely couple – he a prolific rocker, she a former pop star – are splitting up.

 Related Ryan Adams' Road to Recovery After major health scare, the alt-rocker readies his confident new album

 In a joint statement, the couple said, "Mandy Moore and Ryan Adams have mutually decided to end their marriage of almost six years. It is a respectful, amicable parting of ways and both Mandy and Ryan are asking for media to respect their privacy at this time."

 Adams and Moore married in March 2009 in Savannah, Georgia, just four weeks after announcing their engagement. Throughout the years, the two have collaborated with one another: In 2012, Moore revealed that she had been working with Adams on her next studio album. Moore also contributed background vocals to Adams' 2011 album Ashes & Fire and Ryan Adams' "Trouble" and "Am I Safe."

 However, for the most part, Adams and Moore kept their marriage out of the headlines. "I'm a private person and I'll be a gentleman and say I'm not talking about my marriage ever. I'll never talk about it. Ever," Adams said last year. Adams, whose Austin City Limits episode coincidentally airs tonight, will hit the road with Jenny Lewis for a joint tour this spring. ||||| McDreamy is almost back on the market.

 Patrick Dempsey and his wife of 15 years, Jillian Fink, are calling it quits, Page Six has confirmed.

 “It is with careful consideration and mutual respect that we have decided to end our marriage,” the couple told Page Six in a statement. “Our primary concern remains the wellbeing of our children, and we ask with profound gratitude that you respect our family’s privacy at this very sensitive time.”

 According to TMZ, Fink filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences. The couple does not have a prenup, according to the site, and the “Grey’s Anatomy” actor is reportedly worth around $40 million.

 Dempsey, 49, and Fink married in 1999 and have three children together: Tallula, 12, and twins Darby and Sullivan, 7.

 The gossip site also reported that she is asking for joint custody of the children, along with spousal and child support. |||||
What is a summary?

– It probably didn't bode well when Ryan Adams hung up on an Australian interviewer in September who wouldn't stop asking about his marriage to Mandy Moore. Or when Adams' self-titled album from last year turned out to be "one of the more downcast, melancholic LPs in the singer-songwriter's vast catalog," in the words of Rolling Stone. This might be why: Radar reports that Adams, 40, and Moore, 30, are divorcing after six years. Moore cited irreconcilable differences when filing the papers. They have no kids. In other celeb divorce news, Patrick Dempsey—aka "Dr. McDreamy"—is splitting with his wife of 15 years, Jillian Fink, reports Page Six. They have a 12-year-old daughter and 7-year-old twins.


News article:

Serving and retired officers say soldiers also tried to convince French jets to engage in incident in which four US soldiers died

 The US special forces detachment ambushed in the Niger last month fought alone for hours after the local Nigerien forces they were accompanying fled in the first minutes of the engagement, retired and serving special forces officers with knowledge of events have said.

 The trapped soldiers also made repeated efforts to convince French warplanes sent from neighbouring Mali to engage the enemy, attempting to “talk in” the pilots who refused to attack due to poor weather, rough terrain and an inability to differentiate friend from foe, the officers said.

 Four US soldiers and five Nigerien troops died in the incident, which has been the focus of an intense debate in Washington over the executive branch’s extensive powers to use military force abroad without congressional approval and with little oversight.

 The Niger incident has been described as an “intelligence failure” by the Republican senator John McCain, who blamed it on budget cuts.

 The US troops were part of a “train and equip” programme, but the incident has prompted questions in Congress on where such missions blur into counter-terrorist combat.

 Controversy flared after Trump was accused of mishandling a phone call to the widow of La David Johnson, one of the dead soldiers.

 Timeline How the controversy over Trump's condolence call unfolded Show Hide

 Soldiers killed in Niger Four US army special forces troops and five soldiers from Niger die in an ambush during a joint patrol in the south-west of the country. The row begins Asked why he has not spoken about the incident, Trump discusses his calls to bereaved families, saying: “If you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn’t make calls – a lot of them didn’t make calls.” Trump drags White House chief of staff John Kelly into the developing row, saying: “You could ask Gen Kelly, did he get a call from Obama?”, a reference to the death of Kelly's son in Afghanistan. Trump phones the widow of Sgt La David Johnson and reportedly says Johnson “knew what he was signing up for”, according to Frederica Wilson, a Democratic congresswomen who heard the call. Wilson criticizes Trump's reported remark as "so insensitive". In response, Trump claims Wilson's account is “totally fabricated” but Johnson's mother supports Wilson's version of events. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders says Kelly is “disgusted and frustrated” by the politicization of his son's death – even though it was Trump who first mentioned him. Enter John Kelly Kelly delivers a rebuke to critics of Trump in an emotional press conference but fails to acknowledge that the controversy began after Trump attacked Obama. Sanders says it would be “highly inappropriate” to question Kelly, a four-star general, a comment that causes outcry in itself. On the day of Sgt Johnson’s funeral, Trump refuses to let the matter rest, referring to Wilson as "Wacky Congresswoman Wilson" in a tweet. Myeshia Johnson, the widow of Sgt Johnson, says Trump's condolence call "made me cry even worse". Trump disputes her account immediately after the interview aires.

 The Pentagon has launched a special investigation to be carried out by officers from US Africa Command, which is due to report within two months. A defence department spokesman said that there would be no further comment on the incident until then. But defence department leaks have fuelled anger within the US special forces community at what one retired senior officer called “a massive blame game”.

 “To them, it is obviously the [soldiers’ own] fault and error on a ‘routine’ training and advisory mission in Niger,” he wrote in an email to other members of the community, seen by the Guardian.

 US special forces deaths in Niger lift veil on shadow war against Islamists in Sahel Read more

 The email contains new details of the engagement, which took place on the immediate outskirts of the remote village of Tongo Tongo in south-western Niger, in the centre of the volatile Sahel region.

 The Pentagon has said the unit that was attacked comprised 12 soldiers from the 3rd Special Forces Group which had recently arrived in Niger for a six-month tour, and about 30 Nigerien troops.

 The ambush took place at 11:40pm on 4 October after the unit had spent two hours in Tongo Tongo, talking to local elders. The previous night, the Americans had destroyed a camp used by Djoundjoun Cheiffou, a lieutenant of Abu Waleed al-Sahraoui, an Islamic extremist based in neighbouring Mali who last year pledged allegiance to Islamic State.

 Local media in Niger revealed this week that Cheffou was in detention there until 2016 when he was freed in return for the release of an Australian hostage, Jocelyn Elliott.

 About 50 men attacked the US and Nigerien unit with small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.

 The retired special forces officer said he had been told by servicemen with detailed knowledge of the incident that “approximately half of the US/Nigerien force was allowed to pass through the ambush killzone before the ambush was sprung, trapping the rear half.”

 On hearing firing, the lead group of soldiers turned around to engage the militants.

 “Except for those already dead or wounded, all of the Nigerien soldiers bugged out and left the Americans to fight … all by themselves. Two groups, roughly six Americans per group, fighting for their lives alone against a superior ALQ force,” the retired officer said.

 A US drone was on the site of the engagement within minutes, but was unarmed. An hour passed before the trapped unit on the ground called for airstrikes against the militants who surrounded them. The delay has surprised and concerned experts and veterans.

 “Airstrikes were requested as the Americans fought on. Several French Mirage fighters responded, but refused to engage citing poor weather, rough terrain and an inability to differentiate friend from foe. American SF [Special Forces] requested ‘danger close’ support and attempted to talk the CAS [close air support] in, but the French Mirages alleged continued to refuse to engage,” the officer wrote in the mail, based on his own discussions with serving and retired special forces soldiers with knowledge of the incident.

 A spokesman for the French defence ministry did not respond to a request for comment on the allegations.

 According to a CNN account of the incident, the attackers set fire to the dry bush around the encircled special forces soldiers to cover the battleground with smoke. The account quoted a Nigerien soldier as saying that the surviving troops from the patrol were fighting off their attackers, standing back to back in a last stand, when reinforcements finally arrived.

 After two hours, French special forces flown by helicopter from their base in Mali reached the site of the ambush, prompting the attackers to withdraw. The French soldiers searched the immediate vicinity and evacuated survivors, including several who were wounded.

 Sgt La David Johnson: soldier at the center of dispute over Trump remarks Read more

 Four US special forces soldiers were left behind. Three are thought to have been dead at the site. It is unclear when Johnson was killed, but the 25-year-old mechanic had become separated from the rest of the unit almost immediately after the ambush started, sources within the special forces community said.

 The Pentagon has now said that a second team of US and Nigerien forces was close to the ambushed patrol. It was believed to have been on a mission to kill or capture al-Sahraoui. That operation was called off, and the troops eventually retrieved the bodies of three of the US soldiers several hours after the ambush had ended.

 Johnson’s remains were discovered by Nigerien troops near the site of the attack two days later.

 The five Nigeriens killed in the ambush died in its first moments, sources within the special forces community said.

 They described how one of the light, unarmoured trucks used by the patrol became stuck in sand after the attack started. Almost all the Nigerien troops it was carrying were killed or wounded. One source said the vehicle was hit by a mortar round.

 Most of the ambushed US unit had no combat experience, and had not been warned to expect any encounter with hostile forces.

 This assessment has surprised some and has been a focus of congressional attention. A United Nations assessment indicated that there have been at least 46 attacks by armed groups in the districts around Tongo Tongo since February 2016.

 • This article was amended on 4 November and 7 November 2017. The headline has been amended to better reflect the article’s content. An earlier version of the article said four Green Berets died. Four US soldiers died, two of whom were Green Berets. ||||| CBS News has learned one of the four American soldiers killed in the ambush in Niger may have been kidnapped by Islamic militants who opened fire on a group of U.S. and Nigerien troops in early October.

 The Pentagon has not said how Sgt. La David Johnson became separated from the other soldiers.

 Hundreds of bullet casings and bushes stained with blood are evidence of just how intense the fighting was at the site where the group of American and Nigerien soldiers came under heavy fire.

 Terrified villagers said the battled raged on for more than two hours.

 The troops had stopped for supplies in the village of Tongo Tongo when heavily armed attackers appeared on motorbikes and started shooting.

 CBS News

 Initially, a few fighters from a group linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) drew the troops to this spot. They burnt down that school and then pushed them in this direction to where the ambush actually took place.

 When it was over, village elder Adamou Bububaker said he saw three U.S. soldiers slumped dead in their truck.

 "Two of the bodies were in the vehicle and another on the ground," he said. They had been stripped of their uniforms.

 But Johnson's body was found two days later, about a half a mile away. Nigerien military sources tell CBS News they believe ISIS fighters decided to try and kidnap Johnson.

 The fighters later shot him and dumped his body in the bushes, his hands roped together.

 Inside the Niger village where U.S. soldiers were ambushed

 Nigerien military sources insist the mission was to capture a terrorist leader and not focused on reconnaissance, as the Pentagon has stated. Either way, the soldiers had been instructed to stay overnight in territory where more than a dozen extremist groups are operating.

 Asked if they were taking too big of a risk, one Nigerien soldier would only answer if we did not show his face.

 "Do you think you were taking too big a risk?" Patta asks.

 "The Americans? Yes, they took a risk," the soldier says. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– One of four American soldiers killed in Niger last month may have been kidnapped by ISIS-linked militants before he was executed, sources say. A village elder in northern Niger tells CBS that a battle raged for more than two hours after a group of Green Berets was ambushed by attackers on motorbikes. He says after the battle was over, he saw three American soldiers dead in a truck, stripped of their uniforms. The body of Sgt. La David Johnson, however, was not found for two days and military sources tell CBS that they believe he was taken prisoner by militant who later shot him and dumped the body around half a mile away from the battle site. The military is investigating how the four soldiers became separated from their unit during the Oct.4 attack while seven other American troops were reportedly evacuated. Five Nigerien troops were also killed in the attack, though sources tell the Guardian that the Nigerian forces fled soon after the ambush, leaving the Americans to fight alone. The sources say the trapped American troops struggled to call in an attack from nearby French forces, who complained about bad weather and rough terrain. (The attack has been called a "massive intelligence failure.")


Summarize this article:

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Monday accused President Barack Obama of trying to make him the “poster boy” of his state’s controversial immigration law and maintained that he’s “not going to bend to the federal government” in light of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down parts of the law.

 Asked by Fox News’ Neil Cavuto whether he considered Obama’s statement that “no American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like” was intended to be a “slap” at Arpaio, the sheriff responded, “Of course it is.”

 Text Size -

 +

 reset Brewer on SCOTUS ruling POLITICO breaks down SCOTUS immigration decision

 “I’m the poster boy. He mentioned me a few months ago at the White House; he didn’t like what I was doing with [S.B.] 1070,” he said. “I’m going to continue to enforce those state laws, regardless of what the federal government is trying to put pressure on me to satisfy all these activists, which by the way are in front of my building right now, three-and-a-half years they’ve been in front of my building. So, I’m not going to bend to the federal government, especially when we still have state laws to enforce.”

 The Supreme Court’s highly anticipated decision ruled against three provisions of SB 1070 while upholding one — widely known as the “show me your papers” measure — that requires police officers to determine the immigration status of an individual who has been stopped for questioning when there’s reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

 The Justice Department announced in May that it is suing the Arpaio, who calls himself the “toughest sheriff in America.” On Fox, the Maricopa County sheriff also took a shot at the administration’s immigration policy.

 “If he has that much concern, then stop them from coming into the United States because it’s illegal to come into this country,” he said. “He ought to do something about that situation.”

 Earlier in the day, the sheriff had said that the Supreme Court had protected “a good section” of the state’s immigration law by upholding the controversial “show me your papers” provision of the law.

 “I think this is a good section that’s been upheld,” Arpaio said Arizona’s local TV station KNXV. “I would have liked to see where we would have the authority to arrest illegal aliens just by being here illegally and book them into our jails, but that’s not going to happen. But I think this sends a message that we will be involved in enforcing the illegal alien laws and our police officers will be able to at least try to determine if they’re in this country illegally.”

 Arpaio also pushed back on allegations that he is a proponent of racial profiling, maintaining that he’s simply interested in doing “the right thing.”

 Asked if he expects Immigration and Customs Enforcement to cooperate with the sheriff’s department, Arpaio said this remains to be seen.

 “It’s going to be very interesting to see what the Homeland Security does now, if they will continue to pick up the illegal aliens we come into contact with,” he said. “So we’ll see what happens.” ||||| Editor's note: We're live blogging from the Supreme Court today as the nation waits to see whether the justices will hand down rulings on the controversial health care and immigration laws. You can follow along below as CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears and Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin get the latest details live from the court as well as analysis when, and if, the major rulings come on Monday. Watch live coverage and analysis now on CNN TV, CNN’s mobile apps and http://cnn.com/live.

 [Updated at 1:18 p.m. ET] Attorney General Eric Holder issued the following statement reacting to the Court's ruling:

 “I welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down major provisions of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 on federal preemption grounds. Today’s ruling appropriately bars the State of Arizona from effectively criminalizing unlawful status in the state and confirms the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate in the area of immigration. While I am pleased the Court confirmed the serious constitutional questions the government raised regarding Section 2, I remain concerned about the impact of Section 2, which requires law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person lawfully stopped or detained when they have reason to suspect that the person is here unlawfully. As the Court itself recognized, Section 2 is not a license to engage in racial profiling and I want to assure communities around this country that the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously enforce federal prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination. We will closely monitor the impact of S.B. 1070 to ensure compliance with federal immigration law and with applicable civil rights laws, including ensuring that law enforcement agencies and others do not implement the law in a manner that has the purpose or effect of discriminating against the Latino or any other community. We will also work to ensure that the verification provision does not divert police officers away from traditional law enforcement efforts in order to enforce federal immigration law, potentially impairing local policing efforts and discouraging crime victims, including children of non-citizens, victims of domestic violence, and asylum seekers, from reporting abuses and crimes out of fear of detention or deportation. We will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans.”

 [Updated at 12:31 p.m. ET] President Barack Obama has weighed in on the court decision, praising that some parts were struck down, but adding that he was concerned about the provision that remained. His statement is in full below:

 "I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it’s part of the problem. At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court’s decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education – which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own. I will work with anyone in Congress who’s willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs, and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And in the meantime, we will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans, and treat all our people with dignity and respect. We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values – but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it."

 [Updated at 12:08 p.m. ET] In regard to similar laws that have been enacted in other states, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin predicts “legal trench warfare on all these laws.”

 The “mixed nature of the verdict” makes it impossible to say if these laws or constitutional or unconstitutional, so judges in the future will have to go through each law provision by provision to determine constitutionality.

 The ruling guarantees American will see more cases out of other states in the future,” Toobin said.

 [Updated at 12:07 p.m. ET] Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus released the following statement on the immigration ruling:

 "Once again we are reminded that President Obama has failed to keep his promise on immigration reform. In the absence of presidential leadership, states have acted on their own to serve their people and enforce the law, but the issue cannot fully be resolved with a president unwilling to keep his promises. This decision makes that job even more difficult, and it leaves Americans waiting for a plan the president promised to deliver years ago."

 [Updated at 11:51 a.m. ET] Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential candidate has released a statement on todays' immigration ruling.

 "Today's decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration. This represents yet another broken promise by this President. I believe that each state has the duty–and the right–to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. As Candidate Obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office. But 4 years later, we are still waiting."

 The Romney statement doesn't really say if he agrees/disagrees w SCOTUS decision. —

 Jim Acosta (@jimacostacnn) June 25, 2012

 [Updated at 11:43 a.m. ET] We're getting reaction from observers following the debate closely since day one.

 The decision is "a resounding defeat for the legislators of Arizona and other parts of the United States who think that immigration can be regulated at the state level," said Charles H. Kuck, managing partner at Kuck Immigration Partners in Atlanta.

 He predicted Monday's decision will affect Alabama, South Carolina, Indiana, Utah as well as Arizona. The court's message to the states is the same, he said: "This is a federal issue."

 The big question now, he said, is what Congress will do to fix the immigration problem. But he doesn't expect any immediate movement. "I would guess they won't touch this with a 10-foot pole until after they come back after the election."

 Dan Kowalski, editor-in-chief of Bender's Immigration Bulletin and an immigration lawyer at the Fowler Law Firm in Austin, said he thought the decision could be a swinging point on this type of legislation.

 "They're going to have to really almost go back to square one and really rethink their approach and how much time and money they want to put into these types of statutes," Kowalski said.

 "Number one: They're going to have to spend a lot of money on lawyers to try to craft something that they think can withstand Supreme Court scrutiny; Number two: they're going to have to budget money for further litigation because, no matter what they propose on a state level, it's going to be challenged. That costs a lot of money," he said. "So they're going to have to figure out if it's worth it."

 Top court's decision on Arizona will affect other states, too

 [Updated at 11:42 a.m. ET] Though both sides of the immigration debate are claiming some measure are victory, Justice Antonin Scalia let his frustration with the Obama administration known in his dissenting opinion, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Toobin said.

 Scalia even relied on hyperbole – saying Arizona would not have joined the union of the United States if it had known how the ruling would come down – in his attack on the White House.

 “He saw it as an endorsement of illegal immigration and he was more than usually outraged,” Toobin said. “He went off on the Obama administration like Mitt Romney on steroids.”

 [Updated at 11:41 a.m. ET] CNN's Jessica Yellin has gotten reaction from an Obama administration official who says after first read of the ruling, it looks like a win for the federal government.

 It strikes down most provisions, recognizes the federal government’s supremacy in immigration law and enforcement, and narrows the reading of section 2, the administration official said, basically saying that state and local law enforcement cannot do any more than they already are allowed to do under federal statute in regards to requesting immigration status verification from the federal government.

 At the end of the day, the federal government sets the enforcement agenda, and decides who is removed from the U.S., the official told Yellin.

 [Updated at 11:27 a.m. ET] Janet Murguia, President of the National Council of La Raza told CNN that "striking down the other provisions is a victory we can claim,” but upholding any part of Section 2B keeps alive the threat to Arizona Latinos’ civil rights.

 Allowing local police to determine someone’s immigration status is a “huge problem and should be left to the federal authorities,"she said.

 “For us, it still puts a bulleye on the backs of many Latinos in this country,” she said.

 In remarks aimed at the candidates vying for the Oval Office in November, Marguia said she would like to see the nation’s top leaders denouncing all parts of the Arizona law, including Section 2B.

 “I think it’s very important that they reject this type of law as a model for the country,” she said, noting that Obama had already done so.

 While Romney, on the other hand, has “made efforts to soften his tone” on immigration, he has provided voters no specifics and little clarity about his own plan for immigration. Marguia said she hopes Romney, who will be traveling in Arizona on Monday, will reject this provision “outright.”

 [Updated at 11:23 a.m. ET] U.S. Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain, both from Arizona, issued the following statement on the Court ruling:

 “While we still want to fully review the Supreme Court’s decision, today’s ruling appears to validate a key component of Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070. The Arizona law was born out of the state’s frustration with the burdens that illegal immigration and continued drug smuggling impose on its schools, hospitals, criminal justice system and fragile desert environment, and an administration that chooses to set enforcement policies based on a political agenda, not the laws as written by Congress. We will continue our efforts on behalf of the citizens of Arizona to secure our southern border. We believe Arizonans are better served when state and federal officials work as partners to protect our citizens rather than as litigants in a courtroom.”

 [Updated at 11:21 a.m. ET] CNN National Political Correspondent Jim Acosta reports that Mitt Romney's campaign is not saying anything and is being cautious, going over the ruling before making a statement.

 The issue came up repeatedly during campaign, Acosta said, and Romney says he stands behind the law. The GOP presidential contender has said he wants to make legal immigration easier and illegal immigration more difficult.

 [Updated at 11:20 a.m. ET] More reaction coming in quickly on the Arizona ruling. Hilda Mary Esguerra-Eisler from the Alabama Hispanic Association released this statement:

 “As a Latino it just frightens me that the leadership in Congress haven’t been able to tackle the immigration problem in this country. As a result of the lack of leadership with Congress, it’s left up to the states to regulate issues that are federal. And because of that we have police put in the position to stop people and ask for their papers, which puts them to act like an immigration agent. That is not the job of the local police. That is the job of immigration officers. That is a federal responsibility. It’s not up to the states to take on another burden on their shoulder’s. On the other hand, these are laws that have already been established at the federal level. So they’re creating a police state. People are tired of seeing this lack of leadership. This is an opportunity for Latinos to register to vote and to put people in the leadership positions to tackle the immigration problem at the federal level.”

 [Updated at 11:13 a.m. ET] Digging a bit deeper on the one part of the law that was upheld.

 CNN's Bill Mears says in the opinion the court court is saying the "check your papers provision" does not so clearly step over federal prerogative, but warned the states not to apply the law is such a sweeping way that it would become unconstitutional

 “Even if the law is read as an instruction to complete a check while the person is in custody, moreover, it is not clear at this stage and on this record that the verification process would result in prolonged detention," Kennedy wrote. “There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume 2b will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law.”

 However, in the dissent, Justice Scalia voiced his own opinion:

 Justice Scalia, in his dissent, said the Az immigration ruling "deprives states" of basic "characteristic of sovereignty". —

 Jessica Yellin (@YellinCNN) June 25, 2012

 iReport: How does immigration affect you?

 [Updated at 11:10 a.m. ET] CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said he was surprised that Justice Elena Kagan kicked off the morning with the ruling that struck down mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders found guilty of murder.

 The justices ruled 5-4, with Anthony Kennedy joining the four liberal justices, that it is unconstitutional to assign automatic sentences to juveniles and that judges must be left to decide the fate of those defendants.

 CNN's Jessica Yellin said the Latino community is still “measuring how to respond,” but it appears the Arizona law could become a “wedge issue” in this year’s presidential election.

 Where the GOP’s Mitt Romney has stood by the law, calling it a model for all states, Obama will be able to tell Latino voters that he fought the law. The administration can basically tell Latino voters, “We’ve got your back basically.”

 [Updated at 11:06 a.m. ET] Marielena Hincapie, the Executive Director of the National Immigration Law Center, told CNN that the ruling should be a message to other states looking at similar laws as well as those who already have them.

 "Any state that is considering following Arizona’s footsteps with respect to this racial profiling provision should take heed because we will be challenging those actions in court. And finally other states know that this is not the way to treat immigrants," Hincapie said. "With our diverse community and the way that demographics are shifting in this country, we must change the path. We have to stop following Arizona’s footsteps of pursuing policies of hatred and fear and instead trying to be inclusive and integrating immigrants into our community and respecting all of our constitutional rights. Gracias."

 [Updated at 11:02 a.m. ET] Confused by some of the reaction to the Arizona ruling? Who won? Who lost?

 CNN's Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said despite both sides declaring victory, this is “generally a mixed verdict” and both sides can claim victory.

 Essentially, the most controversial part of the law - the “so-called show-me-your-papers provision” - was upheld.

 [Updated at 10:58 a.m. ET] Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne said a “facial challenge” – that is, a challenge to the wording of the law - was expected.

 Other three provisions that were shot down are minor compared to the “big, controversial one” that is outlined in Section 2B, which empowered Arizona law enforcement officers to determine someone’s immigration status.

 “We want to be sure there is no racial profiling,” he said.

 The law was one that attracted a good deal of debate. When the issue was in front of the Supreme Court in April there were plenty of protestors.

 [Updated at 10:54 a.m. ET] As we've noted before, the decision in the Arizona case could have wide implications for other states that enacted similar laws, following in Arizona's footsteps. One of those states is Georgia. Attorney General Sam Olens released a statement in reaction to the Arizona ruling.

 “My office participated in an amicus brief filed by 16 states in support of Arizona’s right to partner with the federal government in enforcing immigration law," said Olens. "I am pleased that the Supreme Court recognizes that states have an important role to play in upholding the law. I look forward to further proceedings in the Eleventh Circuit regarding Georgia’s immigration reform law in the light of this decision.”

 The Supreme Court also agreed today to review a decision by the 9th Circuit that held, for the first time, that forest roads used for timber harvesting must receive time-consuming and expensive permits, a ruling that threatens the continuing viability of timber harvesting across the country.

 Attorney General Olens joined a bipartisan group of 25 other states in submitting an amicus brief to the Court urging review. “I am pleased that the Court will review this important case,” Olens said. “The 9th Circuit’s decision ignores the text and meaning of the statute, and fails to defer appropriately to the EPA’s contrary interpretation; even the Obama Administration agrees it was wrong. I hope the Court will reverse it quickly.”

 [Updated at 10:52 a.m. ET] CNN Political Analyst Gloria Borger added that the upheld portion of the Arizona law could still be challenged in a lower court, and the ruling “limited the authority of what Jan Brewer’s police officers can do” because they can stop someone but they cannot hold somebody without contacting federal officials.

 [Updated at 10:51 a.m. ET] The one key provision that was upheld in Arizona’s "draconian anti-immigrant law will lead to racial profiling and discrimination," ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero warned today in a statement..

 Romero added that he was happy the door remained open for future challenges. Below is part of the statement sent out by the ACLU.

 “We are not done in Arizona and will continue the battle against discriminatory laws like these that encourage racial profiling and undermine the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Be it in the courts or in state legislatures, we will aggressively take on these laws and blunt the effects of this miscarriage of justice. When local police can stop and detain anyone they perceive as ‘foreign’ because of their skin color, their accent or their surname, it is a watershed moment for civil rights.” Today’s decision struck down three provisions of Arizona’s law, but upheld the notorious “show me your papers” provision, which requires illegal detentions and systematic racial profiling by local police. The court rejected the federal government’s argument that Arizona overstepped its power as a state. In a separate suit, the ACLU, along with a coalition of advocacy groups, will continue the fight to block the Arizona law as a violation of core constitutional rights, Romero said. “The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the "show me your papers" provision for now will lead to widespread civil rights violations until it is reviewed again and possibly struck down,” Romero said. “Today's decision is an invitation for more litigation, while civil rights are inevitably violated.”

 [Updated at 10:46 a.m. ET] Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer released a statement regarding the Supreme Court's decision today calling it a "victory for the rule of law."

 Her full statement is below:

 "Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights. The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona’s law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable. Of course, today’s ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, ‘We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.’"

 [Updated at 10:45 a.m. ET] David Cole, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown Law Center said he was not surprised that health care issue will be last to be released.

 “They may not be political, but they understand drama so they’re holding on until the very last day,” Cole said.

 He conceded, however, that it may not be so much an effort by justices to keep Americans on the edges of their seats as it is a desire to take a few extra days to make sure they’re happy with the ultimate decisions.

 Cole said the court did not necessarily uphold the provision allowing law enforcement officers to check people’s immigration status when they are pulled over for a traffic violation or arrested for a crime.

 “All they said was it’s too early to tell before it’s actually implemented whether it’s inconsistent with federal law,’ Cole said.

 [Updated at 10:40 a.m. ET] The Supreme Court will release Thursday all of its remaining rulings, including one on the constitutionality of the Obama administration's health care law, CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears reports.

 [Updated at 10:36 a.m. ET] CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger weights in:

 "On the larger federal question of state vs. government, this is a clear victory for the Obama administration because it stated quite clearly the state can't pursue policies that undermine federal law," she said. "It’s clearly under the federal purview."

 AZ RULING top quote: "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." (Pg. 15) —

 Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDCNN) June 25, 2012

 AZ RULING SUMMARY: Win for federalism, not states. Gov. won on 3 of 4 provisions and 4th is essentially punted for poss. future review. —

 Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDCNN) June 25, 2012

 Now, we're waiting to hear from others:

 Awaiting statement on Romney camp on SCOTUS AZ —

 Jim Acosta (@jimacostacnn) June 25, 2012

 Romney is heading to Arizona on this day of the court's immigration law ruling, for a fundraiser event in Scottsdale. —

 Steve Brusk (@stevebruskCNN) June 25, 2012

 [Updated at 10:34 a.m. ET] A simple breakdown of what stays and what goes based on the ruling:

 AZ RULING: Court has overturned sections requiring a) aliens to carry a registration papers... more.... —

 Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDCNN) June 25, 2012

 AZ RULING: Court has overturned section of AZ law: b) prohibiting illegal immigrants to seek work, saying fed. law overrides this state law. —

 Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDCNN) June 25, 2012

 AZ RULING: Court has overturned section of AZ law: c) allowing police to stop and arrest a person they suspect of being deportable (illegal) —

 Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDCNN) June 25, 2012

 AZ RULING: SCOTUS UPHELD requirement that police try to get immigration status of anyone they arrest, but court ruled on procedural grounds —

 Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDCNN) June 25, 2012

 CNN's John King added that opponents feel the portion of the law which was upheld is what many critics said was tantamount to “racial profiling.”

 [Updated at 10:29 a.m. ET] How did Americans feel about the Arizona immigration law before the Supreme Court ruled?

 A CNN/ORC poll conducted on May 29-31 found that 75% were in favor of it while 24% opposed it.

 CNN's Kate Bolduan, clarifying the ruling, said of the provision that was upheld: "If they suspect you have broke a law that is already on the books, they can check your immigration status" if theres reasonable suspicions a person is in the country illegally.

 Read the full Arizona opinion (PDF)

 [Updated at 10:26 a.m. ET] The Court ruled largely in favor of the U.S. government, striking down three parts of the Arizona immigration law, but the Court did uphold one the most notable provisions: A requirement that local police officers check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.

 The question now is can that single provision stand on its own, or does the court action mean Arizona has to go back to the drawing board on their immigration law.

 [Updated at 10:23 a.m. ET] CNN's Senior Political Analyst David Gergen weighs in on the Arizona immigration ruling:

 “The court apparently has said, ‘No, you can’t do that.’ Those are centralized powers and you can’t step in.”

 [Updated at 10:18 a.m. ET] The Supreme Court has issued 5-3 decision in favor of U.S. government, with Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion.

 Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law," the majority opinion said.

 This is a win for the federal government and a loss for Arizona.

 AZ RULING: Scotus Blog reports that the court has ruled *against* the part of AZ's law requiring police to check status of anyone arrested. —

 Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDCNN) June 25, 2012

 The majority concluded the federal government had the power to block SB1070, which would have given local law enforcement the power to detain and question the immigration status of those believed to be in the country illegally. The Obama administration had argued immigration matters were strictly a federal function.

 [Updated at 10:17 a.m. ET] As we read the decision, here's what we're looking at. The question before the court was whether states have any authority to step in to enforce immigration matters, or whether that is the exclusive role of the federal government. Federal courts have blocked enforcement of the state's tough law known as SB 1070, which targets illegal immigrants.

 [Updated at 10:15 a.m. ET] We now have a ruling in the Arizona immigration case law. The law was upheld in parts and struck down in others. We are now reading to see which parts have been upheld and which parts have been struck down by the Supreme Court. Stay tuned.

 [Updated at 10:08 a.m. ET] The court has thrown out a Montana state ruling on limiting spending in state elections, by saying it believes the historic Citizens United case applies to state elections as well. The court will not hear oral arguments on the case.

 The Court has also decided not to hear the case about the Mt. Soledad memorial cross near San Diego that was on public land. A court had ruled the cross can be taken down, and the decision now clears the way for that to happen.

 [Updated at 10:07 a.m. ET] One case down. But the big question still remains:

 SCOTUS: who thinks we'll get the Az ruling today? Healthcare? —

 Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDCNN) June 25, 2012

 [Updated at 10:01 a.m. ET] We have a ruling on the juvenile justice case, which involves the question of whether a 14-year-old can be sentenced to life without the chance for parole or if that was deemed cruel and unusual punishment, Bill Mears reports.

 The court has reversed an earlier ruling against two 14-year-old children and has issued an opinion in favor of the underage children, saying they should have a chance to argue for parole someday. It was a 5-4 ruling. Justice Kennedy was the swing vote in favor of the defendants. The ruling essentially means that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole.

 Kagan opinion strikes down mandatory life w/o parole for juvenile offenders at #scotus. —

 Jeffrey Toobin (@JeffreyToobin) June 25, 2012

 [Updated at 9:55 a.m. ET] A few people have showed up at the Supreme Court, some holding signs about health care and others about immigration. If a big ruling comes down today we could see that number grow.

 [Updated at 9:43 a.m. ET] In a few minutes the justices will meet in the "robing room "and they will all put them on and then shake each other's hands. It's a tradition before each public session, CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears said. Then the Court will walk as a group down the hall before it is announced that the Court is in session.

 SCOTUS: who thinks we'll get the Az ruling today? Healthcare? —

 Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDCNN) June 25, 2012

 A grey box, containing the rulings, will be brought down to the public information office right next to where the reporters are. That's where reporters will grab a written copy, as the oral summaries are done inside the courtroom.

 Some reporters and analysts, including our own Jeffrey Toobin, are now making their way into the courtroom.

 At #scotus, the courtroom is now open. Time to go upstairs to watch . . . .Decisions promptly at 10 am EDT. —

 Jeffrey Toobin (@JeffreyToobin) June 25, 2012

 [Updated at 9:21 a.m. ET] CNN's Kate Bolduan notes that if a health care ruling comes down on Monday, you can expect that moments after the big focus quickly turns to what's next. That means all eyes will turn back to Congress. House Speaker John Boehnber has said if the law is not completely thrown out Republicans will move quickly to repeal whatever is left of it. After that it gets a little trickier.

 We know that the White House and Congressional Republicans have had their messaging war rooms prepped. There's been listening sessions going through the different possible scenarios. Boehner put out a memo to his members that said nobody knows how the court's going to decide but there will be "no spiking of the ball," Bolduan reported. She adds that it is in effect Boehner stressing that while they clearly want the law to be struck down they don't want to look like they're doing a victory dance surrounding an issue that could provide a negative fallout for those who may lose their health care. It just shows how important this ruling is, Bolduan said.

 Congress ready for high court's health care decisions - then it gets tricky

 [Updated at 9:15 a.m. ET] Two other cases we could get rulings on today: the "stolen valor" case and punishment for underage murderers. The "stolen valor" case takes a look at a federal law making it a crime to falsely claim military medals earned and whether that speech is protected by the First Amendment. The justices will specifically be looking at the harm that a defendant caused when he lied about his past record. The question is: Can you put a price on honor? The court has traditionally been very protective of even unpopular speech, Mears said.

 The underage punishment case looks at whether youth murder suspect deserve a chance to some day perhaps be released from prison. In this case we're dealing with two 14-year-olds who have argued that it is cruel and unusual to force someone of that age to be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

 The case marks the Court's continuing look at how to treat underage criminals. A few years ago the death penalty was outruled for underage criminals.

 [Updated at 9:08 a.m. ET] CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin is also at the court this morning.

 In the #scotus press room. Nerd heaven in here! —

 Jeffrey Toobin (@JeffreyToobin) June 25, 2012

 [Updated at 8:58 a.m. ET] CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears is at the Supreme Court and there's about two dozen camera crews outside. So far, it is pretty quiet at the high Court. No protests, no demonstrations or big gatherings yet, Mears reports. There's about three dozen reporters, which is expected to grow.

 Whether we'll get immigration or health care today is still up in the air. One or both could come today, or none. And then we'll be back again Wednesday and Thursday to do it again.

 [Posted at 7:00 a.m. ET] The Supreme Court could hand down two major decisions on Monday morning that have been hotly debated since they have been passed: Arizona's immigration law and President Barack Obama's health care reform act.

 At issue is whether Arizona's controversial legislation on immigration was overreaching in its authority to enforce immigration matters or whether that is the exclusive role of the federal government.

 And there's certainly plenty of focus on the constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law championed by Obama. The key issues:

 - Does the law overstep federal authority, particularly with the "individual mandate" that requires nearly everyone to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty?

 - Must the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act be scrapped if that key provision is unconstitutional?

 - Are the lawsuits brought by the states and other petitioners barred under the Anti-Injunction Act and must they wait until the law goes into effect?

 - Are states being "coerced" by the federal government to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration, with the risk of losing that funding if they refuse?

 Congress ready for high court's health care decisions - then it gets tricky

 POLITICAL FALLOUT | TOP 4 ISSUES | 5 SCENARIOS | TIMELINE

 The high court begins releasing decisions at 10 a.m. ET, and we'll be live blogging throughout the morning bringing you updates from CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears and CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, among others, to break down the rulings and providing analysis and reaction. ||||| Celebrating the Supreme Court’s ruling on her state’s tough immigration law, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday boasted that the “heart” of SB 1070 had been “vindicated,” as she also blasted President Barack Obama’s “failed” immigration policy.

 “Today is the day when the key components of our efforts to protect the citizens of Arizona, to take up the fight against illegal immigration in a balanced and constitutional way, has unanimously been vindicated by the highest court in the land,” the Republican governor said in a brief press conference. “The heart of Senate Bill 1070 has been proven to be constitutional. Arizona’s and every other state’s inherent authority to protect and defend its people has been upheld.”

 Text Size -

 +

 reset POLITICO breaks down SCOTUS immigration decision

 Brewer’s remarks came hours after the Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold one of the key provisions of the state’s immigration law, allowing police officers to check the immigration status of any individual who has been stopped for questioning if there is reason to believe that the person is in the country illegally. Three other provisions of the law were struck down.

 In her remarks, Brewer hit Obama and his administration for failing to design a comprehensive immigration policy that tackles illegal immigration head-on.

 “We cannot forget that we are here today because the federal government has failed the American people regarding immigration policy, has failed to protect its citizens, has failed to preserve the rule of law and has failed to secure our borders,” she said. “The failure to secure the border has created issues we now face regarding illegal immigration, and Arizona without question bears the brunt of that failure.”

 The governor, who has come under intense fire since signing the controversial bill into law in 2010, added, “We also cannot forget that President Obama and his party had both houses in Congress for two years and could have secured our borders and fulfilled the promise to fix our broken immigration system. They failed.”

 In an earlier statement reacting to the court’s ruling, Brewer had hailed the highly anticipated decision as a “victory for the rule of law” and a “legal victory” for her state.

 During the press conference, Brewer repeated that she would not tolerate law enforcement officials who engaged in racial profiling — a concern of critics of the “show me your papers” provision.

 “We know the eyes of the world will be upon us, we know the critics will be watching and waiting, hoping for another opportunity to continue their legal assault against our state,” Brewer said. “Civil rights will be protected. Racial profiling will not be tolerated. Senate Bill 1070 is equally committed to upholding the rule of law.” ||||| Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia suggested Monday that the Framers of the Constitution would have “rushed to the exits” if presented with the idea behind President Barack Obama’s recent decision not to enforce certain immigration laws.

 The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down most of the key provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law “boggles the mind” in light of the Obama policy shift, Scalia added.

 Text Size -

 +

 reset Brewer on SCOTUS ruling POLITICO breaks down SCOTUS immigration decision”

 (Also on POLITICO: SCOTUS clears key part of Ariz. immigration law)

 Speaking in dissent of most of the court’s rulings on Arizona’s immigration law, Scalia took a clear swipe in his remarks at the Obama administration’s new policy ending deportations of many young adults brought into the country illegally — which was not part of the Arizona case.

 “The president has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws,” Scalia said. “Perhaps it is, though Arizona might not think so.”

 Scalia asked whether states would have entered into the union had the Constitution included a clause enacting immigration laws but stipulating that the president had a choice on whether to enforce them. Delegates would have “rushed to the exits” at Independence Hall.

 By passing a state immigration law, he added, Arizona had “moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.”

 But, “if securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state.”

 The court upheld a key piece of the Arizona’s law — requiring police to check the immigration status of those they arrest or stop for questioning — but struck down other pieces of the law, arguing the state had stepped into the bounds of federal law.

 “To say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind,” Scalia said.

 The problem that Arizona faces, Scalia said, is not that scarce resources are being put toward enforcing immigration laws elsewhere and not in that border state, but the Obama administration’s policies.

 “The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this,” he said of the new Department of Homeland Security directives, “since those resources will be eaten up by the considerable administrative cost of conducting the non-enforcement program, which will require as many as 1.4 million background checks and biennial rulings on requests for dispensation.” |||||

– Reactions are flying in to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down much of Arizona's immigration law, but one of the most extreme came from the court itself. Speaking in dissent of the ruling, Antonin Scalia questioned whether Arizona and other states would have even joined the union if they'd known today's ruling was coming, Politico reports. He said the ruling particularly "boggles the mind" in light of Obama's recent executive order on immigration. He said delegates at the constitutional convention would have "rushed to the exits" at the thought of Obama's move. But while Scalia may have been incensed, seemingly every other quarter was declaring victory, or at least partial victory. For example: Jan Brewer called it a "victory for the rule of law," and for the 10th Amendment, because "the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented," meaning the provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people stopped for other crimes. Joe Arpaio agreed. "I think this is a good section that's been upheld," he said, though he lamented the loss of "the authority to arrest illegal aliens just by being there illegally." President Obama said he was also "pleased" with the decision, which "makes unmistakably clear (that) Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform," but said he was still "concerned" about the remaining provision, according to CNN. Mitt Romney's statement, meanwhile, was decidedly vague. "Today's decision underscores the need for a president who will lead on this critical issue," he said. "President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration." He said every state has a duty and right to secure its borders, but offered no explicit opinion on the ruling itself.


Updated at 3:55 p.m. ET

 As the Obama administration considers how to respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that there is "no doubt" that Syrian President Bashar al Assad was responsible for the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack near Damascus.

 Speaking at the American Legion National convention in Houston, Texas, the vice president laid out the rationale behind that assertion.

 "We know that the Syrian regime are the only ones who have the weapons," Biden said, "have used chemical weapons multiple times in the past, have the means of delivering those weapons, have been determined to wipe out exactly the places that were attacked by chemical weapons."

 And instead of cooperating with international investigators, he continued, "the government has repeatedly shelled the sites of the attack and blocked the investigation for five days."

 Biden said the administration's national security team has been in "close consultation" with their foreign counterparts. "Those who use chemical weapons against defenseless men, women and children should and must be held accountable," he said.

 Questions about Assad's chemical weapon use "preposterous," W.H. says

 In the White House press briefing earlier Tuesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the United States must respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria because "allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would represent a significant challenge or threat to the United States' security interests."

 While Carney said "there must be a response," he noted that President Obama has yet to decide what course of action he'll take.

 "A decision about the use of military force has not been made," he said. "His options are many, and they include a variety of options that are not limited to the use of force."

 The potential for a military strike in Syria has triggered some concern in on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are pointing out that the president cannot legally use military force without congressional approval. As of early Tuesday afternoon, nearly two dozen lawmakers had signed onto a letter calling on the president to get Congress' authorization before acting militarily.

 "Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution," the letter says. "If you deem that military action in Syria is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request. We stand ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict."

 no previous page

 next ||||| By: News Desk

 President Barack Obama said he had not yet made his decision regarding a U.S. strike on Syria during an interview with PBS NewsHour senior correspondents Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifill. The president said that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's regime alleged use of chemical weapons would factor into his calculation and he warned that the Assad should be held accountable.

 Watch the PBS NewsHour full interview. |||||

Write a summary.

– John Kerry said it. Joe Biden said it. But now the person who truly matters has said it: President Obama has concluded that Syria used chemical weapons, he tells PBS NewsHour. Obama, however, said he has not made a decision about a possible military strike. The president said it's clear that chemical weapons were used, and he said the US has ruled out the possibility that the rebels were responsible, as Bashar al-Assad's government claims. "We have concluded that the Syrian government, in fact, carried these out, and if that's so, then there need to be international consequences." The US is in consultation with its allies, he said, adding that "I have no interest in any kind of open-ended conflict on Syria." Pressed on what such a limited action would accomplish, Obama said it would send a "pretty strong signal" to the Assad regime that it must stop the chemical attacks. The bigger message to Assad? "You are not only breaking international norms and standards of decency, but you're also creating a situation where US national interests are affected."