Chris Roubis

Posts Tagged ‘RT news’

A 29-year-old Rhode Island man is expected to pay $675,000 for the unauthorized downloading of 30 songs after the Supreme Court said on Monday that they will not weigh in on one of the record industry’s longest-running copyright infringement cases.

Joel Tenenbaum of Providence, RI will now go back to court to continue his fight against a penalty that a District Court judge once called “unconstitutionally” excessive.

Tenenbaum was hit with a $675,000 fine — $22,500 per song — after the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) took him to court over copyright infringement in 2009 and won their case. Following that decision, Nancy Gertner of United States District Court in Boston shot down the jury-determined penalty and reduced it by 90 percent, but not without the RIAA appealing and winning once more, reinstating the original fine.

In his latest legal battle, Tenenbaum tried taking his case to the US Supreme Court but Monday’s decision out of Washington, DC reveals that he will have no such luck with them. The court offers with no explanation that they will not hear the case.

Tenenbaum’s attorney, Harvard Law School Professor Charles Nesson, tells the Boston Hearald he is “disappointed, but not surprised.” His client, on the other hand, seems much less understanding.

“I can’t believe the system would uphold a six-figure damages amount for downloading 30 songs on a file-sharing system that everybody used,” Tenenbaum tells the Associated Press. “I can’t believe the court would uphold something that ludicrous.”

Tenenbaum just wrapped up a PhD program at Boston University over the weekend and argues that, after working for minimal compensation under a graduate student’s stipend for six years, it would be impossible for him to pay up. His defense team has argued that if a 2008 study on file sharing is correct then the average teenager has illegally downloaded 800 songs. If true, then the record industry could sue any defendant for upwards of $120 million; when multiplied by the number of individuals they’ve come after, the industry could essentially win $1.5 trillion for cases such as this.

RIAA spokesperson Cara Duckworth told reporters that the record label trade group is “pleased with the decision” after the Supreme Court said this week that they would not discuss the matter. The RIAA filed the suit on behalf of four major labels, including Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Warner Brothers Records Inc.

Prof. Nesson says that next step will now be to take the case to US District Court Judge Rya Zobel. In the original appeals decision, the First Circuit Court said that Tenenbaum could bring his case before a new judge in hopes of having the fine lessened, although the RIAA would be able to receive a new trial if that would occur.

Article source: http://rt.com/usa/news/supreme-court-tenenbaum-riaa-891/

A 29-year-old Rhode Island man is expected to pay $675,000 for the unauthorized downloading of 30 songs after the Supreme Court said on Monday that they will not weigh in on one of the record industry’s longest-running copyright infringement cases.

Joel Tenenbaum of Providence, RI will now go back to court to continue his fight against a penalty that a District Court judge once called “unconstitutionally” excessive.

Tenenbaum was hit with a $675,000 fine — $22,500 per song — after the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) took him to court over copyright infringement in 2009 and won their case. Following that decision, Nancy Gertner of United States District Court in Boston shot down the jury-determined penalty and reduced it by 90 percent, but not without the RIAA appealing and winning once more, reinstating the original fine.

In his latest legal battle, Tenenbaum tried taking his case to the US Supreme Court but Monday’s decision out of Washington, DC reveals that he will have no such luck with them. The court offers with no explanation that they will not hear the case.

Tenenbaum’s attorney, Harvard Law School Professor Charles Nesson, tells the Boston Hearald he is “disappointed, but not surprised.” His client, on the other hand, seems much less understanding.

“I can’t believe the system would uphold a six-figure damages amount for downloading 30 songs on a file-sharing system that everybody used,” Tenenbaum tells the Associated Press. “I can’t believe the court would uphold something that ludicrous.”

Tenenbaum just wrapped up a PhD program at Boston University over the weekend and argues that, after working for minimal compensation under a graduate student’s stipend for six years, it would be impossible for him to pay up. His defense team has argued that if a 2008 study on file sharing is correct then the average teenager has illegally downloaded 800 songs. If true, then the record industry could sue any defendant for upwards of $120 million; when multiplied by the number of individuals they’ve come after, the industry could essentially win $1.5 trillion for cases such as this.

RIAA spokesperson Cara Duckworth told reporters that the record label trade group is “pleased with the decision” after the Supreme Court said this week that they would not discuss the matter. The RIAA filed the suit on behalf of four major labels, including Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Warner Brothers Records Inc.

Prof. Nesson says that next step will now be to take the case to US District Court Judge Rya Zobel. In the original appeals decision, the First Circuit Court said that Tenenbaum could bring his case before a new judge in hopes of having the fine lessened, although the RIAA would be able to receive a new trial if that would occur.

Article source: http://rt.com/usa/news/supreme-court-tenenbaum-riaa-891/

Reauthorizing the indefinite detention of US citizens without charge might be the scariest provision in next year’s defense spending bill, but it certainly isn’t the only one worth worrying about.

An amendment tagged on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 would allow for the United States government to create and distribute pro-American propaganda within the country’s own borders under the alleged purpose of putting al-Qaeda’s attempts at persuading the world against Western ideals on ice. Former US representatives went out of there way to ensure their citizens that they’d be excluded from government-created media blasts, but two lawmakers currently serving the country are looking to change all that.

Congressmen Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Adam Smith (D-WA) introduced “The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012” (H.R. 5736) last week during discussions for the NDAA 2013. It was voted on by the US House of Representatives to be included in next year’s defense spending bill, which was then voted on as a whole and approved. The amendment updates the antiquated Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, essentially clarifying that the US State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors may “prepare, disseminate and use public diplomacy information abroad,” but while also striking down a long-lasting ban on the domestic dissemination in America. For the last several decades, the federal government has been authorized to use such tactics overseas to influence foreign support of America’s wars abroad, but has been barred from such strategies within the US. If next year’s NDAA clears the US Senate and is signed by President Obama with the Thornberry-Smith provision intact, then restrictions on propaganda being force-fed to Americans would be rolled back entirety.

Both Congressmen Thornberry and Smith say that the amendment isn’t being pushed to allow for the domestic distribution of propaganda, but the actual text of the provision outlines that, if approved by the Senate and signed by President Barack Obama, that very well could be the case.

“We continue to face a multitude of threats and we need to be able to counter them in a multitude of ways.Communication is among the most important,” Rep. Thornberry explains in his initial press release on the bill.“This outdated law ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible and transparent way. Congress has a responsibility to fix the situation.”

On his part, Rep. Smith says that al-Qaeda is infiltrating the Internet in order to drive anti-American sentiments ablaze. If the amendment he co-sponsors is passed, the US government would be able to fight fire with fire.

“While the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was developed to counter communism during the Cold War, it is outdated for the conflicts of today,” Rep. Smith says in his official statement. “Effective strategic communication and public diplomacy should be front-and-center as we work to roll back al-Qaeda’s and other violent extremists’ influence among disaffected populations.An essential part of our efforts must be a coordinated, comprehensive, adequately resourced plan to counter their radical messages and undermine their recruitment abilities. To do this, Smith-Mundt must be updated to bolster our strategic communications and public diplomacy capacity on all fronts and mediums – especially online.”

Does that mean that the anti-Nazi and damning communism adverts that were a hallmark of America during the Second World War and the Cold War, respectively, will be updated to outrage Americans against the country’s alleged enemies? It isn’t ruled out, for sure. Both Congressmen Thornberry and Smith have tried to dull the American public’s quickly surmounting outrage by saying that the act won’t be used for brainwashing purposes, but by letting Uncle Sam’s propaganda-spewing communication machine have free roam on the Web and elsewhere, it would absolutely be allowed.

“Clearly there are ways to modernize for the information age without wiping out the distinction between domestic and foreign audiences,” Michael Shank of the Institute for Economics and Peace in Washington tells Buzzfeed, who broke the news of the amendment. “That Reps Adam Smith and Mac Thornberry want to roll back protections put in place by previously-serving Senators – who, in their wisdom, ensured limits to taxpayer–funded propaganda promulgated by the US government – is disconcerting and dangerous.”

Responding to the quickly escalating backlash, Rep. Smith attacked allegations that he is encouraging pro-American propaganda on US soil. “This amendment is intended to ensure that the US government can get factual information out in a timely manner to counter extremist misinformation and propaganda,” he writes in a follow-up statement. “It does not and is not in any way intended to ‘legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences’ and, in fact, specifically ensures that the content to be rebroadcast or republished domestically by the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) shall not influence public opinion in the US. It clearly states, no funds authorized to be appropriated to State Department or BBG for any activity shall be used to influence public opinion.”

Regardless of his or Mr. Thornberry’s intentions, the text of the legislation speaks for itself.

Rep. Smith contributed to this year’s NDAA with another provision, submitted with co-author Congressman Justin Amash (R-Michigan). With that amendment, the two lawmakers proposed that the US military be stripped of their power to indefinitely detain US citizens without charge, a right granted to them under last year’s defense spending bill. Unlike the amendment Rep. Smith introduced with Thornberry, the House shot down that proposal.

Article source: http://rt.com/usa/news/propaganda-us-smith-amendment-903/

Reauthorizing the indefinite detention of US citizens without charge might be the scariest provision in next year’s defense spending bill, but it certainly isn’t the only one worth worrying about.

An amendment tagged on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 would allow for the United States government to create and distribute pro-American propaganda within the country’s own borders under the alleged purpose of putting al-Qaeda’s attempts at persuading the world against Western ideals on ice. Former US representatives went out of there way to ensure their citizens that they’d be excluded from government-created media blasts, but two lawmakers currently serving the country are looking to change all that.

Congressmen Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Adam Smith (D-WA) introduced “The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012” (H.R. 5736) last week during discussions for the NDAA 2013. It was voted on by the US House of Representatives to be included in next year’s defense spending bill, which was then voted on as a whole and approved. The amendment updates the antiquated Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, essentially clarifying that the US State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors may “prepare, disseminate and use public diplomacy information abroad,” but while also striking down a long-lasting ban on the domestic dissemination in America. For the last several decades, the federal government has been authorized to use such tactics overseas to influence foreign support of America’s wars abroad, but has been barred from such strategies within the US. If next year’s NDAA clears the US Senate and is signed by President Obama with the Thornberry-Smith provision intact, then restrictions on propaganda being force-fed to Americans would be rolled back entirety.

Both Congressmen Thornberry and Smith say that the amendment isn’t being pushed to allow for the domestic distribution of propaganda, but the actual text of the provision outlines that, if approved by the Senate and signed by President Barack Obama, that very well could be the case.

“We continue to face a multitude of threats and we need to be able to counter them in a multitude of ways.Communication is among the most important,” Rep. Thornberry explains in his initial press release on the bill.“This outdated law ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible and transparent way. Congress has a responsibility to fix the situation.”

On his part, Rep. Smith says that al-Qaeda is infiltrating the Internet in order to drive anti-American sentiments ablaze. If the amendment he co-sponsors is passed, the US government would be able to fight fire with fire.

“While the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was developed to counter communism during the Cold War, it is outdated for the conflicts of today,” Rep. Smith says in his official statement. “Effective strategic communication and public diplomacy should be front-and-center as we work to roll back al-Qaeda’s and other violent extremists’ influence among disaffected populations.An essential part of our efforts must be a coordinated, comprehensive, adequately resourced plan to counter their radical messages and undermine their recruitment abilities. To do this, Smith-Mundt must be updated to bolster our strategic communications and public diplomacy capacity on all fronts and mediums – especially online.”

Does that mean that the anti-Nazi and damning communism adverts that were a hallmark of America during the Second World War and the Cold War, respectively, will be updated to outrage Americans against the country’s alleged enemies? It isn’t ruled out, for sure. Both Congressmen Thornberry and Smith have tried to dull the American public’s quickly surmounting outrage by saying that the act won’t be used for brainwashing purposes, but by letting Uncle Sam’s propaganda-spewing communication machine have free roam on the Web and elsewhere, it would absolutely be allowed.

“Clearly there are ways to modernize for the information age without wiping out the distinction between domestic and foreign audiences,” Michael Shank of the Institute for Economics and Peace in Washington tells Buzzfeed, who broke the news of the amendment. “That Reps Adam Smith and Mac Thornberry want to roll back protections put in place by previously-serving Senators – who, in their wisdom, ensured limits to taxpayer–funded propaganda promulgated by the US government – is disconcerting and dangerous.”

Responding to the quickly escalating backlash, Rep. Smith attacked allegations that he is encouraging pro-American propaganda on US soil. “This amendment is intended to ensure that the US government can get factual information out in a timely manner to counter extremist misinformation and propaganda,” he writes in a follow-up statement. “It does not and is not in any way intended to ‘legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences’ and, in fact, specifically ensures that the content to be rebroadcast or republished domestically by the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) shall not influence public opinion in the US. It clearly states, no funds authorized to be appropriated to State Department or BBG for any activity shall be used to influence public opinion.”

Regardless of his or Mr. Thornberry’s intentions, the text of the legislation speaks for itself.

Rep. Smith contributed to this year’s NDAA with another provision, submitted with co-author Congressman Justin Amash (R-Michigan). With that amendment, the two lawmakers proposed that the US military be stripped of their power to indefinitely detain US citizens without charge, a right granted to them under last year’s defense spending bill. Unlike the amendment Rep. Smith introduced with Thornberry, the House shot down that proposal.

Article source: http://rt.com/usa/news/propaganda-us-smith-amendment-903/

This week’s NATO and G-8 Summits came and went without participating nations agreeing on a way to handle the uprising in Syria, but it is now being reported that the US may already be taking the matter into their own hands.

Military sources speaking with Israel’s Debka news agency report that the administration of US President Barack Obama has cut a deal with foreign intelligence that involves equipping Syrian rebels with modern anti-tank missiles. After 14 months of ongoing battles between the country’s leader, Bashar al-Assad, and opposition to his regime, suddenly the rebel forces are responding with weaponry reportedly sent with the blessing of President Obama.

Sources close to the matter speaking on condition of anonymity tell Debka that a recent rash of explosions decimating Assad’s fleet of heavy T-72 tanks can be credited to “third generation” anti-tank weapons, specifically 9K115-2 Metis-M and Kornet E, supplied by US forces. According to the source, the firepower is being extended by way of Saudi and Qatari intelligence agencies under the urging of America’s commander-in-chief sent through a secret message.

Rumors of weaponry being supplied by America’s allies comes only days after President Obama told a members at this weekend’s G-8 Summit at Camp David, Maryland that “Bashar al-Assad must leave power.” Days later at Chicago, Illinois’ NATO meeting, however, those member nations did not formally agree to a plan to oust the leader.

Speaking from the Windy City this weekend, NATO Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that the organization had “no intention” of using military strikes to oust Assad.

In March, President Obama told the Atlantic Weekly, “It is our estimation that [Assad’s] days are numbered – it’s a matter not of if, but when.” Despite this promise, however, the Syrian leader has continuously embroiled himself against rebels in an ongoing series of skirmishes that have left thousands dead since last year.

Article source: http://rt.com/usa/news/debka-obama-anti-tank-syria-914/

This week’s NATO and G-8 Summits came and went without participating nations agreeing on a way to handle the uprising in Syria, but it is now being reported that the US may already be taking the matter into their own hands.

Military sources speaking with Israel’s Debka news agency report that the administration of US President Barack Obama has cut a deal with foreign intelligence that involves equipping Syrian rebels with modern anti-tank missiles. After 14 months of ongoing battles between the country’s leader, Bashar al-Assad, and opposition to his regime, suddenly the rebel forces are responding with weaponry reportedly sent with the blessing of President Obama.

Sources close to the matter speaking on condition of anonymity tell Debka that a recent rash of explosions decimating Assad’s fleet of heavy T-72 tanks can be credited to “third generation” anti-tank weapons, specifically 9K115-2 Metis-M and Kornet E, supplied by US forces. According to the source, the firepower is being extended by way of Saudi and Qatari intelligence agencies under the urging of America’s commander-in-chief sent through a secret message.

Rumors of weaponry being supplied by America’s allies comes only days after President Obama told a members at this weekend’s G-8 Summit at Camp David, Maryland that “Bashar al-Assad must leave power.” Days later at Chicago, Illinois’ NATO meeting, however, those member nations did not formally agree to a plan to oust the leader.

Speaking from the Windy City this weekend, NATO Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that the organization had “no intention” of using military strikes to oust Assad.

In March, President Obama told the Atlantic Weekly, “It is our estimation that [Assad’s] days are numbered – it’s a matter not of if, but when.” Despite this promise, however, the Syrian leader has continuously embroiled himself against rebels in an ongoing series of skirmishes that have left thousands dead since last year.

Article source: http://rt.com/usa/news/debka-obama-anti-tank-syria-914/

A senior US lawmaker with 30 years experience in Congress came out hard against CISPA this week, attacking the legislation’s creators for drafting a bill that erodes Internet privacy for Americans.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) condemned the supporters of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) from Capitol Hill on Monday, blaming the bill’s backers for approving legislation that he suggests would do little to thwart cyber terrorism that instead would alienate Americans by being far-too encompassing and poorly architected.

If signed into law, CISPA will allow federal agencies to comb through the personal information and intimate correspondence of anyone in America while also providing protecting to private businesses for aiding in the partnership. The act was drafted under the guise of being a necessity to conquer cyber terrorism but has attracted opponents critical of many of the law’s provisions that hinder free speech and eliminate privacy.

Earlier this year, the US House of Representatives approved CISPA and soon the US Senate will weigh in on the bill. Congress is currently in the midst of considering a plethora of cybersecurity bills to combat a potential attack on America’s online infrastructure that has been all but guaranteed by some of the country’s lawmakers.

On Monday, Sen. Wyden made it clear that he was also one of many opposed to CISPA and other cybersecurity legislation, calling them, “an overreaction to a legitimate fear.”

“It is a fundamental principle of cyber-security that any network whose failure could result in loss of life or significant property should be physically isolated from the Internet,” the senator told his fellow representatives. “Unfortunately many of our critical network operators have violated this principle in order to save money or streamline operations. This sort of gross negligence should be the first target in any cyber-security program – not the privacy of individual Americans.”

Further, Sen. Wyden suggested that implementing the laws drafted under CISPA could create “a Cyber Industrial Complex” that would allow the federal government and its Big Business cohorts to profit off of the personal info of any American with an Internet connection.

Sen. Wyden stressed that, if passed, CISPA will fall short of what its authors hope for because it will drive American citizens away from the Internet.Attacking the bill, the lawmaker said that passing the legislation would be “a recipe to stifle speech, innovation, job creation, and social progress.”

“The American people will respond by limiting their online activities,” predicted the senator.

“I believe these bills will encourage the development of a cyber security industry

that profits from fear and whose currency is Americans private data. These bills create a Cyber Industrial Complex that has an interest in preserving the problem to which it is the solution,” he said.

“Our job is to write a cyber-security bill that protects Americans’ security and their fundamental right to privacy,” continued the senator. “There is no sound policy reason to sacrifice the privacy rights of law abiding American citizens in the name of cyber-security and I will fight any legislation that asks this Senate to make that choice.”

Sen. Wyden is but the latest elected official to publically trash the controversial cybersecurity bill. Presidential hopeful Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) attacked the bill earlier this year by saying it was “Big Brother writ” that exemplified “the federal government’s insatiable desire to control the Internet.” Additionally, the White House has on several instanced reported that the administration’s top advisors will recommend that President Barack Obama vetoes the bill if it makes it to his desk, although the commander-in-chief has fallen short of going on the record to vow as such. The future of the bill in the eyes of the Obama administration is now particularly uncertain following last week’s unexpected resignation of the White House’s cybersecurity coordinator, Howard A. Schmidt, who strongly advocated against CISPA.

Article source: http://rt.com/usa/news/senator-cispa-cyber-wyden-922/

A senior US lawmaker with 30 years experience in Congress came out hard against CISPA this week, attacking the legislation’s creators for drafting a bill that erodes Internet privacy for Americans.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) condemned the supporters of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) from Capitol Hill on Monday, blaming the bill’s backers for approving legislation that he suggests would do little to thwart cyber terrorism that instead would alienate Americans by being far-too encompassing and poorly architected.

If signed into law, CISPA will allow federal agencies to comb through the personal information and intimate correspondence of anyone in America while also providing protecting to private businesses for aiding in the partnership. The act was drafted under the guise of being a necessity to conquer cyber terrorism but has attracted opponents critical of many of the law’s provisions that hinder free speech and eliminate privacy.

Earlier this year, the US House of Representatives approved CISPA and soon the US Senate will weigh in on the bill. Congress is currently in the midst of considering a plethora of cybersecurity bills to combat a potential attack on America’s online infrastructure that has been all but guaranteed by some of the country’s lawmakers.

On Monday, Sen. Wyden made it clear that he was also one of many opposed to CISPA and other cybersecurity legislation, calling them, “an overreaction to a legitimate fear.”

“It is a fundamental principle of cyber-security that any network whose failure could result in loss of life or significant property should be physically isolated from the Internet,” the senator told his fellow representatives. “Unfortunately many of our critical network operators have violated this principle in order to save money or streamline operations. This sort of gross negligence should be the first target in any cyber-security program – not the privacy of individual Americans.”

Further, Sen. Wyden suggested that implementing the laws drafted under CISPA could create “a Cyber Industrial Complex” that would allow the federal government and its Big Business cohorts to profit off of the personal info of any American with an Internet connection.

Sen. Wyden stressed that, if passed, CISPA will fall short of what its authors hope for because it will drive American citizens away from the Internet.Attacking the bill, the lawmaker said that passing the legislation would be “a recipe to stifle speech, innovation, job creation, and social progress.”

“The American people will respond by limiting their online activities,” predicted the senator.

“I believe these bills will encourage the development of a cyber security industry

that profits from fear and whose currency is Americans private data. These bills create a Cyber Industrial Complex that has an interest in preserving the problem to which it is the solution,” he said.

“Our job is to write a cyber-security bill that protects Americans’ security and their fundamental right to privacy,” continued the senator. “There is no sound policy reason to sacrifice the privacy rights of law abiding American citizens in the name of cyber-security and I will fight any legislation that asks this Senate to make that choice.”

Sen. Wyden is but the latest elected official to publically trash the controversial cybersecurity bill. Presidential hopeful Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) attacked the bill earlier this year by saying it was “Big Brother writ” that exemplified “the federal government’s insatiable desire to control the Internet.” Additionally, the White House has on several instanced reported that the administration’s top advisors will recommend that President Barack Obama vetoes the bill if it makes it to his desk, although the commander-in-chief has fallen short of going on the record to vow as such. The future of the bill in the eyes of the Obama administration is now particularly uncertain following last week’s unexpected resignation of the White House’s cybersecurity coordinator, Howard A. Schmidt, who strongly advocated against CISPA.

Article source: http://rt.com/usa/news/senator-cispa-cyber-wyden-922/

The ongoing opposition to America’s war in Afghanistan continues to grow, and now the results of a new poll suggest that US citizens are getting fed up with even nonviolent operations overseas.

According to findings published this week by Rasmussen Reports, more than half of the United States is in favor of pulling American troops from Western Europe, where the country’s forces are not engaged in any formal wars.

Of those polled by researchers with Rasmussen, 51 percent say that they are in favor of emptying all US bases across the pond. Only 29 percent are opposed to ending those operations, and 20 percent say that they are undecided on the matter.

The results of the study come from a recent telephone survey answered by 1,000 US voters who say they plan on casting a ballot in the upcoming 2012 presidential election. There is only a 3 percent margin of sampling error in the study, suggesting that — even accounting for a statistical gaffe — the majority of Americas want to see the country abolishing unpopular military operations.

In recent years, US President Barack Obama has scaled back the presence of US troops in Western Europe, but American forces are still widespread and stationed at practically all corners of the globe. His presumptive opponent come Election Day, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, has attacked the incumbent over his reluctance to build up America’s foreign bases.

The president and the Pentagon have both touted a Defense Department budget that stands to save the military billions over the next few years, but Romney has vowed to challenge those plans if elected.

“I will reverse Obama-era military cuts. I will not allow runaway entitlement spending to swallow the defense budget as has happened in Europe and as President Obama is now allowing here,” Romney says in a recent Chicago Tribune op-ed.

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll, however, the majority of Americans appear to be opposed to Romney’s revamping of the defense strategy. It also suggests that, as long as he remains in the race, Romney’s top GOP contender might be able to garner support from right-leaning voters that disagree with the governor’s agenda. Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is still competing against Romney for the GOP nod and has repeatedly campaigned on removing US troops from bases across the world.

“We’re in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We’re going broke,” Paul said during a televised debate in September.

“The American people are sick and tired of the wars going on over there, we are going broke fighting these wars that are not legitimate in that we were not attacked, they were not declared, and the American people in their majority want us out of there,” the congressman told CNN this past March while demanding a prompt end to the Afghan War.

Article source: http://rt.com/usa/news/majority-troops-europe-us-926/

The ongoing opposition to America’s war in Afghanistan continues to grow, and now the results of a new poll suggest that US citizens are getting fed up with even nonviolent operations overseas.

According to findings published this week by Rasmussen Reports, more than half of the United States is in favor of pulling American troops from Western Europe, where the country’s forces are not engaged in any formal wars.

Of those polled by researchers with Rasmussen, 51 percent say that they are in favor of emptying all US bases across the pond. Only 29 percent are opposed to ending those operations, and 20 percent say that they are undecided on the matter.

The results of the study come from a recent telephone survey answered by 1,000 US voters who say they plan on casting a ballot in the upcoming 2012 presidential election. There is only a 3 percent margin of sampling error in the study, suggesting that — even accounting for a statistical gaffe — the majority of Americas want to see the country abolishing unpopular military operations.

In recent years, US President Barack Obama has scaled back the presence of US troops in Western Europe, but American forces are still widespread and stationed at practically all corners of the globe. His presumptive opponent come Election Day, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, has attacked the incumbent over his reluctance to build up America’s foreign bases.

The president and the Pentagon have both touted a Defense Department budget that stands to save the military billions over the next few years, but Romney has vowed to challenge those plans if elected.

“I will reverse Obama-era military cuts. I will not allow runaway entitlement spending to swallow the defense budget as has happened in Europe and as President Obama is now allowing here,” Romney says in a recent Chicago Tribune op-ed.

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll, however, the majority of Americans appear to be opposed to Romney’s revamping of the defense strategy. It also suggests that, as long as he remains in the race, Romney’s top GOP contender might be able to garner support from right-leaning voters that disagree with the governor’s agenda. Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is still competing against Romney for the GOP nod and has repeatedly campaigned on removing US troops from bases across the world.

“We’re in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We’re going broke,” Paul said during a televised debate in September.

“The American people are sick and tired of the wars going on over there, we are going broke fighting these wars that are not legitimate in that we were not attacked, they were not declared, and the American people in their majority want us out of there,” the congressman told CNN this past March while demanding a prompt end to the Afghan War.

Article source: http://rt.com/usa/news/majority-troops-europe-us-926/