(CNSNews.com) - Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) says that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) should not have complied with decisions by their state supreme courts that ordered legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

In an exclusive video interview with CNSNews.com, Huckabee said that, had he been in Romney’s shoes, he would not have used his executive power as governor to carry out the court’s unilateral declaration that the other branches of state government must certify same-sex marriages.

“You know, it’s interesting, the California decision as well as the Massachusetts decision, I don’t think should ever have been implemented by the governors, Schwarzenegger and Romney,” said Huckabee. “They were both decisions that the governors simply could have said the court has said that we have to do it, but let them enforce it. Because those were administrative decisions that had to put that in place and there was no mandate.”

“I would not have done that,” said Huckabee, who taped an appearance on CNSNews.com’s “Online with Terry Jeffrey” on August 15.

In a 4-3 decision issued on Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in Massachusetts. The court gave the state legislature until May 17, 2004 to enact legislation to allow such marriages to take place.

In the intervening time, the Massachusetts legislature did not enact a law codifying same-sex marriages. Before the May 17, 2004 deadline, however, then-Gov. Romney directed that the words “bride” and “groom” on Massachusetts marriage applications be changed to “Party A” and “Party B.”

Romney’s chief legal counsel, Daniel Winslow, told justices of the peace in Massachusetts that they should carry out the decision of the court and perform same-sex marriages or resign.

"My message was: 'You took an oath, and you don't have to agree or disagree with the law, you took an oath to uphold the law. Your only job is to follow the law,’” Winslow told Pete Winn of CNSNews.com in January. “We'll leave it to the courts to litigate what the law is, but once the courts have ruled, if you've taken an oath under the constitution, you have to follow your oath.”

Some justices of the peace did resign rather than use the “Party A” and “Party B” marriage applications to conclude same-sex marriages. One of these was Kathleen Harvey of Bellingham, Mass.

"I chose to resign," Harvey told Pete Winn of CNSNews.com in January. "I personally didn't feel that same-sex marriages were marriages. If they were civil unions, I don't think that would have bothered me, but I personally didn't feel they were marriages. I just didn't want to be officiating at one of those ceremonies."

In fact, after the court-ordered May 17, 2004 deadline, then-Gov. Romney himself—who opposes same-sex marriage--did not allow all same-sex marriages to go forward in Massachusetts. Citing a 1913 Massachusetts law that said the state should not carry out marriages of individuals from other states if those marriages would not be recognized in the individuals’ home states, Romney told clerks in Massachusetts not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples from out of state.

''Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage,'' Romney told the New York Times in April 2004. ''We do not intend to export our marriage confusion to the entire nation.''

In January, when Pete Winn of CNSNews.com made inquiries to Romney’s presidential campaign about his handling of the state supreme court decision on marriage, the campaign responded with a statement from Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, who the campaign indicated "had worked with the governor" on the same-sex marriage issue.

"Within hours of the November 18, 2003, Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing gay marriage, Governor Romney publicly denounced the court's ruling and affirmed traditional marriage," Mineau said. "And that was just the beginning of his support for preserving traditional marriage.”

"Governor Romney could not have been more public or vocal in his opposition to same-sex marriage during his entire tenure as governor," he said.

"He did not create same-sex marriage; that responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, for which Chief Justice Margaret Marshall has been pleased to accept full credit and responsibility," Mineau said.

"The court's landmark ruling established same-sex marriage by judicially redefining the meaning of the word marriage," he said. "This final judicial order in the form of a declaratory judgment on May 17, 2004, was what created same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

"Any administrative policies and procedures relative to solemnizing same-sex marriages were carried out only as a direct result of the judiciary's final action in Goodridge on May 17, 2004," he said. "Governor Romney is pro-individual and pro-traditional marriage . . . period."

When asked whether Romney’s decision to comply with his state supreme court’s order to allow same-sex marriages should disqualify him as a Republican vice-presidential nominee, Huckabee said: “Well, you know, I’ve not probably been an advocate for him in that position. And, you know, I am going to let him defend himself. And I don’t want to relive the primary. But I think that that was a very unfortunate position that he took in saying that, ‘Well, I can’t do anything about it.’ Oh, yes you can.”

Where’s the line? If the governor gets to pick and choose which rulings to enforce, we’re forever on the brink of a constitutional crisis. In fact, if Eisenhower had followed this advice, schools wouldn’t have been desegregated after Brown. What he’s suggesting, actually, in the name of empowering the people is making the judiciary nothing more than an arm of the executive. If that’s the government you want, okay, but in that case you might as well go the whole nine yards and abolish judicial review by constitutional amendment. Short of that, you’re not without options. The governor can campaign for an amendment to overturn an unpopular decision or, in states where judges are elected, to get them tossed out and replaced with ones who’ll vote the way the majority wants. Exit question: The Huck approach or the Romney approach?

 

[...]

 

If the executive doesn't follow the diktats of a court, the court dashes off writs of mandamus compelling lesser officials (like, justices of the peace, clerks at city halls) to act according to what they claim the law is. I believe these writs are issued upon pain of contempt.

This entire idea -- which I've seen bubbling up a lot, but only with regard to this one issue -- proves too much, as they say. If Romney could have just ignored the SJC's ruling, what stops any executive from doing this when it comes to any disagreement with the court?

There is no difference. Yes, hypothetically, any executive can provoke a constitutional crisis like this, with the courts ordering their bailiffs to arrest officials for contempt for not complying with writs of mandamus, and the executive ordering cops to arrest bailiffs trying to execute these arrests, and etc. Yes, it could be done.

But why the **** have people only thought of this with regard to Romney and this one decision? Why do they insist in this -- and only this -- situation Romney could have, and should have, faced down the (armed) agents of the court with his own armed agents?

Note that Huckabee's excuse for soliciting additional taxes -- any additional tax schemes; they were all "all right by me," as he said -- was that he was compelled by a state court decision to do so. (Actually, he wasn't quite, but let's pretend he was.)

How come you didn't just defy the courts yourself, Huck?

Why is it that Mitt Romney and only Mitt Romney has this special executive power to defy the courts?

Russia’s president backed independence claims of two breakaway republics in Georgia today, a dramatic move that reignited tensions between the two countries which have fought a brief but bloody war over the disputed territories. 

The Government of Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian president, called the declaration a de facto annexation of the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and compared the decision to Nazi Germany’s carving up of Czechoslovakia in 1938, which led to the outbreak of the Second World War.

Dimitry Medvedev further increased tensions by accusing the United States of shipping arms to Georgia on naval vessels in the Black Sea port of Poti.

Asked if Russia was mounting a blockade of ships off Poti Medvedev replied:“There is no blockade. Any ship can get in, American and others are bringing in humanitarian cargoes.

“And what the Americans call humanitarian cargoes - of course, they are bringing in weapons.”

The American warship USS McFaul was due to dock in Poti tomorrow to deliver humanitarian aid there. Other US naval vessels are due in the same area in the next few days.

Georgia accused its giant neighbour of seeking to provoke renewed fighting, which would allow its armoured divisions to move around the capital Tblisi.

But the leaders of the two tiny would-be states hailed Mr Medvedev’s decision to back their bids for independence as “historic,” and there were scenes of celebration inside their main towns.

"I have signed decrees on the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia," Mr Medvedev said in a televised address. "Russia calls on other states to follow its example."

Instead, the Russian declaration ran into a barrage of international condemnation.

Britain was among the first western states to reject the unilateral Russian move. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said Russia’s decision “further inflames an already tense situation” and vowed to build the “widest possible coalition against Russian aggression in Georgia".

He said: “Today’s announcement by President Medvedev that Russia will recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia is unjustifiable and unacceptable. It will also not work.

The Olmert-Livni-Barak government is apparently maneuvering to stand down on Iran, and they'd like the US to be blamed for their timidity. A careful reading of a bizarre article in Sunday's edition of Ha'aretz brings this point home clearly.

The report details Israel's recent agreement with the US to deploy the X-Band high powered early warning radar system in Israel. The system will be manned by a team of three US military personnel from a trailer somewhere in the Negev.

The US's willingness to deploy the system is largely the consequence of ardent lobbying efforts by US Congressman Mark Kirk. Kirk's successful push for the deployment of the X-Band system in Israel is a great boon for the country's defensive capabilities. The X-Band system can detect incoming missiles from 500-600 miles. Currently, Israel's early warning system is only able to detect missiles from 100 miles out. The earlier detection capacity means that in the event of an Iranian attack, Israel's Arrow missiles will be able to intercept and destroy incoming missiles before they reach Israeli territory and so even their debris will fall outside the country.

BUT ACCORDING to unnamed Israeli "defense officials" who spoke with Ha'aretz, the price that Israel will be forced to pay for this increased defensive capacity is prohibitive. Those "defense officials" claim that the US forced Israel to agree that in exchange for the X-Band system, Israel will not attack Iran either preemptively or retroactively without US permission, because were Israel to attack Iran, the three American guys and their trailer could become a target for an Iranian missile.

If Ha'aretz and the "defense officials" are right, then that means that Defense Minister Ehud Barak - who concluded the deal with US Defense Secretary Robert Gates during his visit to Washington last month - agreed to concede Israel's right to take whatever action it deems necessary to prevent its national destruction. Barak conceded Israel's right to prevent its own annihilation in exchange for three guys and a trailer and the capacity to live with a greater sense of security under Iranian nuclear threat. This sense of security will last for as long as Iran doesn't develop satellite-based warheads or for as long as Iran doesn't prove the X-Band radar or the Arrow 3 missiles incapable of actually intercepting incoming nuclear warheads.

(IsraelNN.com) Negotiations between Israel and PA continue at a "crazy" pace, agreement on dividing Jerusalem is "closer than ever," and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is pushing for a nearly-complete agreement on a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria by January. So reports Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily (WND).

Secretary Rice, completing a visit to the region today (Tuesday), has been pressing Israel to sign a document by the end of the year that would divide Jerusalem. Rice says Israel must agree to a Palestinian state capital in Jerusalem - Israel's own capital - and a full Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Despite official Israeli government denials, Jerusalem is thus very much on the negotiating table. The Shas Party, which has said it would quit the government if Jerusalem were to be negotiated, remains firmly in the government coalition.

The Rice Compromise: Israel Remains in Jerusalem for 1-5 Years
Klein quotes top diplomatic sources involved in the talks as saying that Rice has been pushing for a "compromise" between Israel and the PA that would involve Israel's withdrawal from eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City, within one to five years.

The Israeli team, led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, is willing to conclude an agreement on a Palestinian state by the end of the year, but wants to leave talks to decide the fate of Jerusalem for a later date. The PA team, however, wants a deal by January on all core issues, including the Holy City.

The Rice compromise, the sources told WND, asks Israeli leaders to bend and agree to promise sections of Jerusalem to the PA - but not to actually withdraw before one to five years have passed. U.S. President George W. Bush would then, just days before his term in office ends, issue an official letter guaranteeing U.S. support for the agreement.

High Intensity Talks
WND's Klein quoted an unnamed Palestinian Authority negotiator saying that the intensity and frequency of Israeli-Palestinian talks in recent weeks have been "crazy," and that the sides have been meeting on a daily basis, usually at the highest levels. The negotiator further said Jerusalem is being discussed by both sides, and that the two teams are "closer than ever" on coming to an agreement on the status of the city. "This claim was verified to WND by other diplomatic sources involved in the negotiations," Klein wrote.

Reports of the past few months say that the Olmert-Livni negotiators are prepared to give up well over 90% of Judea and Samaria, as well as land for a "safe passage" between those areas and Gaza. This, despite the results of the withdrawal from Gaza three years ago, which include the takeover of the area by Hamas and incessant rocket attacks on nearby Israeli areas.

Many are bitter and disillusioned after swallowing his lies about his affair with a campaign staffer and vouching for his credibility with friends and journalists.

Some ignore his plaintive phone entreaties and don't call back - even when Edwards leaves follow-up messages. A few return his calls - and give him a piece of their angry minds.

When Edwards reached one longtime confidant asking for advice, he was cut off with a terse: "I don't want you to call me again."

The conversation ended abruptly.

 

"I let you down, and I'm sorry," is a common refrain of these messages, said another top ex-assistant on the receiving end of one of the calls.

"It was kind of pathetic, to tell you the truth," said the ex-aide, who said he didn't return the call and doesn't expect to speak to his former boss again.

Obama’s choice of Washington insider Joe Biden is only one sign that the Messiah of Hope and Change is really just a Politician with Slogans. One of the more revealing statements by a senior Obama adviser reveals how Barry has grown “impatient” with his campaign staff who actually care about his, apparently temporary, boring, sloganny rhetoric meant to simply fool the bitter and clingy.

The candidate of change went with the status quo:

A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said his boss has expressed impatience with what he calls a “reverence” inside his campaign for his message of change and new politics. In other words, Obama is willing — even eager — to risk what got him this far if it gets him to the White House.

Prior to the Obama-Biden statement in Springfield today, Major Garrett noted that it appears Obama is willing to “sacrifice” his original message about change. That’s generous. I would suggest it’s not a sacrifice at all—but a simple revealing of the Real Barack Obama and one more sign that The One is like All the Others.

EL PASO, Texas — Security is being heightened along the southern U.S. border because of a threat that warring Mexican cartels may send hit men into the United States, authorities said Monday.

Law enforcement officials would not discuss specific security measures being taken at the ports of entry, along the border or in the city of El Paso, Texas.

"We received credible information that drug cartels in Mexico have given permission to hit targets on the U.S. side of the border," El Paso police spokesman Officer Chris Mears said.

Authorities learned of the threat last week.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Chief Officer Rick Lopez said: "CBP is on heightened alert ever since we became aware of the threats in Mexico."

U.S. Border Patrol spokesman Doug Mosier said officials "are reinforcing the importance of vigilance."

Drug cartel violence has claimed thousands of lives in Mexico this year. Nearly 800 people have been killed in Ciudad Juarez, a hardscrabble city of about 1.3 million people across the Rio Grande from El Paso.

The cartels, battling one another and the Mexican government for supremacy and control of lucrative drug and human smuggling routes, have become brazen in their attacks in recent months.

In Juarez this month, masked gunmen stormed a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center and killed eight people. Days later, Red Cross workers stopped treating gunshot victims for several hours after receiving death threats over Red Cross radios. The Red Cross had already stopped responding to emergency calls after 10 p.m. because of security concerns.

Law enforcement officials this year in New Mexico and Texas said they had received a purported cartel hit list identifying 15 to 20 potential targets in those states. Mears said the latest threat contained no specific targets.

The deadly wave of shootings and a rise in kidnappings for ransom in Mexico has prompted some of its citizens, including police officers and a prosecutor, to seek asylum in the U.S.

While the ongoing cartel war has been largely contained in Mexico, more than two dozen gunshot victims have been taken for medical treatment in El Paso, prompting security lockdowns at the county hospital.

Lopez said agents working at the ports, where those gunshot victims have been taken before coming into the U.S., are taking extra security precautions. Ambulances transporting gunshot victims are already being escorted by local law enforcement to the hospital, he said.

Georgian residents inspect the scraps of their homes, obviously a military target

Georgian civilians leaving Gali, a predominantly Georgian town within the breakaway province of Abkhazia, spoke with wonder of a bazaar bristling with everything from US army boots to plasma televisions and even sophisticated radar equipment. The men peddling the goods were all Russian soldiers, they said.

Russian soldiers have a reputation for entrepreneurship in the midst of battle. Over 14 years of intermittent conflict in Chechnya, many officers made considerable fortunes from selling arms to Chechen rebels.

The market spirit seemed to strike again as Russian troops began a pull out from undisputed Georgian territory it appears they took more than just souvenirs with them as they departed.

Shortly after 150 military lorries withdrew from western Georgia into Abkhazia, where Moscow has long backed the province's rebels, residents say market stalls began to spring up in Gali, a garrison town close to the Georgian frontier.

"It was amazing," said Nano Jaisashvili, a greengrocer from Gali. "They were selling clothes, binoculars, microwaves, laptops. We've never seen anything like it in Abkhazia. My neighbour bought a $500 (£250) fridge for 1,000 roubles (£20)."

Georgian police manning their side of the Inguri River, which separates Abkhazia from Georgia proper, begged fellow countrymen crossing the bridge that spanned the water to shun the market.

"Not a single Georgian should buy anything from there," the officer-in-charge said. "Remember that, while things might be cheap, they were stolen from your brothers and sisters."

A Russian officer commanding the border post denied the existence of the market.

"I have been here non-stop for several days and I would have seen them bringing over all these things," he said. "Russian soldiers do not loot and those that do we hand them straight to the prosecutor's office to face charges."

The Daily Telegraph was unable to confirm existence of the market after it was denied permission to enter Abkhazia.

But Russia's claims of scrupulous probity when it comes to the spoils of war seemed a little tendentious at two Georgian military bases that The Daily Telegraph visited yesterday.

At the army camp of Senaki, built by the US and perhaps the most advanced in the country, storage facilities by a runway had been stripped bare by the retreating Russians.

Office equipment from the barracks, where several windows had been blown out, had also been ransacked.

Fearing Russian booby-traps, Georgian soldiers were too scared to take proper possession of the base. Instead a herd of cows was set loose on the lawns in a rudimentary attempt at mine clearance. A Russian missile launcher dangled temptingly from a bush, but no-one dared touch it for fears it might explode.

Georgian concerns of Russian sabotage appear to have been borne out after a fuel train struck a suspected mine near Gori, a strategic town near the border with South Ossetia, Georgia's other breakaway region and the scene of the fiercest fighting during the five-day war. The explosion derailed 20 oil wagons, scattering them over a wide area, but caused no casualties.

At the naval base of Poti, another herd of cows roamed through rubble and debris left by Russian bombs. Russian troops occupied the port for several days, spending most of their time blowing up warships and coastguard vessels. The twisted and partially submerged wrecks lay scattered across the Black Sea harbour, where a film of oil coated the surface of the water.

Damaged furniture, partially documents and stationery strewn across the offices of the harbourmaster and the coastguard headquarters bore testament to frenzied looting. Computers had been prized from their sockets, patches of dirt on kitchen walls showed where fridges once stood and office doors had large holes in them.

Scorch marks caused by dynamite were visible on the door of a safe room and the safes inside had been cleared of valuable. In a nearby bathroom, the lavatory had been ripped from the wall and spirited away.

"One has to wonder if the Russians would even know how to use it," Tengiz Babunashvili, the commander of the port's radar facility, remarked bitterly."

The incident occured in the village of Skra, near an abandoned Georgian military base about 5 km (3 miles) west of Gori. 

The rail route is a vital trade route for oil exports from Azerbaijan to European markets.

The extent of the damage was not immediately clear.

Russian troops left Gori, a key town in the Russia-Georgia conflict over breakaway South Ossetia, on Friday after a 10-day occupation. However they have faced international criticism for insisting on maintaining a large military presence in checkpoints in the area in defiance of a ceasefire agreement.

Under the terms of the truce, Russian and Georgian forces were supposed to retreat to positions held before fighting erupted on August 7.

For Russia, that meant withdrawing battle troops not only out of Georgia, but also out of South Ossetia, where the Kremlin has financially supported and probably armed a rebel government that broke away from Tbilisi's control in 1992.

However, Moscow insists it needs to take precautions to protect its citizens in the breakaway territory from further attacks from Georgia.

Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili told Reuters: "According to very preliminary information, a train carrying fuel exploded on the railway, which we think was mined."

There was no independent confirmation of Utiashvili's comments.

Emergency services managed to unhitch 19 wagons and move them away from the fire, averting possible further explosions.

"We should find out first how big the fire is and how soon it will be extinguished, in order to assess the damage," said Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze. "But the railway is vital, not just for the Georgian economy but for the economies of neighbouring countries."
The line runs through the capital Tbilisi before splitting in three and running to the Black Sea ports of Poti and Batumi and southwest to just short of the Turkish border.

On Aug. 16, an explosion downed a bridge on the line further east near the town of Kaspi. Russia denied Georgian accusations that it was behind the attack.

Oil exports were disrupted, but Azerbaijan said Georgia had offered a smaller, disused rail bridge for use until the damaged bridge was repaired.

Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 23 Aug.'08 / 14:40

A Russian military convoy, involving armored vehicles and trucks, withdrew from Georgia’s main military base in Senaki on Saturday morning and moved in the direction of breakaway Abkhazia.

Although the troops have pulled out from the town itself, Russian forces have maintained a stationary checkpoint just outside Senaki, controlling a key road intersection at the village of Teklati. The checkpoint controls the road to the port town of Poti and another one to Zugdidi and breakaway Abkhazia.

On August 22, Anatoly Nogovitsin, the deputy chief of the general staff of the Russian armed forces, said at a news conference in Moscow that the military airfield in Senaki would remain under the “zone of responsibility of the Russian peacekeeping forces” – suggesting that Russian troops would not give up control over the area.

Russian troops are also maintaining a checkpoint, supported by armored vehicles, at Nabada, just outside Poti.

Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 23 Aug.'08 / 14:52

Russian troops will patrol the Georgian port town of Poti, Anatoly Nogovitsin, the deputy chief of the general staff of the Russian armed forces, said at a news conference in Moscow on August 23.

He said the patrols would happen even though Poti was not in the “zone of security” – an area on the Georgian side of the Abkhaz administrative border, which is defined by the 1994 Moscow ceasefire agreement.

“Poti is not within the zone of security, but it does not at all mean that we will be sitting beyond the fence and just looking at how they [Georgian servicemen] drive Humvees; move munitions around in trucks. Are we supposed to just count them?” Nogovitsin said.

He said the patrols would be carried out from Russian military base camps outside Poti and Russian forces would “act in accordance with the existing situation on the ground.”

Russian troops have established a stationary checkpoint, supported by armored vehicles, just outside Poti.

Obama's brother, happily standing in front of his hut

HURUMA, Kenya (CNN) -- We found Barack Obama's half-brother living in a Nairobi slum.

George Obama says he is sure his half-brother will win the U.S. presidency in November.

George Obama, whose birth certificate shows that he is Barack Obama's half-brother, lives in a small house in Huruma that he shares with his mother's extended family, far away from the presidential campaign circus.

In his memoir, "Dreams for my Father," the Democratic presidential candidate describes meeting George as a "painful affair." Barack Obama's trip to Kenya meant meeting family he had never known.

In the book, which is popular in Nairobi and can be found in almost any supermarket, Obama looks back at his personal story and his struggles to reconcile with a Kenyan father who left him and his mother when he was just a child.

Barack Obama Sr. died in a car accident when George was just 6 months old. And like his half-brother, George hardly knew his father. George was his father's last child and had not been aware of his famous half-brother.

"I think I wanted to learn about my father the same way he did," George Obama told me about why he read the book. "He came here searching for his roots, and I was also trying to find my roots."

Unlike his grandmother in Kogela, in Western Kenya, George Obama had received little attention from the media.

But reports surfaced in the past few days, springing from an Italian Vanity Fair article saying George Obama is living in a shack and "earning less than a dollar a day."

The reports left him angry.

"I was brought up well. I live well even now," he said. "The magazines, they have exaggerated everything.

"I think I kind of like it here. There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you come from, there are the same challenges," Obama said.

Obama, who is in his mid-20s, is learning to become a mechanic and is active in youth groups in Huruma. He said he tries to help the community as much as he can.

At least one of his neighbors feels that perhaps the candidate should help the brother.

"I would like Obama to visit his brother to see how he is living, to improve his way of life," said Emelda Negei, who runs a small dispensary near Obama's house.

But George Obama will have none of it. He draws inspiration from his famous half-brother. He acknowledges that he is biased but said he knows that his half-brother will be the next president.

"Because he wants to be [president]," he said. "I think in life, what you want is what you are supposed to get."

Viktor Yushchenko, the Ukrainian President, was in a fierce and defiant mood yesterday as he urged Nato to respond to the Russian invasion of Georgia by moving quickly to expand the frontiers of the alliance eastwards.

In an exclusive interview with The Times Mr Yushchenko asserted that the fundamentals of international politics had changed. Ukraine had to do everything in its power to ensure it was not going to be next on the Kremlin hitlist.

“It is the first time in Europe since the Cold War that a foreign army has entered the territory of a sovereign state without any internationally accepted legal basis,” he said.

“If we were to be ambivalent about this it would give tacit approval to put our country and our citizens under threat.”

The President — one of the figureheads of the Orange Revolution that toppled Moscow's favoured candidate for the leadership of Ukraine — was careful not to criticise Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, directly.

Even when the 54-year-old economist flew to Tbilisi shortly after the outbreak of the Russian-Georgian war, his words were more carefully chosen than those of the other East European heads of state.

Russians form a strong minority in Ukraine — about 17 per cent of the population, in the east and to the south in the Crimea — and could become a flashpoint in any future confrontation with Moscow.

Yesterday was the eve of Ukrainian Independence Day and it was time for the President to break cover. Over the roofs of Kiev, a Ukrainian jet fighter howled through the sky. It was preparing for the celebrations, but its presence still induced a vague sense of menace.

This weekend the Independence Day festivities will have a martial edge. It is a good moment to display strength, although in truth the Ukrainian forces are a mere shadow of those of Russia, which is using oil money to modernise the army and boost military might. New aircraft carriers are planned, and new equipment across the board.

“Ukraine has to move towards the Nato alliance,” the President said, drumming up support before the Nato summit in December.

“It is the only way for our country to protect our national security and sovereignty. When the borders of Nato expand, so too does the region of peace and stability.”

Elements of the Pakistan army sent to ungoverned tribal areas on a mission to fight Islamic terrorists are instead helping the militants attack Afghanistan.

Two sources -- one a military officer who just returned from the war theater, the other a government source -- told HUMAN EVENTS rogue Pakistani military officers are aiding radical tribal leaders by providing training, as well as advice on tactics and how to procure weapons on the black market.

The military's help is an example of the mixed performance of U.S. ally Pakistan in the war on terror, and in particular the fight inside the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) where al Qaeda and the Taliban operate.Continued

The FATA has become a critical target in the U.S. war on al Qaeda. It is where Osama bin Laden is thought to be hiding. It is also where militants are trained to infiltrate Afghanistan and killed NATO and local forces in a campaign to topple the elected government of President Hamid Karzai.

"The Pakistani government and the military in particular are not monolithic," said a senior U.S. official. "In some areas, there's very good counter-terrorism cooperation with us. In other areas, there is plenty of room for improvement. There are elements within the government and military that might have some links to militant groups in the region. That is a matter of concern."

Nadeem Kiani, spokesman for the Pakistani embassy in Washington, took issue with reports of army-militant collaboration.

"We have not received any specific evidence of any military officer helping terrorists," Kiani told HUMAN EVENTS. "If we are provided specific evidence, we will take action."

He said there are now 120,000 soldiers in the FATA, about one-fifth of Pakistan's active duty army. Terrorists there have killed over 1,200 army soldiers and other security officials.

"If there was any collaboration of any sort to help the militants, you would not see these sorts of things against security officers," Kiani said. "The Pakistan army is very professional organization. It is one of the best armies in the world."

On the one hand, the government of Pervez Musharraf, a former top army general who resigned this week as Pakistan's president, dispatched army troops to the FATA for the first time in its history to combat al Qaeda, the Taliban and other militant groups.

But at the same time, some of the officers sent there have aided rather than fought the extremists, forming bonds that included attending religious services together, one of the sources said.

The officers are rogue, not acting at the behest of the government, the sources say. They are more loyal to the militant version of Islam than to the state.

The alliance is rooted in the Pakistan army's complex makeup. Some officers replicate the U.S. system of strict civilian control over the military. Others were loyal to Musharraf and helped him take power in 1999.

And then there are elements whose first loyalty is to Islam and the Koran, according to a military intelligence officer interviewed by HUMAN EVENTS.