$10 billion UN-linked climate change fund wants immunity from prosecution

The Green Climate Fund, (GCF) a United Nations-affiliated piggy-bank  intended to finance climate change projects around the world, is determined to win sweeping U.N.-style immunities from prosecutions for its global operations--even though  the U.S., its biggest contributor, opposes the idea, and the U.N. itself says its own diplomatic immunities can’t cover the outfit.
The immunities issue could well spark even deeper opposition from Republican lawmakers in next year’s Congress to the Obama Administration’s aggressive climate change policies--which include a recent $3 billion pledge to the Fund.  
“We would definitely be opposed to any extension of immunity to the Fund,” said a senior aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who will chair the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works starting in January.
“What do they need protection from?” he asked. “In essence, they are doing business development projects. If you look at the way millions of people do transactions across national borders, they do it without immunity and very successfully.”
Apparently undeterred, fund officials told Fox News that they are now trying to hammer out “bilateral agreement templates” that could be laboriously negotiated with each country where it operates—a total that could eventually reach the great majority of  the U.N.’s 193 members.
The Fund has already negotiated one agreement of immunity—with its new host country, South Korea, as a condition of moving its headquarters there last year.
CLICK HERE FOR THE SOUTH KOREA AGREEMENT
If the GCF succeeds in its broader negotiations, not only billions but eventually trillions of dollars in climate funding activities could fall outside the scope of criminal and civilian legal actions, as well as outside examination, as the Fund, which currently holds $10 billion in funding and pledges, expands its ambitions.
The shield would cover all documentation as well as the words and actions of officials and consultants involved in the activity documentation—even after they move on to other jobs. As a tasty side-benefit, the “privileges” attached to such “privileges and immunities,” as they are known in diplomatic parlance, mean that employees get their salaries tax-free.
Just why the GCF needs the sweeping protections is not exactly clear. In response to questions from Fox News, Michel Smitall, a Fund spokesman, provided mostly opaque answers.
“Privileges and immunities are intended to facilitate GCF activities in countries in which it operates and the GCF’s ability to use contributions by donor countries in an effective and efficient manner that serves the objectives agreed by its member countries,” he said.
Smitall added that it is “premature” to give out any information on the specific scope of  privileges and immunities, because these “would be negotiated bilaterally with countries in which the GCF operates.”
The immunities, however, “are expected to cover a range of issues,” he said,  “such as protecting GCF staff members acting in their official capacity and facilitating their official travel and protecting taxpayer dollars contributed by donor countries.”
The GCF, he added, “functions in a transparent manner, with strong oversight by its [24-member] Board. To the extent that there are civil or criminal actions against the GCF, we would work closely with the authorities of the relevant country.”
Smitall’s statements, of reassurance however, did not cover the prospect that in many developing countries, those same national authorities may well be direct or indirect partners in the activities the Fund is financing, or the fact that national authorities in many of the developing countries where the Fund hopes to operate are spectacularly corrupt.
The assurances apparently have also failed to win over Obama Administration officials (the U.S. is a GCF Board member). "The Green Climate Fund is an independent institution wiht an independent Board and Secretariat, which is by design separate from the United Nations," a U.S. Treasury official told Fox News.
Treasury officials did not answer, however,  other emailed Fox News questions about whether other countries supported the U.S. position, and about U.S. views on the GCF's new country-by-country approach.
The British government, which has recently given $1.2 billion to the GCF through its Department for International Development (DFID), is staying close-mouthed about the immunities issue.  “The GCF Board will be deliberating the issue of privileges and immunities in 2015 and UK will engage in those discussions,” a DFID spokeswoman told Fox News.
The GFC’s determined pursuit of immunity highlights the broad zone of legal ambiguity that is proliferating in the era of international action against climate change, led by organizations operating under the aegis of the United Nations without being explicitly part of it.
The GFC, for example, is a by-product of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, which is the legal home of the Kyoto Protocol and the forum for hammering out a successor treaty that is now expected to be unveiled at a climate summit in Paris late next year.
Despite its name, the UNFCCCC is also not an organ of the U.N. that automatically gets and passes on  the same kind of sweeping immunities as direct U.N. subsidiaries, or that are granted by international agreement to major development banks.  That position was underlined in an opinion from the U.N. Office of Legal Affairs in 2006.
The GCF, in turn,  is a child of the UNFCCC—via a 2011 decision of UNFCCC parties--with its standing just as fuzzy—a situation that it has been trying to change since at least 2012. 
The effort to get that status shifted into a higher gear in November 2013, when the Fund’s Board sought another legal opinion from the U.N.’s Office of Legal Affairs on  whether it could obtain a “link” between its own status and that of the U.N., along “hybrid” lines derived from U.N. subsidiary organs.
The answer came back to the GCF board at a meeting this May—No.
CLICK HERE FOR THE BOARD’S QUERY AND REPLY
The Board apparently did not want to accept that answer.  A single sentence in a Board report at an October, 20144 meeting in Barbados notes that “a mission to
New York in August also helped prepare the UN Climate Summit and explore how the Fund may acquire privileges and immunities,” presumably with the same people who already  had replied in the negative.
(Questioned by Fox News about the August mission, GCF spokesman Smitall replied more circumspectly that “GCF Secretariat staff, including its general counsel, met with U.N. staff to engage in technical discussions to better understand the scope of U.N. immunities and the possibilities of U.N. linkage, given that the GCF is not a U.N. body.”)
While the rewards of  immunities are still something that GCF does not wish to discuss in detail, the potential risks they pose—to other people—have been raised by  critics who looked at disasters where U.N. immunities played an important role—such as Haiti.
U.N. peacekeepers from Nepal are almost universally believed to have introduced cholera in October 2010  to the earthquake shattered nation that had not seen the disease in a century. About 700,000 cases and 8, 560 deaths have been reported since then.
After denying U.N. involvement in the epidemic for many months, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon invoked U.N. diplomatic immunities in rejecting lawsuits brought against the world organization by relatives of the victims. Lawsuits in U.S. courts are still ongoing, but the State Department has supported the U.N.’s blanket immunity status.
“As we are seeing in the wake of the Haiti cholera epidemic, once we have agreed on privileges and immunities to any mission, they offer an extreme amount of protection to activities that could affect populations badly,” notes Brett Schaefer, an expert on the U.N. at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. ‘’They should be awarded only in circumstances where they are truly necessary and critical to the mission or fulfillment of the mandate of the organization.”
“That is not the case,” he added, “with the GCF"—a position that the Fund is working as hard as it can to overcome.

Several 'high-value' ISIS leaders killed in Iraq, Pentagon officials say

U.S. airstrikes have killed several top Islamic State leaders in Iraq in recent weeks, limiting the terrorist army's ability to fight Iraqi and Kurdish forces, Pentagon officials said. 
Three top Islamic State leaders were killed in recent weeks, including multiple senior and mid-level leaders, said Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby. One of the leaders killed was Haji Mutazz, a deputy to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the terror group, officials said.
"We believe that the loss of these key leaders degrades ISIL's ability to command and control current operations against Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), including Kurdish and other local forces in Iraq," Kirby said. "While we do not discuss the intelligence and targeting details of our operations, it is important to note that leadership, command and control nodes, facilities, and equipment are always part of our targeting calculus."
Earlier, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told The Wall Street Journal those killed included key players in the jihadist army that has carved out a vast swath of territory in Iraq and Syria.
“It is disruptive to their planning and command and control,” Dempsey told the Journal. “These are high-value targets, senior leadership.”
U.S. strikes also killed Abd al Basit, the head of Islamic State’s military operations in Iraq, between Dec. 3 and Dec. 9.  Officials told the Journal that a November strike killed midlevel commander Radwin Talib, ISIS' wali, or governor, in Mosul, Iraq.

Fox News Poll: Two-thirds say the government is broken

Uncle Sam’s performance doesn’t stink as much this year, according to the latest Fox News poll.
While most American voters say the federal government is “broken” -- they’re more charitable this year than last.
Click here for the poll results.
About two-thirds -- 65 percent -- still say it’s broken, but that’s down from a high of 71 percent in December 2013.  Some 58 percent of voters felt that way in December 2010, the first time the question was asked. 
The new poll, released Thursday, shows 29 percent say the government is working “just okay.”  Only five percent of voters describe it as working “pretty well.” 
The improved ratings come from across the political spectrum, as the number saying Washington is busted is down among Democrats (-6 points), Republicans (-7) and independents (-8). 
Still, over half of Democrats feel the government’s broken (53 percent), as do most independents (70 percent) and Republicans (74 percent).
And 82 percent of those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement feel that way. 
Most groups share the view that the government is broken.  Majorities of men (64 percent) and women (66 percent) say so, as do voters under age 35 (56 percent) and ages 65 and over (62 percent). 
Sixty percent of those in households with annual income under $50,000 think the government is broken.  That increases to 73 percent among the $100,000 and over income group. 
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,043 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from December 7-9, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Panel finds Secret Service leadership lacking

WASHINGTON –  An independent panel appointed to investigate the Secret Service after a series of security breaches around the White House released a report Thursday that said the agency tasked with protecting the president of the United States is “starved for leadership.”
An external review of the agency also said the next director in charge should be an outside hire and not picked from the insular agency. It also recommended a higher fence around the White House.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson had appointed a panel to review presidential security and the Secret Service after a man jumped the White House fence, made it past guards.
Johnson called the Secret Service report “astute, thorough and fair” and said he’s work to make sure the changes recommended were implemented. He said while the agency offers the “best protection service in the world,” it was in need of some change.
Many of the proposed changes have been recommended before, including some that date to the Warren Commission Report, which detailed the government investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Johnson said Thursday the recommendations can't fall by the wayside this time.
The panelists were former Obama administration Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli; former Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, who served during Bush's term; Danielle Gray, a former assistant to the president for President Barack Obama; and Joe Hagin, deputy chief of staff for operations during the Bush administration.
This was the second critical report of the agency and its operations in as many months following the Sept. 19 incident, in which a Texas Army veteran armed with a small knife was able to climb over a White House fence and run deep into the executive mansion before being subdued. In November, an internal review concluded that training, poor staffing and a series of missteps contributed to the breach.
Among the mistakes made were that officers had believed that thick shrubbery would stop the intruder from making into the building.
Julia Pierson was forced to resign as director a day after testifying about the White House breach. Retired Secret Service Agent Joseph Clancy has been acting director since shortly after Pierson's ouster.
The independent panel also concluded that training and lack of staffing was also a serious problem for presidential security. The panel recommended hiring at least 85 agents and 200 uniformed officers. They also recommended that uniformed officers should spend at least 10 percent of their time training. Current staffing levels only allowed for about 25 minutes of training in 2013, the panel said.
The panel also suggested replacing the 7 1/2-foot fence around the 18-acre White House complex, although they declined "to say precisely what the optimal new fence should look like."
The panel made more than recommendations, though many of those directly related to security were deemed classified and not included in the summary.

Evidence in Sony hack attack suggests possible involvement by Iran, China or Russia, intel source says

WASHINGTON –  The U.S. investigation into the recent hacking attack at Sony Pictures Entertainment has turned up evidence that does not point to North Korea as the "sole entity" in the case, but rather, raises the possibility that Iran, China or Russia may have been involved, an intelligence source told Fox News on Thursday.
Earlier Thursday, Fox News confirmed that the FBI is pointing a digital finger at North Korea for the attack.
The source pointed to the sophistication of malware “modules or packets” that destroyed the Sony systems -- on a level that has not been seen from North Korea in the past -- but has been seen from Iran, China and Russia.
There is no evidence of a forced entry into the Sony systems, pointing to an insider threat or stolen credentials. And the first emails sent to Sony, described as blackmail or extortion, included demands unrelated to the movie.
The malware had two destructive threads, the source said: it overwrites data and it interrupts execution processes, such as a computer's start-up functions. After the initial attack, the FBI warned the industry that the malware can be so destructive that the data is not recoverable or it is too costly a process to retrieve. The intelligence source added that the forensic evidence suggests that the final stage of the attack was launched outside North Korea's borders -- creating some plausible deniability.
“Given the destructive efforts or effects of this attack, we're treating this as a national security matter, and as such, members of the president's national security team have been in regular meetings regarding this attack,” State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.
Also, Fox News has learned that U.S. security firms were first notified Monday by the U.S. government that they planned to publicly blame North Korea, which is inconsistent with past practice, as the U.S. government often has chosen to work behind the scenes in similar instances.
The White House declined earlier Thursday to directly blame North Korea for the attack, though Press Secretary Josh Earnest referred to the incident as a "serious national security matter."
The case is "being treated as seriously as you'd expect," Earnest told reporters at an afternoon briefing. He added that the White House would allow the investigation to move forward before speculating about a response.
"There is evidence to indicate that we have seen destructive activity with malicious intent that was initiated by a sophisticated actor," Earnest said. "And it is being treated by those investigative agencies both at the FBI and the Department of Justice as seriously as you would expect."
The North Korean link came shortly after Sony canceled plans for its Dec. 25 release of “The Interview,” a comedy about the fictional assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.  Getting Sony to pull the release of the movie had been one of the hackers’ public demands.
Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the attack originated outside North Korea, but believe the individuals behind it were acting on orders from the North Korean government.
While the U.S. government is unlikely to issue formal charges against North Korea or its leadership, a formal announcement of North Korea’s involvement is likely to come Thursday.
The Sony hack attack is “deeply worrying” to the intelligence community because it is believed to be the first time destructive malware has targeted a U.S. firm, according to the Fox News source, who added that the cyber assault is seen as “retribution” for “The Interview.”
Fox News is told that the malware used in the Sony hack attack has two destructive threads: it overwrites data and it interrupts execution processes, such as a computer's start-up functions. The FBI warns that the malware can be so destructive that the data is not recoverable or it is too costly a process to retrieve.
It is not clear how long the malware needs to be in the system before it brings on an almost complete paralysis. In the case of Sony, support functions -- including emails --were knocked off-line, seen as a distraction while the more destructive attack was launching.
This week North Korea’s state-run media KCNA endorsed the Sony hacking, saying it was done by “sympathizers.” Andrei Lankov, an expert on North Korea who writes a column for The Korea Times, says this is as close to an endorsement as possible.
Another expert noted “ambiguity of attribution and guerilla-warfare approach” are the tactics of North Korea. The expert concluded it will be seen that America is vulnerable to blackmail and North Korea will try it again.
Fox News has also been told, however, there was “zero” chance there would have been any actual attacks on theaters.”
"Sony was stupid to make a movie about killing Kim Jung-un," Lankov said, "but it was even more stupid to cave in to pressure."
A Steve Carell "paranoid" thriller "that was to be set in North Korea" also has been scrapped, sources say. The project from director Gore Verbinski and writer Steve Conrad wasn't yet titled, though industry outlets said the working title was "Pyongyang," which is the North Korean capital.
"Sad day for creative expression," Carell tweeted Wednesday evening, adding "#fear eats the soul" as a hashtag.
In an interview with ABC News aired Wednesday, President Obama encouraged Americans to go to the movies.
The Sony hacking saga took a sinister turn on Tuesday when hackers sent a message threatening to target theaters showing “The Interview” in a 9/11-type attack.
Sony then told theaters they will not be penalized should they choose not to show it.
A representative for the FBI Los Angeles Field Office told FOX411 that the bureau is “aware of the recent threats and continues to work collaboratively with our partners to investigate.”
Security experts told Fox that in the wake of the Sydney siege and the release of the CIA enhanced interrogation report last week, it was crucial the threat be taken seriously by authorities.
“This threatening statement obviously has some foundation and may be linked to current global hostilities toward the West and predominantly the U.S.,” said Lee Oughton, global security and risk management expert. “We are still unaware how deep the hackers were able to penetrate into the Sony systems. Only time will tell how much information they were able to ascertain and what price Sony will pay in the international market.”
Actors James Franco and Seth Rogen already canceled all media appearances promoting their film.

Jeb Cartoon

New York Gov. Cuomo moves to ban fracking

New York officials on Wednesday moved forward with an effort to ban fracking across the state, citing excessive environmental and health concerns.
The move came during a Cabinet-level meeting in Albany, the state capital, in which Gov. Andrew Cuomo's environmental commissioner, Joe Martens, recommended a ban.
Cuomo, a Democrat, said he will defer to Martens and acting Health Commissioner Howard Zucker in making a final decision.
A ban would end the state's current six-month moratorium on fracking.
The process of fracking involves shooting a mix of pressurized water, sand and chemicals to split rock formations to release natural gas and so-called tight oil.
The widely used, deep-drilling process has resulted in a surge in domestic-energy production and has created millions of new jobs.
However, state and local governments are pushing for bans over the health and environmental concerns, including the potential for earthquakes and the contamination of natural water supplies.
New York sits atop the Marcellus shale formation, which stretches 600 miles along the Appalachian Basin and is rich in natural gas deposits.
Fracking supporters immediately expressed opposition to the state’s plan.
“Today’s action by Governor Cuomo shows that New York families, teachers, roads and good-paying jobs have lost out to political gamesmanship,” said Karen Moreau, of the New York Petroleum Council, an arm of the American Petroleum Institute, which represents some of the world's biggest energy companies.
Martens said the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation will put out a final impact study early next year that will suggest a ban on fracking, more formally known as high-volume hydraulic fracturing.
Martens said he would follow the report with an order prohibiting the process.
Zucker said he came to the decision that he didn’t want the state to proceed with fracking when he realized that he wouldn’t want his family to live near an extraction site.

Palestinians buck US, put UN resolution before Security Council demanding Israel withdraw from West Bank

Arab nations backed Palestinians Wednesday, putting a resolution before the UN Security Council Wednesday that would demand an Israeli pullout from the West Bank and East Jerusalem within two years in a bid that could complicate U.S. efforts to broker peace in the region.
The Arab Group at the UN endorsed by consensus the Palestinian resolution,  instructing Jordan, a temporary member, to submit it to the powerful panel. The sponsors of the resolution believe that the text is ready for a vote they hope will come as early as Thursday.
The measure, which presents the Arab and pro-Palestinian position, sets the parameters for an Israeli withdrawal beyond the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem becoming its capital, and advance the process of a two-state solution.
The resolution is believed to be based on a French proposal, a rough draft of which Fox News has obtained. But it could not be determined what changes may be made before or during the Arab League session. The Palestinians are calling it the "ending the occupation" resolution.
Should the Security Council take up the measure, it could spark weeks or even months of debate, or be brought to a vote within 24 hours.
Arab leaders said they were pressing ahead with the maneuver in spite of opposition from the U.S., where U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been working to find common ground between Palestinian and Israeli leaders. Although the resolution would likely have support from some European members of the council, the U.S. is likely to veto it, further complicating the peace process.
More than 700,000 Israeli settlers live in the so-called “occupied territories.” Although none live in Gaza, under the resolution believed to be in play Gaza would become an integral part of the Palestinian State.

Related Image

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the resolution would destabilize the region. (AP) (AP)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that the motion, if passed, would destabilize the region.
"Attempts of the Palestinians and of several European countries to force conditions on Israel will only lead to a deterioration in the regional situation and will endanger Israel," he warned in a statement.
The resolution also condemns violence against civilians and all acts of terrorism and promotes a sovereign, non-militarized Palestine, which would have full UN membership.

Congressional critics ready to block Obama push to normalize Cuban relations

The historic plan announced by President Obama on Wednesday to normalize relations with Cuba was met with heavy bipartisan resistance on Capitol Hill, raising questions of whether Congress will even consider easing a more than 50-year trade embargo against the communist state -- let alone end it.
Obama said the United States will cease what he called an “outdated approach” with Cuba, and take steps to normalize diplomatic relations -- including opening an embassy in Havana -- after American Alan Gross was released from the country following five years in prison as part of an agreement that also included the release of three Cubans jailed in the U.S.
Obama also called on Congress to have an "honest and serious debate" about lifting the trade embargo, which has been in place since 1962.
But Republicans, and even some Democrats, pushed back strongly, with some GOP heavy hitters calling Obama's plan “another concession to tyranny.”
“These changes will lead to legitimacy for a government that shamelessly continuously abuses human rights but it will not lead to assistance for those whose rights are being abused,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Wednesday.
"It's absurd and it's part of a long record of coddling dictators and tyrants," Rubio told Fox News, claiming the administration is "constantly giving away unilateral concessions ... in exchange for nothing." Rubio called Obama the "worst negotiator" the U.S. has had as president "since at least Jimmy Carter." He also said Congress would not support lifting the embargo.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also criticized the administration’s plan to change the current U.S. relationship with Cuba. McConnell said he defers to Rubio on the matter.
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who, like Rubio, is a Cuban-American lawmaker, said this is a moment of "profound relief" for Gross and his family. But he voiced concerns that this constituted a "swap of convicted spies for an innocent American."
"President Obama's actions have vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government," he said in a statement. "Trading Mr. Gross for three convicted criminals sets an extremely dangerous precedent. It invites dictatorial and rogue regimes to use Americans serving overseas as bargaining chips."
Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and John McCain, R-Ariz., said in a joint statement that the move damages American values.
"Unfortunately, we fear the most damaging chapter to America’s national security is still being written. We dread the day President Obama takes to the podium to announce a nuclear deal with the Iranian ayatollahs which does little, if anything, to deter their nuclear ambitions, placing our nation and our closest allies in even deeper peril,” the said in a joint written statement.
Other U.S. lawmakers hailed the agreement, and some even joined Gross on the plane ride to the U.S. -- Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; and Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., were on that flight. 
U.S. officials said Pope Francis was personally engaged in the process as well and sent separate letters to Obama and Castro this summer urging them to restart relations.
Senior administration officials said Obama spoke with Cuban leader Raul Castro for more than 45 minutes on Tuesday, the first substantive presidential-level discussion between the U.S. and Cuba since 1961.
Obama also plans to take several executive actions, including expanding travel and economic ties to the island. According to a White House document, the U.S. government would raise remittance levels and authorize certain travel to Cuba, as well as start a review of Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Obama also has formally directed the State Department to launch talks with Cuba to re-establish diplomatic relations, which were cut in 1961. The embassy in Havana would be opened "in the coming months," according to the White House.
Officials said the Cuban government was releasing 53 political prisoners. The announcement comes after Gross was freed, as part of an agreement that included the release of three Cubans jailed in the U.S. 
Gross landed in the U.S. shortly before noon on Wednesday.
A senior Obama administration official told Fox News that Gross left Cuba on a U.S. government plane Wednesday morning, and was "released on humanitarian grounds by the Cuban government at the request of the United States."
The three Cubans released are part of the so-called Cuban Five -- a group of men who were part of the "Wasp Network" sent by Cuba's then-President Fidel Castro to spy in South Florida. The men, who are hailed as heroes in Cuba, were convicted in 2001 in Miami on charges including conspiracy and failure to register as foreign agents in the U.S.
Two of the Cuban Five were previously released after finishing their sentences.
Cuba was also releasing a non-American intelligence "asset" along with Gross, according to a U.S. official. Administration officials claimed that Gross was not technically traded for the three Cubans, and that his release was humanitarian.
Obama administration officials had considered Gross' imprisonment an impediment to improving relations with Cuba, and the surprise deal was quickly making way for rapid changes in U.S. policy.
The president has taken some steps to ease U.S. restrictions on Cuba after Raul Castro took over as president in 2010 from his ailing brother. He has sought to ease travel and financial restrictions on Americans with family in Cuba, but had resisted calls to drop the embargo. Obama raised eyebrows when he shook hands with Raul Castro at Nelson Mandela's memorial service last year.
Gross was detained in December 2009 while working to set up Internet access as a subcontractor for the U.S. government's U.S. Agency for International Development, which does work promoting democracy in the communist country. It was his fifth trip to Cuba to work with Jewish communities on setting up Internet access that bypassed local censorship.

North Korea connected to Sony attack as company cancels Dec. 25 release of 'The Interview'

LOS ANGELES –  The FBI has connected North Korea to the Sony Pictures cyberattack, a federal law enforcement source told Fox News Wednesday, hours after the company announced it had scrapped the Dec. 25 release of "The Interview" after a number of major movie chains said they would not show the film.
The administration reportedly will call out North Korea on its role on Thursday.
However, the source also told Fox the hacking attack did not necessarily come from inside the borders of North Korea.
Until Wednesday, the Obama administration had been saying it was not immediately clear who might have been responsible for the computer break-in. North Korea has publicly denied it was involved.
In canceling he Christmas day release, Sony released a statement saying, "In light of the decision by the majority of our exhibitors not to show the film The Interview, we have decided not to move forward with the planned December 25 theatrical release. We respect and understand our partners' decision and, of course, completely share their paramount interest in the safety of employees and theater-goers."
Later, a Sony spokesman said the company had no further release plans for the film, Variety reported.
As of Wednesday AMC Entertainment, Regal Cinemas, Cineplex and Cinemark had opted to drop the movie after the hackers issued threats that implied the theaters showing the movie were terror targets. According to TMZ, Bow Tie Cinemas also canceled planned showings of the movie.
In its statement, Sony also said the company was "the victim of an unprecedented criminal assault against our employees, our customers, and our business. Those who attacked us stole our intellectual property, private emails, and sensitive and proprietary material, and sought to destroy our spirit and our morale."
It added, "we stand by our filmmakers and their right to free expression and are extremely disappointed by this outcome."
The U.S. government reportedly gave the thumbs-up to the ending of the film in which North Korean leader Kim Jung-Un's head blows up.
New hacked emails also reveal that Sony execs showed a rough cut of the film "The Interview" to at least two U.S. government officials who gave it the OK, according to the Daily Beast.
The site reports that the State Department had an active role in deciding whether or not Kim Jong-un's gruesome death scene at the conclusion of the film would be included, and officials signed off on the controversial scene.
The Sony hacking saga took a sinister turn on Tuesday when hackers sent a message and threatening to target theaters showing “The Interview” in a 9/11 type attack.
Sony then told theaters they will not be penalized should they choose not to show it.
A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official told FOX411 that while they are aware of the online threat and are analyzing the credibility of the statements, as it stands, there is no credible intelligence to indicate an active plot against movie theaters in the United States.
“DHS will continue to adjust our security posture, as appropriate, to protect the American people. This includes continued, regular information sharing with our state, local, federal and international partners, builds on ongoing work such as enhanced protection at federal facilities,” the official said, adding that the public is encouraged to report any suspicious activity to appropriate law enforcement authorities.
A representative for the FBI Los Angeles Field Office told FOX411 that the bureau is “aware of the recent threats and continues to work collaboratively with our partners to investigate.”
Security experts told Fox that in the wake of the Sydney siege and the release of the CIA enhanced interrogation report last week, it is crucial that the threat be taken seriously by authorities.
“This threatening statement obviously has some foundation and may be linked to current global hostilities towards the west and predominantly the U.S.,” said Lee Oughton, global security and risk management expert. “We are still unaware how deep the hackers were able to penetrate into the Sony systems. Only time will tell how much information they were able to ascertain and what price Sony will pay in the international market.”
Actors James Franco and Seth Rogen already canceled all media appearances promoting their film.

Debt Cartoon

Fox News Poll: Romney, Clinton lead potential 2016 presidential pack

Former Massachusetts Gov. and 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney leads the growing pack for the GOP presidential nomination, while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remains far ahead among Democrats.
That’s according to a Fox News poll released Tuesday.
Click here for the poll results.
Romney dominates the field for the 2016 Republican nomination. He comes in at 19 percent among self-identified Republicans, followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 10 percent. No other candidates garner double-digit backing. 
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul each receive eight percent. Next, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker captures seven percent, followed by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan each at six percent and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at five percent. 
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (four percent), Ohio Gov. John Kasich (two percent), Texas Gov. Rick Perry (two percent), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (one percent) and former Penn. Sen. Rick Santorum (one percent) each receive the backing of less than five percent of Republicans. 
This is the first time that Fox News has included Romney, Huckabee and Carson in its 2016 national GOP primary ballot test.
"Rumors about Romney running again are likely to get a further boost with these numbers," says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News poll with Democratic pollster Chris Anderson.
Shaw adds, "With Romney and Bush running one and two among GOPers, you wonder if John McCain or Bob Dole want to get in on the action."
Voters who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement are most likely to back Paul (13 percent), Cruz (12 percent), Romney (11 percent) and Carson (10 percent).
The top choices among white evangelical Christians include Romney (14 percent), Paul (10 percent), Bush (9 percent) and Carson (9 percent).
On the Democratic side, Clinton is still 50 points ahead of her nearest rival -- even though support for her is down somewhat from previous polls. Clinton receives the backing of 62 percent of self-identified Democrats. That’s down from 64 percent in July and a high of 69 percent in April. 
The support Clinton has lost since April appears to be going to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who captures 12 percent. That’s up from 9 percent in July -- and double the 6 percent she received in April. Vice President Joe Biden comes in close behind at 10 percent. All other possible Democratic candidates tested garner three percent or less. 
"With the field of candidates still growing, the GOP primary holds potential for an extended freewheeling contest,” says Anderson, “while the Democrats continue to track toward an efficient yet boring primary season."
“At the same time,” Anderson adds, “I remember Clinton looking somewhat inevitable eight years ago too.”
Clinton led the Democratic primary pack with 33 percent to Barack Obama’s 12 percent and Al Gore’s 11 percent in a December 2006 Fox News poll. 
Reminder to readers: the Iowa precinct caucuses are (some say “still,” while others say “only”) about a year away. 
The new poll finds that if the 2016 general election “were held today,” Clinton would top Paul by 11 points, Christie by 12 and Kasich by 16. 
Bush is the only GOP candidate tested in the hypothetical matchups to keep Clinton under 50 percent -- and to keep her advantage under double digits. She leads him by just 7 points in a head-to-head matchup (49-42 percent), which makes this the best Bush has performed against Clinton so far. Clinton was up by 13 points in March (51-38 percent).
Independents split their support, 41 percent for Clinton and 38 percent for Bush. 
"One thing about Clinton that stands out is that despite a book, a world tour, numerous controversies and several distinctly different possible opponents, her support hasn't changed much over the past two years -- and doesn't depend much on who the Republican is,” adds Shaw. “Right now, Clinton is the defining feature of the 2016 race." 
People think -- if they were to run -- that Clinton and Bush are more likely to be helped (41 percent) than hurt (30 percent) by being related to previous presidents. Another 16 percent say it’s a mixed bag and 2 percent volunteer that it depends on if they run against each other. 
Bush announced Tuesday that he “will actively explore the possibility of running” for president.
While there’s no gender gap, Democrats (50 percent) are more likely than Republicans (37 percent) and independents (32 percent) to say the Clinton-Bush candidacies would be helped by their family connections. 
What about Clinton’s role in Benghazi? Most people -- 63 percent -- say if she runs it won’t make a difference to their vote that Clinton was the head of the State Department when the U.S. consulate there was attacked and four Americans died. Among those saying it matters, by a 29-6 percent margin they say Benghazi would make them less likely to vote for her. 
Almost all Democrats, fully 86 percent, say the Benghazi attacks won’t matter to their vote if Clinton runs. For independents, 55 percent say it won’t make a difference, while 36 percent say it would make them less likely to support her. 
Among veterans and those currently serving in the military, 56 percent say Benghazi won’t matter, while for 40 percent it would hurt Clinton’s chances of getting their vote. 
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,043 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from December 7-9, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The results among Democrats and Republicans have an error of plus or minus five points.

TSA head: Threat from terrorism worse now but US better able to combat it

The outgoing and longest serving head of the Transportation Security Administration says the threat from terrorism is worse now than when he took the job four years ago, but the U.S. is better positioned to combat foreign plots.
"The threat today is unfortunately more expansive than what it was four and a half years ago," John Pistole told Fox News during an interview before he leaves at the end of the month, concluding 31 years of government service, including 27 at the FBI, where he rose to the rank of deputy director.
"...With that being said, we also have better insights into who the potential bombers are," he added.
From Pistole’s unique position at the TSA and FBI, he watched Al Qaeda's strategy evolve from the 9/11 attacks that murdered nearly 3,000 Americans, to the failed underwear bomb plot to bring down a jet on Christmas Day 2009 and the non-metallic explosive devices buried in cargo a year later.
Although Al Qaeda experimented in 2012 with surgically implanted bombs before apparently abandoning the idea as impractical, Pistole suggested they are now focused on devices held close or strapped to the body.
"That is one of things that concerns us, how well do they design, construct and then conceal," he said.
Pistole will become president of his alma mater, Anderson University in Anderson, Indiana, this spring.
Fox News asked Pistole whether the threat to American aviation had diminished since August, when the U.S. launched a bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and the Al Qaeda-led "Khorasan" group.    
Khorasan contains long-time associates of Usama bin Laden, including Sanafi al-Nasr and Muhsin al-Fadhli, as well as a handful of operatives trained by the Yemeni bomb maker Ibrahim al-Asiri, who specializes in non-metallic bombs that traditional airport screening can miss.
"Without going into details about what that may look like from a classified intelligence perspective, we do remain concerned that there is active plotting going on," Pistole said.
And with new information that the French bomb maker David Drugeon likely survived a U.S. air strike last month, Pistole added, "...there is concern that there are still individuals out there who have not only the ability to do that, but also the intent to use that on a flight to Europe or the US."
The TSA administrator also described classified procedures that track foreign fighters, based on their travel history, before they check in at overseas airports for U.S.-bound flights.
"There are individuals we are concerned about and we are again looking at if they make travel reservations, then they of course receive proper scrutiny," Pistole said.
The continued threat from groups like Khorasan explains why procedures, implemented in July, requiring passengers to turn on their phone and computers at some airports, remain in place. As the holiday travel season begins, TSA officials say they are not expecting big changes at the checkpoints, but if there are changes, they will be driven by new and specific intelligence.
Pistole said the transition from a one-size-fits-all approach after 9/11 to a risk-based strategy -- driven by intelligence -- is one of the TSA workforce's accomplishments.
"I think that's been one of the biggest changes...We're more efficient. Complaints are down. Wait times are down," he said.
Data provided by the TSA showed that over Thanksgiving, more than 12.5 million passengers were screened, a 1.3 percent increase from 2013, with nearly 50 percent of these passengers getting expedited screening.
Nationwide, TSA said 99.6 percent of passengers waited in a line for less than 20 minutes.
Pistole was in Australia days before the hostage situation unfolded in Sydney last weekend, telling Fox it fit the profile of a classic lone wolf attack.  "I am not aware of any intelligence about it as of last week, there was no talk about something like that," he said.
But it’s not that kind of attack that keeps Pistole up at night.
"My greater concern, rather than just a lone wolf, is simultaneous attacks such as you saw on 9/11...with that being said, we also have better insights into who the potential bombers are," he said.

Man who waterboarded 9/11 mastermind slams CIA report on torture

The man who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the so-called mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, told Megyn Kelly on Tuesday that the CIA's program of using enhanced interrogation techniques did not amount to torture, despite recent accusations in a Senate-issued report.
"If it was torture, I would be in jail," James Mitchell said on "The Kelly File." "This thing was investigated over and over. I was told by the highest law enforcement agency in the land that we were going to walk right up to the edge of the law, and that all of the things we had included in that list were legal."
Mitchell, a former Air Force psychologist, said in the days following the Sept. 11 attacks, the country was gripped with fear that new attacks were forthcoming and both the public and the U.S. government were desperate to prevent them.
"(The CIA) had ongoing information to suggest that (terrorists) were trying to smuggle nuclear weapons into the U.S.," Mitchell said. "There was all this anthrax stuff going on, there was credible evidence to suggest that there was another wave of attacks coming and we couldn't have it happen."
Mitchell added: "They tried to decapitate us last time, they tried to destroy our civilization. And people were clamoring to do everything and anything they could that was legal, to take it right up to the line and save American lives. Because that's what our government is supposed to do: save American lives."
Mitchell, who said he found waterboarding "repulsive at times" but said he did it out of a duty to protect the U.S., criticized the Senate report, saying it's "easy" in hindsight to second-guess the tactics used after 9/11, more than 13 years after the attacks.
"In my view, the CIA analysts and the CIA targeters are incredible," he said. "To do this, to besmirch them, I think, is beyond the pale."

Federal judge: Obama immigration actions 'unconstitutional'

A federal judge has declared parts of President Obama's immigration executive actions unconstitutional, in the first court opinion to tackle Obama's controversial policy changes.
In an opinion filed Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab, in Pennsylvania, said Obama's immigration actions are invalid and effectively count as "legislation" from the Executive Branch.  
"President Obama's unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional," the judge wrote.
The opinion, though, is unique in that it did not come in response to a challenge to Obama's immigration policy announcement. It is unclear what impact, if any, the opinion might have other than to rally critics and fuel momentum behind other lawsuits.
Rather, Schwab issued his opinion in response to a criminal case against Honduran illegal immigrant Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, who was previously deported in 2005 -- and was caught in the U.S. again earlier this year.
He already has pleaded guilty to "re-entry of a removed alien," but the court subsequently examined the impact of Obama's immigration actions on the case.
For that review, Schwab left open whether the actions might apply to Juarez-Escobar but determined the executive actions themselves were unconstitutional.
He wrote that the action goes beyond so-called "prosecutorial discretion" -- which is the "discretion" the administration cites in determining whether to pursue deportation against illegal immigrants.
Obama's policy changes would give a reprieve to up to 5 million illegal immigrants, including those whose children are citizens or legal permanent residents and who meet other criteria.  
Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote that this "systematic and rigid process" applies to a "broad range" of enforcement decisions, as opposed to dealing with matters on a "case-by-case basis."
Further, he wrote that the action goes beyond deferring deportation by letting beneficiaries apply for work authorization and allowing some to become "quasi-United States citizens."
He also cited Obama's argument that he was proceeding with executive action after Congress failed to act on comprehensive immigration legislation, and countered: "Congressional inaction does not endow legislative power with the Executive." 
The Justice Department downplayed the significance of the opinion. 
"The decision is unfounded and the court had no basis to issue such an order," a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement. "No party in the case challenged the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions and the department's filing made it clear that the executive actions did not apply to the criminal matter before the court. Moreover, the court's analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong. We will respond to the court's decision at the appropriate time." 
Critics of the administration's policy, though, hailed the opinion. 
"The President's unilateral executive action suspending the nation's immigration laws for roughly five million illegal aliens has received its first judicial test, and it has failed," John Eastman, law professor at Chapman University, said in a statement.
Other direct legal challenges to Obama's immigration actions, including one by two-dozen states, remain pending before the federal courts.

CIA Witch Hunt Cartoon

Federal, state health insurance sites brace for 2015 sign-up deadline

President Obama's healthcare reform push faces the biggest test of its second year in existence Monday, the deadline for customers to choose an insurance plan for 2015. 
Midnight Pacific time is also the deadline for current enrollees to make changes that could reduce premium increases ahead of the new year.
HealthCare.gov and state insurance websites are preparing for heavy online traffic before the deadline, which gives consumers in the East until 3 a.m. Tuesday to enroll.
Wait times at the federal call center started creeping up around the middle of last week, mainly due to a surge of current customers with questions about their coverage for next year. Many will face higher premiums, although they could ease the hit by shopping online for a better deal. Counselors reported hold times of 20 minutes or longer for the telephone help line.
About 6.7 million people now have coverage through Obama's signature law, which offers subsidized private insurance. The administration wants to increase that to 9.1 million in 2015. To do that, the program will have to keep most of its current enrollees while signing up more than 2 million new paying customers.
People no longer can be turned down because of health problems, but picking insurance still is daunting for many consumers. They also have to navigate the process of applying for or updating federal subsidies, which can be complex for certain people, including immigrants. Many returning customers are contending with premium increases generally in the mid-to-high single digits, but much more in some cases.
Consumers "understand it's complicated but they appreciate the ability to get health insurance," said Elizabeth Colvin of Foundation Communities, an Austin, Texas, nonprofit that is helping sign up low-income residents. "People who haven't gone through the process don't understand how complicated it is."
Last year's open enrollment season turned into a race to salvage the reputation of the White House by fixing numerous technical bugs that crippled HealthCare.gov from its first day. With the website now working fairly well, sign-up season this year is a test of whether the program itself is practical for the people it is intended to serve.
New wrinkles have kept popping up, even with seemingly simple features of the Affordable Care Act.
For example, most current customers who do nothing will be automatically renewed Jan. 1 in the plan they now are in. At this point, it looks like that is what a majority intends to do.
While that may sound straightforward, it's not.
By staying in their current plans, people can get locked into a premium increase and miss out on lower-priced plans for 2015.  Not only that, they also will keep their 2014 subsidies, which may be less than what they legally would be entitled to for next year.
Doing nothing appears to be a particularly bad idea for people who turned 21 this year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington group that advocates for low-income people.
Researchers at the center estimate that 21-year-olds will see a 58 percent increase in the sticker price for their premiums just because they're a year older. An age-adjustment factor used to compute premiums jumps substantially when a person turns 21. A 20-year-old whose premium was $130 per month in 2014 will see the premium climb to $205 a month in 2015, solely because of that year's difference.
Tax-credit subsidies can cancel out much or even all of the impact. But if consumers default to automatic renewal, their tax credits will not be updated and they will get the same subsidy as this year.
"Even in the best possible scenario of how many people we can expect to come in, we will still see a substantial number of people defaulting," said Judy Solomon, a health care policy expert at the center. She worries that some young adults may get discouraged and drop out.
Reviews of HealthCare.gov and state health insurance exchanges are mixed.
An Associated Press-GfK poll this month found that 11 percent of Americans said they or someone else in their household tried to sign up since open enrollment began Nov. 15. Overall, 9 percent said the insurance markets are working extremely well or very well. Twenty-six percent said the exchanges are working somewhat well, and 39 percent said they were not working well. The remaining 24 percent said they didn't know enough to rate performance.
So far it has been a frustrating experience for Marie Bagot, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She and her husband are in their 60s, but not yet old enough for Medicare. The husband, who works as a chef, will turn 65 around the middle of next year and qualify for Medicare. Bagot said they were happy with their insurance this year under Obama's law.
"As you get older, you worry about your health," she said. "I was very pleased with the price we got."
But Bagot said she received a notice from her insurer that her current plan will not be available next year in her community. The closest alternative would involve a premium increase of more than $350 a month, even with their tax credit subsidy. After days of trying to find a comparable plan through the federal call center and after visiting a counselor, Bagot said she opted to keep their current coverage, while hoping costs go down after her husband joins Medicare.
"I cannot afford it, but I'm going to try to," she said.
Monday is not the last chance for consumers like Bagot. Open enrollment doesn't end until Feb. 15.

Warren's present-tense denial adds to speculation she will run in 2016

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a rising Democratic star, fueled speculation Monday that she might run for president in 2016.
While the freshman senator said “I am not running for president” four times during an interview with NPR’s “Morning Edition,” political insiders argue that Warren’s use of the present tense leaves open the possibility she might launch a 2016 campaign.
Speculation about a White House run by Warren, whose populist, anti-Wall Street rhetoric has captured the interest of many disaffected Democrats, has been circulating for months in Washington and across the country.

“I am not running for president.”- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Her opposition to the $1.1 trillion spending bill that Congress passed last week -- over a provision that weakens the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill -- appears to have attracted even more support.
And her remarks Monday likely will do little to stop or slow those who see her as a better candidate or at least a strong challenger to Hillary Clinton, the clear front-runner in her likely bid for the party’s 2016 nomination.
More than 300 former campaign staffers and organizers for President Obama have signed a letter urging Warren to run.
They say in a letter released last week that they want someone who will "stand up for working families and take on the Wall Street banks and special interests."
The letter was released by Ready for Warren, a grassroots group promoting a potential campaign.
And MoveOn.org has recently announced that it was starting a draft Warren campaign and promoting her in early presidential states Iowa and New Hampshire.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Friends and family of Sydney hostages tell intense tale of captivity

Family and friends of several hostages taken by gunman Man Haron Monis inside a Sydney cafe recounted the fear and terror the hostages experienced with Guardian Australia Tuesday.
No one paid attention to Monis at the café and the only time anyone heard anything from him is when he took his shotgun and held it up in fury yelling at patrons to stand with their hands raised.
Monis told customers he was a representative of ISIS and there were bombs in the building. Minutes later, a customer approached the already locked doors of the café but was deterred by Monis.
The customers alerted the police and the operation began.
Meanwhile, Monfis reportedly was yelling at his captives spreading messages of fear while they cried. Monfis finally got someone to listen to him.
The gunman surrounded himself with the staff members, the paper reports. He used them to control messages to social media. He directed them what to do and what to say.
Hostages called media outlets across Australia to relay Monfis’ demands; a live on-air broadcast with Australian prime minister Tony Abbot, a public declaration that this was an act of terror from ISIS and a black Islamic State flag.
None of his demands were met.
Videos of Monfis controlling the staff members were deleted from YouTube early on. A woman is reading a prepared statement and the “director” of the video reportedly spoke confidently to those on camera.
A Sydney lawyer, Julie Taylor, was one of the hostages forced to speak.
“My name is Julie Taylor, I’m a barrister in Sydney, this is a message for Tony Abbott. We are here with … ummm … our brother, who has asked for three simple things, and the first is that Tony Abbott calls him, live in the media, to have a short conversation. If he does that five of us will be allowed to go. We can’t understand why that hasn’t happened.”
Taylor continued to relay the demands of Monis on the video.
With the situation dragging, Monis reportedly realized his message was not getting out.
One hostage told Guardian Australia that Monis was getting “angrier and angrier.”
Monis did allow the captives to take drinks of water and for one woman to take her medication.
Monis granted bathroom breaks and made sure there was an escort to those who needed to use the restroom.
Two men who asked to go to the bathroom asked a staff member if they pressed the green button at the base of the door, would it open. The employee was unsure.
The men took a risk and made a run for it. They pressed the button sliding the open doors and made their escape, the café employee went through the fire door sparking two more to do the same later.
As night fell, the power was cut. An agitated Monis was only getting more furious.
Details emerged after the rescue operation that one hostage attempted to grab Monis’ gun. Gunshots were heard, which prompted police to move in.
When the dust cleared, Monis was found dead on the ground with two victims, 38-year-old Katrina Dawson and 34-year-old Tori Johnson, the manager of the café.

Sony Pictures hack takes yet another weird twist

The Sony Pictures Entertainment hack has taken yet another weird twist with hackers apparently offering to withhold data stolen from the company’s employees.
On Sunday the group claiming responsibility for the crippling Nov. 24 hack offered not to release some email correspondence from Sony Pictures' employees. The group urged employees to contact them if they don’t want their correspondence released.
There was no way to determine how many, if any employees, had supplied their details.
The post, which claimed to be from the shadowy Guardians of Peace, or GOP, group, appeared on file sharing sites Pastebin and Friendpaste, according to the website Recode.
“Message to SPE Staffers,” it read. “We have a plan to release emails and privacy of the Sony Pictures employees. If you don’t want your privacy to be released, tell us your name and business title to take off your data.”
Sunday’s message also contained links to several file sharing sites for obtaining the group’s latest leaks. Clearly keen to maintain the pressure on Sony, the group vowed to release “larger quantities of data,” which it described as “a Christmas gift,” reiterating a similar GOP message posted on Saturday.
Experts have noted the resolve of the attack’s perpetrators, who seem intent on prolonging Sony’s pain.
“Whoever it is, they must feel like they are immune to retaliation,” Jim Lewis, director and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told FoxNews.com, in an email. “They are also really motivated to keep it up this long – most of these incidents are more like smash-and-grab.”
Sunday’s post is the latest in a flurry of cyber assaults aimed at Sony Pictures, which have included leaks of confidential data and unreleased movies, as well as threats against Sony employees. The producers of James Bond films have also acknowledged that an early version of the screenplay for the new movie "Spectre" was among the material stolen in the massive Sony Pictures cyberattack.
“Sony is receiving repeated body blows from the breach, which is perhaps indicative of the intention to damage the reputation of the company,” wrote Chris Boyd, malware intelligence analyst at Malwarebytes Labs, in an email to FoxNews.com. “Typically a big company breach is all about stealthy data theft and low profile operations, however in this case the motivation appears focused on creating crippling headlines - it could almost be the beginning of a Bond film itself.”
The finger of suspicion has already been pointed at North Korea over the hack, although Sony Pictures recently denied a report that it was poised to blame Pyongyang for the attack. The studio’s forthcoming film “The Interview,” starring Seth Rogen and James Franco as journalists enlisted to assassinate dictator Kim Jong-un, has outraged North Korea.
There has also been plenty of speculation that the cyberattack was an inside job.
With the shockwaves from the hack still reverberating, Sony Pictures has reportedly demanded that at least three media outlets stop reporting stories based on documents obtained by hackers.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Lewis told FoxNews.com that the attack has also shone a spotlight on hackers’ use of file sharing sites such as Pastebin.
While Saturday and Sunday’s GOP posts have been removed from Pastebin, a GOP message titled  “Gift of Sony for the 8th day: GOP at Christmas (2),” which apparently corresponds to Sunday's Pastebin message, is still available on Friendpaste.
A spokesman for Pastebin told FoxNews.com that it received two requests about the posts related to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). "We always comply with such request when the items in question contain sensitive data," he added, in an email to FoxNews.com.
Friendpaste was unavailable for comment.
Sony Pictures Entertainment has not yet responded to a request for comment on this story from FoxNews.com. A spokeswoman for the FBI, which is investigating the hack, told FoxNews.com that its probe is ongoing.

CIA interrogations report: Where is Katie Couric getting her news?

In September of 2008, Katie Couric asked Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin one of the most famous questions of the campaign. In an interview Couric asked, “When it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazine did you regularly read…?” In 2008, Katie Couric’s question to then-Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin was the journalistic equivalent of the shot heard 'round the world.
Fast forward to 2014. Americans are asking Couric, who now serves as Yahoo’s Global News anchor, the same question. Where is Katie Couric getting her news?
In a 6 minute and 17 second video for Yahoo! News on the Senate Democrats’ Intelligence report on CIA interrogations, Couric does not mention a crucial fact. After failing to acknowledge that Senate Republicans put out their OWN report, Couric says, in the last 12 seconds of the piece, that Republicans “plan on releasing” their own report too. 
Did Couric fail to mention the Republican report because she erroneously assumed it wasn’t out? Oddly, she refers to the report in the future tense.

Republican senators published their take on CIA interrogations on Tuesday. How could Couric miss half the story?

Republican senators published their take on CIA interrogations on Tuesday. How could Couric miss half the story? The Yahoo! Global News anchor seems to have erroneously assumed that the Democrats’ report was the only one issued by the Senate committee. She even called the Democrats’ report “the Committee’s report.”
Just what news websites, papers and magazines is Couric reading? How could she miss one side of an important story?
Yahoo! News’ Director of Public Relations Andrew Kirk told me via email that the anchor used the term “the committee” for the Senate Democrats’ report because the Democrats are the majority party of the Senate. Kirk also said, “It was framed this way by several other publications including the New York Times.”
Ironically, Yahoo! News calls the House Republican majority report on Benghazi the “House GOP report” when referring to the majority committee’s report.
Asked why the double standard for calling the Senate Democrats’ majority reports “the Committee’s report” and the House Republicans’ majority report “the House GOP report,” Kirk didn’t have an answer.
Couric’s report for Yahoo! News also includes analysis from former Newsweek investigative reporter, now Yahoo News' chief investigative correspondent, Michael Isikoff who says “the Committee” concluded the enhanced intelligence gathering techniques “were not effective” despite the Republicans’ report which said they were effective.
Isikoff never mentions the Republicans’ report. Instead, he also seems to have assumed that the Democrats’ report is the full committee’s view. He fails to mention Republicans’ disagreement with the Democrats’ view.
In that famous interview with Palin in 2008, Couric pushes her to talk specifics about which publications she reads to get her worldview: “what ones specifically, I am curious…can you name a few…?” Couric asks.
We have to ask Couric the same question after Wednesday’s Yahoo! News report: what newspapers and magazines are you reading, Katie? You need a more well-rounded worldview if you want to report on today’s top stories.
Yahoo! News’ Kirk wouldn’t say if Couric’s error would be corrected.

New White House college rating system already under heavy scrutiny

WASHINGTON –  A controversial Obama administration rating system for colleges and universities already is being scrutinized ahead of its late-December rollout by educators who claim the government's goal of more transparency could come at the expense of schools that don't happen to fit the ivory tower model. 
The federal government, with its long-awaited rating system, is trying to hold the country's 7,000 colleges and universities accountable not only to taxpayers, but also to prospective students trying to weigh the pros and cons of different institutions. 
But it has many in the education community on edge. Several colleges and education associations have launched a preemptive PR strike against the plan, though the details haven't yet been released. 
"I don't know how they can complain about something that isn't even out," a source at the Department of Education told FoxNews.com on condition of anonymity. 
The ratings system, rumored to be released on Dec. 19, is likely to re-ignite the debate on the federal government's role in higher education. The Obama administration has had to balance its position as a cheerleader for innovation with its demands for colleges and universities to rein in tuition costs, while also pressing the institutions to produce more employable graduates. 
The idea of a national rating system was pitched as a way to create more transparency in the government. Colleges and universities receive nearly $150 billion each year in federal loans and grants. Rating schools, the administration argues, is a way for American taxpayers to see whether the money is worth it. 
But critics say the government should butt out and worry a broad system could lead to unintended consequences -- like creating perverse incentives for schools in pursuit of higher ratings. They worry it could hurt institutions that serve low-income and underprivileged students, as well as junior colleges and those that feature liberal arts programs. 
"What we are opposed to is the federal government taking the factors IT thinks is important from a policy perspective and putting a federal letter grade INSTEAD of leaving that judgment up to students and families depending on their individual needs," Pete Boyle, vice president of public affairs for the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, told FoxNews.com in an email.  
The Obama administration has pointed to spikes in tuition, dives in graduation rates and the growing weight of debts as driving factors for the national rating system. 
But many in the higher education field say it shouldn't be up to the federal government to police colleges and universities. 
"Most college and university presidents think the likelihood of producing a meaningful, useful and accurate rating system is very low but the risk for their institutions of being harmed by an inaccurate rating is pretty high," Terry W. Hartle, the American Council on Education's senior vice president for government and public affairs, recently told The Los Angeles Times. 
Boyle said his group also is opposed "to a narrow metric or metrics that seek to grade an institution," echoing warnings from other higher education administration associations who believe the Department of Education needs to be mindful of making college more accessible for low-income, minority and at-risk students. 
If the department fails, "there are likely to be unintended consequences on institutions with student bodies that consist of a majority of students that fit these profiles, receive Pell Grants, etc.," Boyle said. 
Since the idea of a national rating system was first introduced in August 2013, several U.S. colleges and universities have expressed their concern. Some have dispatched lobbyists to Washington to persuade politicians to withhold funding -- arguing that a national rating system would lead to too much government intrusion and add another layer of unneeded bureaucracy. 
Still, after 15 months of debates and discussion, many details of the new program remain a mystery. Federal officials have disclosed very little and say only a general conceptual framework of the system will be released the week before Christmas. The full plan is expected to be in place by next September. 
"We invited not just speculation, but caused some anxiety [about the rating system]," Jamienne Studley, the DOE deputy undersecretary in charge of the plan, admitted during a speech to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers in California. 
Unlike the Barron's, Princeton Review and U.S. News & World Report's annual "best" list -- which rank colleges -- the new system is expected to rate schools using tuition, financial aid, alumni earnings, debt and other graduation statistics. 
Critics say the government's plan still misses the mark and fails to factor in other important data like graduation rates of transfer students. They worry the new system could also work against schools that serve large numbers of minorities as well as those that cater to professions like teaching and law enforcement versus schools that produce doctors and lawyers. 
And while both the government and private educators have the same goal, Boyle believes the new rating system could result in a too-many-cooks-in-the-kitchen situation and pile on more problems for private and public colleges and universities. 
The DOE is more optimistic and says the president's message of accountability not only to taxpayers but students has paid off. 
"The president's call for a ratings system is already driving a necessary conversation about exactly the right kind of questions: What colleges are taking on the vitally important role of educating low-income students, and assuring that they graduate with good results? What educational practices might help schools lower the cost to students while improving or sustaining quality learning?" Studley wrote in a recent blog.