Search This Blog

Tuesday 30 December 2008

Gov't urged to stop human rights abuses


The minority leader of the National Assembly has called on the Jammeh regime to put an end to the gross human right abuses and adhere to the provisions of human rights in the country.

Momodou Lamin Sanneh, member for Kiang West, said the poor human rights record of the Jammeh regime is a cause for concern as it has stained the Gambia's image in the ouside world.

Speaking at the official end of the 2008 legislative year last Tuesday, the minority leader said a number of Gambians have over the years been arrested and detained by security officers without being charged or told the reasons for their arrest.

He read out a list of names published in a recent article of Foroyaa Newspaper of people who are languishing in detention for years without being charged with any criminal offense.

The minority leader added that the continuous arrest and detention of people without charge is tarnishing Gambia's image and unless the government start respecting the rights of people, the coutry's image will continue to drag in the mud.

He called on the government to act within the constitution by charging and arraigning people suspected to have committed a crime in competent court of law.

Also decrying the poor human rights record of the Jammeh regime, Babanding KK Daffeh, member for Kiang Central, said the government should adhere to the rules in arresting and detaining suspects.

He said in many instances, suspects are held by law security officers beyond the legal 72 hours.

Bekai Camara, member for Wuli East called on the department of state for the Interior to set up a police station in his constituency to help reduce the high rate of banditry in the area.

Saikou Suso, member for Kantora, appealed to the department of state for the Interior to renovate the state of Fatoto Police Station as well as provide a vehicle for the station. He lamented that the lack of vehicle at the station has seriously hampered the work of the police in his area.

Gambia jail British couple


A Scottish missionary and his wife, who pleaded guilty to sedition charges in Gambia, have been sentenced to one year in prison with hard labour.

David and Fiona Fulton were arrested last month after sending a letter to groups and individuals which criticised the country's government.

The couple changed their original not guilty plea last week.

Mr Fulton, 60, is from Troon in Ayrshire. His 46-year-old wife is from Torquay in Devon.

Last week the couple pleaded guilty to charges of sedition against the government of President Yahya Jammeh.

Hard labour

They issued a public apology but their remorse did not mollify the judge.

The Fultons admitted publishing e-mails with seditious comments with intent to bring hatred or contempt against the president or the government.

Presiding magistrate Idrissa Mbai said: "I found the offences of the accused party to be very shocking and they have shown no respect for the country, the government and the president of the republic. I will send a clear message to the offenders.

"I therefore sentence you to a fine of 250,000 Dalasis (about £6,250) and mandatory jail time of one year with hard labour."

If the couple do not pay the fine they face an additional six months in prison.

'Seeking clarity'

They can lodge an appeal within 20 days, but it was not clear if they would do so.

The tiny west African country inside Senegal, has been criticised in recent years for its human rights record.

Jammeh, an outspoken military officer and former wrestler, has ruled the former British colony since seizing power in a bloodless coup in 1994.

A spokesman for the Foreign Office said consular staff had been providing assistance to the Fultons.

He said the Foreign Office was "seeking clarity" over what hard labour meant "in this context".

He added that it was a decision for the Fultons with their legal representative as to whether they appealed against the judgement.

The spokesman said that the couple's two-year-old daughter was being cared for by a family friend in the family home.

Courtesy of BBC

Friday 19 December 2008

Deyda's killing was an act of terror

by PK Jarju
Baba Galleh

Baba Galleh Jallow,  former Daily Observer editor-in-chief and CEO of the now closed Independent Newspaper, has described the killing of Deyda Hydara as an act of terrorism.

Deyda Hydara, founder and managing editor of The Point Newspaper was murdered by unknown gun men on December 16, 2004, while on his way home.

Speaking to  PK Jarju on the eve of the fourth anniversary of Mr Hydara's death, Mr Jallow said: "I think Deyda was killed because he was critical of the Jammeh regime. I think he was killed because he constituted an unbearable voice of truth to people who cannot bear the sound of truth. I think he was killed as a warning to others that they would be risking their lives if they dared to be too critical of the government. I think it is absurd to imagine that the government is doing anything to catch Deyda’s killers. I think the government killed Deyda. How can the killer catch the killer?"

Mr Jallow added that it was simply unbelievable to think that Deyda Hydara could be so brutally murdered as he have always tempered his opinions with a noticeable degree of restraint and respect for whoever was the object of his critiques.

Below is the full text of Mr Jallow's interview.

PK Jarju: It’s been four years now since the brutal killing of Deyda Hydara. What do you make of the whole incident?

Baba Galleh: I think first of all, that Deyda’s killing was an act of terrorism. Those who killed Deyda were out to instill terror into the hearts of those who, like Deyda, dare to be critical of the powers that be. Secondly, the fact that no one has been arrested for the murder is indicative of a dismal lack of law and order in The Gambia.

 Are you saying that the Gambia is an anarchic state?

Baba Galleh: I wouldn’t call it a state of anarchy because that would imply saying there is no government in The Gambia. I am saying that there is dismal lack of respect for the rule of law and order in The Gambia. Deyda’s killing is just one of several cases that remain unsolved or for which no one has been arrested. There are the cases of Ousman Koro Ceesay, of Almamo Manneh, of the student victims of April 2000, of the Radio 1FM and The Independent arson attacks, of Daba Marena and his co-prisoners, and more recently, of the foreign nationals from Ghana and other countries. I find it ironic that a state that constantly brags about its determination to curb criminality and insecurity has not been able to arrest those who committed any of these criminal acts. The only answer –to my mind – is that the state itself committed the crimes.

 Why do you think Deyda was killed?

Baba Galleh: I think Deyda was killed because he was critical of the Jammeh regime. I think he was killed because he constituted an unbearable voice of truth to people who cannot bear the sound of truth. I think he was killed as a warning to others that they would be risking their lives if they dared to be too critical of the government.

 Do you think the government is doing enough to catch Deyda's killer?

Baba Galleh: I think it is absurd to imagine that the government is doing anything to catch Deyda’s killers. I think the government killed Deyda. How can the killer catch the killer?

Do you have any prove to back your claims that Deyda was murdered by the state?

Baba Galleh: I have reason to think – and that’s the word I use – that Deyda was murdered by the government. Has Jammeh not repeatedly threatened to send his critics six feet deep? Deyda himself had reported receiving death threats he had reason to believe came from the government. Then there are the previous unsolved murder cases mentioned above. Moreover, the fact that no one has been arrested for the murder is all the more reason to believe that he was killed by the state. Or is the state telling us that it is powerless to stop murders in the country?

So are you saying that Jammeh was lying to the Gambian people when he said on GRTS that he does not believe in killing people?

Baba Galleh: If Jammeh did not believe in killing people, why on earth did he join the military? I think one has to believe in the possibility of killing people before enlisting as a soldier, because that’s exactly what soldiers are trained to do – kill people when considered necessary. So that was just one of Jammeh’s many outbursts of pre-thinking talk. Or is he saying that people become soldiers in order to kill wild animals only? Or that people killed by soldiers are less than human beings?

 Do you think there is a cover up in the investigations?

 Baba Galleh I think there are no investigations to cover up in the first place. That is my strong conviction.

What is your response then to the dossier issued on June 5, 2005 by the department of state for the Interior on the death of Deyda?

Baba Galleh: I think that dossier was meant as a means of closing the case, of claiming that investigations had been conducted and the findings made public. I think it was a fake dossier, a decoy to deflect public attention and interest in the case. And it failed.

What type of person was Deyda?

Baba Galleh: I knew Deyda to be a very kind-hearted and very principled and courageous man. He never hesitated to speak his mind and was a good listener.

 What was your initial reaction when you heard the news that Deyda was murdered?

Baba Galleh: I was shocked, like all right-thinking Gambians. To think that Deyda could be so brutally murdered was simply unbelievable. After all, he always tempered his opinions with a noticeable degree of restraint and respect for whoever was the object of his critiques.

Deyda Hydara
Deyda’s killing was among a string of attacks against the private press including The Independent. In your mind, what do you think was the motive?

Baba Galleh: The motive for press censorship is always fear of the truth, fear of public enlightenment, fear of the people’s power that could grow out of being politically informed. It is always an act of cowardice by irresponsible and paranoid regimes that seek to keep the people in a perpetual state of darkness and passive subjugation.

 Government investigations into the arson attacks on The Independent has not yield any positive result. Do you think that will be the same with Deyda’s case?

Baba Galleh: As I said above, it is absurd to think that the government will carry out any serious investigations into any crimes of a political nature because the same government is responsible for committing those very crimes. How can the thief catch the thief? People should stop asking the government to investigate these crimes. It is just so absurd.

 So instead what should people do when they cannot trust their government?

Baba Galleh: It depends on what they can do or feel they can do. They can try to remove the government from power, they can criticize the government, they can accuse the government of being untrustworthy, they can withdraw their support. It all depends on just what is possible for them to do and what they see themselves as capable of doing in the circumstances. It also depends on whether they want to do anything than sit by and watch.

Do you think the failure to apprehend Deyda’s killers and arsonist of The Independent exposes the government’s weaknesses in providing a safe and secure environment for media practitioners in the country?

Baba Galleh: No. I think the government is responsible for these crimes and that is why no one has been apprehended. I don’t think that the government is interested in providing a safe and secure environment for media practitioners in the country, unless, of course, if they are of the boot-licking sort.

 President Jammeh has often accused Gambian journalists and online contributors abroad of writing false stories to tarnish his image and the Gambia’s. What’s your reaction to that?

Baba Galleh: President Jammeh has no moral right to accuse any journalist of anything. If he has the audacity to close media houses without observing the due process of law, of having people arrested and indefinitely locked up without any charges, what right does he have to blame anyone for tarnishing his image? He is tarnishing his own image. What journalists report is what’s taking place or what they believe is taking place. And if any journalist reports the untruth, it is for the law to deal with them, not the president. The president is neither the state nor the law. Jammeh thinks he loves The Gambia more than anyone else but that is simply a manifestation of his extreme delusion. All Gambians love The Gambia and being president does not make anyone love their country more than anyone else. So he should quit saying such nonsense.

What do you make of the closure of The Independent?

Baba Galleh: The closure of The Independent was an act of naked criminal injustice. We know that the state has the potential authority to close down a media outlet. But the process of closure has to proceed according to the due process of law. To simply wake up one fine day and use armed men to close a private media outlet and then turn around and brag about it as Jammeh did, is further evidence of his unsuitability for the position of head of state.

The burnt printing press of The Independent
 Do you have any plans to challenge its closure in the courts?

Baba Galleh: No. I will not give the regime any modicum of credibility by challenging its own crimes in its own courts. I believe that the courts are powerless to do anything in cases like The Independent’s in today’s Gambia. The Independent was closed to stop the truth from being told. But the truth is still being told. So I would challenge the state to eat The Independent if they can. Let them erase the memory of the paper if they can. Let them go back to June 1999 when the paper started and confiscate and burn all the issues ever published. If they do that, I’ll grant them victory. Otherwise, I will maintain that they are mere cowards and bullies who can deny hundreds of people their daily bread just to make one man feel comfortable in his bed of lies...

 Are you saying Jammeh does not have the interests of the Gambian people at heart?

Baba Galleh: I am saying that he places his own personal interests above the interests of the Gambian people.

Jammeh once told GRTS that you begged him to drop libel charges against you for publishing a story in December 1999 captioned New wife for Jammeh. Is that true?

Baba Galleh: If he said I did, it was totally untrue. I have never begged Jammeh to drop any charges against me and I have never asked anyone to do so on my behalf. And as a point of correction for you, our caption for that story had a question mark after it. It read “New Wife for Jammeh?” rather than “New Wife for Jammeh.” That’s a significant difference. Jammeh has this bad habit of talking without thinking. He seems to imagine that because he is the president, he can say anything that crosses his mind and so often says things that are totally untrue or nonsensical.

How do you see the current atmosphere in which Gambian journalists are operating?

Baba Galleh: I think on the home front, the atmosphere is clearly difficult. Journalists working for privately owned media houses now have to watch their words or else… On the other hand, there are the online media, which are doing a great job of keeping the flame of free speech burning without any immediate threats to their persons or properties.

They have to watch their words or else what?

Baba Galleh: Or else face the consequences.

As far as freedom of expression is concerned, would you classify Jammeh as an enemy of free speech?

Baba Galleh: Jammeh is not only an enemy of free speech; he is an enemy of free thought, and therefore an enemy of viable progress for our country.

The killing of Deyda and other attacks on the media is triggering a mass exodus of journalists from the Gambia. Don’t you think that is what the government wants?

Baba Galleh: I can say for certain that what they want is “no criticism.”

 Jammeh has often claimed that he is hard on the press in order to save the Gambia from being in flames like Sierra Leone. How will you react to that?

Baba Galleh: Well the press says exactly the same thing, that it is hard on the government to save The Gambia from sliding into a violent conflict situation. Sit-tight despotism and irresponsible governance, violations of people’s rights, disregard for the rule of law – these are some of the key reasons for the outbreak of conflict in Sierra Leone and elsewhere in Africa. So the press tries to warn the government of the dangers of getting engaged in these things. In any case, Jammeh has no authority to be hard on the press. That should be the role of the law enforcement agencies following the due process of law.

Why are you a critic of the Jammeh regime?

Baba Galleh: I am a critic of the Jammeh regime for many numbers of reasons. First among these is the fact that he betrayed the Gambian people; he lied to us; he had promised to spend only two years in power and return to barracks. He broke that promise with blatant impunity. He also broke his promise to put term limits in the constitution. He now claims ownership of our country and has become a sit-tight despot. He is intolerant of any form of dissent and denies Gambians the right to know and the right to peaceful change of leadership. He has no respect for constitutional provisions or for the rule of law. I guess if PK Jarju was president and behaved this way I would be his critic too.

So you mean the Gambia is colonised by Jammeh?

Baba Galleh: I mean Jammeh is holding The Gambian people hostage. We have records of him saying after the coup that no president will ever be allowed to spend more than ten years in power. That “in fact, ten years is too much.” Those are his exact words. We have records of him saying that he will return to barracks after a transition period of two years. He set up the National Consultative Committee to find out just how long people wanted the AFPRC to stay in power. The national consensus was two years. A constitutional review committee he set up recommended, and he publicly accepted, the idea of putting two five-year term limits for the president. Why did he fail to do all these things? Can he not legitimately be accused of being selfish and greedy for power and self-aggrandizement at the expense of the Gambian people? Is he waiting for another group of soldiers to come by and kick him out of power? Would such a thing not hurt the Gambian people?

Don’t you think that the existence of a national assembly and judiciary means that we are a democratic country?

Baba Galleh: Absolutely not. When the national assembly and judiciary are emasculated and turned into the personal properties and political instruments of the president, as ours clearly are, we cannot call that country a- democracy. The level of separation of powers, checks and balances between the three arms of government needed for a functional democracy are clearly not present in The Gambia. Does Jammeh not hire and fire judges and magistrates at will? Have we not had at least thirteen justice ministers in fourteen years of Jammeh’s government? Does he not expel national assembly members at will? Has there been a single instance of a government-sponsored piece of legislation being opposed by a majority in the national assembly? Democracy requires much more than the existence of these institutions.

As a critic of the Jammeh regime, you were subjected to so many arrests and detentions. Did it ever come to a point where you wanted to quit the profession?

Baba Galleh: No. I was arrested and locked up several times. But I refused to be intimidated because I knew that those arresting me were the criminals, not me. For my safety I had to leave The Gambia to pursue higher education in the United States. But I continue to write and to speak my mind and to call for an end to Jammeh’s politics of impunity.

 You are now separated from your family and friends as a result of your work. Do you have any regrets for being a journalist?

Baba Galleh: I have no regrets whatsoever. I would do it all over again, and even more, if I could.

 Supporters of the Jammeh regime say your postings are always critical of the regime no matter what it does. How do you see such criticisms?

Baba Galleh: Well, I respect people’s right to criticize me and to disagree with my views and opinions. And they are welcome to do so anywhere, anytime. I think such criticisms are healthy. No one should claim infallibility or consider himself or herself to be above criticism. After all, we are trying to build a democratic political culture in The Gambia whose cardinal principle would be tolerance and respect for contrary opinions. So I welcome those criticisms and even encourage them. That’s the type of society we want – a society in which people can openly disagree and criticize. So, no hard feelings at all for my critics.

 If you are to say anything positive about Jammeh what will it be?

Baba Galleh: Well, he is now a self-declared professor. I would say that’s so very positive.

 If called on by Jammeh to serve The Gambia in any capacity, will you accept the call?

Baba Galleh: Absolutely not. If I did, I would be accepting to serve him, and not The Gambia. I will never be part of a dictatorial regime that has no respect for human dignity, constitutional provisions, and the rule of law.

Politically, where do you think the Gambia is heading to?

Baba Galleh: What the future holds is anybody’s guess. I know that what we have today is a dictatorship and dictatorships historically spell trouble for their countries.

 Do you think Jammeh is responsible for Gambia’s problems?

Baba Galleh: He certainly is responsible for many of Gambia’s problems. I wouldn’t say he is responsible for all of Gambia’s problems because there are forces bigger than him at work within the international context.

Despite Gambia’s problems, Jammeh is still loved by the electorates. Why is that so?

Baba Galleh: Well, the answer to that question is far more complicated than can be satisfactorily answered in an interview of this nature. However, I would say that most people are not making the connection between their personal problems and the current government. Related to that is the nature of our political culture, our political habits of mind, how people see the government, what they understand to be the nature of government as an institution and the president as a leader of a twenty-first century society. I think what we can call the “mansa mentality” needs to be neutralized in the Gambian body politic before the majority of Gambians can start seeing the state for what it is and start making informed electoral choices.

 As a former schoolmate of Jammeh, what advise do you have for him?

Baba Galleh: Since Jammeh purports to be such a good and God-fearing Muslim, I would advise him to fulfil his promises to the Gambian people. The Koran makes it categorically clear that people who break their promises are hypocrites and I would guess Jammeh knows the verse I’m referring to. I would also advise him to quit acts of injustice if he is indeed as pious as he would like us to believe. The Koran and Sunnah are very clear on the need for Muslims to act with justice and for the leader to dispense justice equitably among his people. So in short, I would say to him: Mr. Jammeh be a good Muslim.

 Do you think the Gambian media is playing its role seriously?

Baba Galleh: Yes, I think some Gambian media outlets are playing their roles seriously. The online media community in Europe and the United States are doing great for our country. I think some Gambian media outlets are mere extensions of our good professor’s mouth, and are therefore not doing a good job at all.

Deyda's murder is one of Gambia's biggest tragedies

A former president of the Gambia Press Union (GPU) has described the assassination of Deyda Hydara on December 16, 2004 as the biggest tragedies that had ever befallen the Gambia.

In an interview with AllGambian, Mr Jawo who was a close friend of the late Deyda Hydara and is currently based in the Senegalese capital, Dakar, said it is extremely hard for any rational being to make sense as to why anyone would pull a trigger against a harmless person like Deyda.

"His assassination was no doubt one of the biggest tragedies that had ever befallen The Gambia. However, the apparent lack of interest by the Gambian authorities to thoroughly investigate this gruesome murder makes it even harder to comprehend. It is indeed hard to imagine such a thing happening in The Gambia, let alone to a harmless person like Deyda. He was not only a friend to everyone, but Deyda was also a kind-hearted person who was ever ready to assist anyone in need, regardless of ethnic, religious, political or social background. Therefore, it is hard to guess who might have killed him and why," Mr Jawo said.

Below is the full text of Mr Jawo’s interview with AllGambian's PK Jarju.

AllGambian: It has been four years now since the gruesome murder of Deyda Hydara. What do you make of the whole incident?

DAJ: It is extremely hard for any rational being to make sense as to why anyone would pull a trigger against a harmless person like Deyda. His assassination was no doubt one of the biggest tragedies that had ever befallen The Gambia. However, the apparent lack of interest by the Gambian authorities to thoroughly investigate this gruesome murder makes it even harder to comprehend.

AllGambian: How was it like as a friend of Deyda when you first got the call in the early hours of December 16, 2004 that he was killed?

DAJ: I had actually returned from a trip to Zambia on the very night that Deyda was killed, and it was early in the morning that a western diplomat called me on the telephone asking what I knew about what had happened to Deyda. I told her that I was not aware of anything happening to him. I then called Pap Saine who told me that they shot him dead the previous night. The news came to me like a dream and it only became a reality when several people started calling me about it.

AllGambian: Why do you think Deyda was killed?

DAJ: It was indeed hard to imagine such a thing happening in The Gambia, let alone to a harmless person like Deyda. He was not only a friend to everyone, but Deyda was also a kind-hearted person who was ever ready to assist anyone in need, regardless of ethnic, religious, political or social background. Therefore, it is hard to guess who might have killed him and why.

AllGambian: Are you surprised that no one has yet been arrested or charged with Deyda’s murder?

DAJ: Of course anyone concerned about equity and justice would be surprised that not only has no one yet been apprehended about his murder, but that the Gambian authorities do not even seem to be interested in investigating the case. They instead seem to treat his assassination like a non-event. It is hard to imagine such a heinous crime being committed in a close-knit society like ours and four years later, no one has been apprehended for it.

AllGambian: Some people are accusing the government of not doing enough to catch the killers of Deyda. Do you agree with that?

DAJ: It is definitely hard to understand why there is no visible sign that the Gambian authorities are actually investigation the case. Therefore, there is a lot of credibility in any allegations that the government is not doing enough to apprehend his killers.

AllGambian: Do you think there is a cover up in the investigations?

DAJ: While I am not in a position to categorically accuse the government or anyone of a cover-up in the investigations, but the very fact that it is four years and there are hardly any serious investigations going on gives a lot of credibility to such assumptions. Apart from anything else, Deyda was a Gambian citizen who, like all Gambians, deserved the protection of the Gambia government. Therefore, if such a gruesome crime has been committed against him, it is definitely the duty of the government to investigate it with the utmost seriousness, in order to bring the perpetrators to book. It is therefore quite disappointing that the government does not seem to give much regard to the investigations.

AllGambian: What was your response to the report issued on June 5, 2005 by the Department of State for the Interior on the investigations into Deyda’s death?

DAJ: Like everyone else concerned about justice and fair play, I was quite flabbergasted by the so-called “Confidential Report” issued by the Department of State for the Interior in June 2005, which has been the first and so far the only report they have issued on the investigations. Instead of coming up with some possible leads as to who may killed Deyda and why, the report was instead full of aspersions and innuendos about his reputation and way of life, virtually sifting the blame for his murder on his “wayward” character, portraying him as a womanizer and an irresponsible person who made many enemies for himself, all of which were far from the truth.

AllGambian: the Gambia Press Union was angry with the government for not pursuing their investigations in a scientific and professional manner, especially the use of modern means to trace the origin of the bullets extracted from Mr Hydara’s body. What would you say to that?

DAJ: Of course the GPU, and no doubt several other groups and individuals concerned with equity and justice have questioned the government’s commitment to carry out a thorough investigation of the case. As such, they called for the involvement of other more credible and experienced investigators to help the police apprehend the perpetrators of this heinous crime. However, the authorities have flatly refused to accept that proposition, claiming that they had the capacity to investigate the case, even though they seem to have completely abandoned the investigations.

AllGambian: The GPU urged the government in June 2005 to seek help from the UN, the Commonwealth or other friendly governments to investigate Mr Hydara’s murder as it was beyond their capacity. Do you think international assistance would have made any difference?

DAJ: There is absolutely no doubt that assistance from more experienced investigators from the very beginning when whatever evidence existed was fresh, could have made a lot of difference. I even understand that some western embassies were quite willing to seek the services of agencies in their countries to assist, but the authorities rejected it outright.

AllGambian: Considering the situation, it looks as if the authorities are done with Deyda’s case. Do you think the murderers will ever be apprehended?

DAJ: With the way things are going, it is hard to see how Deyda’s killers could ever be brought to book, especially when no investigation seems to be going on. We can therefore only hope and pray that the authorities will change their minds and give it the seriousness it deserves, otherwise, there is no chance of the killers being ever apprehended.

AllGambian: Mr Hydara was a personal friend of yours. Can you tell me what type of person he was?

DAJ: Of course Deyda was not only a long term colleague and a friend of mine, but he was also a friend to everyone. He was quite a selfless gentleman of the highest category, who was eager and always willing to help those in need. He had great respect for humanity and he had the best of intentions for this country. In a nutshell, Deyda was courageous, steadfast and committed to the ideals of journalism and to everything else he was engaged in.

AllGambian: Why did you and Ahmed Alota decide to write the Book, ‘A Living Mirror: The Life of Deyda Hydara’?

DAJ: Ahmed Alota and I decided to write the book on Deyda’s life because we thought someone needed to document Deyda’s fulfilled life for the benefit of future generations. Deyda was not only a journalist but a defender of human rights and a social activist who constantly fought against injustice and therefore his life had a lot of lessons for everyone, particularly the younger generation.

AllGambian: It was said that in the course of your research for the book, some people had warned you to desist from writing it because you could get killed. Why did you refuse to back down?

DAJ: Of course some people thought that we were deliberately looking for trouble by writing a book on the life of Deyda, and some even advised us to drop the idea. However, we were quite determined to do what we thought was the right thing to do, and that was to document Deyda’s impressive achievements. We knew we were not committing any crime by writing the book and as such, we never contemplated abandoning the idea because of the possibility of someone somewhere being intimidated by it.

AllGambian: In the book, you narrated a scene where Mr Hydara, after a good meal of benachin at his house, removed his shirt, pointed to his ribs and his left temple, and told his wife, “This is where they will shoot me.” Do you think he had foreseen his assassination?

DAJ: Yes we were told that bizarre story by Mrs. Maria Hydara (his wife), and in fact another friend of his also told us a similar story of how they went to a restaurant one day and he refused for them to sit at a particular table because he said someone may shoot at him there. However, whether he foresaw his assassination or those were just coincidental jokes, it is hard to tell.

AllGambian: Why did you risk your life to work for The Point weeks after the murder of Deyda?

DAJ: I was never an employee of The Point, even though I was involved with the editorial work for sometime after Deyda’s murder. It was a fulfillment of a promise I gave to Pap Saine on the day of the funeral when he suggested that he was going to give up as it was not worth the risk. I told him that we could not afford to let The Point die with Deyda because it was his legacy. I therefore gave him an undertaking that I was going to help, and that was my connection with the paper.

AllGambian: Many Gambian journalists have fled the country or quit the profession since Deyda’s murder. Don’t you think that was one of the objectives of whoever must have killed Deyda?

DAJ: While it is not easy to guess what the motives of Deyda’s killers were, but it makes a lot of sense to assume that the authorities would not be sad to see many journalists leave the country as it left fewer people in the country to criticize what they are doing.

AllGambian: How do you see the atmosphere in which the Gambian media is operating?

DAJ: The atmosphere under which the Gambian media operates is certainly far from ideal. There is no doubt that Deyda’s murder and the prevailing atmosphere of impunity, especially for those who commit crime against journalists and their media houses, has been one of the factors responsible for the decision by many journalists to leave the country. We have all witnessed the various crimes perpetrated against some media houses and some individual journalists which have never been investigated. We have also seen the arbitrary closure of media houses such as Citizen FM, Sud FM and The Independent without any court order.

Indeed, without the courage and resilience of Gambian journalists, there would never have been any independent media left in the country today as we know it. Most probably, all the surviving newspapers and other media houses would have been singing the same tunes as the Daily Observer.

AllGambian: Despite the return of the country to civilian rule, Decree 70/71 is still not repealed. Do you think the government has any plans of repealing it?

DAJ: There are of course no visible plans to repeal Decree 70/71 or any of the numerous other repressive media laws. What we have instead seen is the promulgation of even more draconian laws such as the Newspaper Amendment Act and the Criminal Code Amendment Act 2004, both of which make life harder for the independent media.

AllGambian: Finally, what do you think needs to be done in order to bring Deyda’s killers to justice?

DAJ: What everyone expects the authorities to do in order to show the whole world that they are indeed interested in apprehending Deyda’s killers is to show commitment to investigate his murder, otherwise, it is hard to see how Deyda’s murderers will ever be brought to book.

GPU STATEMENT ON THE FOURTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE MURDER OF DEYDA HYDARA

Today, December 16th 2008 marks four long years since the murder of the late Deyda Hydara, journalist and co-proprietor of The Point Newspaper.

Today, as everyday, our thoughts and our hearts are filled with memories of Deyda Hydara – his steadfastness in his belief in journalism as an agent of change, his doggedness to inform reliably, truthfully and impartially, his staunch and unwavering defence of the cardinal principles of this noble profession, his unrelenting desire to advocate for and champion the rights of the under privileged and most notably, his continued condemnation of all things unjust.

Therefore, every year, especially on December 16, 2004, we find ourselves saddened, our hearts filled with grief at the unnecessary loss of a rare species, an illustrious son of The Gambia, one who believed in freedom enough to die for it. But, more importantly, we find the silence and impunity following his brutal murder most foul deafening and intolerable.

Today, we reassure the family of Deyda Hydara that once again, as always, we stand heads and shoulders with you on this difficult journey. Deyda Hydara was a colleague, a mentor and a friend who shall never be forgotten. Deyda’s life was a life of courage. It is the basis of any true act of courage that for one who received death threats, for one who visualized that for him, the end would mean being gunned down, he stood firm in his beliefs, firm in his convictions and firm in his determination to fight against social injustices. We shall continue to advocate for the solution of this crime until it is solved.

Once again, the Gambia Press Union, on the anniversary of the killing of Deyda Hydara, is making an appeal to the Government of The Gambia in particular and the public at large, that four long years have passed and no significant information has been made available so far as to the extent and depth of investigations on the murder of Deyda Hydara. We are yet to see any form of bold commitments from the State Security Apparatus’ to resolving this crime.

The Gambia Press Union therefore, unequivocally condemns the slow pace of investigations into the murder of the late Deyda Hydara; Condemns the unwillingness of the State Security Apparatus’ to comment on and or divulge information into the extent of investigations into the murder of Deyda Hydara; Calls for a commitment from the State Authorities that it will do everything possible within its powers and mandate to see to it that the perpetrators of this heinous crime are brought to book; Calls for a renewed commitment to the solving of this senseless murder for as time passes by so the trail goes colder and the crime more difficult to solve; Denounces the impunity enjoyed by attackers of media practitioners in The Gambia and laissez faire attitude of the Gambian Security authorities towards investigating and solving crimes against journalists and media institutions in The Gambia; Condemns the continued intolerable intimidation of the media, in particular the private press in The Gambia

We also call on the state authorities through the office of the Inspector General of Police, the Secretary of State for the Interior and the National Security Council whose responsibilities amongst others are the maintenance of law and order and the prevention and detection of crime to:

Issue a progress report into the investigations into the brutal murder of Deyda Hydara; Leave no stone unturned to trace the perpetrators of this heinous crime;
To, in future, react swiftly to threats against journalists linked to their work and develop specific strategies and mechanisms for the protection of journalists who have been the targets of serious threats;

Where these cannot be met, we regrettably call on the National Assembly, to acknowledge the persistent threats to the lives and freedoms of journalists and media practitioners, notably in exercising their rights to freedom of speech, expression and assembly, key elements to the work of media workers, and in demonstrating the commitments of the Legislature to serve in the public interest as outlined in Section 109 Sub Sections 1 and 2 of the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia, to set up an independent Committee of Inquiry to investigate the delays into the investigations of the murder of Deyda Hydara.

In light of renewed and improved press government relations and the fact that a free and vibrant press is the very foundation of a healthy democracy and a key indicator of good governance, we once again appeal to the Government of The Gambia to do everything within its power to ensure that justice and the truth prevails.

We also remind the Government of The Gambia that there can be no meaningful development without the popular participation of the general citizenry, who are most effectively mobilised through the channels of the media, which provides them the opportunity to express their views concerning the way in which they are governed. Hence, the media’s contribution to the development of The Gambia must be seen as paramount.

It is worthy to note that commitments to solving crimes particularly crimes against the media and media practitioners will go a long way to paving the way for an end to impunity and to the restoration of public confidence. Serious negations by the relevant authorities charged with the responsibility for the prevention and detection of crime are simply unacceptable.

Signed:

The Executive Board

Gambia Press Union

Thursday 11 December 2008

Letter to My Brother from another Mother

by PK Jarju, Birmingham, UK

My dear brother from another mother, greetings in the name of the most Beneficent, Merciful and Gracious Lord, our Cherisher and Sustainer, Who has created man out of a clot and has taught [man] the use of the pen.
It’s been a while since I last wrote to you as I have been very busy thousands of miles away in a foreign land. Yeah, the place I moved to in order to escape your brutal regime, which has no regards to the rights and freedoms of the Gambian people.

My brother from another mother, when you took over the reigns of power in July 1994, many Gambians gave you their blessings. They stood by you in those difficult years thereby enabling you to attain some of your objectives. But sadly today, many of them have lost confidence and trust in you. They have been betrayed, lied to and failed by the revolution which was supposed to change their lives and country for the better.

The revolution instead of alleviating their sufferings brought nothing but more miseries, hardships and retrogression. While you and your associates are getting rich and richer, a large percentage of the Gambian people live far below the poverty ladder. And as a result, many Gambians are today cannot afford to acquire a decent meal for the day.

You and your associates have highjacked the country and is wrecking the lives and dreams of many Gambians, especially the young generation. Despite 14 years of promises, the Gambian people are yet to break free from the shackles of poverty.
The prices of basic commodities are increasing left right centre everyday beyond the reach of many Gambian families. The Gambian people continue to be born in poverty, grow up in poverty and die in poverty.

My brother from another mother, becoming president of our little country is too good to be true for you. You have become so intoxicated with power and despite being in power for 14 years; you still never want to give it up. Your government have lost its sense of direction and have no interest in the welfare of the people at heart. You are ruling the country as though it is your private estate and property, to do with as you choose. You have created a dictatorship and neglected your duties as president.

You gave yourself so much power making you the most powerful Gambian the country has ever seen. You are now more powerful than a king and you talk to people the way you want, do things the way you want for you are untouchable.

My brother from another mother, the situation in our country has over the years being going from bad to worst and the Gambian people are crying everyday in their homes, bantabas, farms and rice fields about the shameful misdeeds of your government. They cry every day about the increasing level of poverty, sufferings, arrest and detention without charge, torture and the incompetence of your brutal regime. But instead of listening to their cries, you employ bullying and intimidation techniques to silence them.

You and your government are scared of the truth and as a result you are doing all within your powers to extinguish it. You want to spread ignorance among the Gambian people by keeping them uninformed and living a life of complete denial.

Those who speak the truth are whisked away in the middle of the night from their families never to be seen again. They are branded enemies of the Gambia, undesirable elements and illegitimate sons and daughters of Africa, who deserves nothing better than the gas chambers.

My brother from another mother, as a man who carry the holy book of Almighty Allah everywhere you go and hymn His praises 24 hours a day, seven days a week 365 days a year, permit me to draw your attention to the story of Luqman, the wise, who has a surah named after him in the Qur'an.

When Allah asked Luqman whether he liked to be king and justly rule over the people. He submitted: "O my Lord, if it is a command from You, I must obey; for in that case, I shall be assisted by You. But if I am granted the choice to accept or to decline, I would rather be excused; I do not like to undertake this onerous responsibility. A ruler is always in a difficult situation. Tyranny and other evils surround him on all sides and everything depends upon whether he is divinely aided or not. If he rules justly, he can attain to salvation, if not; he is led astray from the path leading to Jannah. And, it is far better to lead a humble life rather than to live an easy life in this world and do harm to one's life in the Hereafter. He who prefers this world to the Hereafter suffers double loss: this world forsakes him, sooner or later, and he has no value in the Hereafter."

Don't misjudge me, I am not asking you to be Luqman; all I ask of you is to govern the people base on the principles of democracy and the rule of the law.

My brother from another mother, it is true that you are president of 1.5 million people so what? You are nothing special in the eyes of wise men but a mere human being. Remember that no matter how powerful thou may be, no matter how much wealth you gather and no matter how long thou may live, thou shall one day be laid down in the pit of the grave for your abode and men you used to look low upon; men you bullied and mistreated will throw dust upon you from all sides to cover you.

My brother from another mother, as president, you were elected to represent the welfare of the Gambian people. But instead you have gone further to own the country and everything in it. You have killed, tortured, jailed and exiled anyone who refuses to bend his knee for you. This has resulted in a situation of fear an uncertainty.

Your security officers are armed and given the license to arrest, torture and even kill anyone who does not agree with your dictatorial policies. In your name, they have orphaned many Gambian children. In you name they have widowed many Gambian women and in your name they have made many parents childless. Also in your name my dear brother, they have torned many closed Gambian families apart.

My dear brother from another mother, you need to remember that no matter how big and powerful you are; you cannot be bigger than the Gambia. The Gambia was born centuries before you and will always continue to exist till the end of time. The Gambia does not belong to you and you do not love it more than anyone of us. The Gambian people have a right to speak out against the brutality and mismanagement of your government.

My brother from another mother, you have to learn from the lessons of past dictators like Idi Amin, Samuel Doe, Hussein Habre, Charles Taylor, Saddam Hussein and others. You have to put down your sword and start listening to the views of the people especially your opponents and critics. These people are Gambians like you. They love and cared for their country and it is ridiculous to hear you branding them as anti-development just because they choose to speak the truth. You are the cause of the Gambia's problems and you have to be honest with the people.

Continuing your policies of brutality and savagery is not the best way forward. You have to bury your pride and stop dividing and ruling the people base on party politics.

My brother from another mother, you have to realise that no act of brutality against your opponents will stop them from speaking out against your government.
The more you torture and kill them, the more you will see them rise again. The more laws you create to suppress them, the more they would break them. For they are a people who want to see the full restoration of democracy and the respect of human rights in the country.

While you may succeed in silencing some of them through force, yet their desire, their instinct to oppose brutality and repress freedom of thought will never be quenched. Of course it can be forced to keep quiet at times, when the repression gets worse. But instinct remains, and will always remain and when the circumstances becomes a little bit favourable, it will raise its head again. The desire to be free is one of the fundamental human desires.

Have a good day my dear brother from another mother, Eid Mubarak.
For comments write to papak196@yahoo.co.uk or info@allgambian.net

For How Long Shall He kill Our Prophets?

by PK Jarju

Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right and desire to know, but besides this, they have a right an indisputable, unalienable, indefensible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge- I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers..." John Adams

The continuous arrests, detention and disappearance of people in the Gambia should indeed be a cause for concern to every Gambian living in the country and abroad. A week hardly passes by without someone being picked up and detained by the state security agents for one unexplained reason or another.

These arrests have gone far too long and many people are languishing at the Mile Two Prisons, Janjangbureh Prisons, NIA headquarters and police stations across the country without being charged or told the reasons for their arrests. Chief Ebrima Manneh, Kanyiba Kanyi, among many others are a good example of Gambians who are being arbitrarily detained for months and years without been brought before any court of law. These men are being punished for crimes that only Yahya Jammeh knows.

The Jammeh regime is becoming more and more powerful by the day and has ceased to be a government of the people. Forget about democracy and the rule of law. We are only a democratic country by name. The Gambia is owned by Yahya Jammeh and we are all his subjects.

You may disagree with me but we are not a free society anymore. The notion of living in a free Gambia is out of the window because we have allowed Yahya Jammeh and his cronies to snoop into our peaceful lives and violate our space while we all stood aside and watch with open eyes. As a trusting people, we gave him an inch to manage our affairs but he has taken a mile.

As president and head of state, Jammeh has become so intoxicated with power. All what he talks and dream about is POWER. He rules with the motto that, he as president should be good sometimes and be wicked on most occasions. He believes in god and the god he believes in wants him to be filthy rich, successful and reign over us forever and his opponents and critics dead and buried six-feet-deep. His god also wants him to be more powerful than even King Solomon and Samson in the New Testament.

Jammeh has grown bigger than the Gambia and he therefore expects everyone to bend their knees for him. Blinded and absolutely corrupted by his powers, today Jammeh maintains that he has the right without any basis in the constitution and laws of the Gambia to sack anyone from his job label anyone a criminal, saboteur or detractor then lock him up and throw the keys into the River Gambia. He is the boss and cannot be challenged.

Despite the fact there exists three chambers of government with different duties and responsibilities as spelt out in the constitution, yet these chambers of government are far from being independent. They are directly under the control of the president and as a result, they do not live up to their responsibilities. They all dance to the tune of the big man.

In other words, though he has his offices in Kanilai and Banjul, Jammeh runs and controls every facet of the Gambian society from curing HIV/Aids, hiring and firing secretaries of state, expelling National Assembly Members, dismissing judges, civil servants and even seyfolu and village alkalolu. Not only that, he declares public holidays when ever he wants, sets the news agenda of the public media, decides what prices commodity goods are to be sold at and when we should all observer the two Eids (Eidul Fitr and Eidul Ahad) among others.

Like Napoleon in George Orwell's Animal Farm, Jammeh regards anything that goes against him as an enemy. An enemy that deserves to be punished severely. His orders are always final and it makes me sick all the time when I see people jumping to execute his commands without even using their God-given brains to think. For these zombies, who often boost about how much they loved and cared for the country, whatever the president says or does is in the best interest of the country.

It is therefore not surprising that the bodies of hundreds of Gambians and nonGambians are today full of scares of torture while the unlucky ones are decomposing in marked and unmarked graves across the country. Like angels guarding the fire of Hell, Jammeh's henchmen do not have anything call sympathy in their hearts. They don't flinch a bit when commanded to do something by their master. As a result, these men are committing many heinous crimes against people with impunity in the name of the president.

Take the case of the 44 Ghanaians as an example. These young immigrants, who were traveling to Europe in makeshifts boats via Gambian waters, were in the summer of 2005 arrested and lynched by state agents, just because some idiots in the Quadrangle without any shred of evidence accused them of trying to destablise the country.

Daba Marena and others were also arbitrarily killed while in government custody just because someone accused them of treason. The student demonstrators were also brutally gunned down just because someone accused them of being used by some opposition elements to destabilise the country.

All these and many serious unresolved murder cases involving security officers are buried deep under the carpet. No investigations were conducted and will never be conducted because the president loves the Gambia so much and does not want anything that will tarnish the image of the country.

Recently, many butchers and traders are being harassed by security officers and local councils because Jammeh issued orders for the price reduction of commodity goods and meat. Again market vendors, traders and taxi drivers are harassed on set setal Saturdays because Jammeh gave orders that we should all be at home sweeping our streets and localities.

Today in the Gambia, despite the fact that there exist a book called the constitution, that was supposed to make us live in peace and unity; people are being governed according to the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest. The president and those close to him can do anything they want to the poor masses without being held accountable.

The country is now a nanny state and we are all being watch. Our daily activities are being monitored and recorded not by Close Circuit Televisions (CCTV), but by informers and the secret police. We cannot say anything about the government or Jammeh in the streets because someone elsewhere is listening. Our phone lines are tapped by NIA officers in the name of national security. Political debates are now out of our school curriculum because so many students are serving as the eyes and ears of the regime. Criticise the regime and you will never see the sun again.

These bullies have sown fear in the hearts of everyone in the country. So much arrests and disappearance have left people wondering who is next on the men in black's list. That irrational fear is what is making some people jump under their beds when they hear a car park outside their houses in the middle of the night.

All these evils are happening every day in our lives and yet we are doing nothing to stop it. We have accepted them as part of life and do not give a monkey as to who is bundled into a tinted glass pick-up and banged up in a filthy and mosquito infested cell or killed by the men in black. The only time we seem to care is when a family member or someone close to us goes missing. Like a former colleague of mine (name withheld) once told me after his arrest and detention at the NIA headquarters, he never believed in the stories people say about the brutality of the NIA officers until when he landed there.

Like my friend, we should not wait until we have all become victims before we start doing something. We should not continue sitting down and allow Jammeh and his cronies to rule us any how they want. We are a country and not a village. It is time to say enough is enough. Far too many wrongs have been committed by the regime and we must all not sit down and accept these evils and wrongs the way they are. We are a talk and do nation and those who can talk must talk while those who can do must do every little thing we all can to change things for the better.

The political madness that has gripped our peaceful country can only be eradicated if we come together and form a united political front that will flush out Jammeh through the polls. Let's stop looking low upon ourselves or doubt our abilities. We are not a bunch of dummies. We are all literates and our labour power is a force, which when fully tapped can bring about the much needed changes in our land of birth.

This is the only way out. The Gambia belongs to each and every one of us and we must all do everything we can to restore democracy and the rule of law in our God bless country. We are all blessed with different skills and we should use our skills to let Jammeh know that we have seen and had enough of his brutal regime. Our spirit can never be crushed as long as we have the self belief that our dreams are attainable. Like my late grand dad (may Allah bless his soul) used to tell me during my primary school days, when treads unite, they can even tie and elephant.

Sitting down with folded hands and a sorry face or praying to the heavens for miracles to happen will get us nowhere. God's help only descent on a people who help themselves. As stated by Abu Darda in one hadith, you people must all command people to do good, restrain them from evil otherwise Allah will cause such a tyrant to rule over you who will not respect your elders and will not have mercy on your youngsters. Then you people will pray to Him but will not answer to your prayers, you will ask Him for help but will not help you, you will seek His pardon but will not pardon you.

Long live the great people of the Gambia. Long live the Gambia.

Wishing my esteem readers a happy Koriteh. Peace!

For comments, write to info@allgambian.net or papak196@yahoo.co.uk. You can also read my blog www.pkjarju.blogspot.com.

Yahya Jammeh's Secret World

by PK Jarju

In the wake of the July 22 military coup that brought Yahya Jammeh and the AFPRC/APRC regime to power, numerous commissions of inquiry were set up to probe the activities of ex-President Jawara, his ministers and associates.


The Junta among other things accused the PPP regime of rampant corruption and living a flamboyant lifestyle at the detriment of the Gambian people. And the commissions of inquiry were used as a venue to expose and humiliate ex-PPP officials.


At that time, Jammeh portrayed himself as a puritan and a patriot, who feels the pain and sufferings of the people. He condemns everything that had to do with Jawara and does things that the people have never seen Jawara do like joining in cleaning exercises, walking on foot from State House to the July 22 Square among others.


To Jammeh, Jawara was nothing but a thief and a criminal who mismanaged the Gambian economy and diverted millions of taxpayer’s money to fund his luxurious lifestyle. Jammeh was so angry with Jawara that he ordered the demolition of the borehole in Jawara's native village, Barajally, which was the only source of fresh water for the village.


Interestingly, there was nothing special about Barajally. No major developments have taken place in the village throughout Jawara's 30-year rule. The village was like any other rural Gambian village.


Jawara’s house in Bakau and his gardens in Yundum were all frozen by the Junta because they were allegedly acquired from taxpayer’s money.


At the time of taking over the reigns of power, Yahya Jammeh was not a wealthy man. In fact, he only had a few thousands of Dalasis in his Continent Bank account. But just after 14 years in power, Jammeh has become the richest Gambian.


Despite being paid a monthly salary of less than £1000, Jammeh is so much loaded that he does not even know how much money is stashed away in his bank accounts. He is living a luxurious lifestyle and has once even confessed that he is so loaded with money that not even his great grand children will be able to exhaust it. How did he acquire all these riches? Well you answer that question.

Since 1994, Jammeh has been building a vast empire in his native Kanilai, which is reported to be worth millions of Dalasis. Before 1994, Kanilai was a hamlet, previously unknown to many Gambians. In fact, it was only known by a few as a place for healing broken arms and limbs. And Jammeh's hobbies were honey hunting and farming.


But today, the village is transformed into a modern town with uninterrupted power supply, water, telephone, internet facilities, street lights, good road network, a safari camp, fire station, a well equipped hospital, a school for Mathematics and Science, an 8 square kilometre game park among others.


A large contingent of NIA officers, State Guard soldiers, police and CIDs are permanently based in Kanilai that monitors the activities of anyone who visits the place. Apart from the government owned GRTS and the Daily Observer, no other media houses are allowed entry. In other words, Kanilai is a no go area for local journalists.


However, I managed to get some information about President Jammeh’s secret world which I hope will interest the Gambian voters.


Life Style

Despite having his office in State House, Banjul, the Gambian leader spends less time in the capital. He spends most of his time in Kanilai, where he feels more relaxed.



For Jammeh, the saying there is no place like home isvery true asKanilai offers him the freedom to do stuff that he likes most. He smokes Piccadilly and is addicted to Chinese Green Tea, Attaya, which is brewed for him by State Guard soldiers. His favourite brewer is a female soldier from Kiang called Nyima Sanneh, whom he lavishes with money, when he is in a joyous mood.


Jammeh is responsible for the feeding and upkeep of the thousands of soldiers and people in Kanilai. Everyday whether Jammeh is in Kanilai or not, a bull and four sheep are slaughtered. Over a thousand bags of rice are consumed each month.


Friday and Saturday nights are for cultural dance except in the month of Ramadan. The dance which starts at 12am to 4am is held outside Jammeh's residence. Jammeh never misses the cultural dances as he is a great lover of cultural music. He sits on a sofa sometimes with his wife Zaineb and guests. The different cultural dancers compete among themselves before Jammeh, who rains money on them as if it grows on trees. The best dancer of the night goes home with a cash amount of D50, 000.


In the dry season, Jammeh also organises inter-village wrestling competitions and other cultural festivals during which he gives away huge amount of money to wrestlers and their supporters. These events attract thousands of people from across the country who are fed and sheltered by Jammeh.


Games Park

The Kanilai Games' Park has more animals than the Abuko Nature Reserve. The 8 square kilometre park has 300 species of birds, 8 wild dogs that feed on fresh meat, 265 crocodiles, 3 wilder beasts, 3 lions, many ostriches, falcons, peacocks, wolves, dears, antelopes, monkeys, bush pigs among others.



Most of these animals were bought from South Africa and transported to Banjul via chartered cargo planes. The planes according to our State House sources normally land at the Banjul International A

irport during ungodly hours of the night to prevent the public from seeing them. There are also over 25 camels, over 100 sheep and goats and over 150 heads of cattle.


Buildings

Since late 1994, Jammeh took ownership of vast hectares of land. Some of the land was inherited from his parents while the others were given to him by some families hoping to earn certain favours in return. But recently, families like the Colley Kunda family are complaining in low tones that some of their lands are being grabbed by Jammeh for farming and building.


Jammeh's private residence can be compared with any king's palace. It is a 100x100 and has an indoor swimming pool and a crocodile pond. Dears and other animals can be seen roaming about in the garden and Jammeh sometimes personally feeds them. The palace is sealed away from the public by a 12 foot fence. The palace has other facilities like a cabinet room where cabinet meetings are held, VIP room, where visiting diplomats are received etc.


Outside the palace, Jammeh built a large building called the Four House where he spend most of his leisure time treating people with HIV/Aids and other diseases.


There is also The Reservoir, a hotel like estate with over 10 buildings and many rooms. This is the residence of Jammeh's employees and farm helpers. There is also a secret detention camp and an army camp. Currently, a lot of construction work is on going and it’s been rumoured that many ministries might be move there if not the capital.


Farms

As a man who loves farming, Jammeh has so many farms. Every year he cultivates vast hectares of peanuts, rice, corn, millet, coos coos, water melon among others. There are also vegetable gardens.


Jammeh employs a small staff mainly his tribal people to work in the farm, who are paid a monthly salary. Also during the raining season, thousands of people from all parts of the country do voluntary work in the President's farms. The volunteers are well fed and sheltered by Jammeh, who gives them large sums of money when they finish work.


Some of the farm proceeds are said to be donated to the Jammeh Foundation for Peace.


If you have any comments on this article write to info@allgambian.net or papak196@yahoo.co.uk

Acts of barbarism in the name of Islam

by PK Jarju

The more I look at TV footages of last Wednesday's terror attack in Mumbai, India, the angrier I get. A group of losers who claimed to be believers in the oneness of Allah and the Day of Judgement attacked innocent people, killing over 170 people and injuring 200 or more. And the thousand and one questions I keep asking myself is, who the hell are they and what are they hoping to gain?

Personally, I think they are bunch of useless, hopeless and blood thirsty idiots whose only desire is to kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children. The attack on Mumbai is not a jihad and these attackers should not identify themselves as Muslims. The indiscriminate killing of people and wanton destruction of properties is totally condemned by Islam, a religion of peace.

Islam does not promote the senseless killings and violence that we see young Muslims embarking upon. And these idiots, who blow themselves up in name of Allah, should forget about going to heaven. They are doing it for their own selfish desires and must forget about gaining the pleasure of Allah. They are vile murderers who will not taste the fragrance of heaven not to even talk of being blessed with 72 virgins.

Over the past years, we have seen a significant rise in the number of young Muslims being radicalised by so-called Islamic scholars and international criminals like Osama bin Laden and others. These young men are being fooled into blowing themselves and others up by fanatics who are themselves too scared of death.

Idiots and cowards like Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri hiding some where in the caves of Afghanistan or Pakistan are tarnishing the name of Islam with their promotion of violence against people, who do not share the same faith or belief.

Every Muslim wants to go to heaven and if Bin Laden and his associates truly believe that blowing oneself up together with hundreds of infidels will lead to his admission in heaven, then what the hell are they doing in the darkness of a cave? Surely, the mountains of Afghanistan cannot be compared with heaven.

The Muslim community needs to take drastic actions by weeding out these criminals, who hide behind our peaceful religion to rain havoc on innocent people. Though they are our brothers in faith or blood, their bombs and bullets do not know who is a relative, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Sikh, American, British or Israeli.

Indiscriminate killing of people is not part of our noble religion and until we stand up to these idiots, our religion will continue to be associated with acts of barbarism like the one we saw in New York and now India.

I pray to Almighty Allah to bless the departed souls in His heavenly kingdom and grant a speedy recovery to the injured.

Rest in Peace my dear friends
The saying that death is a bad reaper that is always after the unripe fruit is indeed very true. In the past three months alone, I have lost three close friends of mine in the media.

First to depart this world was Abubacarr Sanyang, marketing manager of the Daily Observer. Mr Sanyang was a great friend of mine. Our friendship started in the summer of 2003, when he was hired by Sheriff Bojang as assistant marketing manager of the company.

Although we were working in different departments, Mr Sanyang and I had a very cordial working relationship and were often referred to as twins from another mother by the compositors in the computer room.

He was a hard working guy, who had the interest of the company at heart. Mr Sanyang was lovable, friendly and respectful. He had a good sense of humour and PR, which enabled him to attract many customers.

The Daily Observer was Mr Sanyang's second home. He would report to work at 8am and would in most cases clock out hours after his official closing time.

My relationship with Sanyang continued even after my sojourn to the UK. We spoke regularly on the phone and was devastated when I phone his cell phone a day after Korite and was told he passed away a day before.

My second friend to die was Ejatou Jallow alias EJ of the now closed Independent Newspaper. My friendship with EJ started in 2001 when she joined The Independent. She was like a sister to me and had shared by-lines on many stories like the treason trial of Dumo Sarho and co, the murder trial of the UDP leadership among others.

My friendship with EJ continued even when I quit The Independent for the Observer. We were always in touch on the phone and would always visit her anytime I went to Banjul. While I was covering the Baba Jobe economic crime trial, (then she was pursuing a diploma programme in law at the Gambia Technical Training Institute), she would often come to the High Court. We would have breakfast in the High Court café with Emile Touray of Foroyaa and talk about the Baba Jobe case and other criminal matters been presided over at the time by Justice Madabuchi Abuchi Paul.

Stop other reporters at the High Court from following us to the café, we would often lie to them that we were going to Justice Paul’s naming ceremony. But we got found out day by Surahata Danso of Foroyaa.

I have not spoken much with EJ when I came to the UK and was devastated when I was told last month by my friend in the US, Pa Ousman Darboe that she died a week before after a protracted illness.

While trying to come to term with the death of my two friends, it was shocking to hear the death of Habibou Ceesay. I knew Habibou since my days at The Independent and he worked under me at the Observer. He was a shy guy and does not talk much and his best mate was Madi Njie.

The two are always seen hanging at Modou’s shop, near the Observer and I would sometime have a drink with them and have a laugh.

The death of these three is a big blow to the Gambian media. I pray to Almighty to have mercy on their souls and grant them entry into His heavenly kingdom. Amen.

Sunday 26 October 2008

Ex Observer editor blows the whistle



The shock of “Chief” Ebrima Manneh’s arrest set in gradually. We were in our Banjul newsroom on July 7, 2006, working on the next issue of the Daily Observer, when two plainclothes officers with the Gambian National Intelligence Agency (NIA) approached Chief.

I knew one of the officers as a Corporal Sey. They told Chief, a subeditor and reporter at the paper, that he was needed at the Bakau police station for questioning. He went along voluntarily, leaving his bag behind and saying he was confident he would be back soon. As the hours passed, we called his cell phone, to no avail. Worry set in, and we informed his family.

Chief has been spotted only a handful of times since—and not at all in many months—while the government has officially denied knowledge of his detention. My own reporting on his disappearance took me across much of the country over a period of months.

I was able to confirm his location at various times through my sources, but the police shuffled him from place to place, a step ahead of me and the others concerned about his fate. Though he was never charged with a crime, Chief’s arrest stemmed from his decision to republish a BBC story critical of President Yahya Jammeh’s democratic credentials on the eve of an African Union summit in Banjul.

Editors at our pro-government paper overruled Chief’s decision, pulling the printed copies that carried the story and withholding them from distribution. I worked with Chief for almost eight years, and he had become a good friend. Chief, whose nickname was that of the traditional ruler, started as a freelancer at the Observer and rose through the ranks, along the way introducing a popular weekly column called "Crime Watch."

As his absence stretched from days into weeks, journalists throughout the country became concerned. The government maintained an official silence even as police hid Chief from view. Throughout my reporting, it was difficult to get information. Many people were scared to talk, thinking that they might be the next victim. When I arrived at the offices of possible sources, they would tell me they were busy. "See us again, but don’t call or record us," they would say.

It occurred to me that I could be targeted, too, but I tried to push that to the back of my mind and remember that I had a job to do. I learned from prison, police, and NIA sources that within the first four weeks of his confinement, Chief was moved from the Bakau station to NIA headquarters in Banjul, to the nearby Mile Two Central Prison, and then back to the NIA.


By September, I had tracked him to a police station in south-central Sibanor, only to be told he had been transferred to Fatoto Prison in far western Gambia. In mid-December 2006, reporter Yaya Dampha of the opposition daily Foroyaa saw Chief briefly in Fatoto Prison.

After Foroyaa reported the sighting, I learned from an inmate there that Chief had been moved yet again, back to Mile Two, then on to a facility in western Sare Ngai. The press freedom group Media Foundation for West Africa quoted an eyewitness as having seen Chief in July 2007 at Banjul’s Royal Victoria Teaching Hospital, where he was being treated for high blood pressure. But the trail grew fainter by the month. Chief’s father met with then-Director General Harry Sambou of the NIA and Ousman Sonko, secretary of state for the interior, and was told that the government was not holding his son.


By November 2007, I had become presidential correspondent for the Observer and was still pursuing the case when I got a call from a friend in Dakar, Senegal. Come here, he said vaguely, and bring all your personal documents. There was an important opportunity, he suggested.

I was confused and put him off, saying that I couldn’t leave work so suddenly. He was persistent, though, and said he could arrange for me to get some time outside the Gambia. He enlisted a female friend to call my boss, Dida Halake, who was then the paper’s managing director. Pretending to be secretary to the Gambian High Commissioner in Dakar, the woman asked that I be allowed to cover a conference in Senegal.

The ruse worked. Halake gave me the green light. My friend greeted me when I arrived in Dakar on November 23. He wanted a favor: my testimony. The Media Foundation was presenting a case to the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States. The group was asking the regional human rights court to declare Chief’s arrest illegal and to order his immediate release. They needed me to describe the circumstances of his arrest and my subsequent efforts to find him.

Kwame Karikari, the Media Foundation’s chief executive, urged me to help. The case, he said, could be dismissed without my testimony. I was reluctant. I thought of all of the repercussions—for me, my wife, and my two children. I said no. As the meeting went on and the Media Foundation pressed further, I recognized that, as Chief’s friend and colleague, I had an obligation to do anything I could to help set him free. I agreed to be a witness, and we made plans to travel to Abuja, Nigeria, where the court proceedings were being held.

Everything in my life abruptly changed. I called my wife and asked her to come to Dakar with our children. For the next two months, they would stay with my colleague Amie Joof-Cole, a former Radio Gambia broadcaster working in Dakar, while our lives were being rearranged.

On November 26, 2007, I testified before a three-judge panel at the Community Court. For 45 minutes, I detailed Chief’s arrest and described what I had learned about his placement in various prisons and police stations. Yaya Dampha testified as well.

Some good news followed. My family and I reunited in January of this year, and we resettled in the United States (in a town I keep secret for security reasons). I am homesick and miss my aging father, but we are living happily.

In June, the Community Court ordered the Gambian government to release Chief immediately and to pay his family damages of US$100,000. His arrest, the court determined, was unlawful. But the Gambian government has ignored the court’s ruling, just as it ignored the inquiries of Chief’s family and friends. Some people suspect Chief may even be dead, given the lack of recent information about his whereabouts and health. Chief’s disappearance continues to affect me deeply. He was the breadwinner in his family.

At the time of his arrest, he was planning to be married and to finish construction of a new home. I would do whatever I could if my actions could reunite him with his family. I would testify again if my words could set him free.

Ousman Darboe was news editor and coordinator for the Observer Business Magazine, and later presidential correspondent for the paper. Courtesy of CPJ

Thursday 16 October 2008

McCain, Obama go head to head in last debate

HEMPSTEAD, New York (CNN) -- Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain and Democrat Sen. Barack Obama faced off at Hofstra University Wednesday night in their last debate before Election Day. Bob Schieffer of CBS was the moderator. Here is a transcript of the debate.

Schieffer: Good evening. And welcome to the third and last presidential debate of 2008, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. I'm Bob Schieffer of CBS News.

The rules tonight are simple. The subject is domestic policy. I will divide the next hour-and-a-half into nine-minute segments.

I will ask a question at the beginning of each segment. Each candidate will then have two minutes to respond, and then we'll have a discussion.

I'll encourage them to ask follow-up questions of each other. If they do not, I will.

The audience behind me has promised to be quiet, except at this moment, when we welcome Barack Obama and John McCain.

Gentlemen, welcome.
By now, we've heard all the talking points, so let's try to tell the people tonight some things that they -- they haven't heard. Let's get to it.

Another very bad day on Wall Street, as both of you know. Both of you proposed new plans this week to address the economic crisis.

Sen. McCain, you proposed a $52 billion plan that includes new tax cuts on capital gains, tax breaks for seniors, write-offs for stock losses, among other things.

Sen. Obama, you proposed $60 billion in tax cuts for middle- income and lower-income people, more tax breaks to create jobs, new spending for public works projects to create jobs.

I will ask both of you: Why is your plan better than his?

Sen. McCain, you go first.

McCain: Well, let -- let me say, Bob, thank you.

And thanks to Hofstra.

And, by the way, our beloved Nancy Reagan is in the hospital tonight, so our thoughts and prayers are going with you.

It's good to see you again, Sen. Obama.

Americans are hurting right now, and they're angry. They're hurting, and they're angry. They're innocent victims of greed and excess on Wall Street and as well as Washington, D.C. And they're angry, and they have every reason to be angry.

And they want this country to go in a new direction. And there are elements of my proposal that you just outlined which I won't repeat.

But we also have to have a short-term fix, in my view, and long- term fixes.

Let me just talk to you about one of the short-term fixes.

The catalyst for this housing crisis was the Fannie and Freddie Mae that caused subprime lending situation that now caused the housing market in America to collapse.

I am convinced that, until we reverse this continued decline in home ownership and put a floor under it, and so that people have not only the hope and belief they can stay in their homes and realize the American dream, but that value will come up.

Now, we have allocated $750 billion. Let's take 300 of that billion and go in and buy those home loan mortgages and negotiate with those people in their homes, 11 million homes or more, so that they can afford to pay the mortgage, stay in their home.

Now, I know the criticism of this.

Well, what about the citizen that stayed in their homes? That paid their mortgage payments? It doesn't help that person in their home if the next door neighbor's house is abandoned. And so we've got to reverse this. We ought to put the homeowners first. And I am disappointed that Secretary Paulson and others have not made that their first priority.

Schieffer: All right. Sen. Obama?

Obama: Well, first of all, I want to thank Hofstra University and the people of New York for hosting us tonight and it's wonderful to join Sen. McCain again, and thank you, Bob.

I think everybody understands at this point that we are experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And the financial rescue plan that Sen. McCain and I supported is an important first step. And I pushed for some core principles: making sure that taxpayer can get their money back if they're putting money up. Making sure that CEOs are not enriching themselves through this process.

And I think that it's going to take some time to work itself out. But what we haven't yet seen is a rescue package for the middle class. Because the fundamentals of the economy were weak even before this latest crisis. So I've proposed four specific things that I think can help.

Number one, let's focus on jobs. I want to end the tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and provide a tax credit for every company that's creating a job right here in America.

Number two, let's help families right away by providing them a tax cut -- a middle-class tax cut for people making less than $200,000, and let's allow them to access their IRA accounts without penalty if they're experiencing a crisis.

Now Sen. McCain and I agree with your idea that we've got to help homeowners. That's why we included in the financial package a proposal to get homeowners in a position where they can renegotiate their mortgages.

I disagree with Sen. McCain in how to do it, because the way Sen. McCain has designed his plan, it could be a giveaway to banks if we're buying full price for mortgages that now are worth a lot less. And we don't want to waste taxpayer money. And we've got to get the financial package working much quicker than it has been working.

Last point I want to make, though. We've got some long-term challenges in this economy that have to be dealt with. We've got to fix our energy policy that's giving our wealth away. We've got to fix our health care system and we've got to invest in our education system for every young person to be able to learn.

Schieffer: All right. Would you like to ask him a question?

McCain: No. I would like to mention that a couple days ago Sen. Obama was out in Ohio and he had an encounter with a guy who's a plumber, his name is Joe Wurzelbacher.

Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes.

You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream.

Now Sen. Obama talks about the very, very rich. Joe, I want to tell you, I'll not only help you buy that business that you worked your whole life for and be able -- and I'll keep your taxes low and I'll provide available and affordable health care for you and your employees.

And I will not have -- I will not stand for a tax increase on small business income. Fifty percent of small business income taxes are paid by small businesses. That's 16 million jobs in America. And what you want to do to Joe the plumber and millions more like him is have their taxes increased and not be able to realize the American dream of owning their own business.

Schieffer: Is that what you want to do?

McCain: That's what Joe believes.

Obama: He has been watching ads of Sen. McCain's. Let me tell you what I'm actually going to do. I think tax policy is a major difference between Sen. McCain and myself. And we both want to cut taxes, the difference is who we want to cut taxes for.

Now, Sen. McCain, the centerpiece of his economic proposal is to provide $200 billion in additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies, for example, would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks.

What I've said is I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent. If you make more -- if you make less than a quarter million dollars a year, then you will not see your income tax go up, your capital gains tax go up, your payroll tax. Not one dime.

And 95 percent of working families, 95 percent of you out there, will get a tax cut. In fact, independent studies have looked at our respective plans and have concluded that I provide three times the amount of tax relief to middle-class families than Sen. McCain does.

Now, the conversation I had with Joe the plumber, what I essentially said to him was, "Five years ago, when you were in a position to buy your business, you needed a tax cut then."

And what I want to do is to make sure that the plumber, the nurse, the firefighter, the teacher, the young entrepreneur who doesn't yet have money, I want to give them a tax break now. And that requires us to make some important choices.

The last point I'll make about small businesses. Not only do 98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000, but I also want to give them additional tax breaks, because they are the drivers of the economy. They produce the most jobs.

McCain: You know, when Sen. Obama ended up his conversation with Joe the plumber -- we need to spread the wealth around. In other words, we're going to take Joe's money, give it to Sen. Obama, and let him spread the wealth around.

I want Joe the plumber to spread that wealth around. You told him you wanted to spread the wealth around.

The whole premise behind Sen. Obama's plans are class warfare, let's spread the wealth around. I want small businesses -- and by the way, the small businesses that we're talking about would receive an increase in their taxes right now.

Who -- why would you want to increase anybody's taxes right now? Why would you want to do that, anyone, anyone in America, when we have such a tough time, when these small business people, like Joe the plumber, are going to create jobs, unless you take that money from him and spread the wealth around.

I'm not going to...

Obama: OK. Can I...

McCain: We're not going to do that in my administration.

Obama: If I can answer the question. Number one, I want to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Now, it is true that my friend and supporter, Warren Buffett, for example, could afford to pay a little more in taxes in order...

McCain: We're talking about Joe the plumber.

Obama: ... in order to give -- in order to give additional tax cuts to Joe the plumber before he was at the point where he could make $250,000.

Then Exxon Mobil, which made $12 billion, record profits, over the last several quarters, they can afford to pay a little more so that ordinary families who are hurting out there -- they're trying to figure out how they're going to afford food, how they're going to save for their kids' college education, they need a break.

So, look, nobody likes taxes. I would prefer that none of us had to pay taxes, including myself. But ultimately, we've got to pay for the core investments that make this economy strong and somebody's got to do it.

McCain: Nobody likes taxes. Let's not raise anybody's taxes. OK?

Obama: Well, I don't mind paying a little more.

McCain: The fact is that businesses in America today are paying the second highest tax rate of anywhere in the world. Our tax rate for business in America is 35 percent. Ireland, it's 11 percent.

Where are companies going to go where they can create jobs and where they can do best in business?

We need to cut the business tax rate in America. We need to encourage business.

Now, of all times in America, we need to cut people's taxes. We need to encourage business, create jobs, not spread the wealth around.

Schieffer: All right. Let's go to another topic. It's related. So if you have other things you want to say, you can get back to that.

This question goes to you first, Sen. Obama.

We found out yesterday that this year's deficit will reach an astounding record high $455 billion. Some experts say it could go to $1 trillion next year.

Both of you have said you want to reduce the deficit, but the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget ran the numbers on both of your proposals and they say the cost of your proposals, even with the savings you claim can be made, each will add more than $200 billion to the deficit.

Aren't you both ignoring reality? Won't some of the programs you are proposing have to be trimmed, postponed, even eliminated?

Give us some specifics on what you're going to cut back.

Sen. Obama?

Obama: Well, first of all, I think it's important for the American public to understand that the $750 billion rescue package, if it's structured properly, and, as president, I will make sure it's structured properly, means that ultimately taxpayers get their money back, and that's important to understand.

But there is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments.

Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. I haven't made a promise about...

Schieffer: But you're going to have to cut some of these programs, certainly.

Obama: Absolutely. So let me get to that. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches.

And some of the cuts, just to give you an example, we spend $15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies. It doesn't -- under the Medicare plan -- it doesn't help seniors get any better. It's not improving our health care system. It's just a giveaway.

We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don't work. And I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page, programs that don't work, we should cut. Programs that we need, we should make them work better.

Now, what is true is that Sen. McCain and I have a difference in terms of the need to invest in America and the American people. I mentioned health care earlier.

If we make investments now so that people have coverage, that we are preventing diseases, that will save on Medicare and Medicaid in the future.

If we invest in a serious energy policy, that will save in the amount of money we're borrowing from China to send to Saudi Arabia.

If we invest now in our young people and their ability to go to college, that will allow them to drive this economy into the 21st century.

But what is absolutely true is that, once we get through this economic crisis and some of the specific proposals to get us out of this slump, that we're not going to be able to go back to our profligate ways.

And we're going to have to embrace a culture and an ethic of responsibility, all of us, corporations, the federal government, and individuals out there who may be living beyond their means.

Schieffer: Time's up.

Senator?

McCain: Well, thank you, Bob. I just want to get back to this home ownership. During the Depression era, we had a thing called the home ownership loan corporation.

And they went out and bought up these mortgages. And people were able to stay in their homes, and eventually the values of those homes went up, and they actually made money.

And, by the way, this was a proposal made by Sen. Clinton not too long ago.

So, obviously, if we can start increasing home values, then there will be creation of wealth.

Schieffer: But what...

McCain: But -- OK. All right.

Schieffer: The question was, what are you going to cut?

McCain: Energy -- well, first -- second of all, energy independence. We have to have nuclear power. We have to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much. It's wind, tide, solar, natural gas, nuclear, off-shore drilling, which Sen. Obama has opposed.

And the point is that we become energy independent and we will create millions of jobs -- millions of jobs in America.

OK, what -- what would I cut? I would have, first of all, across-the-board spending freeze, OK? Some people say that's a hatchet. That's a hatchet, and then I would get out a scalpel, OK?

Because we've got -- we have presided over the largest increase -- we've got to have a new direction for this country. We have presided over the largest increase in government since the Great Society.

Government spending has gone completely out of control; $10 trillion dollar debt we're giving to our kids, a half-a-trillion dollars we owe China.

I know how to save billions of dollars in defense spending. I know how to eliminate programs.

Schieffer: Which ones?

McCain: I have fought against -- well, one of them would be the marketing assistance program. Another one would be a number of subsidies for ethanol.

I oppose subsidies for ethanol because I thought it distorted the market and created inflation; Sen. Obama supported those subsidies.

I would eliminate the tariff on imported sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil.

I know how to save billions. I saved the taxpayer $6.8 billion by fighting a deal for a couple of years, as you might recall, that was a sweetheart deal between an aircraft manufacturer, DOD, and people ended up in jail.

But I would fight for a line-item veto, and I would certainly veto every earmark pork-barrel bill. Sen. Obama has asked for nearly $1 billion in pork-barrel earmark projects...

Schieffer: Time's up.

McCain: ... including $3 million for an overhead projector in a planetarium in his hometown. That's not the way we cut -- we'll cut out all the pork.

Schieffer: Time's up.

Obama: Well, look, I think that we do have a disagreement about an across-the-board spending freeze. It sounds good. It's proposed periodically. It doesn't happen.

And, in fact, an across-the-board spending freeze is a hatchet, and we do need a scalpel, because there are some programs that don't work at all. There are some programs that are underfunded. And I want to make sure that we are focused on those programs that work.

Now, Sen. McCain talks a lot about earmarks. That's one of the centerpieces of his campaign.

Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it's not going to solve the problem.

Now, the last thing I think we have to focus on is a little bit of history, just so that we understand what we're doing going forward.

When President Bush came into office, we had a budget surplus and the national debt was a little over $5 trillion. It has doubled over the last eight years.

Obama: And we are now looking at a deficit of well over half a trillion dollars.

So one of the things that I think we have to recognize is pursuing the same kinds of policies that we pursued over the last eight years is not going to bring down the deficit. And, frankly, Sen. McCain voted for four out of five of President Bush's budgets.

We've got to take this in a new direction, that's what I propose as president.

Schieffer: Do either of you think you can balance the budget in four years? You have said previously you thought you could, Sen. McCain.

McCain: Sure I do. And let me tell you...

Schieffer: You can still do that?

McCain: Yes. Sen. Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago. I'm going to give a new direction to this economy in this country.

Sen. Obama talks about voting for budgets. He voted twice for a budget resolution that increases the taxes on individuals making $42,000 a year. Of course, we can take a hatchet and a scalpel to this budget. It's completely out of control.

The mayor of New York, Mayor Bloomberg, just imposed an across- the-board spending freeze on New York City. They're doing it all over America because they have to. Because they have to balance their budgets. I will balance our budgets and I will get them and I will...

Schieffer: In four years?

McCain: ... reduce this -- I can -- we can do it with this kind of job creation of energy independence.

Now, look, Americans are hurting tonight and they're angry and I understand that, and they want a new direction. I can bring them in that direction by eliminating spending.

Sen. Obama talks about the budgets I voted for. He voted for the last two budgets that had that $24 billion more in spending than the budget that the Bush administration proposed.

He voted for the energy bill that was full of goodies for the oil companies that I opposed. So the fact is, let's look at our records, Sen. Obama. Let's look at it as graded by the National Taxpayers Union and the Citizens Against Government Waste and the other watchdog organizations.

I have fought against spending. I have fought against special interests. I have fought for reform. You have to tell me one time when you have stood up with the leaders of your party on one single major issue.

Schieffer: Barack.

Obama: Well, there's a lot of stuff that was put out there, so let me try to address it. First of all, in terms of standing up to the leaders of my party, the first major bill that I voted on in the Senate was in support of tort reform, which wasn't very popular with trial lawyers, a major constituency in the Democratic Party. I support...

McCain: An overwhelming vote.

Obama: I support charter schools and pay for performance for teachers. Doesn't make me popular with the teachers union. I support clean coal technology. Doesn't make me popular with environmentalists. So I've got a history of reaching across the aisle.

Now with respect to a couple of things Sen. McCain said, the notion that I voted for a tax increase for people making $42,000 a year has been disputed by everybody who has looked at this claim that Sen. McCain keeps on making.

Even FOX News disputes it, and that doesn't happen very often when it comes to accusations about me. So the fact of the matter is that if I occasionally have mistaken your policies for George Bush's policies, it's because on the core economic issues that matter to the American people, on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities, you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush.

Now, you've shown independence -- commendable independence, on some key issues like torture, for example, and I give you enormous credit for that. But when it comes to economic policies, essentially what you're proposing is eight more years of the same thing. And it hasn't worked.

And I think the American people understand it hasn't worked. We need to move in a new direction.

Schieffer: All right...

McCain: Let me just say, Bob.

Schieffer: OK. About 30 seconds.

McCain: OK. But it's very clear that I have disagreed with the Bush administration. I have disagreed with leaders of my own party. I've got the scars to prove it.

Whether it be bringing climate change to the floor of the Senate for the first time. Whether it be opposition to spending and earmarks, whether it be the issue of torture, whether it be the conduct of the war in Iraq, which I vigorously opposed. Whether it be on fighting the pharmaceutical companies on Medicare prescription drugs, importation. Whether it be fighting for an HMO patient's bill of rights. Whether it be the establishment of the 9/11 Commission.

I have a long record of reform and fighting through on the floor of the United States Senate.

Schieffer: All right.

McCain: Sen. Obama, your argument for standing up to the leadership of your party isn't very convincing.

Schieffer: All right. We're going to move to another question and the topic is leadership in this campaign. Both of you pledged to take the high road in this campaign yet it has turned very nasty.

Schieffer: Sen. Obama, your campaign has used words like "erratic," "out of touch," "lie," "angry," "losing his bearings" to describe Sen. McCain.

Sen. McCain, your commercials have included words like "disrespectful," "dangerous," "dishonorable," "he lied." Your running mate said he "palled around with terrorists."

Are each of you tonight willing to sit at this table and say to each other's face what your campaigns and the people in your campaigns have said about each other?

And, Sen. McCain, you're first.

McCain: Well, this has been a tough campaign. It's been a very tough campaign. And I know from my experience in many campaigns that, if Sen. Obama had asked -- responded to my urgent request to sit down, and do town hall meetings, and come before the American people, we could have done at least 10 of them by now.

When Sen. Obama was first asked, he said, "Any place, any time," the way Barry Goldwater and Jack Kennedy agreed to do, before the intervention of the tragedy at Dallas. So I think the tone of this campaign could have been very different.

And the fact is, it's gotten pretty tough. And I regret some of the negative aspects of both campaigns. But the fact is that it has taken many turns which I think are unacceptable.

One of them happened just the other day, when a man I admire and respect -- I've written about him -- Congressman John Lewis, an American hero, made allegations that Sarah Palin and I were somehow associated with the worst chapter in American history, segregation, deaths of children in church bombings, George Wallace. That, to me, was so hurtful.

And, Sen. Obama, you didn't repudiate those remarks. Every time there's been an out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I have repudiated them. I hope that Sen. Obama will repudiate those remarks that were made by Congressman John Lewis, very unfair and totally inappropriate.

So I want to tell you, we will run a truthful campaign. This is a tough campaign. And it's a matter of fact that Sen. Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any political campaign in history. And I can prove it.

And, Sen. Obama, when he said -- and he signed a piece of paper that said he would take public financing for his campaign if I did -- that was back when he was a long-shot candidate -- you didn't keep your word.

And when you looked into the camera in a debate with Sen. Clinton and said, "I will sit down and negotiate with John McCain about public financing before I make a decision," you didn't tell the American people the truth because you didn't.

And that's -- that's -- that's an unfortunate part. Now we have the highest spending by Sen. Obama's campaign than any time since Watergate.

Schieffer: Time's up. All right.

Obama: Well, look, you know, I think that we expect presidential campaigns to be tough. I think that, if you look at the record and the impressions of the American people -- Bob, your network just did a poll, showing that two-thirds of the American people think that Sen. McCain is running a negative campaign versus one-third of mine.

And 100 percent, John, of your ads -- 100 percent of them have been negative.

McCain: It's not true.

Obama: It absolutely is true. And, now, I think the American people are less interested in our hurt feelings during the course of the campaign than addressing the issues that matter to them so deeply.

And there is nothing wrong with us having a vigorous debate like we're having tonight about health care, about energy policy, about tax policy. That's the stuff that campaigns should be made of.

The notion, though, that because we're not doing town hall meetings that justifies some of the ads that have been going up, not just from your own campaign directly, John, but 527s and other organizations that make some pretty tough accusations, well, I don't mind being attacked for the next three weeks.

What the American people can't afford, though, is four more years of failed economic policies. And what they deserve over the next four weeks is that we talk about what's most pressing to them: the economic crisis.

Sen. McCain's own campaign said publicly last week that, if we keep on talking about the economic crisis, we lose, so we need to change the subject.

And I would love to see the next three weeks devoted to talking about the economy, devoted to talking about health care, devoted to talking about energy, and figuring out how the American people can send their kids to college.

And that is something that I would welcome. But it requires, I think, a recognition that politics as usual, as been practiced over the last several years, is not solving the big problems here in America.

McCain: Well, if you'll turn on the television, as I -- I watched the Arizona Cardinals defeat the Dallas Cowboys on Sunday.

Obama: Congratulations.

McCain: Every other ad -- ever other ad was an attack ad on my health care plan. And any objective observer has said it's not true. You're running ads right now that say that I oppose federal funding for stem cell research. I don't.

You're running ads that misportray completely my position on immigration. So the fact is that Sen. Obama is spending unprecedented -- unprecedented in the history of American politics, going back to the beginning, amounts of money in negative attack ads on me.

And of course, I've been talking about the economy. Of course, I've talked to people like Joe the plumber and tell him that I'm not going to spread his wealth around. I'm going to let him keep his wealth. And of course, we're talking about positive plan of action to restore this economy and restore jobs in America.

That's what my campaign is all about and that's what it'll continue to be all about.

But again, I did not hear a repudiation of Congressman...

Obama: I mean, look, if we want to talk about Congressman Lewis, who is an American hero, he, unprompted by my campaign, without my campaign's awareness, made a statement that he was troubled with what he was hearing at some of the rallies that your running mate was holding, in which all the Republican reports indicated were shouting, when my name came up, things like "terrorist" and "kill him," and that you're running mate didn't mention, didn't stop, didn't say "Hold on a second, that's kind of out of line."

And I think Congressman Lewis' point was that we have to be careful about how we deal with our supporters.

Now...

McCain: You've got to read what he said...

(CROSSTALK)

Obama: Let -- let -- let...

McCain: You've got to read what he said.

Obama: Let me -- let me complete...

Schieffer: Go ahead.

Obama: ... my response. I do think that he inappropriately drew a comparison between what was happening there and what had happened during the civil rights movement, and we immediately put out a statement saying that we don't think that comparison is appropriate.

And, in fact, afterwards, Congressman Lewis put out a similar statement, saying that he had probably gone over the line.

The important point here is, though, the American people have become so cynical about our politics, because all they see is a tit- for-tat and back-and-forth. And what they want is the ability to just focus on some really big challenges that we face right now, and that's what I have been trying to focus on this entire campaign.

McCain: I cannot...

Obama: We can have serious differences about our health care policy, for example, John, because we do have a difference on health care policy, but we...

McCain: We do and I hope...

Obama: ... talking about it this evening.

McCain: Sure.

Obama: But when people suggest that I pal around with terrorists, then we're not talking about issues. What we're talking about...

McCain: Well, let me just say I would...

Schieffer: (inaudible)

McCain: Let me just say categorically I'm proud of the people that come to our rallies. Whenever you get a large rally of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 people, you're going to have some fringe peoples. You know that. And I've -- and we've always said that that's not appropriate.

But to somehow say that group of young women who said "Military wives for McCain" are somehow saying anything derogatory about you, but anything -- and those veterans that wear those hats that say "World War II, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq," I'm not going to stand for people saying that the people that come to my rallies are anything but the most dedicated, patriotic men and women that are in this nation and they're great citizens.

And I'm not going to stand for somebody saying that because someone yelled something at a rally -- there's a lot of things that have been yelled at your rallies, Sen. Obama, that I'm not happy about either.

In fact, some T-shirts that are very...

Obama: John, I...

McCain: ... unacceptable. So the point is -- the point is that I have repudiated every time someone's been out of line, whether they've been part of my campaign or not, and I will continue to do that.

But the fact is that we need to absolutely not stand for the kind of things that have been going on. I haven't.

Obama: Well, look, Bob, as I said...

Schieffer: I mean, do you take issue with that?

Obama: You know, here's what I would say. I mean, we can have a debate back and forth about the merits of each other's campaigns. I suspect we won't agree here tonight.

What I think is most important is that we recognize that to solve the key problems that we're facing, if we're going to solve two wars, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, if we can -- if we're going to focus on lifting wages that have declined over the last eight years and create jobs here in America, then Democrats, independents and Republicans, we're going to have to be able to work together.

And what is important is making sure that we disagree without being disagreeable. And it means that we can have tough, vigorous debates around issues. What we can't do, I think, is try to characterize each other as bad people. And that has been a culture in Washington that has been taking place for too long. And I think...

McCain: Well, Bob, you asked me a direct question.

Schieffer: Short answer, yes, short answer.

McCain: Yes, real quick. Mr. Ayers, I don't care about an old washed-up terrorist. But as Sen. Clinton said in her debates with you, we need to know the full extent of that relationship.

We need to know the full extent of Sen. Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy. The same front outfit organization that your campaign gave $832,000 for "lighting and site selection." So all of these things need to be examined, of course.

Schieffer: All right. I'm going to let you respond and we'll extend this for a moment.

Obama: Bob, I think it's going to be important to just -- I'll respond to these two particular allegations that Sen. McCain has made and that have gotten a lot of attention.

In fact, Mr. Ayers has become the centerpiece of Sen. McCain's campaign over the last two or three weeks. This has been their primary focus. So let's get the record straight. Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago.

Forty years ago, when I was 8 years old, he engaged in despicable acts with a radical domestic group. I have roundly condemned those acts. Ten years ago he served and I served on a school reform board that was funded by one of Ronald Reagan's former ambassadors and close friends, Mr. Annenberg.

Other members on that board were the presidents of the University of Illinois, the president of Northwestern University, who happens to be a Republican, the president of The Chicago Tribune, a Republican- leaning newspaper.

Mr. Ayers is not involved in my campaign. He has never been involved in this campaign. And he will not advise me in the White House. So that's Mr. Ayers.

Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names.

It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.

Now, the reason I think that it's important to just get these facts out is because the allegation that Sen. McCain has continually made is that somehow my associations are troubling.

Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. If I'm interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or General Jim Jones, the former supreme allied commander of NATO.

Those are the people, Democrats and Republicans, who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House. And I think the fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, Sen. McCain, says more about your campaign than it says about me.

McCain: Well, again, while you were on the board of the Woods Foundation, you and Mr. Ayers, together, you sent $230,000 to ACORN. So -- and you launched your political campaign in Mr. Ayers' living room.

Obama: That's absolutely not true.

McCain: And the facts are facts and records are records.

Obama: And that's not the facts.

McCain: And it's not the fact -- it's not the fact that Sen. Obama chooses to associate with a guy who in 2001 said that he wished he had have bombed more, and he had a long association with him. It's the fact that all the -- all of the details need to be known about Sen. Obama's relationship with them and with ACORN and the American people will make a judgment.

And my campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America. And that's what my campaign is about and I'm not going to raise taxes the way Sen. Obama wants to raise taxes in a tough economy. And that's really what this campaign is going to be about.

Schieffer: All right. Let's go to the next topic and you -- we may want to get back into some of this during this next discussion. I want to ask both of you about the people that you're going to bring into the government.

And our best insight yet is who you have picked as your running mates.

Schieffer: So I'll begin by asking both of you this question, and I'll ask you to answer first, Sen. Obama. Why would the country be better off if your running mate became president rather than his running mate?

Obama: Well, Joe Biden, I think, is one of the finest public servants that has served in this country. It's not just that he has some of the best foreign policy credentials of anybody. And Democrats and Republicans alike, I think, acknowledge his expertise there.

But it's also that his entire life he has never forgotten where he came from, coming from Scranton, fighting on behalf of working families, remembering what it's like to see his father lose his job and go through a downward spiral economically.

And, as a consequence, his consistent pattern throughout his career is to fight for the little guy. That's what he's done when it comes to economic policies that will help working families get a leg up.

That's what he's done when it comes to, for example, passing the landmark 1994 crime bill, the Violence Against Women's Act. Joe has always made sure that he is fighting on behalf of working families, and I think he shares my core values and my sense of where the country needs to go.

Because after eight years of failed policies, he and I both agree that what we're going to have to do is to re-prioritize, make sure that we're investing in the American people, give tax cuts not to the wealthiest corporations, but give them to small businesses and give them to individuals who are struggling right now, make sure that we finally get serious about energy independence, something that has been languishing in Washington for 30 years, and make sure that our kids get a great education and can afford to go to college.

So, on the key issues that are of importance to American families, Joe Biden's always been on the right side, and I think he will make an outstanding president if, heaven forbid, something happened to me.

Schieffer: Senator?

McCain: Well, Americans have gotten to know Sarah Palin. They know that she's a role model to women and other -- and reformers all over America.

She's a reformer. She is -- she took on a governor who was a member of her own party when she ran for governor. When she was the head of their energy and natural resources board, she saw corruption, she resigned and said, "This can't go on."

She's given money back to the taxpayers. She's cut the size of government. She negotiated with the oil companies and faced them down, a $40 billion pipeline of natural gas that's going to relieve the energy needs of the United -- of what they call the lower 48.

She's a reformer through and through. And it's time we had that bresh of freth air (sic) -- breath of fresh air coming into our nation's capital and sweep out the old-boy network and the cronyism that's been so much a part of it that I've fought against for all these years.

She'll be my partner. She understands reform. And, by the way, she also understands special-needs families. She understands that autism is on the rise, that we've got to find out what's causing it, and we've got to reach out to these families, and help them, and give them the help they need as they raise these very special needs children.

She understands that better than almost any American that I know. I'm proud of her.

And she has ignited our party and people all over America that have never been involved in the political process. And I can't tell how proud I am of her and her family.

Her husband's a pretty tough guy, by the way, too.

Schieffer: Do you think she's qualified to be president?

Obama: You know, I think it's -- that's going to be up to the American people. I think that, obviously, she's a capable politician who has, I think, excited the -- a base in the Republican Party.

And I think it's very commendable the work she's done on behalf of special needs. I agree with that, John.

I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding, if we're going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on behalf of disabled children talk about.

And if we have an across-the-board spending freeze, we're not going to be able to do it. That's an example of, I think, the kind of use of the scalpel that we want to make sure that we're funding some of those programs.

Schieffer: Do you think Sen. Biden is qualified?

McCain: I think that Joe Biden is qualified in many respects. But I do point out that he's been wrong on many foreign policy and national security issues, which is supposed to be his strength.

He voted against the first Gulf War. He voted against it and, obviously, we had to take Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait or it would've threatened the Middle Eastern world supply.

In Iraq, he had this cockamamie idea about dividing Iraq into three countries. We're seeing Iraq united as Iraqis, tough, hard, but we're seeing them. We're now about to have an agreement for status of forces in Iraq coming up.

There are several issues in which, frankly, Joe Biden and I open and honestly disagreed on national security policy, and he's been wrong on a number of the major ones.

But again, I want to come back to, notice every time Sen. Obama says, "We need to spend more, we need to spend more, that's the answer" -- why do we always have to spend more?

Why can't we have transparency, accountability, reform of these agencies of government? Maybe that's why he's asked for 860 -- sought and proposed $860 billion worth of new spending and wants to raise people's taxes in a time of incredible challenge and difficulty and heartache for the American families.

Schieffer: Let's go to -- let's go to a new topic. We're running a little behind.

Let's talk about energy and climate control. Every president since Nixon has said what both of you...

McCain: Climate change.

Schieffer: Climate change, yes -- has said what both of you have said, and, that is, we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

When Nixon said it, we imported from 17 to 34 percent of our foreign oil. Now, we're importing more than 60 percent.

Would each of you give us a number, a specific number of how much you believe we can reduce our foreign oil imports during your first term?

And I believe the first question goes to you, Sen. McCain.

McCain: I think we can, for all intents and purposes, eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and Venezuelan oil. Canadian oil is fine.

By the way, when Sen. Obama said he would unilaterally renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Canadians said, "Yes, and we'll sell our oil to China."

You don't tell countries you're going to unilaterally renegotiate agreements with them.

We can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by building 45 new nuclear plants, power plants, right away. We can store and we can reprocess.

Sen. Obama will tell you, in the -- as the extreme environmentalists do, it has to be safe.

Look, we've sailed Navy ships around the world for 60 years with nuclear power plants on them. We can store and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, Sen. Obama, no problem.

So the point is with nuclear power, with wind, tide, solar, natural gas, with development of flex fuel, hybrid, clean coal technology, clean coal technology is key in the heartland of America that's hurting rather badly.

So I think we can easily, within seven, eight, ten years, if we put our minds to it, we can eliminate our dependence on the places in the world that harm our national security if we don't achieve our independence.

Schieffer: All right. Can we reduce our dependence on foreign oil and by how much in the first term, in four years?

Obama: I think that in ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. I think that's about a realistic timeframe.

And this is the most important issue that our future economy is going to face. Obviously, we've got an immediate crisis right now. But nothing is more important than us no longer borrowing $700 billion or more from China and sending it to Saudi Arabia. It's mortgaging our children's future.

Now, from the start of this campaign, I've identified this as one of my top priorities and here is what I think we have to do.

Number one, we do need to expand domestic production and that means, for example, telling the oil companies the 68 million acres that they currently have leased that they're not drilling, use them or lose them.

And I think that we should look at offshore drilling and implement it in a way that allows us to get some additional oil. But understand, we only have three to four percent of the world's oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world's oil, which means that we can't drill our way out of the problem.

That's why I've focused on putting resources into solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal. These have been priorities of mine since I got to the Senate, and it is absolutely critical that we develop a high fuel efficient car that's built not in Japan and not in South Korea, but built here in the United States of America.

We invented the auto industry and the fact that we have fallen so far behind is something that we have to work on.

Now I just want to make one last point because Sen. McCain mentioned NAFTA and the issue of trade and that actually bears on this issue. I believe in free trade. But I also believe that for far too long, certainly during the course of the Bush administration with the support of Sen. McCain, the attitude has been that any trade agreement is a good trade agreement. And NAFTA doesn't have -- did not have enforceable labor agreements and environmental agreements.

And what I said was we should include those and make them enforceable. In the same way that we should enforce rules against China manipulating its currency to make our exports more expensive and their exports to us cheaper.

And when it comes to South Korea, we've got a trade agreement up right now, they are sending hundreds of thousands of South Korean cars into the United States. That's all good. We can only get 4,000 to 5,000 into South Korea. That is not free trade. We've got to have a president who is going to be advocating on behalf of American businesses and American workers and I make no apology for that.

Schieffer: Senator?

McCain: Well, you know, I admire so much Sen. Obama's eloquence. And you really have to pay attention to words. He said, we will look at offshore drilling. Did you get that? Look at. We can offshore drill now. We've got to do it now. We will reduce the cost of a barrel of oil because we show the world that we have a supply of our own. It's doable. The technology is there and we have to drill now.

Now, on the subject of free trade agreements. I am a free trader. And I need -- we need to have education and training programs for displaced workers that work, going to our community colleges.

But let me give you another example of a free trade agreement that Sen. Obama opposes. Right now, because of previous agreements, some made by President Clinton, the goods and products that we send to Colombia, which is our largest agricultural importer of our products, is -- there's a billion dollars that we -- our businesses have paid so far in order to get our goods in there.

Because of previous agreements, their goods and products come into our country for free. So Sen. Obama, who has never traveled south of our border, opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The same country that's helping us try to stop the flow of drugs into our country that's killing young Americans.

And also the country that just freed three Americans that will help us create jobs in America because they will be a market for our goods and products without having to pay -- without us having to pay the billions of dollars -- the billion dollars and more that we've already paid.

Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better.

Obama: Let me respond. Actually, I understand it pretty well. The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis and there have not been prosecutions.

And what I have said, because the free trade -- the trade agreement itself does have labor and environmental protections, but we have to stand for human rights and we have to make sure that violence isn't being perpetrated against workers who are just trying to organize for their rights, which is why, for example, I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement which was a well-structured agreement.

But I think that the important point is we've got to have a president who understands the benefits of free trade but also is going to enforce unfair trade agreements and is going to stand up to other countries.

And the last point I'll make, because we started on energy. When I talked about the automakers, they are obviously getting hammered right now. They were already having a tough time because of high gas prices. And now with the financial crisis, car dealerships are closing and people can't get car loans.

That's why I think it's important for us to get loan guarantees to the automakers, but we do have to hold them responsible as well to start producing the highly fuel-efficient cars of the future.

And Detroit had dragged its feet too long in terms of getting that done. It's going to be one of my highest priorities because transportation accounts for about 30 percent of our total energy consumption.

If we can get that right, then we can move in a direction not only of energy independence, but we can create 5 million new jobs all across America, including in the heartland where we can retool some of these plants to make these highly fuel-efficient cars and also to make wind turbines and solar panels, the kinds of clean energy approaches that should be the driver of our economy for the next century.

McCain: Well, let me just said that that this is -- he -- Sen. Obama doesn't want a free trade agreement with our best ally in the region but wants to sit down across the table without precondition to -- with Hugo Chavez, the guy who has been helping FARC, the terrorist organization.

Free trade between ourselves and Colombia, I just recited to you the benefits of concluding that agreement, a billion dollars of American dollars that could have gone to creating jobs and businesses in the United States, opening up those markets.

So I don't -- I don't think there's any doubt that Sen. Obama wants to restrict trade and he wants to raise taxes. And the last president of the United States that tried that was Herbert Hoover, and we went from a deep recession into a depression.

We're not going to follow that path while I'm -- when I'm president of the United States.

Schieffer: All right, let's go to a new topic, health care. Given the current economic situation, would either of you now favor controlling health care costs over expanding health care coverage? The question is first to Sen. Obama.

Obama: We've got to do both, and that's exactly what my plan does.

Look, as I travel around the country, this is the issue that will break your heart over and over again. Just yesterday, I was in Toledo shaking some hands in a line. Two women, both of them probably in their mid- to late-50s, had just been laid off of their plant. Neither of them have health insurance.

And they were desperate for some way of getting coverage, because, understandably, they're worried that, if they get sick, they could go bankrupt.

So here's what my plan does. If you have health insurance, then you don't have to do anything. If you've got health insurance through your employer, you can keep your health insurance, keep your choice of doctor, keep your plan.

The only thing we're going to try to do is lower costs so that those cost savings are passed onto you. And we estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year.

If you don't have health insurance, then what we're going to do is to provide you the option of buying into the same kind of federal pool that both Sen. McCain and I enjoy as federal employees, which will give you high-quality care, choice of doctors, at lower costs, because so many people are part of this insured group.

We're going to make sure that insurance companies can't discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions. We'll negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available price on drugs.

We are going to invest in information technology to eliminate bureaucracy and make the system more efficient.

And we are going to make sure that we manage chronic illnesses, like diabetes and heart disease, that cost a huge amount, but could be prevented. We've got to put more money into preventive care.

This will cost some money on the front end, but over the long term this is the only way that not only are we going to make families healthy, but it's also how we're going to save the federal budget, because we can't afford these escalating costs.

Schieffer: All right.

Sen. McCain?

McCain: Well, it is a terribly painful situation for Americans. They're seeing their premiums, their co-pays go up. Forty-seven million Americans are without health insurance in America today.

And it really is the cost, the escalating costs of health care that are inflicting such pain on working families and people across this country. And I am convinced we need to do a lot of things.

We need to put health care records online. The V.A. does that. That will -- that will reduce costs. We need to have more community health centers. We need to have walk-in clinics.

The rise of obesity amongst young Americans is one of the most alarming statistics that there is. We should have physical fitness programs and nutrition programs in schools. Every parent should know what's going on there.

We -- we need to have -- we need to have employers reward employees who join health clubs and practice wellness and fitness.

But I want to give every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit. Take it and get anywhere in America the health care that you wish.

Now, my old buddy, Joe, Joe the plumber, is out there. Now, Joe, Sen. Obama's plan, if you're a small business and you are able -- and your -- the guy that sells to you will not have his capital gains tax increase, which Sen. Obama wants, if you're out there, my friend, and you've got employees, and you've got kids, if you don't get -- adopt the health care plan that Sen. Obama mandates, he's going to fine you.

Now, Sen. Obama, I'd like -- still like to know what that fine is going to be, and I don't think that Joe right now wants to pay a fine when he is seeing such difficult times in America's economy.

Sen. Obama wants to set up health care bureaucracies, take over the health care of America through -- as he said, his object is a single payer system.

If you like that, you'll love Canada and England. So the point is...

Schieffer: So that's your objective?

Obama: It is not and I didn't describe it...

McCain: No, you stated it.

Obama: I just...

McCain: Excuse me.

Obama: I just described what my plan is. And I'm happy to talk to you, Joe, too, if you're out there. Here's your fine -- zero. You won't pay a fine, because...

McCain: Zero?

Obama: Zero, because as I said in our last debate and I'll repeat, John, I exempt small businesses from the requirement for large businesses that can afford to provide health care to their employees, but are not doing it.

I exempt small businesses from having to pay into a kitty. But large businesses that can afford it, we've got a choice. Either they provide health insurance to their employees or somebody has to.

Right now, what happens is those employees get dumped into either the Medicaid system, which taxpayers pick up, or they're going to the emergency room for uncompensated care, which everybody picks up in their premiums.

The average family is paying an additional $900 a year in higher premiums because of the uninsured.

So here's what we do. We exempt small businesses. In fact, what, Joe, if you want to do the right thing with your employees and you want to provide them health insurance, we'll give you a 50 percent credit so that you will actually be able to afford it.

If you don't have health insurance or you want to buy into a group plan, you will be able to buy into the plan that I just described.

Now, what we haven't talked about is Sen. McCain's plan. He says he's going to give you all a $5,000 tax credit. That sounds pretty good. And you can go out and buy your own insurance.

Here's the problem -- that for about 20 million people, you may find yourselves no longer having employer-based health insurance. This is because younger people might be able to get health insurance for $5,000, young and healthy folks.

Older folks, let's healthy folks, what's going to end up happening is that you're going to be the only ones left in your employer-based system, your employers won't be able to afford it.

And once you're out on your own with this $5,000 credit, Sen. McCain, for the first time, is going to be taxing the health care benefits that you have from your employer.

And this is your plan, John. For the first time in history, you will be taxing people's health care benefits.

By the way, the average policy costs about $12,000. So if you've got $5,000 and it's going to cost you $12,000, that's a loss for you.

Last point about Sen. McCain's plan is that insurers right now, the main restrictions on what they do is primarily state law and, under Sen. McCain's plan, those rules would be stripped away and you would start seeing a lot more insurance companies cherry-picking and excluding people from coverage.

That, I think, is a mistake and I think that this is a fundamental difference in our campaign and how we would approach health care.

Schieffer: What about that?

McCain: Hey, Joe, you're rich, congratulations, because what Joe wanted to do was buy the business that he's been working for 10-12 hours a day, seven days a week, and you said that you wanted to spread the wealth, but -- in other words, take Joe's money and then you decide what to do with it.

Now, Joe, you're rich, congratulations, and you will then fall into the category where you'll have to pay a fine if you don't provide health insurance that Sen. Obama mandates, not the kind that you think is best for your family, your children, your employees, but the kind that he mandates for you.

That's big government at its best.

Now, 95 percent of the people in America will receive more money under my plan because they will receive not only their present benefits, which may be taxed, which will be taxed, but then you add $5,000 onto it, except for those people who have the gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies that have to do with cosmetic surgery and transplants and all of those kinds of things.

And the good thing about this is they'll be able to go across America. The average cost of a health care insurance plan in America today is $5,800. I'm going to give them $5,000 to take with them wherever they want to go, and this will give them affordability.

This will give them availability. This will give them a chance to choose their own futures, not have Sen. Obama and government decide that for them.

This really gets down to the fundamental difference in our philosophies. If you notice that in all of this proposal, Senator -- government wants -- Sen. Obama wants government to do the job.

Sen. Obama wants government to do the job. I want, Joe, you to do the job.

I want to leave money in your pocket. I want you to be able to choose the health care for you and your family. That's what I'm all about. And we've got too much government and too much spending and the government is -- the size of government has grown by 40 percent in the last eight years.

We can't afford that in the next eight years and Sen. Obama, with the Democrats in charge of Congress, things have gotten worse. Have you noticed, they've been in charge the last two years.

Schieffer: All right. A short response.

Obama: Very briefly. You all just heard my plan. If you've got an employer-based health care plan, you keep it. Now, under Sen. McCain's plan there is a strong risk that people would lose their employer-based health care.

That's the choice you'll have is having your employer no longer provide you health care. And don't take my word for it. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which generally doesn't support a lot of Democrats, said that this plan could lead to the unraveling of the employer-based health care system.

All I want to do, if you've already got health care, is lower your costs. That includes you, Joe.

Schieffer: All right. Let's stop there and go to another question. And this one goes to Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Sen. Obama, you believe it shouldn't.

Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue? Sen. McCain?

McCain: I would never and have never in all the years I've been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That's not appropriate to do.

Schieffer: But you don't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

McCain: I thought it was a bad decision. I think there were a lot of decisions that were bad. I think that decisions should rest in the hands of the states. I'm a federalist. And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test.

Now, let me say that there was a time a few years ago when the United States Senate was about to blow up. Republicans wanted to have just a majority vote to confirm a judge and the Democrats were blocking in an unprecedented fashion.

We got together seven Republicans, seven Democrats. You were offered a chance to join. You chose not to because you were afraid of the appointment of, quote, "conservative judges."

I voted for Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg. Not because I agreed with their ideology, but because I thought they were qualified and that elections have consequences when presidents are nominated. This is a very important issue we're talking about.

Sen. Obama voted against Justice Breyer and Justice Roberts on the grounds that they didn't meet his ideological standards. That's not the way we should judge these nominees. Elections have consequences. They should be judged on their qualifications. And so that's what I will do.

I will find the best people in the world -- in the United States of America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.

Schieffer: But even if it was someone -- even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?

McCain: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.

Schieffer: All right.

Obama: Well, I think it's true that we shouldn't apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people.

And it is true that this is going to be, I think, one of the most consequential decisions of the next president. It is very likely that one of us will be making at least one and probably more than one appointments and Roe versus Wade probably hangs in the balance.

Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided. I think that abortion is a very difficult issue and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on.

But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision. And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn't be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote.

So this is going to be an important issue. I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.

I'll just give you one quick example. Sen. McCain and I disagreed recently when the Supreme Court made it more difficult for a woman named Lilly Ledbetter to press her claim for pay discrimination.

For years, she had been getting paid less than a man had been paid for doing the exact same job. And when she brought a suit, saying equal pay for equal work, the judges said, well, you know, it's taken you too long to bring this lawsuit, even though she didn't know about it until fairly recently.

We tried to overturn it in the Senate. I supported that effort to provide better guidance to the courts; John McCain opposed it.

I think that it's important for judges to understand that if a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will. And that's the kind of judge that I want.

Schieffer: Time's up.

McCain: Obviously, that law waved the statute of limitations, which you could have gone back 20 or 30 years. It was a trial lawyer's dream.

Let me talk to you about an important aspect of this issue. We have to change the culture of America. Those of us who are proudly pro-life understand that. And it's got to be courage and compassion that we show to a young woman who's facing this terribly difficult decision.

Sen. Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, voted in the Judiciary Committee against a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born of a failed abortion. He voted against that.

And then, on the floor of the State Senate, as he did 130 times as a state senator, he voted present.

Then there was another bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the state of Illinois not that long ago, where he voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion, one of the late-term abortion, a really -- one of the bad procedures, a terrible. And then, on the floor of the Illinois State Senate, he voted present.

I don't know how you vote "present" on some of that. I don't know how you align yourself with the extreme aspect of the pro- abortion movement in America. And that's his record, and that's a matter of his record.

And he'll say it has something to do with Roe v. Wade, about the Illinois State Senate. It was clear-cut votes that Sen. Obama voted, I think, in direct contradiction to the feelings and views of mainstream America.

Schieffer: Response?

Obama: Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true. The -- here are the facts.

There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.

And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books.

With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception.

And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that's why I voted present, because I'm willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception.

The last point I want to make on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that -- look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views.

But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby."

Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation.

We should try to reduce these circumstances.

Schieffer: Let's give Sen. McCain a short response...

McCain: Just again...

Schieffer: ... and then...

McCain: Just again, the example of the eloquence of Sen. Obama. He's health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything.

That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health." But, look, Cindy and I are adoptive parents. We know what a treasure and joy it is to have an adopted child in our lives. We'll do everything we can to improve adoption in this country.

But that does not mean that we will cease to protect the rights of the unborn. Of course, we have to come together. Of course, we have to work together, and, of course, it's vital that we do so and help these young women who are facing such a difficult decision, with a compassion, that we'll help them with the adoptive services, with the courage to bring that child into this world and we'll help take care of it.

Schieffer: Let's stop there, because I want to get in a question on education and I'm afraid this is going to have to be our last question, gentlemen.

The question is this: the U.S. spends more per capita than any other country on education. Yet, by every international measurement, in math and science competence, from kindergarten through the 12th grade, we trail most of the countries of the world.

The implications of this are clearly obvious. Some even say it poses a threat to our national security.

Do you feel that way and what do you intend to do about it?

The question to Sen. Obama first.

Obama: This probably has more to do with our economic future than anything and that means it also has a national security implication, because there's never been a nation on earth that saw its economy decline and continued to maintain its primacy as a military power.

So we've got to get our education system right. Now, typically, what's happened is that there's been a debate between more money or reform, and I think we need both.

In some cases, we are going to have to invest. Early childhood education, which closes the achievement gap, so that every child is prepared for school, every dollar we invest in that, we end up getting huge benefits with improved reading scores, reduced dropout rates, reduced delinquency rates.

I think it's going to be critically important for us to recruit a generation of new teachers, an army of new teachers, especially in math and science, give them higher pay, give them more professional development and support in exchange for higher standards and accountability.

And I think it's important for us to make college affordable. Right now, I meet young people all across the country who either have decided not to go to college or if they're going to college, they are taking on $20,000, $30,000, $50,000, $60,000 worth of debt, and it's very difficult for them to go into some fields, like basic research in science, for example, thinking to themselves that they're going to have a mortgage before they even buy a house.

And that's why I've proposed a $4,000 tuition credit, every student, every year, in exchange for some form of community service, whether it's military service, whether it's Peace Corps, whether it's working in a community.

If we do those things, then I believe that we can create a better school system.

But there's one last ingredient that I just want to mention, and that's parents. We can't do it just in the schools. Parents are going to have to show more responsibility. They've got to turn off the TV set, put away the video games, and, finally, start instilling that thirst for knowledge that our students need.

Schieffer: Sen. McCain?

McCain: Well, it's the civil rights issue of the 21st century. There's no doubt that we have achieved equal access to schools in America after a long and difficult and terrible struggle.

But what is the advantage in a low income area of sending a child to a failed school and that being your only choice?

So choice and competition amongst schools is one of the key elements that's already been proven in places in like New Orleans and New York City and other places, where we have charter schools, where we take good teachers and we reward them and promote them.

And we find bad teachers another line of work. And we have to be able to give parents the same choice, frankly, that Sen. Obama and Mrs. Obama had and Cindy and I had to send our kids to the school -- their kids to the school of their choice.

Charter schools aren't the only answer, but they're providing competition. They are providing the kind of competitions that have upgraded both schools -- types of schools.

Now, throwing money at the problem is not the answer. You will find that some of the worst school systems in America get the most money per student.

So I believe that we need to reward these good teachers.

We need to encourage programs such as Teach for America and Troops to Teachers where people, after having served in the military, can go right to teaching and not have to take these examinations which -- or have the certification that some are required in some states.

Look, we must improve education in this country. As far as college education is concerned, we need to make those student loans available. We need to give them a repayment schedule that they can meet. We need to have full student loan program for in-state tuition. And we certainly need to adjust the certain loan eligibility to inflation.

Schieffer: Do you think the federal government should play a larger role in the schools? And I mean, more federal money?

Obama: Well, we have a tradition of local control of the schools and that's a tradition that has served us well. But I do think that it is important for the federal government to step up and help local school districts do some of the things they need to do.

Now we tried to do this under President Bush. He put forward No Child Left Behind. Unfortunately, they left the money behind for No Child Left Behind. And local school districts end up having more of a burden, a bunch of unfunded mandates, the same kind of thing that happened with special education where we did the right thing by saying every school should provide education to kids with special needs, but we never followed through on the promise of funding, and that left local school districts very cash-strapped.

So what I want to do is focus on early childhood education, providing teachers higher salaries in exchange for more support. Sen. McCain and I actually agree on two things that he just mentioned.

Charter schools, I doubled the number of charter schools in Illinois despite some reservations from teachers unions. I think it's important to foster competition inside the public schools.

And we also agree on the need for making sure that if we have bad teachers that they are swiftly -- after given an opportunity to prove themselves, if they can't hack it, then we need to move on because our kids have to have their best future.

Where we disagree is on the idea that we can somehow give out vouchers -- give vouchers as a way of securing the problems in our education system. And I also have to disagree on Sen. McCain's record when it comes to college accessibility and affordability.

Recently his key economic adviser was asked about why he didn't seem to have some specific programs to help young people go to college and the response was, well, you know, we can't give money to every interest group that comes along.

I don't think America's youth are interest groups, I think they're our future. And this is an example of where we are going to have to prioritize. We can't say we're going to do things and then not explain in concrete terms how we're going to pay for it.

And if we're going to do some of the things you mentioned, like lowering loan rates or what have you, somebody has got to pay for it. It's not going to happen on its own.

Schieffer: What about that, Senator?

McCain: Well, sure. I'm sure you're aware, Sen. Obama, of the program in the Washington, D.C., school system where vouchers are provided and there's a certain number, I think it's a thousand and some and some 9,000 parents asked to be eligible for that.

Because they wanted to have the same choice that you and I and Cindy and your wife have had. And that is because they wanted to choose the school that they thought was best for their children.

And we all know the state of the Washington, D.C., school system. That was vouchers. That was voucher, Sen. Obama. And I'm frankly surprised you didn't pay more attention to that example.

Now as far as the No Child Left Behind is concerned, it was a great first beginning in my view. It had its flaws, it had its problems, the first time we had looked at the issue of education in America from a nationwide perspective. And we need to fix a lot of the problems. We need to sit down and reauthorize it.

But, again, spending more money isn't always the answer. I think the Head Start program is a great program. A lot of people, including me, said, look, it's not doing what it should do. By the third grade many times children who were in the Head Start program aren't any better off than the others.

Let's reform it. Let's reform it and fund it. That was, of course, out-of-bounds by the Democrats. We need to reform these programs. We need to have transparency. We need to have rewards. It's a system that cries out for accountability and transparency and the adequate funding.

And I just said to you earlier, town hall meeting after town hall meeting, parents come with kids, children -- precious children who have autism. Sarah Palin knows about that better than most. And we'll find and we'll spend the money, research, to find the cause of autism. And we'll care for these young children. And all Americans will open their wallets and their hearts to do so.

But to have a situation, as you mentioned in our earlier comments, that the most expensive education in the world is in the United States of America also means that it cries out for reform, as well.

And I will support those reforms, and I will fund the ones that are reformed. But I'm not going to continue to throw money at a problem. And I've got to tell you that vouchers, where they are requested and where they are agreed to, are a good and workable system. And it's been proven.

Obama: I'll just make a quick comment about vouchers in D.C. Sen. McCain's absolutely right: The D.C. school system is in terrible shape, and it has been for a very long time. And we've got a wonderful new superintendent there who's working very hard with the young mayor there to try...

McCain: Who supports vouchers.

Obama: ... who initiated -- actually, supports charters.

McCain: She supports vouchers, also.

Obama: But the -- but here's the thing, is that, even if Sen. McCain were to say that vouchers were the way to go -- I disagree with him on this, because the data doesn't show that it actually solves the problem -- the centerpiece of Sen. McCain's education policy is to increase the voucher program in D.C. by 2,000 slots.

That leaves all of you who live in the other 50 states without an education reform policy from Sen. McCain.

So if we are going to be serious about this issue, we've got to have a president who is going to tackle it head-on. And that's what I intend to do as president.

Schieffer: All right.

McCain: Because there's not enough vouchers; therefore, we shouldn't do it, even though it's working. I got it.

Schieffer: All right.

Gentlemen, we have come to the close. Before I ask both of you for your closing statements tonight, I'd like to invite our viewers and listeners to go to MyDebates.org, where you will find this evening's debates and the three that preceded tonight's debate.

Now, for the final statements, by a coin toss, Sen. McCain goes first.

McCain: Well, thank you again, Bob.

Thanks to Hofstra.

And it's great to be with you again. I think we've had a very healthy discussion.

My friends, as I said in my opening remarks, these are very difficult times and challenges for America. And they were graphically demonstrated again today.

America needs a new direction. We cannot be satisfied with what we've been doing for the last eight years.

I have a record of reform, and taking on my party, the other party, the special interests, whether it be an HMO Patients' Bill of Rights, or trying to clean up the campaign finance system in -- in this country, or whether it be establishment of a 9/11 Commission, I have a long record of it.

And I've been a careful steward of your tax dollars. We have to make health care affordable and available. We have to make quality education there for all of our citizens, not just the privileged few.

We have to stop the spending. We have to stop the spending, which has mortgaged your children's futures.

All of these things and all the promises and commitments that Sen. Obama and I made (inaudible) made to you tonight will base -- will be based on whether you can trust us or not to be careful stewards of your tax dollar, to make sure America is safe and secure and prosperous, to make sure we reform the institutions of government.

That's why I've asked you not only to examine my record, but my proposals for the future of this country.

I've spent my entire life in the service of this nation and putting my country first. As a long line of McCains that have served our country for a long time in war and in peace, it's been the great honor of my life, and I've been proud to serve.

And I hope you'll give me an opportunity to serve again. I'd be honored and humbled.

Schieffer: Senator?

Obama: Well, I want to thank Sen. McCain and Bob for moderating.

I think we all know America is going through tough times right now. The policies of the last eight years and -- and Washington's unwillingness to tackle the tough problems for decades has left us in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

And that's why the biggest risk we could take right now is to adopt the same failed policies and the same failed politics that we've seen over the last eight years and somehow expect a different result.

We need fundamental change in this country, and that's what I'd like to bring.

You know, over the last 20 months, you've invited me into your homes. You've shared your stories with me. And you've confirmed once again the fundamental decency and generosity of the American people.

And that's why I'm sure that our brighter days are still ahead.

But we're going to have to invest in the American people again, in tax cuts for the middle class, in health care for all Americans, and college for every young person who wants to go. In businesses that can create the new energy economy of the future. In policies that will lift wages and will grow our middle class.

These are the policies I have fought for my entire career. And these are the policies I want to bring to the White House.

But it's not going to be easy. It's not going to be quick. It is going to be requiring all of us -- Democrats, Republicans, independents -- to come together and to renew a spirit of sacrifice and service and responsibility.

I'm absolutely convinced we can do it. I would ask for your vote, and I promise you that if you give me the extraordinary honor of serving as your president, I will work every single day, tirelessly, on your behalf and on the behalf of the future of our children.

Thank you very much.