bbc--2019-02-12--Catalan rebellion trial puts Spains courts to the test

Catalan 'rebellion' trial puts Spain's courts to the test

Writing from his prison cell, the former vice-president of Catalonia knows he is facing a potential 25 years in prison for rebellion.  Oriol Junqueras is one of a dozen former political leaders facing trial over his region's independence bid in October 2017. Some stand accused of a violent uprising – one they say never happened.  There are no apologies – Mr Junqueras insists on his innocence, telling the BBC that the "trial is an action against an ideology and against political dissent".  "It's a judgement on democracy," he said, and one "which creates a dangerous precedent for all of Europe".  Another defendant fears they will face a court stacked against them, with a "pre-determined outcome".  But the Spanish government has defended the process, insisting the accused will get a fair trial - while the rest of the world watches.  The 12 accused face charges including rebellion, sedition and the misuse of public funds for their part in the 2017 push for independence from Spain.  A disputed referendum - in which a majority of those who took part backed independence - was held in the territory on 1 October 2017.  A little more than three weeks later, the parliament in Barcelona voted to declare Catalonia an independent republic.  Yet the referendum saw a low turnout, and had been declared illegal by Spain's Constitutional Court. Madrid stepped in to impose its rule on the region, and several Catalan leaders fled or were arrested.  A year and a half later, the vote is still controversial.  On Sunday, thousands took to the streets of Madrid to demonstrate their support for a united country ahead of the trial.  And Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has come under pressure for his attempts at dialogue with the leadership in Catalonia.  Prosecutors allege the accused - who include ex-ministers, the former speaker of the regional parliament and the leaders of pro-independence organisations - acted against Spain's constitution, which guarantees "the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation".  All deny the charges against them.  Mr Junqueras - the most senior member of the then Catalan government not to flee the country - said the trial was politically motivated.  The former vice-president refutes the charge of rebellion, which Spanish law defines as a "violent, public uprising" to achieve goals such as "the independence of a part of the national territory".  "Ours has been an extremely peaceful process and so these crimes are totally non-existent in our case. The only violence has been that applied by the National Police and Civil Guard on 1 October against voters who were trying to put a paper in a ballot box," he said.  The Catalan government said more than 900 people were injured as police tried to seize ballot boxes and close polling stations.  In November, more than 100 legal experts from across Spain signed an open letter (in Spanish) condemning the use of the charge of rebellion in the Catalan case.  In an exclusive interview, Mr Sánchez, the former president of the Catalan National Assembly (ANC), said: "Even those who accuse us of rebellion don't believe it. Where was the uprising? It's a total farce."  Mr Sánchez also accuses politicians in Madrid of trying to influence the trial.  "The judges were chosen by the political parties to control it and impose a pre-determined outcome," he said. "Despite everything, they haven't accepted our objections. There is nothing more to say. It will be a trial with political objectives."  The prime minister disagrees. Speaking on a visit to Strasbourg ahead of the start of the trial, he said that in Spain "individual rights, public freedoms and the rights of minorities are guaranteed and protected".  The trial is expected to last around three months.  A long witness list includes the Spanish prime minister at the time of the referendum, Mariano Rajoy.  There are 12 defendants, nine of whom have already spent more than 10 months in prison awaiting the start of the trial.  Among the most senior figures are:  In December, Ms Forcadell appealed against her imprisonment to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.  Amnesty International has called for the release of Jordi Sánchez and Jordi Cuixart, who have been in jail since 16 October 2017.  Also facing trial are Joaquim Forn, former interior minister; Jordi Turull, former Catalan government spokesman; Raül Romeva, former external relations minister; Dolors Bassa, former labour minister; Josep Rull, former territorial minister; Carles Mundó, former justice minister; Meritxell Borràs, former governance minister; and Santi Vila, former business minister.


bbc--2019-02-26--Saudi Arabia Crown Prince MBS takes charm offensive East

Saudi Arabia: Crown Prince MBS takes charm offensive East

In the last few days it has appointed its first-ever female ambassador to its top diplomatic post - Washington DC - while its de facto leader, the controversial Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has just concluded a high-profile tour of Asia, discussing billions of dollars' worth of trade and investment deals in China, Pakistan and India.  Less than five months have elapsed since the West recoiled in horror over the grisly, planned murder of Saudi journalist and critic Jamal Khashoggi inside Saudi Arabia's consulate in Istanbul.  The CIA and most western intelligence agencies concluded that the crown prince, known by his initials MBS, was most likely behind the murder, something Saudi officials strongly deny.  Previously feted in Western cities, MBS was largely shunned by the West at the recent G20 summit in Buenos Aires.  He faces ongoing condemnation in the Western media, not just for the Khashoggi affair, but for locking up peaceful protesters, including women, and for pursuing a catastrophic war in Yemen.  So what does he do? He turns eastwards, just as other Gulf Arab leaders did in 2011 following European criticism of autocratic practices in their region. He got a red-carpet welcome.  In Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country now in dire financial difficulties, MBS dispensed Saudi largesse and was honoured with a 21-gun salute, an escort of fighter jets, and a gift of a gold-plated submachine gun.  In India he was warmly greeted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and went on to discuss huge investment deals, primarily in the energy sector. And in China, Asia's emerging superpower, the crown prince held talks with President Xi Jinping and signed a $10bn (£7.6bn) refinery deal.  Saudi royals do not travel alone. If you are the crown prince and de facto ruler, you take with you a vast entourage of 1,100 in several planes, occupying hundreds of hotel rooms, as well as a personal, portable gym.  The entourage includes journalists from the state-controlled media who can then report back to the population how well their leader is being received.  MBS's position inside Saudi Arabia was already considered secure even before this trip - there are no other serious contenders for the throne. But being warmly embraced in important Asian countries plays well to a Saudi audience and helps dispel the notion of him being a pariah in the wake of the Khashoggi murder.  America though, will be a tougher nut to crack. It is no coincidence that the newly appointed Saudi ambassador to Washington is a woman.  Princess Reema bint Bandar Al Saud is a successful businesswoman in her own right. She has also championed a greater role for Saudi women in society.  But she will have to contend with a highly critical Congress, and US media that have reported extensively on the shortcomings in Saudi Arabia's human rights record.  Her predecessor in the post, Prince Khalid bin Salman Al Saud, departed Washington in a hurry after the Khashoggi affair. He has been accused of complicity in the journalist's murder, which he denies, and was told not to return without a clear explanation of what happened.  So where does all this leave Europe? In short, in a quandary.  Saudi Arabia is Britain's biggest Middle East trading partner with up to 50,000 British jobs dependant on it.  With its enormous oil wealth, the desert kingdom is a massive market for exporters and - controversially - a major buyer of British weaponry, something the opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn has promised to end.  Relations with Britain and France are cooler, but neither has taken significant measures against Riyadh. Germany, however, has reacted to the Khashoggi killing with a freeze on arms exports, something that now threatens to disrupt the UK-Saudi defence relationship since parts of the Typhoon fighter jet are produced in Germany.  Saudi Arabia's message to the West appears to be twofold. By drawing closer to big, important nations in Asia, it says: "We do have other friends around the world and they're happy to do business with us." By sending a young female ambassador to Washington, it says: "We know we have ground to make up so we are happy to listen to what you have to say."  What matters to Saudi Arabia's critics though, is whether any of this will make any difference to the way in which all political dissent has been suppressed at home, something that continues to embarrass those Western governments doing business with Riyadh.


breitbart--2019-10-18--Venezuela Returns to Human Rights Council Month After U.N. Condemned Maduro

The rogue socialist regime of Venezuela won a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday, a month after the same council published a scathing report accusing dictator Nicolás Maduro of gross human rights abuses.  Maduro is not the legitimate president of Venezuela; as per the Hugo Chávez-ratified constitution, the National Assembly removed Maduro as legitimate head of state in January, replacing him with current interim President Juan Guaidó. The United Nations has refused to recognize the laws of Venezuela and accept Guaidó’s representatives, opting to legitimize the Maduro regime, instead.  Venezuela previously served on the Human Rights Council from 2013-2018. It will replace its colonizing authority, the Castro regime in Cuba, on the Council in 2020.  Joining Venezuela at the Human Rights Council table will be Indonesia, where the government has failed to curb radical Islamic mobs; Libya and Mauritania, home to booming slave trades; and serial human rights violator Sudan.” The African countries won their seats uncontested.  Venezuela was about to win its seat uncontested until Costa Rica, in an attempt to keep Venezuela off the council, threw its hat in the ring at the last minute. It was not enough, however, to block the council from voting Venezuela back into the fold, giving the Maduro regime a platform to defend its grievous human rights crimes.  The new states will be replacing, among others, some of the most prolific human rights violators in the world, including China, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. They will be joining fellow crisis-stricken states Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Cameroon.  Maduro loudly celebrated the return of Venezuela to the Council on Twitter.  “Victory at the U.N.! With 105 votes in favor, Venezuela enters as a free and sovereign country that Human Rights Council of the United Nations,” Maduro wrote. “Above all the threats, our Bolivarian Peace Diplomacy and the free determination of peoples has triumphed. Long live the motherland!”  The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which operates in tandem with the Human Rights Council, published an extensive report in September accusing Maduro of human rights atrocities, a report that appears not to have convinced the Council members who voted for Venezuela to have a stake in global human rights.  “OHCHR’s findings detailed in this report point to an increasingly critical human rights situation since the protests began, with mounting levels of repression of political dissent by national security forces, and increasing stigmatization and persecution of people perceived as opposing the Government of President Maduro,” the report read. “Patterns of ill-treatment, in some cases amounting to torture, and serious violations of due process rights of persons detained in connection with the protests by Venezuelan authorities were also documented.”  Former political prisoners in Venezuela have offered harrowing testimonies of their time in Maduro’s torture centers. Lorent Saleh, a former student democracy leader released in 2018, said in media interviews that he saw Maduro henchmen “crucifying” prisoners and often abused the prisoners psychologically by first urging them to assault each other, then torturing the ones who obeyed. Wuilly Arteaga, a violinist arrested for playing the Venezuelan national anthem at anti-socialist protests, said soldiers detained him in an armored vehicle and forced him to watch them rape a female protester.  A recent NGO study revealed that the Venezuelan regime violently killed 1,500 children in 2018, most for attending protests, but some for being in the vicinity of protests and being mistaken for dissidents.  The United States, which withdrew from the Human Rights Council in disgust last year, soundly condemned Venezuela’s return to the human rights body.  “That one of the world’s worst human-rights abusers would be granted a seat on a body that is supposed to defend human rights is utterly appalling,” Kelly Craft, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said. “The people of Venezuela should rest assured that Maduro cannot hide behind the cloak of an illegitimate body like the Human Rights Council.”  Secretary of State Mike Pompeo similarly noted the U.N. OHCHR itself made the case for keeping Venezuela off of the council.  “It is sadly no surprise that Maduro shamelessly sought a seat on the UN Human Rights Council in an effort to block any limit to his repressive control of the Venezuelan people,” Pompeo said in a statement. “What is truly tragic, however, is that other nations voted to give Maduro’s representative for Venezuela a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This is a harsh blow not just against the victims of the Venezuelan regime, but also against the cause of human rights around the world.”   Pompeo accused the council of “shameless hypocrisy” in accepting Venezuela among its members, which “includes authoritarian governments with unambiguous and abhorrent human rights records, such as China, Cuba, and Venezuela.”  U.N. Watch, an organization that documents the United Nations’ corruption and defense of human rights abuses, launched a petition Thursday to expel Venezuela from the council, noting that new member Libya was expelled in 2011, amid the coup against dictator Muammar Qaddafi.  “Venezuela’s Maduro regime has committed extrajudicial killings, torture, the jailing of political prisoners, acts to restrict freedom of expression and freedom of the press and political participation, violent suppression of peaceful demonstrations, and that it grants impunity for human rights abuses by state agents,” U.N. Watch noted.


breitbart--2019-11-07--Report: Shutterstock Employees Fight Company's Decision to Censor Images for Chinese Government

The stock image hosting website Shutterstock is reportedly coming under fire from employees who are angered by the company’s decision to willingly support communist China’s censorship by blocking searches that could offend the country’s government, such as blocking people from mainland China searching for “Taiwan flag.”  The Intercept reports that the stock image hosting website Shutterstock is facing backlash from employees angered by the company’s decision to willingly support China’s censorship practices and block searches that could offend the country’s communist government.  Shutterstock hosts a vast catalog of images, the rights to which can be purchased for public use and has turned itself into a firm generating $639 million-per-year and operating in more than 150 countries. But, in September, Shutterstock engineers were told to begin developing a search blacklist to wipe images associated with keywords forbidden by the Chinese government from query results.  The new system reportedly went into effect last month and automatically blacklists the following terms from being displayed to anyone with a mainland Chinese IP address: “President Xi,” “Chairman Mao,” “Taiwan flag,” “dictator,” “yellow umbrella,” or “Chinese flag.” Any use of these words or variations of these terms will return no results.  Shutterstock’s relationship with China dates back to 2014 when the firm struck a distribution deal with ZCool, a Chinese social network and portfolio website for artists. Shutterstock announced a $15 million investment in Zcool last year and noted that due to the partnerthsip: “Shutterstock’s content now powers large technology platforms in China such as Tencent Social Ads.”  Shutterstock employee discussed the situation with The Intercept stating: “Yes, we’re a creative photo and video marketplace, but we are also an editorial news hub. Want to write a story about the protests in Hong Kong? They never existed. Want to write about Taiwan? It never existed. Xi Jinping is NOT a dictator because he specifically said so. This is dark shit.”  Shutterstock employees have drafted a petition to end the censorship which can be seen below:  We, the undersigned employees of Shutterstock, are calling upon the company to reject the demands of the Chinese government to suppress search results for politically sensitive topics for site users in China. While complying would allow the company to benefit from continued operation in China, we believe that any censorship would set a harmful precedent and have deleterious effects on our company, China and the world. By complying, we are enabling injustices, including the discrimination of the people of Hong Kong, the suppression of Chinese political dissent, and undermining the sovereignty of Taiwanese people. This first step of building search filters lays open the door to more types of discrimination in the future. We are proud of Shutterstock’s history of taking a stand on important topics like net neutrality, immigration policies, and antisemitism, among others. We recognize that the issue before us today has the potential to impact our revenue and growth in a way these other issues may not, and therefore by meeting the Chinese government’s demands, we would send the message that our commitment to our values is secondary to our commitment to our bottom line. That’s not who we are. Our opposition to content filtering is not just about China: we object to technologies that aid the powerful in oppressing the vulnerable, wherever they may be. Shutterstock’s own employees come from all over the world – many having experienced government oppression firsthand – and in taking on this project, we are letting them down. As such, we demand Shutterstock call an end to this project. Shutterstock is capable of being a leader for change. As employees and shareholders, we deserve to know what we’re building and we deserve a say in these significant decisions.”  Shutter CEO Jon Oringer responded to the situation in a letter stating:  On behalf of the Leadership Team, I want to provide an update to all employees about an important discussion going on in our Company regarding Shutterstock doing business in China. Some employees have expressed concern with the Company’s position, and we want to take this opportunity to clearly communicate that position to everyone. For context, since 2014, Shutterstock has been working with ZCool, a creative social network and artist platform in China, to distribute Shutterstock content to millions of people in the country. We also license directly to customers in China through our e-commerce site. The Chinese government has effectively mandated that — if we want to maintain a level of business in China — we must abide by local laws governing the distribution of certain content in mainland China. Based on available information, we have determined that certain search terms will not return image or footage results to customers in that region. We understand that some of our employees feel strongly about filtering content, particularly content that could be considered politically sensitive. A petition has been circulated asking the Company to refuse to comply with local requirements in China in order to do business there. First we want to say — we hear you. We respect your position and your passion, and want to thank you for sharing your views in a thoughtful and constructive way. We are pleased to see open discussion and debate on this topic. There can be no question that we support the ability of our employees to freely express their views on issues important to them. And we truly understand the concern. We want to assure you that we do not make business decisions lightly. Our decision to make our website available in China, like elsewhere in the world, is based on careful evaluation of all factors in order to provide maximum value across our networks — from employees to shareholders, customers to contributors, vendors to partners. At the end of the day, what does our brand stand for? We want to provide access to our content to everyone, everywhere. It is our mission to empower creativity and storytellers around the globe. We are also bound to local laws and therefore face a choice. Do we make the majority of our content available to China’s 1.3 billion citizens or do we take away their ability to access it entirely? We ultimately believe, consistent with our brand promise, it is more valuable for storytellers to have access to our collection to creatively and impactfully tell their stories. That is much more empowering and will better serve the people of China than the alternative. Additionally, we believe you are also asking for something more from our Company, which is to use our voice to make the world a better place, and we are doing that regularly. We are contributing to our global community through our involvement in a number of public policy and community initiatives that will not only make Shutterstock a stronger company, but will strengthen our communities, protect our employees, and deliver on our fundamental values. To drive more attention to these initiatives, we have created a page on The Lens where you can learn more about how to get involved in these initiatives, and also provide your feedback on other policy matters that are important for our business and our networks. We hope this message clarifies our position. We understand this is a difficult topic and perhaps we are not always going to agree on some issues — and that’s okay. As long as we continue to communicate openly and honestly with each other, we will advance our common goal of empowering creativity and helping professionals from all backgrounds and businesses of all sizes produce their best work with incredible content and innovative tools.  Read more at the Intercept here.  Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or email him at lnolan@breitbart.com


breitbart--2019-12-12--Thailand Launches ‘Anti Fake News Center' to Crack Down on Critics

Thailand’s new “Anti Fake News Center” concluded its first month of operations this week, to catcalls from critics who found its work product shoddy and primarily focused on suppressing criticism of the government.  Human Rights Watch researcher Sunai Phasuk bluntly compared it to the “Ministry of Truth” in George Orwell’s dystopian classic 1984.  Phasuk described operations like the Anti Fake News Center as “a hallmark of authoritarian regimes” and an effort to intimidate the Thai people by reminding them the state can “look into everything and everyone online and monitor their comments.”  Phasuk, a persistent critic of both the Thai military junta – whose idea of “transitioning to civilian rule” involved installing the leader of the junta as the “civilian ruler” with elections in May – and the rise of “fake news” laws across Asia, was quoted by Coconuts Bangkok in a review that trounced the Thai Anti Fake News Center as a ramshackle operation with a crude website, loads of cut-and-paste articles about non-political health and consumer products issues, and a few bits of original reporting on political issues that tend to strongly favor the government. Amusingly, calls to the Center’s posted hotline numbers occasionally connect to anonymous bureaucrats who did not realize they were listed as contacts on the website.  According to the representatives who did know they were working for the Anti Fake News Center, the center gets over 9,000 tips about fake news each day, discards over 90 percent of them as unworthy of investigation, and then ostensibly coordinates with other agencies of the Thai government to verify the accuracy of online posts.  “The website is rudimentary and built on WordPress. It uses a ‘theme’ that only displays the nine most-recent entries in each category, meaning all the posts meant to inform the public are quickly lost in time, like tears in rain,” Coconuts Bangkok remarked, satirically quoting from Blade Runner to maintain the dystopian flavor of the article.  When the Anti Fake News Center was launched in November, it was presented as a high-tech “war room” with dozens of technicians hunting down dubious websites and monitoring social media. Everyone involved claimed it would not be used to suppress political dissent, although they acknowledged it would carefully review news about government policies that affected “peace and order, good morals, and national security.”  The Thai operation does seem to have debunked a few urban legends and online rumors during its month of operation, but much of its energy is devoted to signaling that “fake news” about the government will not be tolerated. No one has been prosecuted as a result of the center’s operations yet, although the minister in charge of the operation keeps making ominous statements that the situation could change.  “Fake News” laws are often criticized for subjective enforcement and vague standards of what constitutes actionable falsehood. Phasuk warned before the Thai operation was launched that it was “likely to be a tool for censorship” because the junta “has focused exclusively on clamping down and punishing critics and dissidents even for comments made in good faith,” while largely ignoring “misinformation and online hate campaigns targeting pro-democracy activists and human rights defenders.”  Voice of America News in October quoted analysts who noted Southeast Asia has some legitimate reasons to worry about false news reports and online propaganda touching off deadly violence between ethnic and religious groups, but also noted its governments are keenly interested in controlling political dissent and keeping their societies sealed away from “foreign influence.”


cbsnews--2019-07-24--Push to grant protected status to Venezuelans fails in House

A last-ditch bipartisan effort to grant undocumented Venezuelans temporary legal status died in the House on Tuesday after it failed to garner enough votes from Republicans, who were wary of creating a new version of an immigration initiative President Trump and hardliners in the administration have sought to wind down.  The legislation — introduced by Florida Reps. Darren Soto, a Democrat, and Mario Díaz-Balart, a Republican — would allow Venezuelans living in the U.S. who have fled the country's repressive government and collapsing economy to qualify for a new Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program.  The bill's supporters pushed to suspend the rules of House and pass the bill before lawmakers left for their August recess. The maneuver, usually reserved for non-controversial bills, required the support of two-thirds of the House, meaning at least 55 Republicans would have needed to break ranks and vote for the measure. The move failed after only 37 Republican lawmakers joined the 230 Democrats voting in favor.  "House Republican leadership voted no and brought a lot of their votes with them," Soto told CBS News.  The Florida Democrat suggested that many of the House Republicans who have joined the president in harshly criticizing the leftist government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and its management of the crisis-stricken country are not matching their tough rhetoric with actions to help people who have fled the situation in Venezuela.  "It's definitely inconsistent and the voters will determine whether it's hypocritical," Soto said.  Soto called on House leadership to bring the measure to the floor for an up-or-down vote before Congress leaves town. He noted that regardless of whether another vote takes place this week or in September, the amount of Republican support in the House will be key to put pressure on the GOP-led Senate and ultimately, the White House.  Although the administration has touted its tough stance against Maduro's government — and used the country's economic collapse as a way to denounce the pitfalls of socialist governance — it has not supported efforts to grant temporary protected status to Venezuelans living in the U.S.  This week, the State Department's special representative to Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, told U.S. government-funded Voice of America that there were no current plans for a TPS designation for Venezuela. Citing court decisions blocking the administration from ending TPS programs for several countries in Latin America and Africa, the envoy suggested the administration is wary of making a new designation that it will not be able to end in the future.  For months, the Trump administration has staged a concerted campaign to support the bid of National Assembly President Juan Guaidó to oust Maduro. In addition to being the first government to recognize Guaidó as Venezuela's legitimate interim president in late January, the administration has issued sanctions against top officials in the Maduro government and the largest state-owned oil company in the country.  Despite these efforts — and the backing of dozens of governments, particularly in Latin America — Guaidó has failed to convince the Venezuelan military to join him in mounting a significant challenge to Maduro's government, which still enjoys some support in Venezuela, especially in poorer neighborhoods. In late April, Guaidó and his allies tried to organize an uprising, but failed to prompt any major defections among the country's sprawling military structure.  The prolonged political and economic crisis in Venezuela — once considered one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America — has driven more than 4 million people to flee to neighboring South American nations like Colombia and Peru. Some have also arrived in the U.S.  Most have fled because of the country's skyrocketing inflation and its widespread food and medicine shortages. Others have accused Maduro's government of persecuting them for engaging in political dissent. Earlier this month, the United Nations released a withering report in which it detailed thousands of extrajudicial killings as part of an effort by Maduro's administration aimed at "neutralizing, repressing and criminalizing political opponents and people critical of the government."


cnn--2019-07-01--Analysis Trumps North Korean gambit is already a political win

Analysis: Trump's North Korean gambit is already a political win

Washington (CNN) Donald Trump's walk into North Korea can best be explained through the lens of the 2020 election.  If history is to remember one of the most audacious photo ops in American diplomacy as anything more than a stunt, the President must now produce breakthroughs from his friendship with the brutal dictator Kim Jong Un.  Yet even if that progress is slow to emerge, Trump can still chalk up a valuable political win that will underscore how his foreign policy is often directed by his electoral priorities.  He can use his singular televised moment to bolster his claims to be a statesman and a peacemaker. And it's not just about winning the Nobel Prize that the President believes he deserves for forging an opening with one of the most despotic regimes in modern history.  Trump also has a vital political interest in keeping alive the idea that he personally headed off war with North Korea and that historic progress is possible as he runs for reelection  A spokesman for Democratic front-runner Joe Biden accused Trump of "coddling" dictators at the "expense of American national security."  Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted that Trump should take North Korea's nuclear threat and its "crimes against humanity seriously."  But politics is often shaped more by perception than reality. And the North Korean summit is an example of how Trump can use the office of the presidency to his own benefit ahead of 2020.  He has every incentive to keep on engaging Kim perhaps even with an election year visit to the White House, even if the North Koreans refuse to give up their nuclear program.  And Trump, by becoming the first sitting President to step into North Korea, also outdid his predecessors, some of whom simply climbed atop the border wall and peered over the other side into the isolated state.  The stunning imagery that unfolded at the demilitarized zone between the rival Koreas -- the world's last Cold War border -- will shortly be making its way into Trump campaign ads.  On that score alone, it's mission accomplished.  But even the President acknowledges that without a significant follow up, his encounter with Kim will not realize its promise.  "This was a very legendary, very historic day," Trump told reporters after meeting Kim. But he added: "It'll be even more historic if something comes out of it."  For all his effusive praise of his own initiative and his odd friendship with Kim, Trump cannot point to fundamental changes in North Korean behavior that are at the root of the standoff.  Though it has suspended nuclear and long-range missile tests, US intelligence and analysts believe that the North is still manufacturing the materials needed to add to its already considerable nuclear arsenal.  "It is positive, certainly that after four months of little to no contact between North Korea and the Americans that they are in touch again," said Jean Lee, director of the Center for Korean History and Public Policy at the Wilson Center.  "I don't know — this is a risky move," Lee said on CNN.  Critics of Trump's approach argue that he has already ceded huge propaganda concessions to Kim by agreeing to repeated meetings without securing even an inventory of North Korean weapons that will be the first step to a genuine diplomatic process.  They believe that Kim is merely exploiting the President's vanity and desperation for personal political successes to win international acceptance.  Trump has certainly legitimized a man who presides over a horrific regime that maintains concentration camps, crushes individual freedoms, exists in a cult of personality and sometimes executes his opponents.  But no other President in recent years has managed to make irreversible progress toward eliminating North Korea's nuclear program.  It would also expose the Trump White House to accusations of hypocrisy, since the President pulled out of a similar deal with Iran negotiated by the Obama administration. In a cycle of escalation that followed the President's withdrawal, Iran's state-run IRNA news outlet said Monday that Tehran's stockpiles of low enriched uranium now exceeded the 300 kilogram limit set by the deal.  There is an argument that Trump's radically different approach is worth a try even if there is no indication yet that Kim is sincere about handing over weapons which are the ultimate guarantee of his regime's capacity to stay in power.  Foreign policy traditionalists argue that meetings with Kim should be the last step on the diplomatic process — to formally endorse an agreement, not the first step.  As it stands, Kim and Trump agreed to task lower level officials to reopen talks that have yet to progress despite the previous summits.  North Koreans are notoriously formidable negotiating partners who typically push for US concessions to get an agreement while balking at or cheating on their own commitments.  The President argues that his decision to meet a leader from a state that has been technically in a state of war with the US for nearly 70 years is in itself a breakthrough.  "This is, I think, really ... this is a historic moment, the fact that we're meeting," Trump told Kim on Sunday.  There was a danger that after the failed Hanoi summit, Washington and Pyongyang could return to open confrontation and that the risk of war would again increase.  So there are benefits to a personal connection between Trump and Kim, however distasteful it may appear.  How the 2020 election could offer an opening in talks  But symbolism does not mask the lack of real progress.  In fact, the American side still does not have a good fix on whether Kim really is serious in giving up his nuclear weapons — or is simply trawling for concessions from the US.  The North Koreans had similar steps in earlier diplomatic dances with US Presidents and not ultimately gone on to verifiably halt their nuclear programs.  But this time, the political calendar and Trump's approach could give grounds for optimism.  Kim, who has presided over a limited form of economic development inside North Korea, is under pressure to deliver improvements in the lives of his people — even if he has no intention of loosening his iron grip on political dissent.  So he has an incentive to try to seek economic benefits or aid from the United States and wants punishing economic sanctions lifted — a potential opening for US negotiators.  The North Koreans have also proven themselves to be shrewd students of US politics.  Kim must realize that his chances of basking in this kind of legitimacy with a US President other than Trump are slim.  So if he fears Trump could lose in 2020, he may reason the time may be ripe for a deal. And Trump wants nothing more than a big diplomatic breakthrough months before the election.


cnsnews--2019-02-14--Rep Engel Venezuela is Not a Socialist Country Rep McCaul Crisis Highlights the Horrifying I

Rep. Engel: ‘Venezuela is Not a Socialist Country’; Rep. McCaul: Crisis ‘Highlights the Horrifying Impact of Socialism’

(CNSNews.com) – House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday dismissed as “a good soundbite” the notion that the crisis in Venezuela is evidence of the failure of socialism, arguing that Venezuela under Nicolas Maduro is not a socialist state but a “kleptocracy.”  Ranking member Rep Michael McCaul (R-Texas) appeared to differ. While the crisis went beyond ideology alone, he said, it “highlights the horrifying impact of socialism.”  “Those who continue to preach [socialism] or show sympathy do not understand its history and the abject suffering it has caused,” McCaul said.  Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), like his chairman, rejected the argument that socialism is to blame, pointing to policies pursued by liberal democracies in northern Europe.  Chairing a hearing entitled “Venezuela at the crossroads,” Engel began by describing the crisis as “entirely man-made,” saying Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez had turned what was once one of the most prosperous countries in the Western hemisphere “off the edge of a cliff.”  “The blame lies squarely with the crooked officials who have repressed the Venezuelan people for years – doing everything from throwing political opponents in jail to rigging elections to gunning down protestors in the street,” he said.  “Now some consider it a good soundbite to say that Venezuela represents the failure of socialism,” Engel said. “But we should be honest that Venezuela is not a socialist country; it’s a kleptocracy – a kleptocracy. It’s a cruel and oppressive regime, pocketing every dollar it can even if it means that the country’s people are literally starving to death.”  Minutes later, McCaul made clear his views, describing the regime in Caracas several times as a “socialist dictatorship.”  “When Nicolas Maduro was handpicked by Hugo Chavez in 2013 it was clear that he would follow in his socialist dictatorship footsteps,” McCaul said. “Since that time Maduro’s policies, rampant corruption and violent crackdowns on peaceful, political dissent have turned Venezuela into a failed state.”  McCaul cited soaring hyperinflation, food and medicine shortages, and U.N. estimates that up to three million Venezuelans have fled the country since 2014.  “The current crisis highlights the horrifying impact of socialism,” he said. “Those who continue to preach or show sympathy do not understand its history and the abject suffering it has caused.”  McCaul conceded that “the suffering of the Venezuelan people at the hands of the Maduro regime was not caused only by its ideology,” characterizing the regime as a narco-trafficking-linked “mafia state backed by U.S. adversaries like Cuba, Russia, China and Iran.”  Later in the hearing, Sherman returned to the socialism theme.  “There’s talk here of Venezuela being a socialist country,” he said. “I would say that various governments in Scandinavia have adopted policies of democratic socialism, and I don’t think that there’s anyone in this room who would call the Maduro regime democratic socialist.”  In his State of the Union address last week, President Trump said Maduro’s “socialist policies have turned that nation from being the wealthiest in South America into a state of abject poverty and despair.”  “Here in the United States, we are alarmed by the new calls to adopt socialism in our country,” he said. “Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.”  The Democratic Socialists of America last November secured its first two members of the U.S. Congress – Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)  Fellow freshmen Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) – a member of Engel’s committee who used her time in Wednesday’s hearing to launch a combative exchange with U.S. special representative for Venezuela Elliott Abrams – claims not to be a socialist.  Asked by a left-wing news program last week whether she considers herself to be a democratic socialist, she replied, “I consider myself a Democrat.”  Last month, Omar characterized the Trump administration’s recognition of Venezuela’s National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó as interim president as “a U.S.-backed coup,” and then called U.S. sanctions on Venezuela’s oil sector “nothing more than economic sabotage designed to force regime change.”


cnsnews--2019-08-23--Brent Bozell Jay-Z Sells Out for the NFL

Brent Bozell: Jay-Z Sells Out for the NFL?

On the verge of a new season, the NFL is trying a new corporate self-defense crouch. Its goal is to counteract criticism from the left that the NFL is insensitive to the Black Lives Matter crowd that urged NFL stars to kneel in disrespect of the national anthem.      Those protests, which dramatically drove down NFL ratings and game attendance, came to a stop only when President Donald Trump called out the millionaire ingrates.  NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell held a press event with gangsta rapper/mogul Jay-Z and announced Jay-Z's company Roc Nation will take the lead in selecting the NFL's live entertainment programming and advise on its "social justice" initiatives.  Jay-Z, also known by his birth name, Shawn Carter, once backed Colin Kaepernick's crusade but now proclaims it's yesterday's news. "I think we're past kneeling," Jay-Z said.  It wasn't hard to predict that the nation's enlightened — or, to use that obnoxious word, "woke" — sports writers were going to erupt volcanically over this deal. Jemele Hill, the sidelined ESPN lecturer, summed it up for The Atlantic: "Jay-Z has given the NFL exactly what it wanted: guilt-free access to black audiences, culture, entertainers, and influencers."  Guilt is crucial for racial ambulance chasers. The man whose net worth tops the $1 billion mark by virtue of bad-boy anthems like "Big Pimpin'" is now the NFL's Uncle Tom, selling his soul at the company store, working for the Man. This is fun to watch.  Our favorite leftist tantrum came from Hemal Jhaveri of USA Today under the headline "Jay-Z's partnership with the NFL is just another reminder that capitalism always wins." Wait a minute ... Jhaveri wrote this for USA Today, which is about as entrenched as a capitalist company and media power could be. Does that make her a toady?  Jhaveri didn't protest that evil capitalists subverted social consciousness when Nike signed Kaepernick to a deal worth tens of millions of dollars to hush talk of its Asian labor practices. But this was unpardonable. "While Jay-Z's intentions may be good, this is about acknowledging the limits of how much progressive movements can achieve when they align themselves with entrenched systems of power."  Memo to Jhaveri: There's a reason Woodstock 2 was canceled. The '60s are over.  The lecture continued: "Free market capitalism works in many ways to control political dissent, but one of its most insidious forms is by making protest, the kind that requires real, significant sacrifice, into something that is not only unnecessary but feels beside the point."  Capitalism is "controlling" dissent in the NFL's case by bending over backward to pander to the "social justice" crowd ... off the field. Football fans hate having the game ruined with political sideshows. And ESPN discovered fans don't want socialist sermonizing as a badgering interruption of their sports highlights.  But the left never wants to leave the game of football alone. Athletes lecturing in press conferences or on cable TV isn't enough. They want to get in America's face and spur outrage on Sunday afternoon. They want to divide — and conquer. But they didn't. The Kaepernick side has been trounced, and they can't (and won't) acknowledge that the war is over, just like some leftists will never acknowledge that the fight over the Redskins' name is over.  This all makes sense. The left demands we have a never-ending "conversation" about how everything that's ever caused America to succeed in the world is based on racist power structures. They can't stand the idea of listening to a rebuttal from the other side.  L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org.


crooksandliars--2019-03-21--Free Speech Champion Hannity Promotes Devin Nunes Speech-Squelching Lawsuit

'Free Speech Champion' Hannity Promotes Devin Nunes' Speech-Squelching Lawsuit

Sean Hannity had another attack of amnesia Monday night as he “forgot” how much he hates the squelching of free speech and provided Trumper Devin Nunes with a friendly venue to promote his multimillion-dollar lawsuit against Twitter and some tweeters who have said mean things about him.  It’s easy to laugh about Nunes’ suit – and, indeed, it should be a joke that Nunes has such thin skin he is suing an account called Devin Nunes’ Cow because it tweeted comments such as, “Devin’s boots are full of manure. He’s udder-ly worthless and its pasture time to move him to prison.”  But what Nunes is up to is not at all funny. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake noted that the suit may very well be “just about exacting financial pain on outspoken opponents and making Twitter and others who would dare to run afoul of Nunes think twice.” If a parody account can be sued for $250 million, “then what about someone using their own voice and identity to attack Nunes or other Republicans?” In other words, a chilling effect to go with the actual squelching.  “The legal merits of the case appear highly questionable at best,” Blake pointed out, but its “potential impact, not so much legally as from personal behavioral standpoint, shouldn’t be so casually dismissed.”  But there could be legal consequences, too. The Post’s Deanna Paul wrote that Nunes may well be teeing up a legal change to U.S. libel laws, something that Donald Trump has longed for.  Yet Nunes had the unmitigated gall to go on Hannity and pretend that his suit is designed to protect the First Amendment - even as he threatened more such suits to come: “This is the first of many,” Nunes said. “We’re actually going after Twitter first,” he added, suggesting that anyone who disses him anywhere is a potential target.  “We have to hold all of these people accountable, because if we don't, our First Amendment rights are at stake here,” Nunes said with a straight face. Meaning, apparently, his widdle feewings might be too sensitive to speak if people are allowed to continue to criticize him. He also pretended to be acting in service to Americans of all political persuasions: “This is more than just conservatives. Every American should care about this if they care about the First Amendment.”  Nunes was right about that, but not at all in the way he meant.  Nunes’ suit also claims that Twitter has “shadow banned” him. “The fact of the matter is people could not see my tweets. … If you get emails from Twitter, it's constantly left-wing stuff, it's constantly fake news stuff.” Apparently, Nunes has never seen the right-wing attacks I get regularly.  But before the discussion was over, Nunes made it clear that his real goal is to stifle criticism of his attempts to sabotage the Russia investigation.  Hannity, the guy who likes to posture as some big defender of free speech, didn’t seem to have a problem with anything Nunes said. Sure, Hannity expressed a wee bit of skepticism early on, saying to Nunes, “You do have a high bar. We all need that, because if you are a public figure, you need actual malice and what's known as a reckless disregard for the truth, or else I would sue people every hour of every day.”  But Hannity would probably rather die than fail to support another Trump foot soldier. He closed the discussion by giving Nunes a stamp of approval: “Wow! We're going to follow this very closely. I think there is a - there's a lot to this story. A lot more than maybe meet the eye on its surface.”  Watch Nunes threaten the right to political dissent below, from the March 19, 2019 Hannity. Sadly, the Twitter account for Devin Nunes’ Mom seems to have been suspended. But Devin Nunes’ Cow is still going strong and has surpassed the number of followers Nunes has.  (Transcript excerpts via Fox News)   Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/hannity_helps_nunes_promote_speech_quelching_la...


crooksandliars--2019-04-06--Trump Isnt The First President To Try And Close The Border

Trump Isn't The First President To Try And Close The Border

Just a week ago, President Donald Trump appeared poised to take the drastic step of closing the U.S.-Mexico border to both trade and travel. He said he wanted to stop the flood of Central American migrants entering the United States but also punish Mexico for failing to do so.  But on April 4, the president backpedaled and instead gave Mexico a year to stop the flow of drugs across the border. If that didn’t happen, he threatened, auto tariffs would be imposed – and the president suggested he might still close the border if that didn’t work.  If Trump ever follows through on his threat and puts up a closed sign at the southern border, it wouldn’t be the first time. Twice in the last half-century the U.S. has tried to use the border to force Mexico to bend to America’s will. The ruse failed both times.  I studied these incidents while researching for a book on the origins of U.S. drug control policies and militarized policing techniques in Mexico from the 1960s to the 1990s. The history suggests that threats of border closure may be politically useful but are never a real answer to human tragedy.  In 1969, President Richard Nixon launched Operation Intercept in hopes of forcing Mexico to collaborate more fully with his administration’s policies to stop the flow of drugs – one of his campaign promises.  Although it technically wasn’t a full border closure, it required customs agents to search every car, truck and bus entering the United States. This caused long delays and a significant drop in economic activity in both countries. Border businesses and politicians begged Nixon to end Operation Intercept.  Meanwhile, Mexican leaders paid lip service to U.S. demands, based on my archival research. They highlighted the progress they had already made in their anti-drug operations and vowed to “continue with increasing intensity.”  Mexico even said it was willing to accept American anti-drug aid – such as aircraft and sophisticated weaponry – in order to help the Nixon administration fight its drug war.  In the end, however, nothing substantial changed. The border reopened after three weeks.  The incident did, however, teach Mexican leaders how to appease similar American demands in the future by using the right “war on drugs” rhetoric.  But in practice, drug control was never a top priority of the Mexican government. And Mexico even used American anti-drug policies to its own advantage. For example, in the 1970s, the country received U.S. financial aid to stem the flow of drugs. It used at least some of the money to suppress domestic political dissent instead.  The war on drugs also inspired President Ronald Reagan’s partial border closure in 1985. Aptly named Operation Intercept II, it suffered a similar fate.  The Mexican authorities were unable to find a kidnapped Drug Enforcement Administration agent, and the White House once again decided to use the border to force them into more vigorous action, closing nine checkpoints.  Ordinary Mexicans saw this border closure as yet another form of “Yankee imperialism.” They wondered how the disappearance of one agent could cause such an uproar when hundreds of Mexicans had been killed as a result of our “war on drugs.” The abducted agent was later found dead.  Although the border was reopened within a matter of days, once again, the shutdown severely hurt the border economy – as well as relations between the two countries.  Both versions of Operation Intercept were severely disruptive while failing to motivate any meaningful changes in Mexican policy on drug control, border security or anything else.  Put another way, they showed that it is effectively impossible to close the U.S.-Mexico border, or to severely restrict traffic, for any extended period of time. The economic, social and cultural interdependence of Mexico and the United States is too deep. And U.S. national security depends on strong relations with Mexico.  Trump’s warnings about an “invasion” of Hispanic rapists and gang members may appeal to his supporters. His threat to close the border may as well. But, as his advisers apparently pointed out to him, border closings do little more than damage economies and foster resentments. Immigration would dip but hardly stop.  Mexico and the United States are allies, not enemies. The way I see it, pushing Mexico and other nations to do America’s bidding on highly complex problems like drug control and migration simply produces more antagonism while failing to achieve the desired results.  This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


dailybeast--2019-11-15--Twitter Will Ban Politicians From Buying All Ads, In Stark Contrast With Facebook

Twitter’s announcement that it would end political advertising in late October signaled a strong departure from Facebook’s own hands-off approach to political ads—a position that delighted Republicans and had the political left again slamming the world’s biggest social network for its failure to take misinformation seriously.  Now, Twitter is breaking down the details of its sweeping ad-policy changes, a shift that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already declared will “degrade democracy” and deny Americans an “important tool” for political dissent.  On a call detailing the changes, which will kick in on Nov. 22, Twitter Legal, Policy and Trust & Safety Lead Vijaya Gadde explained that the new policy “addresses a lot of the risks that come with political advertising.”  “We’re moving really quickly here because we believe the timing is urgent,” Gadde said, citing upcoming elections and the risks posed by political misinformation.  Twitter’s new rules take a hard line, prohibiting the paid promotion of political content, which it defines broadly, across the board. The company will also no longer accept ads by government officials, political parties, candidates, social welfare organizations, and PACs or Super PACs, regardless of content. The platform defines political content as anything that “references a candidate, political party, elected or appointed government official, election, referendum, ballot measure, legislation, regulation, directive, or judicial outcome.”  “We have made this decision based on our belief that political message reach should be earned, not bought,” a Twitter rep stated in the announcement.  The platform’s issue-based ad policy—a historically gray area for social-media companies—will also see some key changes to limit microtargeting. Twitter will no longer allow issue-based ads that target zip codes and political affiliation, and it will also disable its tool that allows issue-based ads to reach “tailored audiences” as well.  Those changes are designed to address what Twitter VP of Trust & Safety Del Harvey calls “super siloed” conversations that arise when advertisers target hyper-specific audiences that might be more vulnerable to forms of misinformation.  Anyone who wants to run issue-based ads will need to go through an existing advertiser certification process, a tool that will allow the company to track advertisers and enforce its new rules.  In likely the murkiest zone of its new policy, Twitter will limit issue and cause-based ads that “drive political, judicial, legislative, or regulatory outcomes” but allow ads that encourage conversations that align with an advertiser’s “publicly stated values.” To prevent a loophole for political figures, Twitter will disallow issue-based ads that promote or reference anything that falls under its definition of political content, including candidates, legislation, and political parties. News publishers will still be allowed to run ads promoting their own “fact-based” political reporting—another major gray area—but political op-eds and endorsements won’t fly.  In a series of tweets first announcing the policy changes, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey pushed back against Mark Zuckeberg’s own characterization of political ads as a form of speech that deserves to be protected.  “This isn’t about free expression,” Dorsey said. “This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address.”  The company acknowledged that it will refine its policy changes over time to limit loopholes, adding that it plans to be “aggressive” in catching anyone who tries to game the system. Even with inevitable problems, Twitter’s reflective approach to political ads couldn’t be more different than Facebook’s declared “anything goes” strategy.  “We are absolutely going to make mistakes here,” Harvey said. “We believe it is far better for us to start trying to get this right… than have a solution from every potential way people will try to game this.”


dailybeast--2019-12-02--Here’s Why the Rejection Rate for Asylum Seekers Has Exploded in America’s Largest Immigration Court

Here’s Why the Rejection Rate for Asylum Seekers Has Exploded in America’s Largest Immigration Court in NYC

The rate of asylum petitions denied in New York City’s busy immigration court has shot up about 17 times times faster than in the rest of the country during the Trump administration’s crackdown—and still Ana was there, a round-faced Honduran woman with a black scarf wrapped turban-like over her hair, a look of fright crossing her dark eyes as the judge asked if she faced danger in her home country.  Her eyes darted over to her helper, a Manhattan lighting designer with New Sanctuary Coalition volunteers to offer moral support—she couldn’t find a lawyer to take her case for free. Then Ana turned back to the judge, or rather, to the video screen that beamed him in from Virginia, and whispered to the court interpreter in Spanish: “My spouse and my son were killed.” Tears welled in her eyes as she said a notorious transnational gang had carried out the slaying.  “Yes we were receiving threats from them,” she added. And that was why, months before her husband and son were slain, she and her 5-year-old daughter had come “through the river,” entering the United States near Piedras Negras, Mexico.  After ruling that she was deportable, the judge gave Ana—The Daily Beast is withholding her real name because of the danger she faces in Honduras—three months to submit a claim for asylum, a possible defense against her removal. “You should start working on that,” the judge told her. As she left the courtroom, Ana hugged the volunteer who’d accompanied her, Joan Racho-Jansen.  New York’s immigration court has long been the asylum capital; it has made two out of every five of the nation’s grants since 2001, while handling a quarter of the caseload. With approval of 55 percent of the petitions in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, it still grants a greater percentage of asylum requests than any other courts except San Francisco and Guam.  But New York’s golden door is slamming shut for far more asylum seekers than in the past, especially for women like Ana.  The asylum denial rate in the New York City immigration court rose from 15 percent in fiscal year 2016, the last full year of the Obama administration, to 44 percent in fiscal year 2019, which ended Sept. 30. The rest of the country, excluding New York, has been relatively stable, with denials going from 69 percent to 74 percent. That is, the rate of denials in the rest of the country increased by one-ninth, but in New York they almost trebled.  There are other courts where the rate of denials has shot up sharply over the same period: Newark, New Jersey (168 percent); Boston (147 percent); Philadelphia (118 percent). But because of the volume of its caseload, what’s happening in New York is driving the national trend against asylum. For now, in sheer numbers, New York judges still granted more asylum requests over the last year than those in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Arlington, Virginia, the next three largest courts, combined.  An analysis of federal data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University and interviews with former immigration judges, lawyers, immigrant advocates and experts finds multiple reasons for the sharp shift in the nation’s largest immigration court as compared to the rest of the country:  —Many more migrants are coming to the New York court from Mexico and the “Northern Triangle” of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, and the judges have been far more likely to deny them asylum than in the past: from two out of five cases in the 2016 fiscal year to four out of five cases in the 2019 fiscal year.  —Many veteran New York judges retired, and most of the replacements have a prosecutorial, military, or immigration enforcement background. In the past, appointments were more mixed between former prosecutors and immigrant defenders. Immigration judges are appointed by the U.S. attorney general and work for the Justice Department, not the federal court system.  —All the judges are under heavier pressure from their Justice Department superiors to process cases more quickly, which gives asylum applicants little time to gather witnesses and supporting documents such as police reports. New judges, who are on two years of probation, are under particular pressure because numerical “benchmarks” for completing cases are a critical factor in employee evaluations.  “You have a huge number of new hires in New York,” said Jeffrey Chase, a former New York immigration judge. “The new hires are mostly being chosen because they were former prosecutors. They’re normally of the background that this administration thinks will be statistically more likely to deny cases.”  Judge Jeffrey L. Menkin, who presided in Ana’s case via video hookup, began hearing cases in March. He is based in Falls Church, Virginia, the home of the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency that runs the immigration courts. He’d been a Justice Department lawyer since 1991, including the previous 12 years as senior counsel for national security for the Office of Immigration Litigation.  Menkin can see only a portion of his New York courtroom on his video feed and as a result, he didn’t realize a Daily Beast reporter was present to watch him conduct an asylum hearing for a Guatemalan woman—we’ll call her Gloria—and her three young children, who were not present.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement took Gloria into custody at the Mexican border in March. Released on bond, she made her way to New York and had an initial immigration court hearing on June 26, one of many cases on a crowded master calendar. She was scheduled for an individual hearing four months later.  At the hearing scheduled three months later on the merits of her case, she decided to present an asylum defense to deportation. Her lawyer asked for a continuance—that is, a new hearing date—while his client waited to receive documentation she’d already requested from Guatemala. The papers were on the way, Gloria said.  Judges in such cases—those that the Department of Homeland Security designates as “family unit”—have been directed to complete them within a year, which is about 15 months faster than the average case resolved for the year ending Sept. 30. Down the hall, other types of cases were being scheduled for 2023. Menkin called the lawyer’s unexpected request for a continuance “nonsense” and “malarkey” and asked: “Are you and your client taking this case seriously?”  The judge then asked if Gloria was requesting a case-closing “voluntary departure,” a return to her homeland that would leave open the option she could apply again to enter the United States.  But Gloria had no intention of going back to Guatemala voluntarily. So Menkin looked to the government’s lawyer: “DHS, do you want to jump into this cesspool?” The government lawyer objected to granting what would have been the first continuance in Gloria’s case.  And so Menkin refused to re-schedule, telling Gloria and her lawyer that they had to go ahead right then if they wanted to present an asylum defense. Gloria began testifying about threats and beatings that stretched back a decade, beginning after a failed romance with a man who was influential in local politics. Details are being withheld to protect her identity.  She finally fled, she said, when extortionists threatened to hurt her children if she didn’t make monthly payoffs that were beyond her means. When she observed that she and her children were being followed, she decided to leave. After she said she had gone to police three times, Menkin took over the questioning.  “Are you familiar with the contents of your own asylum application?” he asked, pointedly.  Menkin said her asylum application stated she had gone to police once, rather than three times, as she’d just testified. Gloria explained that she had called in the information for the application to an assistant in her lawyer’s office, and didn’t know why it was taken down wrong.  When her lawyer tried to explain, Menkin stopped him, raising his voice: “I did not ask you anything.”  Later, Menkin came back to the discrepancy he’d picked up on. “I don’t know why,” Gloria responded.  “All right, STOP,” Menkin told the woman, who cried through much of the two-hour hearing. Again, he sought to terminate the case, asking the DHS lawyer, “Do I have grounds to dismiss this now?”  “I’m trying to be fair,” she replied.  “We’re all trying to be fair,” Menkin said.  And to be fair, it should be noted that since October 2018, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has been evaluating judges’ performance based on the numbers for case completions, timeliness of decisions and the percent of rulings upheld on appeal. “In essence, immigration judges are in the untenable position of being both sworn to uphold judicial standards of impartiality and fairness while being subject to what appears to be politically-motivated performance standards,” according to an American Bar Association report that assailed what it said were unprecedented “production quotas” for judges.  The pressure is especially strong on judges who, like Menkin, are new hires. They are probationary employees for two years.  Denise Slavin, a former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges who retired from the bench in April after 24 years of service, said the judges’ union had tried to talk EOIR Director James McHenry out of his quotas. “It’s basically like the same problem with putting quotas on police officers for tickets,” she said. “It suggests bias and skews the system to a certain extent.” Told of the details of Gloria’s hearing, she added, “That’s a prime example of the pressure these quotas have on cases… the pressure to get it done right away.”  Kathryn Mattingly, spokeswoman for the Executive Office of Immigration Review, said by email that she couldn’t comment on individual cases, but that all cases are handled on their individual merits. “Each asylum case is unique, with its own set of facts, evidentiary factors, and circumstances,” she wrote. “Asylum cases typically include complex legal and factual issues.” She also said that Menkin could not comment: “Immigration judges do not give interviews.”  It’s true that each asylum case has its own complex factors. But a 2016 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office took many of them into account—the asylum seeker’s nationality, language, legal representation, detention status, number of dependents—and determined that there are big differences in how the same “representative applicant” will be treated from one court and one judge to another.  “We saw that grant rates varies very significantly across courts and also across judges,” said Rebecca Gambler, director of the GAO’s Homeland Security and Justice team.  Some experts say that changes in the way the Justice Department has told immigration judges to interpret the law may be having an outsize effect in New York.  Starting with Jeff Sessions, the Trump administration’s attorneys general have used their authority over immigration courts to narrow the judges’ discretion to grant asylum or, in their view, to clarify existing law.  Asylum can be granted to those facing persecution because of “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” In June 2018, Sessions overturned a precedent that many judges in New York had been using to find that victims of domestic assaults or gang violence could be members of a “particular social group,” especially when police were complicit or helpless. Justice’s ruling in the Matter of A-B-, a Salvadoran woman, seems to have had a particular impact in New York.  “Where there’s a question about a ‘particular social group,’ judges in other parts of the country may have taken a narrower view” already, said Lindsay Nash, a professor at Cardozo Law School in New York and co-director of the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic.  Mauricio Noroña, a clinical teaching fellow at the same clinic, said new judges would be especially careful to follow the lead in the attorney general’s ruling.  Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington and a former immigration judge in York, Pennsylvania, said Sessions’ decision in the Matter of A-B- would particularly affect Central American applicants, whose numbers have increased sharply in New York’s court. Data show that just 8.5 percent of the New York asylum cases were from Central America or Mexico in 2016; in the past year, 32.6 percent were.  Arthur said a larger portion of the New York court’s asylum rulings in the past were for Chinese immigrants, whose arguments for refuge—persecution because of political dissent, religious belief, or the one-child policy—are fairly straightforward under U.S. asylum law. Although the number of Chinese applicants is still increasing, they have fallen as a portion of the New York caseload from 60 percent in 2016 to 28 percent in the past year.  Sessions’ determination against A-B- is being challenged, and lawyers have been exploring other paths to asylum in the meantime. “It’s extremely complicated to prepare cases in this climate of changing law,” said Swapna Reddy, co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. But, she said, “That’s not to say advocates and judges can’t get back to that [higher] grant rate.”  Gloria continued to cry; the DHS lawyer asked that she be given a tissue. The government lawyer’s cross-examination was comparatively gentle, but she questioned why Gloria didn’t move elsewhere within Guatemala and seek police protection.  “He would find out before I even arrived at the police station,” she said of the man she feared. And, she added, “They’re always going to investigate and as for always being on the run, that’s no life for my kids.”  In closing arguments, Gloria’s lawyer said his client had testified credibly and that she legitimately feared her tormentor’s influence. The DHS lawyer did not question Gloria’s credibility, but she said Gloria’s problem was personal, not political—that she could have moved to parts of Guatemala that were beyond the reach of the man’s political influence.  Judge Menkin then declared a 20-minute recess so that he could compose his decision. In the interim, the lawyers discovered that a man sitting in one corner of the small courtroom was a reporter and, when the judge returned to the bench to rule, so informed him.  Immigration court hearings are generally open to the public. There are special rules for asylum cases, however. The court’s practice manual says they “are open to the public unless the respondent expressly requests that they be closed.”  “Oh, Jesus Christ!” Menkin shouted at the lawyers when he learned a reporter had been present for the hearing. “Don’t you people look around the room? What’s the matter with you?”  After the judge expressed his alarm, the reporter was ejected with Gloria’s tearful assent, and so the basis for Judge Menkin’s ruling on Gloria’s asylum petition is not known. The outcome is, though: denied, 30 days to appeal.


dailysignal--2019-12-09--Let’s Have Some Historical Perspective on Presidential Misconduct

Last week, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee trotted out a trio of dispassionate legal experts to explain why the impeachment of Donald Trump was justified. They were there to bring a veneer of gravitas and erudition to what’s been, until now, a highly partisan affair.  But however smart people such as Michael Gerhardt, distinguished professor of constitutional law at University of North Carolina, might be, they aren’t immune from peddling partisan absurdities. Once Gerhardt argued that Trump’s conduct was “worse than the misconduct of any prior president,” we no longer had any intellectual obligation to take him seriously on the topic.  Because, while I’m certainly not a distinguished professor, I am very confident that history began before 2016. Which means that, even if I concede Gerhardt’s framing of Trump’s actions—bribery, extortion, etc.—I can rattle off at least a dozen instances of presidential misconduct that are both morally and constitutionally “worse” than Trump’s blundering attempt to launch a self-serving Ukrainian investigation into his rival’s shady son.  Let’s ignore for a moment that American presidents have owned their fellow human beings, and focus instead on the fact that in 1942, the president of the United States signed an executive order that allowed him to unilaterally intern around 120,000 Americans citizens of Japanese descent.  Not only was the policy deliberately racist, it amounted to a full-bore attack on about half the Constitution that he had sworn to uphold. Such an attack was a specialty of FDR’s, despite the all the hagiographies written about his imperial presidency.  Woodrow Wilson—who regularly said things like, “a Negro’s place is in the corn field”—didn’t merely re-segregate the civil service, personally firing more than a dozen supervisors for the sin of being black; he first pushed for, and then oversaw the enactment of, the Sedition Act.  Wilson threw dissenters and political adversaries into prison, instructed the postmaster to refuse delivery of literature he deemed unpatriotic, and created an unconstitutional civilian police force that targeted Americans for political dissent.  So, all of what Wilson did was “worse.”  Sorry to say, but despite their great achievements, both John Adams and Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, the latter without any congressional approval. Surely, deep down, even those who act as if Russian social media ads can topple the republic believe that denying citizens their fundamental rights of due process is a more serious offense than Trump’s rhetoric and actions.  We can go on and on. Andrew Jackson ignored courts and laws and used his power to ethnically cleanse lands that he also sometimes happened to have a financial interest in.  Teddy Roosevelt threatened American citizens with military intervention and abused his power in one way or another every day of his presidency.  A reckless John Kennedy probably shared a mistress with a leading Chicago mobster, Sam Giancana, whom he met in the White House, setting himself up for blackmail or worse.  Richard Nixon may have lost his job after obstructing an investigation into freelance GOP spying on his political opponents, but Lyndon Johnson skipped any pretense, and just asked the FBI and CIA to spy for him. CIA officials, illegally operating inside the United States, spied on the Goldwater campaign in 1964 and brought Johnson information he used to undermine his opponents at every turn. That’s “worse.”  Johnson also lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, escalating the Vietnam War, and then kept lying about the war until he left office.  I won’t even bother to catalogue the instance of other presidents misleading the public—either though lies of commission or lies of omission—in their efforts to precipitate or extend military conflicts, costing thousands of American lives. All of this misconduct is in every conceivable way “worse” than Trump’s actions.  Bill Clinton couldn’t go a month without some shady and humiliating scandal.  Now, maybe, Gerhardt doesn’t view incidents that weren’t investigated, prosecuted, or contemporaneously illegal as “misconduct.” That would be unfortunate. But even if so, referring to Trump’s actions as “worse than the misconduct of any prior president” would be terminally ahistorical.  Of course, to argue, “Sure, he’s bad, but hey, there were worse presidents than Donald Trump!” is a terrible defense. Indeed, it is no defense at all.  Impeachment should be decided on the facts of the case, and nothing else besides. But this isn’t a case in favor of Trump; it’s a plea for people to resist the compulsion to say insane things because they dislike this president. There is plenty to criticize without embracing hyperbole or losing all sense of historical perspective.


drudgereport--2019-02-03--1984 Big Brother Scenario

1984 Big Brother Scenario...

(Bloomberg) -- Yoshua Bengio, a Canadian computer scientist who helped pioneer the techniques underpinning much of the current excitement around artificial intelligence, is worried about China’s use of AI for surveillance and political control.  Bengio, who is also a co-founder of Montreal-based AI software company Element AI, said he was concerned about the technology he helped create being used for controlling people’s behavior and influencing their minds.  "This is the 1984 Big Brother scenario," he said in an interview. "I think it’s becoming more and more scary."  Bengio, a professor at the University of Montreal, is considered one of the three "godfathers" of deep learning, along with Yann LeCun and Geoff Hinton. It’s a technology that uses neural networks -- a kind of software loosely based on aspects of the human brain -- to make predictions based on data. It’s responsible for recent advances in facial recognition, natural language processing, translation, and recommendation algorithms.  Deep learning requires a large amount of data to provide examples from which to learn -- but China, with its vast population and system of state record-keeping, has a lot of that.  The Chinese government has begun using closed circuit video cameras and facial recognition to monitor what its citizens do in public, from jaywalking to engaging in political dissent. It’s also created a National Credit Information Sharing Platform, which is being used to blacklist rail and air passengers for "anti-social" behavior and is considering expanding uses of this system to other situations.  "The use of your face to track you should be highly regulated," Bengio said.  Bengio is not alone in his concern over China’s use-cases for AI. Billionaire George Soros recently used a speech at the World Economic Forum on Jan. 24, to highlight the risks the country’s use of AI poses to civil liberties and minority rights.  Unlike some peers, Bengio, who heads the Montreal Institute for Learning Algorithms (Mila), has resisted the temptation to work for a large, advertising-driven technology company. He said responsible development of AI may require some large technology companies to change the way they operate.  The amount of data large tech companies control is also a concern. He said the creation of data trusts -- non-profit entities or legal frameworks under which people own their data and allow it be used only for certain purposes -- might be one solution. If a trust held enough data, it could negotiate better terms with big tech companies that needed it, he said Thursday during a talk at Amnesty International U.K.’s office in London.  Bengio said there were many ways deep learning software could be used for good. In Thursday’s talk, he unveiled a project he’s working on that uses AI to create augmented reality images depicting what people’s individual homes or neighborhoods might look like as the result of natural disasters spawned by climate change.  But he said there was also a risk that the implementation of AI would cause job losses on a scale, and at a speed, that’s different from what’s happened with other technological innovations. He said governments needed to be proactive in thinking about these risks, including considering new ways to redistribute wealth within society.  "Technology, as it gets more powerful, outside of other influences, just leads to more concentration of power and wealth," he said. "That is bad for democracy, that is bad for social justice, and the general well-being of most people."  To contact the reporter on this story: Jeremy Kahn in London at jkahn21@bloomberg.net  To contact the editors responsible for this story: Giles Turner at gturner35@bloomberg.net, Nate Lanxon  For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com


drudgereport--2019-11-09--Germany's Online Crackdowns Inspire World's Dictators...

The German government has responded to a recent spate of right-wing extremist violence with a commitment to enact tough new measures against online hate speech. These would expand Germany’s existing efforts along these lines—but seemingly without any consideration of the pernicious effects they’ve already had around the world. As our new report shows, Germany’s ongoing crackdown on online speech has been closely watched, and copied, by authoritarian governments eager to curb political dissent.  The crackdown began after 2015, when Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to welcome more than 1 million refugees and asylum-seekers was greeted with a tidal wave of protest ranging from derision to visceral hatred on social media. The anger migrated from the online trolling and memes of keyboard warriors into actual attacks on refugee centers across Germany.  Sensing a loss of control, then-Minister of Justice Heiko Maas wrote a stern letter to Facebook warning the tech giant that, despite the need for free speech, “The internet is not a lawless space where racist abuse and illegal posts can be allowed to flourish.” Maas demanded much stricter policing of content violating German law and Facebook’s own community standards. Facebook and other tech companies agreed to a voluntary deal under which they would remove content deemed illegal within 24 hours.  Facebook’s removal rates failed to satisfy Mass, however, and he decided that legally binding measures were necessary to curb the flood of online hate. In 2017, the government introduced the Network Enforcement Act, which was adopted that same year and entered into force early 2018.  The law imposes so-called intermediary liability for social media networks with over 2 million registered users. Any content, which is “manifestly unlawful” must be removed in a time frame of 24 hours. For all other “unlawful” content, the deadline is seven days. Failure to remove illegal content is punishable by fines of up to 50 million euros, about $55 million.  The Network Enforcement Act’s detractors argue that it delegates to the private sector the role of cybercop with little transparency or due process. This encourages social media companies to over-implement by providing an incentive to err on the side of caution to avoid fines. While no new offenses were crafted for the law, some of the existing definitions of “unlawful” are problematic in themselves.  This includes most glaringly Germany’s approach to the offense of “defamation of religions,” which violates international human rights standards. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees freedom of expression including the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers.” In 2018, the United Nations’ independent expert on freedom of expression expressed concern about the new act and other state-imposed models of intermediary liability as potential violations of Article 19.  The Network Enforcement Act has woven itself into the landscape of internet governance at a time when many states worldwide are pushing for increasing regulation to fight online threats, both real and imagined. The critics of the law who warned that the act might legitimize a model of online censorship that can readily be adapted to serve the ends of authoritarian states have been proved right. Our new research shows that in less than two years the law has essentially been copy-pasted by governments around the world—most of which do not match Germany’s commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.  Since the adoption of the new German law, at least 13 countries—in addition to the European Commission—have adopted or proposed models of intermediary liability broadly similar to the act’s matrix. According to Freedom House’s 2019 assessment of freedom on the internet, four of those countries are ranked as being “not free” (Venezuela, Vietnam, Russia and Belarus, Honduras is not surveyed but is ranked as “not free” on press freedom), five are ranked “partly free” (Kenya, India, Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines), and only three are ranked “free” (France, the United Kingdom, and Australia). With the exception of India, Kenya, Vietnam, and Australia, all these countries—as well as the European Commission—have explicitly referred to the Network Enforcement Act as an inspiration or justification for their models of intermediary liability.  Moreover, several of these countries, including Venezuela, Vietnam, India, Russia, Malaysia, and Kenya, require intermediaries to remove vague categories of content that include “fake news,” “defamation of religions,” and “anti-government propaganda,” and many of them include overly broad definitions of hate speech that go much further than the German law. A Russian bill signed into law by President Vladimir Putin in March is a good example. It defines “unreliable information” as follows:  “Socially significant information disseminated under the guise of reliable messages, which creates a threat to life and (/or) the health of citizens or property, the threat of mass disturbance of public order and (/or) public safety, or the threat of creating or impairing the proper operation of vital elements of transport or social infrastructure, credit institutions, energy facilities, industry or communications.”  Any controversial opinion or criticism of the government could plausibly be covered by this overly broad and vague definition, which falls considerably short of international human rights standards.  The explanatory report of the Russian bill explicitly referred to the Network Enforcement Act, and, responding to criticism, Kremlin representatives argued that false information “is regulated fairly harshly in many countries of the world including Europe. It is therefore of course necessary to do it in our country too.” This is a clear example of how Germany’s internet law provides cover for authoritarian states attempting to restrict online content.  In May, Singapore adopted the wide-ranging Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill. The law includes a vague definition of “false statements of fact,” authorizing a minister to issue directions to internet intermediaries that must correct or disable content. Prior to the adoption of the bill, a preliminary report referenced the German law. What might constitute false statement of facts? A 2018 report by the policy forum of Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party highlighted a Human Rights Watch report critical of press freedom restrictions in Singapore as based on “deliberate falsehoods” used to “advocate political change.” In other words, the law may well be used to target human rights and civil society groups shining a critical light on the Singaporean government.  However, both the Russian and Singaporean laws pale in comparison to the sweeping category of illegal content covered by Vietnam’s draconian Law on Cybersecurity, which passed in 2018 and prohibits: “propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” “distortion or defamation of the people’s administrative authorities,” “psychological warfare … causing division or hatred between [Vietnamese] ethnic groups, religions and people of all countries,” “insulting the [Vietnamese] people, the national flag, national emblem, national anthem, great men, leaders, famous people or national heroes,” and “invented or untruthful contents causing confusion amongst the Citizens.”  It is also problematic that some states, including Russia and Vietnam, have established (or proposed to establish) governmental entities responsible for notifying and ordering intermediaries to remove illegal content without any independent review or complaint mechanisms. When you combine the sweeping nature of the prohibited content with the lack of meaningful oversight, it is clear that these laws will serve to further entrench tight government control over an already restrictive online sphere.  Several of the laws or proposals we identified, including in the U.K. and India, don’t merely rely on a notification and takedown regime. They establish a “duty of care” requiring intermediaries to actively police and preventively remove illegal or undesirable content. Such a step may encourage automated moderation or filtering of user content through artificial intelligence and upload filters. This essentially poses the risk of reintroducing government-mandated prepublication censorship enforced by private tech companies. In the 18th and 19th centuries, European censors lost the struggle to keep up with clandestine publications and increasingly sophisticated printing presses. Consequently, pre-publication censorship all but died in the second half of the 19th century, only to be revamped and revitalized by totalitarianism in the 20th century. But in the digital age, censorship may ultimately be able to search and destroy undesirable content at a scale previously unimaginable.  All these developments suggest that the Network Enforcement Act has provided an important impetus for, and legitimacy to, models of intermediary liability that violate freedom of expression as set out in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This development contributes significantly to the weakening of the already perilous state of internet freedom around the world.  The adverse consequences of the Network Enforcement Act were certainly not intended by the German government. In conjunction with the German constitution and commitment to the rule of law, the act provides safeguards absent from the most draconian laws subsequently adopted by other states. Indeed, several of the countries that have mimicked the German law had already implemented severe restrictions of online freedom prior to the German initiative and would likely have tightened their grip irrespective of the Network Enforcement Act.  Yet, the act seems to have provided several states with both the justification and the basic model for swift and decisive action. Unwittingly, Europe’s most influential country has contributed to the erosion of global internet freedom by developing and legitimizing a prototype of online censorship that can readily be adapted to serve the ends of authoritarian states.  In a world where both online and offline speech is under systematic global attack, democracies have a special obligation to err on the side of free speech. Succumbing to the ever-present temptation of fighting illiberal ideas with illiberal laws is shortsighted and irresponsible. Once democracies cede the high ground, authoritarians will rush in, creating a regulatory race to the bottom. This entails severe and negative consequences for free speech, independent media, vibrant civil society, and political pluralism, without which authoritarianism cannot be defeated, nor democracy defended.