Search This Blog

Monday, December 26, 2016

UN Resolution 2334 Is good For “Israel”

UN Resolution 2334 Is good For “Israel”

By Gilad Atzmon – December 25, 2016
On 23 December the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) voted to adopt a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity as illegal, and demanding that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem”.
For once, the USA decided to join the rest of humanity and didn’t veto the resolution. The message is obvious: if Zionism was a promise to make the Jews people like other people, its failure is colossal. The Jewish State and its lobbies are people like no other. 14 out of 15 members of the UNSC voted against Israel, the US abstained. In the most clear terms, the UNSC denounced the Jewish state’s treatment of the Palestinian people. If Israel would be an ordinary state, as Zionism initially promised, it would take some time to reflect on the resolution and consider the necessary measures to amend its public image. But as one would expect, the Jewish State did the complete opposite. It took the path of the bully and decided to punish the world.
In his first reaction to the resolution Israeli PM Netanyahu told his followers that the Security Council’s behaviour was “shameful.” He also harshly denounced President Obama’s choice to abstain. A list of American elected spineless characters were quick to cry havoc and promised to correct the damage. Netanyahu has instructed Israel’s ambassadors in New Zealand and Senegal to “return to Israel for consultations.” A scheduled visit of the Ukrainian PM in Jerusalem next week was cancelled. Netanyahu also ordered to block the shekel pipeline to some UN institutions.
But things may be slightly more complicated than they look at first glance. If the One (Bi-National) State is an existential threat to Israel being the Jewish state, then the recent UN resolution is obviously a last attempt to revive the Two-State Solution. It, de facto, legitimises the existence of the Jewish State within the pre-1967 borders. The resolution provides Israel with a practical and pragmatic opportunity to dissolve the West Bank settlements. Banks and businesses may start to refrain from operating in the occupied territories. Israeli military personnel serving in the occupied territories are about to become subject to the scrutiny of international law. Netanyahu, so it seems, made a fuss about the resolution, but the resolution plays into his hands. It provides him with an opportunity to break the stalemate with the Palestinians. Netanyahu knows it. President Obama knows it, the president-elect will be advised about as soon as he takes some time off Twitter.
But if the resolution serves Israeli national and security interests, why did Netanyahu react like a bully? The answer is simple. Bibi is a populist. Like president-elect Trump he knows what his people are like. He knows what the Jews and the Israelis seek in their leader. They want their king to celebrate Jewish exceptionalism. They want their master to perform contempt towards the Goyim. PM Netanyahu knows very well that David Ben Gurion (the legendary first Israeli PM) dismissed the UN, famously saying “it doesn’t matter what the Goyim say, the only thing that matters is what Jews do.”
It is far from clear whether Ben Gurion was really dismissiv

Ex-Wham singer George Michael dies

Ex-Wham singer George Michael dies

Singer George Michael dies at 53, publicist says
For more details, see the BBC News website
 

Friday, December 23, 2016

Israeli settler attempts to run over 2 Palestinian children in Hebron

Israeli settler attempts to run over 2 Palestinian children in Hebron

maannews.com - Local activist Muhammad Awad told Ma’an that the Israeli settler, identified as Eliahu, was on his way home from his work as a security guard in the illegal Karmei Tzur settlement in the southern p...

Leader Of Party Founded By Nazis Claims He Met With Trump’s National Security Adviser

Leader Of Party Founded By Nazis Claims He Met With Trump’s National Security Adviser

“This is not just any opposition party: It is one with Nazi sympathies,” a former state department official said.

12/20/2016 12:09 pm ET | Updated 1 day ago

The head of Austria’s anti-immigrant Freedom Party, which was founded after World War II by former Nazis, claimed in a Facebook post this week that he met with Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, Donald Trump’s pick to serve as his national security adviser.
The alleged meeting between Flynn and Heinz-Christian Strache, which was first reported by The New York Times, took place several weeks ago, according to Strache. In his posting about it, Strache also announced signing a “cooperation pact” with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
A Trump spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request for comment, but an anonymous transition team official told CNN the meeting didn’t happen. The Austrian embassy declined to comment.
Although the Times story focused on the Russia pact, the alleged Flynn-Strache meeting would be at least as significant. Austrians’ support for far-right parties has increased significantly over the past 15 years. Strache’s Freedom Party received 35 percent of the vote in the first round of the race for Austria’s ceremonial presidency, before narrowly losing a runoff earlier this month.
“This is not just any opposition party: It is one with Nazi sympathies,” said Daniel Serwer, a former state department official who’s now a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “Nor is Flynn any national security adviser. He is a documented conspiracy propagator. His long-term strategy colleague, Steve Bannon, is an ethnic nationalist and anti-Semite. The president-elect is an anti-Muslim and anti-immigration bigot.”
There’s no doubt that Strache, who worries about “inverse racism, “Austrian youths” being “beaten up in discos” and the “risk of Islamization,” has a lot in common with Flynn, who has also warned of the dangers of Islam and called the religion a “cancer,” and Trump, who called for banning all Muslims from visiting the U.S. 
Although they’re proud of their positions on immigration and Islam, Strache and Flynn have denied that they’re anti-Semitic.
The Freedom Party’s first leader was Anton Reinthaller, who supported the Nazi party as early as 1928 and later served as a Nazi government official. Reinthaller was a member of the SS, the Nazi paramilitary organization-turned-secret police that executed much of the Holocaust. Although there’s no clear evidence that Reinthaller was directly involved in the shooting, gassing and torture of millions of Jews, Roma, communists, gay people and others, he served in the government that carried it out and did nothing to stop it.
Here’s a photo of him with Hitler during the Reichstag meeting about Germany’s annexation of Austria:
ullstein bild via Getty Images
Hitler addresses the Reichstag in Berlin in 1938. Anton Reinthaller is in the first row, fifth from left, according to a caption provided by Getty.
“Readers have a hard time distinguishing between ex-Nazis and neo-Nazis,” warned Swanee Hunt, a former U.S. ambassador to Austria who’s now a lecturer at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. In Austria, “there was always this struggle with how do you deal with people who were Nazis,” she said. “Austria had lots and lots of people who were Nazis and sympathizers. It’s not like they just disappear into thin air.”
When Hunt served in Austria in the 1990s, the Freedom Party “had that strain that’s echoed here more in the alt-right,” she said, referring to white nationalist Richard Spencer’s term for American white nationalism and its associated movements. “It’s building on this anti-foreigner and anti-Muslim sentiment that you see, frankly, all over.”
The Freedom Party has worked hard to woo Jews ― Strache has visited Israel and the party hosted a conference on anti-Semitism last month. The Freedom Party believes it has a “common cause,” with “Israel and the Jewish people,” the Washington Post reported in November: “controlling the spread of Islam.”
But sometimes, the past shines through.
In 2012, Austria’s then-president canceled plans to give Strache an award after the Freedom Party leader was overheard claiming that he and his allies were the “new Jews” and that the fearsome heckling they received on their way into a gala at Vienna’s Hofburg Palace was “like Kristallnacht,” the night in 1938 when Austrian and German civilians, with the aid of Nazi paramilitaries, murdered Jews, destroyed Jewish-owned stores, burned hundreds of synagogues and sent tens of thousands of Jews to concentration camps to die.
“Strache mocked the victims of the Holocaust by comparing himself and his fellow extremists to Jews and invoking Kristallnacht to complain about the anti-fascist protests,” Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a Holocaust survivor, said at the time. “This trivialization is outrageous, but not surprising from Strache and his ilk.”
Now Strache carries Reinthaller’s party’s mantle.
Trump used anti-Semitic tropes and received support from anti-Semites during his campaign for president. In July, Flynn retweeted and endorsed an anti-Semitic tweet, but later claimed it was a mistake.
“At risk of appearing to be a conspiracy theorist myself, I think we are seeing an effort to build an international coalition of like-minded anti-Muslim, anti-immigration ethnic nationalists who can be depended upon to undermine the liberal democratic order of the West, in particular its international norms regarding peace and security, its trade and investment rules, and its human rights standards,” Serwer said. “Candidates for inclusion in this coalition include President Putin, Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Sisi, Marine Le Pen and Germany’s Alternative fur Deutschland. I’m sure more will appear on the horizon.”
This story has been updated to reflect that a transition official told CNN the meeting never took place.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story said that the Freedom Party received 35 percent of the vote in Austria’s parliamentary elections. In fact, that was the vote share it received in a round of Austria’s presidential race.

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Final Popular Vote Total Shows Hillary Clinton Won Almost 3 Million More Ballots Than Donald Trump

Final Popular Vote Total Shows Hillary Clinton Won Almost 3 Million More Ballots Than Donald Trump

It’s by far the largest margin of victory in the popular vote for a candidate who did not win the election.

12/20/2016 05:31 pm ET
X
Donald Trump is set to be sworn in next month as the 45th president of the United States, despite garnering almost 3 million fewer votes than his challenger.
With the presidential election results now certified in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., Hillary Clinton won a total of 65,844,610 votes ― 48.2 percent ― compared with Trump’s 62,979,636 votes ― 46.1 percent ― according to David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Other candidates took 7,804,213 ballots, or about 5.7 percent of the popular vote.
Clinton’s margin of victory in the popular vote is the largest in raw numbers for any candidate who has gone on to lose in the Electoral College. Her margin of victory is almost six times larger than that of Democrat Al Gore, whose popular vote win in 2000 is now the second-largest in this category. Gore received about 500,000 more votes than Republican George W. Bush, but came up short in the Electoral College after a hotly contested race in Florida.
Trump’s substantial deficit in the popular vote makes his margin by percentage of votes the third-worst among winning candidates since 1824 (when the popular vote was first officially recorded), according to an analysis by The New York Times published earlier this week.
Thanks to the Electoral College, none of this matters. Trump won 306 electoral votes to Clinton’s 232 on Election Day, securing him a comfortable victory last month. Although many of Trump’s opponents had spent the past few weeks trying to figure out how they could deny the real estate mogul a path to the White House, the Electoral College on Monday further secured his win.
A total of 304 electors cast their votes in favor of the GOP nominee, meaning just two Republican electors defected. Some 227 cast their presidential ballots for Clinton, with five Democratic electors switching their vote. Those seven defecting electors voted for other candidates.
Trump’s team has tried to deflect focus away from the popular vote over the past month, with Trump himself even mentioning what he referred to as a “massive landslide victory” in the Electoral College. PolitiFact ruled that claim “false,” noting that Trump’s win ranks near the bottom in terms of the portion of total available electoral votes won by a candidate.

Duterte killings 'constitute murder,' says UN human rights chief

Duterte killings 'constitute murder,' says UN human rights chief

Shared by
Rob McDowall
news.abs-cbn.com - MANILA – The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) on Tuesday said the killings committed by President Rodrigo Duterte during his stint as mayor of Davao City "constitute murder...

TX Governor Takes Shot at Anti-Trump Elector on Twitter: ‘You’re Fired!’

TX Governor Takes Shot at Anti-Trump Elector on Twitter: ‘You’re Fired!’

Shared by
Mediaite
mediaite.com - Texas Governor Greg Abbott made it known today that he’s not particularly fond of the Republican elector in his state who declared his intention not to vote for Donald Trump. In the electoral colle...

Legal Experts: ‘Meritless’ FBI Warrant Used to Obtain Clinton Emails Violates Fourth Amendment

Legal Experts: ‘Meritless’ FBI Warrant Used to Obtain Clinton Emails Violates Fourth Amendment

312
James Comey via screengrabLawNewz.com obtained a copy of the search warrant and search warrant application used by the FBI to get Hillary Clinton‘s emails which were discovered as part of the Bureau’s Anthony Weiner probe. Hillary Clinton, and her supporters have repeatedly asserted that the FBI Director James Comey‘s late October announcement that his agents were searching these emails was one of the major reasons for her losing the election. So we wanted to know: What evidence did the FBI have to continue their investigation 11 days before the election? Did they even have a legal right to look at Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s emails like they did? The search warrant released on Tuesday, though redacted in some areas, gives us some very good insights and clues.
We sent a copy of it to some of the top legal experts in the country to get their response. Some experts told us that they believe that the FBI crossed the line, and the warrant application approved by a magistrate judge was “meritless.” One legal expert even said that he believed that the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution which guards against unreasonable search and seizure and requires the government to  have “probable cause” before they seize and look through personal belongings.
“It was a fishing expedition,” Clark D. Cunningham, Professor of Law and Ethics at Georgia State University told LawNewz.com, “There is nothing that comes close to probable cause that I can see. (The warrant application) is no more than mere speculation.”
Several days before the election, and after the FBI had searched through these emails, Comey announced they had found nothing new that would change their conclusion that Clinton should not face criminal charges. So should the warrant have been approved in the first place? Some experts think the FBI and the judge made a legal mistake. However, it is important to note like everything about this case not all attorneys agrees. Page Pate, a federal criminal defense attorney, agreed that the warrant application was “thin,” but said “it doesn’t take much to establish probable cause” for a computer that was already in the government’s possession. Weiner’s laptop had previously been seized by agents who were working a case about his alleged sexting of an underage girl.
“I have done hundreds of search warrants —- the FBI was on solid ground on this one.  It is important to remember that probable cause is a relatively low burden,” Bill Thomas, a former federal prosecutor told LawNewz.com.
Below we’ve posted the legal opinions from experts we consulted about this warrant. Did the FBI violate the 4th Amendment? Read on.
Clark D. Cunningham, Professor of Law and Ethics Georgia State University College of Law:
The warrant violates the 4th Amendment because:
1)         The warrant lacks probable cause that classified information is on the laptop in email between Abedin and Clinton unless probable cause is based on the redacted sentences, which seems unlikely.  The heart of the warrant application is paragraph 26 on page 10, which is nothing more than mere speculation that there is classified information on the laptop.   The “many emails” found on @eclintonmail.com that contained classified information were according to the warrant application about 2,115,  less than 7% of the 30,490 emails that went through that server (paragraph 20).
2)         The warrant grossly exceeds the alleged probable cause by authorizing review of ALL DATA AND INFORMATION related to @eclintonmail.com. It thus allows the FBI to copy and read every email between Abedin and Clinton sent to or from that domain rather than being limited to email containing classified information.
The warrant authorized making a complete digital copy of the laptop contents.  Where is that digital copy now?  Will it be accessible to the Trump administration?
Bill Thomas, former federal prosecutor believe that the FBI was on solid ground
First, there is a significant amount of information that remains sealed but even without that it appears that that a summary of what was presented to the judge who authorized the search warrant is this:  1) The laptop (and an e-mail account(s) associated w/ the laptop) was used to communicate with the Clinton server/e-mail account;  2) that Clinton server/e-mail was receiving and distributing information that it (or she) should not have been sending (i.e., classified, secret, top secret etc .etc. ); 3) The laptop itself is not a device that can be legally used to send/receive that type of information.  Therefore there is reason to believe there are other classified e-mails on the computer that we should be allowed to search for.
It is important to note that the laptop itself is potentially evidence of a crime, so beyond the issue of the e-mails there was likely enough probable cause to search even if the FBI knew or thought the laptop had been wiped clean.  What I mean by that is if the storing and sending of e-mails by Clinton had been determined to be a crime, a prosecutor or agent would have been on solid ground to obtain and execute a search warrant to demonstrate the improper storage of Clinton e-mails on the laptop and otherwise, the improper receipt and distribution of classified information and to investigate where those e-mails might have gone, and to determine whether the laptop had been hacked. All of these are things that a prosecutor would have wanted to address in evaluating a case for prosecution and if he case went to trial.
I have done hundreds of search warrants —- the FBI was on solid ground on this one.  It is important to remember that probable cause is a relatively low burden.
Kenneth Katkin, Law Professor, Northern Kentucky University, an expert in the field, also found the warrant application troubling.
This search warrant application appears to have been meritless.  The FBI should not have sought it, and the Magistrate Judge should not have granted it.   For a search warrant to properly issue, there must be probable cause to believe that the search will yield evidence of a crime.   Unless the government already has knowledge (or at least reasonably trustworthy information) to warrant reasonable belief that an offense has been committed, there cannot be probable cause.
Here, the government never had any knowledge or information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed.  Indeed, FBI Director Comey had already publicly announced this fact over the summer.   The warrant application released today sets forth no basis whatsoever to support a belief that Secretary Clinton ever had any *unauthorized* possession of any information, though it cites 18 U.S.C. 793(e) which concerns only such unauthorized possession.   The warrant application released today also sets forth no basis whatsoever to support a belief that Secretary Clinton ever permitted any information relating to the national defense to actually be lost, stolen, abstacted, or destroyed, though it cites 18 U.S.C. 793(f) which concerns only such loss, theft, or destruction.  The warrant application also relies on Executive Order 13526, which is not a criminal statute, and is not relevant to a criminal investigation.  The same is true of 32 C.F.R. Parts 2001 and 2003, also relied on in the warrant application.
The warrant application seems to reflect a belief that any email sent by Hillary Clinton from a private email server is probably evidence of a crime.    If so, then it must be seen as a partisan political act, rather than a legitimate law enforcement action.
Page Pate, a criminal defense attorney, was willing to give the FBI a little more leeway. He believes that the application was sufficient:
It’s a little thin, but it doesn’t take much to establish probable cause for the search of a computer already in possession of the government. The expectation of privacy is also very different for emails found on someone else’s computer (or a shared computer) than for someone’s personal home or a cellphone that is not shared…
This affidavit is sufficient. I have no doubt it was reviewed by everyone who mattered at Main Justice before it was submitted to the judge. Then it was reviewed by a Magistrate Judge who knew the entire country may second guess his decision. And, if they found evidence of a crime, DOJ would presumably want to use the emails to prosecute Clinton and Huma, knowing that this warrant would be subject to aggressive challenges from their lawyers. This is not a situation where you have a sloppy or insufficient affidavit. It was drafted by someone who knew the consequences of getting it wrong.
Randol Schoenberg, an attorney from California, who initially filed the request seeking the warrant, responded:
I see nothing at all in the search warrant application that would give rise to probable cause, nothing that would make anyone suspect that there was anything on the laptop beyond what the FBI had already searched and determined not to be evidence of a crime, nothing to suggest that there would be anything other than routine correspondence between Secretary Clinton and her longtime aide Huma Abedin.
You will have to ask Judge Fox, or the agent in charge (whose name has been redacted), or Director Comey, why they thought they might find evidence of a crime, why they felt it necessary to inform Congress, and why they even sought this search warrant.
LawNewz.com will add more from legal experts as we get responses.

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Gunman Dead After Swiss Mosque Attack

Gunman Dead After Swiss Mosque Attack


The gunman who stormed an Islamic center in central Zurich on Monday was found dead less than 300 yards away, police said Tuesday. The man reportedly opened fire on people praying, leaving three men injured. No details on the victims’ injuries have been released, though police said two of the victims were seriously injured. Police have identified the suspect but have not released his information. The victims have been identified only as Somali men aged 30, 35, and 56. Witnesses at the scene were cited by Reuters as saying the center was often used as a mosque by Somalis. Officials have not released a possible motive for the attack. “We never once had a problem,” said Abukar Abshirow, a Somali who says he regularly worshipped at the center. “We never had anyone come and say, ‘Why are you here?’ We never had that.”

Berlin Cops: We May Have the Wrong Guy

Berlin Cops: We May Have the Wrong Guy


German police say the driver who rammed his truck into a crowded Berlin Christmas market, killing 12 people and injuring another nearly 50 on Monday, did so intentionally. Early Tuesday, Germany’s top security official indicated the suspect was from Pakistan and had applied for asylum, entering the country  this year—but Berlin’s police chief later said it was unclear if they had the right man in custody. He denied any involvement and reportedly had no blood on his clothes. Chancellor Angela Merkel said she was “shocked, shaken, and deeply saddened” by the news of the incident. The attacker reportedly sped the 18-wheeler through the wooden Christmas stalls for about 150 feet, crushing shoppers in his wake. “There is still a lot that we don’t know about this act with sufficient certainty,” Merkel told reporters. “But we must, as things stand, assume it was a terrorist attack.” Berlin police wrote on Twitter on Tuesday that investigators were “working on the assumption that the truck was intentionally driven into the crowd at the Christmas market on Breitscheidplatz.”

Saudi Arabia admits it did use UK-made cluster bombs in Yemen

Saudi Arabia admits it did use UK-made cluster bombs in Yemen

Shared by
MB
theguardian.com - Saudi Arabia has finally admitted that it used UK-manufactured cluster bombs against Houthi rebels in Yemen, adding pressure on the British government which has repeatedly refused to curb arms sale...

German Court Rejects Suits against Genocide Bill

German Court Rejects Suits against Genocide Bill

Germany’s highest court has rejected a string of complaints against a decision by the country’s parliament to label the killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks a century ago as genocide. Read...

The Electoral College met and officially gave Donald Trump over 270 electoral votes, with scant evidence of a revolt among electors

The Electoral College met and officially gave Donald Trump over 270 electoral votes, with scant evidence of a revolt among electors

Monday, December 19, 2016 5:35 PM EST


Normally a political footnote, the electoral vote took on unexpected import this winter amid a determined effort by grass-roots advocates to block Mr. Trump’s path to the White House. But by late Monday, only a handful of electors had broken ranks and voted for someone else.
Read more »

Monday, December 19, 2016

IMF chief Christine Lagarde found guilty of 'negligence' over huge payout to business tycoon – but escapes jail

IMF chief Christine Lagarde found guilty of 'negligence' over huge payout to business tycoon – but escapes jail

 
 
News
 
 
Christine Lagarde, the International Monetary Fund's managing director, has been found guilty of "negligence" over a huge payout to a business tycoon while she served as ... - Read more »

Russia's ambassador killed, shooter claimed to have said "Don't forget Sria"

Russia said its ambassador to Turkey has died, and called his killer a terrorist. Video shows the man saying, “Don't forget Syria!”

Monday, December 19, 2016 1:45 PM EST


The gunman also wounded at least three others in the assault in Ankara, Turkey, before he was killed by other officers in a shootout.
The assassination instantly vaulted relations between Turkey and Russia to a new level of crisis over the protracted Syria conflict on Turkey’s southern doorstep.
Read more »

White supremacist website calls for action in Montana

White supremacist website calls for action in Montana

Shared by
Sanho Tree
missoulian.com - A white supremacist website called The Daily Stormer has posted a call to "TAKE ACTION" against Jewish people in Whitefish, providing personal contact information and urging a "troll storm" against...

Trump again hires foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago

Trump again hires foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago

Shared by
Sanho Tree
mypalmbeachpost.com - President-elect Donald Trump is driving a hard bargain for the foreign workers who will staff The Mar-a-Lago Club this winter. He’s paying some of them less than they made this past year, and most ...

Sunday, December 18, 2016

There are four ways Donald Trump may be guilty of treason, says law expert

There are four ways Donald Trump may be guilty of treason, says law expert


Former Assistant Secretary of State and international human rights expert John Shattuck said this week that President-elect Donald Trump must welcome a thorough investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election because the questions it raises leave him vulnerable to charges of treason.
“A specter of treason hovers over Donald Trump,” Shattuck wrote in the Boston Globe. “He has brought it on himself by dismissing a bipartisan call for an investigation of Russia’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee as a ‘ridiculous’ political attack on the legitimacy of his election as president.”
With evidence piling up that forces within Russia worked to tip the election in Trump’s favor, Shattuck said that it’s unwise for Trump to bat aside the accusations as if they’re unimportant.
Shattuck — who was appointed by Pres. Bill Clinton and currently serves as a professor of diplomacy at the Fletcher Center of Law and Diplomacy and as a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy — quoted the director of U.S. Cyber Command Admiral Mike Rogers.
“This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance,” Rogers said. “This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”
“There are several possible explanations for Trump’s position” in avoiding an investigation, said Shattuck. “They are not mutually exclusive.”
In each of these scenarios, the president-elect is engaging in behaviors that fall under the definition of treason, Shattuck wrote, which is committed by a person “owing allegiance to the United States who…adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.” The crime of misprision of treason is committed by a person “having knowledge of the commission of any treason [who] conceals and does not disclose.”
1. Trump may be attempting to shore up his political standing ahead of the meeting of the Electoral College on Monday.
2. He may be trying to undermine public confidence in U.S. intelligence agencies so that when he is inaugurated in January, he can “intimidate them and have a freer hand in reshaping the intelligence product to suit his objectives.”
3. He may be testing to see whether the American public is willing to follow his lead over that of the intelligence community and “follow his version of the truth about national security threats.”
4. He may be attempting to cover up evidence of “involvement or prior knowledge by members of his campaign team or himself in the Russian cyberattack.”
Shattuck said, “By denigrating or seeking to prevent an investigation of the Russian cyberattack Trump is giving aid or comfort to an enemy of the United States, a crime that is enhanced if the fourth explanation applies — that he is in fact seeking to cover up his staff’s or his own involvement in or prior knowledge of the attack.”
While there has been no disclosure thus far of evidence that shows Trump was involved in or knew in advance about the Russian government’s actions, Shattuck said that a thorough investigation is clearly warranted.
He then laid out a series of known quantities that contribute to the air of suspicion and doubt around Trump’s claims that there was no collusion between his campaign and the Russian government.
“Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, has had extensive political dealings with the Russian government. Trump’s designate for National Security Adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, has appeared as a commentator for Russian state television and sat with Vladimir Putin at a Russian gala. As a candidate, Trump repeatedly praised Putin and took positions favorable to the Russian government. As reported by the New York Times, the president-elect’s son, Donald Trump Jr., told a real estate gathering in 2008 that ‘Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,’ adding, ‘we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.’ Two days after the election, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabokov, was quoted by the Times as saying that ‘there were contacts’ between Moscow and the Trump campaign, and that members of the campaign staff ‘were staying in touch with Russian representatives.’”
To continue to stall an investigation, Shattuck said, will leave Trump permanently vulnerable to questions about the legitimacy of his presidency. The president-elect, he said, must act quickly to “clear the air” lest “a specter of treason” hover over him and his presidency.

Saturday, December 17, 2016

Israeli Soldiers Abduct Palestinian Child In Silwad

Israeli Soldiers Abduct Palestinian Child In Silwad

IMEMC News – December 17, 2016
wardhamed-e1481959273282Israeli soldiers abducted a Palestinian child in Silwad town, east of the central West Bank city of Ramallah, on Friday evening.
The Palestinian Prisoners Society (PPS) said the child has been identified as Ward Abdul-Qader Hamed, 15, and that he was abducted after the soldiers stopped him at the western entrance of the town.
It is worth mentioning that the abducted child is the son of Qaddoura Fares, the head of the Palestinian Prisoners’ Society.

Syrian Asylum-Seekers [REFUGEES!] Are Being Forcibly Removed From The UK To Other EU Countries

Syrian Asylum-Seekers Are Being Forcibly Removed From The UK To Other EU Countries

As the horrors of Aleppo are laid bare, experts told BuzzFeed News the government’s treatment of vulnerable Syrians was “inhumane and dangerous”.
Supplied
As Mohammed was dragged on to the plane in handcuffs, he could not understand how the other passengers were ignoring what was happening. “I was screaming,” the 26-year old Syrian asylum-seeker said. “Four people dragged me and forced me on to the plane. One of the guards was a woman – she was pulling so hard on the handcuffs it cut right through my skin. It felt like they were taking me to my death.”
Mohammed was being forcibly removed from the UK, not because his asylum claim had been refused but because it had never been looked into. He was being sent back to Italy, the first European Union country he had arrived in.
He is one of hundreds of people the UK has returned to face detention and destitution in EU countries such as Italy and Hungary, where the treatment of asylum-seekers has been described as “appalling”.
The practice has led to Syrian asylum-seekers being routinely detained while in the UK before being forcibly removed from the country against their will. Others have gone underground and are living undocumented to avoid removal.
Just over 4,400 Syrian refugees have been resettled in the UK under an initiative by the government, which pledged to take in 20,000 people by 2020.
But as people flee Aleppo and other besieged Syrian cities, experts are questioning how the UK will treat those who arrive to UK shores by other means. Some described the treatment of Syrian asylum-seekers as “inhumane and dangerous”.
Through freedom of information requests, data analysis, and interviews, BuzzFeed News has found:
  • More than 700 asylum-seekers were sent back to EU countries in 2015 and the first half of 2016.
  • More than 250 of those were to Italy, a country struggling under a near-continuous arrival of asylum-seekers. Others were flown to Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria.
  • Forty-seven Syrians were sent back to other EU countries.
  • Large numbers of Eritrean, Iraqi, and Sudanese asylum-seekers were also expelled.
The removals happened using a controversial EU-wide agreement known as the Dublin Regulation.
Under the current system asylum-seekers are supposed to apply for asylum in the first EU country they arrive in. But countries on the forefront of the refugee crisis have been overwhelmed with arrivals, and so, facing a lack of support and feeling unwelcome, many asylum-seekers choose to keep on moving.
Nazek Ramadan, director of Migrant Voice, has seen scores of Syrians being threatened with return under the system. The NGO is now preparing a report on the issue to be released next spring.
“Those we interviewed for our recent research have all fled warzones, and feel that after seeking safety they are living in a different kind of warzone – going from one detention centre to another,” Ramadan told BuzzFeed News. “They feel unprotected by the law, pursued from all directions and cannot understand or navigate the immigration process.
“The Dublin Regulation and its form of implementation in the UK is inhumane and dangerous – causing considerable suffering to people fleeing persecution, and leading to many migrants becoming undocumented.”
Karl Pike, policy and advocacy manager for refugees and asylum at the British Red Cross, agreed: “The Dublin Regulation has been failing families and young children across Europe. The priority for the UK and Europe should be ensuring countries of first arrival are supported, with increasing numbers of refugees and asylum-seekers transferred from those countries, not increasing numbers transferred back to them.
A Syrian man holds a picture of German chancellor Angela Merkel after arriving in Munich from Hungary in September last year. Sean Gallup / Getty Images
The removal policy is made possible through an EU-wide fingerprint database that allows immigration officials to check if an asylum-seeker has been registered in another country.
Desperate to avoid detection, some asylum-seekers have taken to travelling via dangerous routes, or even burning off their fingerprints.
Mohammed – who spoke to BuzzFeed News on condition his real name not be used – had never heard of these rules.
He left Syria in 2013, when the war encroached on his city, Daraa. He travelled first to Lebanon and then on to Italy. There, he says, he was beaten by the police. “We were detained in Italy for 10 days,” he remembers. “They beat me and forced me to give my fingerprints, and then said, ‘OK, you can go where you want.”
A recent report from Amnesty International noted “consistent accounts of coercive methods used by the Italian police to obtain fingerprints, including allegations of beatings, electric shocks and sexual humiliation”.
After leaving Italy, Mohammed headed for the UK via Calais. He has cousins in Britain and was keen to reunite with family.
He lived for more than two years just outside London, but when Mohammed applied for asylum he was told his fingerprints had been found on the database and he would be removed. He was held in detention centres on two occasions, at one point living in solitary confinement for a week.
Then last year he was put on the plane at Gatwick and flown to Venice. But when he arrived he was told he was not wanted in Italy either. “They said ‘the UK should be taking you’ and that I wasn’t allowed to stay in Italy,” Mohammed said. “They gave me a document saying I’m not allowed to stay in Italy – they gave me [an] order to leave.”
Confused and alone, he travelled back to Calais, trying to once again get to his family in the UK. When that failed he settled in Germany, where he was told his fingerprints on the system did not matter.
He describes his treatment in the UK: “It wasn’t fair. I thought there was only oppression in Syria but there is oppression in the UK too.”
As well as Italy, the UK has sent asylum-seekers to Hungary, a country described by Amnesty International as providing “appalling treatment” to asylum-seekers and where “poisonous anti-refugee rhetoric is reaching fever pitch”.
A handful of asylum-seekers have also been returned to Bulgaria, a country that has detained asylum-seekers and refused to let them leave.
Supplied
As well as the 700 people who have been removed, the UK has also applied to return more than 5,300 asylum-seekers of all nationalities since the beginning of 2015.
Those transfers are often held up by lengthy legal battles, commonly funded by legal aid.
BuzzFeed News found that while those court battles play out, Syrians being processed under the Dublin Regulation have been held in detention centres across the UK. Some told us they had stopped signing in with the Home Office for fear of being detained and removed, leaving them living illegally and undocumented.
Ramy is 31 and also from Daraa. He has been in the UK for almost three and a half years but is facing removal to Italy.
He had been hoping to send for his wife and young son once in the UK, but due to delays fighting removal he could not bring them over.
“I was so afraid for my wife and son with the bombing,” said Ramy, who also asked that his real name not be used. “The route is very dangerous, I didn’t want them to risk their lives coming across on the seas. I took the risk so I could go ahead, find a secure place, and bring them later.”
But the threat of removal has scuppered his plans. Without refugee status here he cannot apply to bring his family over.
He has been held in detention several times but says he is desperate not to be sent back to Italy. “I can’t go back to Italy, there is nothing for me there, no one,” he said. “If they sent me back I would just try to come back here to the UK.
“I don’t think I was treated fairly at all [by the UK government].”
Syrians evacuated from rebel-held neighbourhoods of eastern Aleppo this week. Baraa Al-halabi / AFP / Getty Images
While the UK continues to remove people under the policy, the future of the Dublin Regulation is unclear.
A proposal for revision to the system was published in May and is being considered by the European Commission and MEPs.
It was hoped by some that the revisions would balance out the burden of asylum across EU countries, but the new proposals will actually make it easier to remove people to the first country of entry.
Minos Mouzourakis from the European Council on Refugees and Exiles said: “The proposed changes actually makes it just as challenging for countries on frontlines.”
The British government has been one of the voices arguing against changes to spread the burden, but it is unclear what will happen once the UK has left the EU.
“The main issue the UK is facing is if it ceases being an EU member it could only participate through an agreement like Switzerland does – where the quid pro quo is buying into Schengen [the zone in Europe where there are no border checks between countries] for buying into Dublin,” said Mouzourakis.
“But if the UK refuses Schengen, then it will be very difficult for it to participate in the Dublin system at all.” In the current political climate, there is virtually no chance the UK will join Schengen.
Last year the UK ranked 15th in Europe for the number of refugees it took in, relative to its size. Asylum-seekers make up around 4% of immigrants to the UK, according to independent fact-checking organisation Full Fact.
A Home Office spokesperson told BuzzFeed News the government was on track to welcome 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020.
But they said the asylum system, which the government’s resettlement scheme is separate from, would only work if applications made within the EU adhere to the principles of the Dublin Regulation.
“The UK has a proud history of offering protection to those who need it, but we will not shoulder the burden of asylum claims which should rightly be considered by other countries,” the spokesperson said.
“We firmly believe in the established principle, enshrined in the Dublin Regulation, that those in need of protection should seek asylum in the first safe country they enter. We will always fully consider cases passed to us.”