SoylentNews

MrPlow writes:

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Venezuelan security agents arrested two key opposition leaders in a midnight raid on their homes, making good on President Nicolas Maduro's promise to crack down on dissent following a vote that gave him broad authoritarian powers.

In the middle of the night, armed men took Leopoldo Lopez and Caracas Mayor Antonio Ledezma from their respective homes in the capital. The leaders had been highly critical of Maduro and had only recently been released from jail on politically motivated charges. The two, however, remained under house arrest.

The wife of Leopoldo posted a video on Twitter showing flak-jacketed agents bundling her husband into a vehicle marked "Sebin" — the name of Venezuela's intelligence agency — and then speeding off.

[...] Tuesday night, President Trump condemned "the actions of the Maduro dictatorship."

"Mr. Lopez and Mr. Ledezma are political prisoners being held illegally by the regime. The United States holds Maduro – who publicly announced just hours earlier that he would move against his political opposition – personally responsible for the health and safety of Mr. Lopez, Mr. Ledezma, and any others seized. We reiterate our call for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners."

On Monday, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Maduro himself, marking only the fourth time that the U.S. has sanctioned the sitting leader of another country.

Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540790886/venezuela-agents-arrest-opposition-leaders-in-midnight-raids

Previously: Voting Company Finds Manipulation in Venezuela Election.

Original Submission

bradley13 writes:

I don't know if this is appropriate for SoylentNews - I'll leave that to the editors. It's a blog entry that does the best job I've seen, explaining a difficult issue: How do those of us originally from flyover territory perceive the progressive politics that dominates the left coast, and indeed most of the big cities.

Anyone from a red county will read this article and nod. Anyone from a blue county really ought to try to understand the article, because it explains why Trump won, and also explains the rise of the alt-right as a response to progressive politics.

[Ed. note: The linked article is rather long. Contrary to long-standing tradition, I did RTFA. On occasion, stories are submitted where it is not clear to me whether or not our community would find it appropriate or interesting. This is one of those occasions. So, consider this an experiment... of course, please comment on the story itself, but please also indicate whether or not you would like to see more stories like this, and why. Thanks! --martyb]

Original Submission

takyon writes:

A lawsuit by Rod Wheeler has linked the President and the White House to the publication of a retracted Fox 5 DC story about the Seth Rich murder case:

The Fox News Channel and a wealthy supporter of President Trump worked in concert under the watchful eye of the White House to concoct a story about the death of a young Democratic National Committee aide, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday. The explosive claim is part of a lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.

Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration's ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story. Fox's president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR on Monday that there was no "concrete evidence" that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story's allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.

[...] On April 20, a month before the story ran, Butowsky and Wheeler — the investor and the investigator — met at the White House with then-press secretary Sean Spicer to brief him on what they were uncovering. The first page of the lawsuit quotes a voicemail and text from Butowsky boasting that Trump himself had reviewed drafts of the Fox News story just before it went to air and was published. Spicer now tells NPR that he took the meeting as a favor to Butowsky. Spicer says he was unaware of any contact involving the president. And Butowsky tells NPR that he was kidding about Trump's involvement.

Original Submission

takyon writes:

The new Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is Christopher A. Wray:

The Senate easily confirmed President Trump's pick to lead the FBI on Tuesday, following the abrupt firing of James Comey earlier this year.

Senators voted 92-5 on Christopher Wray's nomination to lead the bureau. Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Ed Markey (Mass.) voted against the confirmation.

EFF picked his record apart last month:

During his tenure as Assistant Attorney General in the Bush Administration, Wray vocally defended a range of controversial provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act—including Section 215, which would later provide the basis for the bulk collection of Americans' telephone metadata.

When Wray went before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003 to defend the PATRIOT Act, a Department of Justice document indicated that Section 215's business records provision had never been used. Wray insisted that was a sign of restraint: "We try to use these provisions sparingly, only in those instances where we feel that this is the only tool that we can use." In fact, as the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) made clear in its report on the bulk metadata program, Section 215 was sitting fallow because the Bush Administration was already collecting much of that data—without statutory authorization.

Granted, Wray didn't have all of the information about that secretive wiretapping program until 2004, which we'll get into below. Still, his insistence that Section 215 was just an effort to bring counterterrorism powers in line with ordinary criminal authorities reflected a concerning lack of skepticism about the risk of abuse. The same holds for his defense of a range of other PATRIOT Act provisions: "sneak and peek" warrants that allow law enforcement to search first and serve notice later; a reduced bar for obtaining a FISA warrant that one district court later found inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment; and a vaguely worded expansion of the kind of Internet data, some of it potentially very sensitive, that can be collected with a pen/trap order.

Original Submission

-- OriginalOwner_ writes:

Common Dreams reports

Joe Arpaio—the former sheriff from Maricopa County, Arizona, who famously ordained himself "America's toughest sheriff"—was found guilty of criminal contempt for violating a federal court order mandating that Arpaio and his deputies refrain from racially profiling Latinos with traffic stops and detentions, based on suspicions about their immigration status.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton said [July 31] that Arpaio demonstrated a "flagrant disregard" for the order, rejecting[¹] the former sheriff's defense that the order was unclear and the violations unintentional. Arpaio, who is 85, could face up to six months in jail, and is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 5.

[...] Arpaio's attorney said [July 31] he plans to appeal Judge Bolton's ruling in hopes of receiving a trial by jury. The [former] sheriff was denied a jury trial in May because it was not legally required, due to the short length of his potential jail term.

[¹ Submitter claimed problems with this link and offered Google's cache. I could open original link using both Pale Moon and Lynx without issue. -Ed(s).]

Original Submission

takyon writes:

New Jersey Senator Cory Booker has introduced a bill (alt) that has been described by Marijuana Majority as the most far-reaching marijuana bill ever filed in either chamber of Congress. It would legalize cannabis federally by removing "marihuana" and tetrahydrocannabinols from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. But it would go much further by withholding money from states with racially or financially disparate arrest and incarceration rates for cannabis-related crimes (effectively all states where cannabis is illegal):

The bill would legalize marijuana at the federal level and withhold federal money for building jails and prisons, along with other funds, from states whose cannabis laws are shown to disproportionately incarcerate minorities.

Under the legislation, federal convictions for marijuana use and possession would be expunged and prisoners serving time for a marijuana offense would be entitled to a sentencing hearing.

Those "aggrieved" by a disproportionate arrest or imprisonment rate would be able to sue, according to the bill. And a Community Reinvestment Fund would be established to "reinvest in communities most affected by the war on drugs" for everything from re-entry programs to public libraries.

Booker says that he will work towards bipartisan support for the bill.

Serious legalization attempt or just advertising for a 2020 U.S. Presidential Campaign?

Original Submission

takyon writes:

Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has resigned following a court decision related to financial revelations from the Panama Papers leak:

Nawaz Sharif has resigned as prime minister of Pakistan following a decision by the country's Supreme Court to disqualify him from office. The ruling came after a probe into his family's wealth following the 2015 Panama Papers dump linking Mr Sharif's children to offshore companies.

Mr Sharif has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the case. The five judges reached a unanimous verdict in the Islamabad court, which was filled to capacity. "Following the verdict, Nawaz Sharif has resigned from his responsibilities as prime minister," a spokesman for Mr Sharif's office said in a statement.

There was heightened security in the capital, with tens of thousands of troops and police deployed.

Related: "Panama Papers" Leak Exposes Owners of Shell Companies
"Panama Papers" Compendium
Journalists Release Database of "Panama Papers" Names

Original Submission

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Facebook is helping to round up blasphemers, that is to say those who insult or deny islam, and deliver them to justice in Pakistan. By engaging in illegal speech on social media they leave a trail of evidence which the government is able to request and Facebook complies with. The anti-blasphemy laws are also useful in cracking down on dissent in general as the penalty for blasphemy in Pakistan is now death.

In recent months, Pakistan's interior minister, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, has increased pressure on Facebook and Twitter to identify individuals suspected of blasphemy. On 7 July, Facebook's vice-president of public policy, Joel Kaplan, met with Khan to discuss the government's demand that Facebook either remove blasphemous content or be blocked in the country.

On Monday, Facebook confirmed that it had rejected Pakistan's demand that new accounts be linked to a mobile phone number – a provision that would make it easier for the government to identify account holders. Currently, opening a Facebook account in Pakistan requires only an email address, while mobile phone users must provide fingerprints to a national database.

That social media would become the means for a government crackdown on free speech is a bitter twist for platforms that claim to want to increase openness and the free flow of ideas.

The advent of social media once heralded an opening for religious debate in Pakistan. Platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp and Viber allowed individuals in conservative, rural areas to engage in discussions that were once possible only for students and urban intellectuals, unconstrained by the conservative norms of their communities.

"Until recently, social media afforded a measure of privacy where you could discuss the hypocrisy of people whose behavior was loathsome but who wore the thick garb of piety," said Pervez Hoodbhoy, a prominent academic and activist.

"Now the state is saying that we will track you down wherever you are and however you might want to hide," Hoodbhoy added. "Pakistan is fast becoming a Saudi-style fascist religious state."

The problem with engaging in potentially illegal speech on social media, of course, is that online speech leaves evidence.

Original Submission

-- OriginalOwner_ writes:

Common Dreams reports

As President Donald Trump continues to behave bizarrely and erratically--attacking his own attorney general, launching into a political tirade during a speech to Boy Scouts, bringing his 11-year-old son into the burgeoning Russia controversy--a professional association of psychoanalysts is telling its members to drop the so-called Goldwater Rule and comment publicly on the president's state of mind if they find reason to do so.

The Goldwater Rule was formally included in the American Psychiatric Association's "Principles of Medical Ethics" following the 1964 presidential campaign, during which a magazine editor was sued for running an article in which mental health professionals gave their opinions on [Republican] presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's psychiatric state. The rule deems public comments by psychiatrists on the mental health of public officials without consent "unethical".

In a recent email to its 3,500 members, the American Psychoanalytic Association "told its members they should not feel bound by" the Goldwater Rule, which some have characterized as a "gag rule", STAT's Sharon Begley reports.

Original Submission

Legal Egal writes:

ACLU* national legal director David Cole warns that this new piece of legislation is a serious problem to free speech. He says that just discussing the boycott of Israel could land you in prison for 20 years and fined $1 million.

The right to boycott has a long history in the United States, from the American Revolution to Martin Luther King Jr.'s Montgomery bus boycott to the campaign for divestment from businesses serving apartheid South Africa. Nowadays we celebrate those efforts. But precisely because boycotts are such a powerful form of expression, governments have long sought to interfere with them — from King George III to the police in Alabama, and now to the U.S. Congress.

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act, legislation introduced in the Senate by Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) and in the House by Peter J. Roskam (R-Ill.), would make it a crime to support or even furnish information about a boycott directed at Israel or its businesses called by the United Nations, the European Union or any other "international governmental organization." Violations would be punishable by civil and criminal penalties of up to $1 million and 20 years in prison. The American Civil Liberties Union, where we both work, takes no position for or against campaigns to boycott Israel or any other foreign country. But since our organization's founding in 1920, the ACLU has defended the right to collective action. This bill threatens that right.

As a European myself I find it very strange that such a law can ever be officially proposed. And in the US of all countries where the freedom of speech in codified in the constitution.

What do you make of it?

*American Civil Liberties Union

Original Submission