Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Thursday July 23 2020, @05:21AM   Printer-friendly
from the same-old-same-old dept.

Senators demand answers on expired surveillance programs:

Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Mike Lee (R-Ut.) on Thursday pressed the Trump administration on whether and how mass surveillance programs authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act have been halted since the act's expiration.

The letter to Attorney General William Barr and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe raises concerns that the administration may be be continuing to conduct surveillance operations by relying on Executive Order 12333.

The order, issued on 1981, has been used before to conduct operations without statutory authorization or congressional oversight.

"Congress and the American people have a right to know if this or any other administration is spying on people in the United States outside of express congressional approval, with no or diminished guardrails," Sens. Leahy and Lee wrote.

"The rights of all Americans depend on their government exercising its power responsibly, adhering to the rule of law, and upholding its duty to act transparently. Any surveillance conducted in the absence of statutory authorities and congressional oversight would be extraordinarily concerning and illegal."

Reauthorization of the key FISA provisions under the USA Freedom Act has stalled.


Original Submission

posted by martyb on Wednesday July 22 2020, @06:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the US-consulates-ordered-closed-in-3...2... dept.

U.S. Orders China to Close Its Houston Consulate in 72 Hours (archive)

The United States ordered China to close its diplomatic consulate in Houston, the Chinese foreign ministry said on Wednesday, dealing another blow to the rapidly deteriorating relations between the two countries.

In the hours after the Trump administration notified the Chinese of its decision, smoke was seen billowing from a courtyard inside the consulate as employees dumped what appeared to be documents into flaming barrels, according to a video posted by KPRC-TV, a local television station.

The Houston police and fire departments responded to reports of a fire on Tuesday evening but did not enter the building, over which the Chinese have sovereignty.

Also at BBC and CNBC.


Original Submission

posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 13 2020, @04:23PM   Printer-friendly

Absurdity of the Electoral College:

Here's one nice thing we can now say about the Electoral College: it's slightly less harmful to our democracy than it was just days ago. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that states have the right to "bind" their electors, requiring them to support whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote in their state. Justice Elena Kagan's opinion was a blow to so-called "faithless electors," but a win for self-government. "Here," she wrote, "the People rule."

Yet while we can all breathe a sigh of relief that rogue electors won't choose (or be coerced) into derailing the 2020 presidential contest, the Court's unanimous ruling is a helpful reminder that our two-step electoral process provides America with no tangible benefits and near-limitless possibilities for disaster. To put it more bluntly, the Electoral College is a terrible idea. And thanks to the Justices' decision, getting rid of it has never been easier.

[...] The Electoral College, in other words, serves no useful purpose, other than to intermittently and randomly override the people's will. It's the appendix of our body politic. Most of the time we don't notice it, and then every so often it flares up and nearly kills us.

[...] Justice Kagan's words – "Here, the People rule" – are stirring. But today, they are still more aspiration than declaration. By declining to make the Electoral College an even great threat to our democracy, the Court did its job. Now it's up to us. If you live in a state that hasn't joined the interstate compact, you can urge your state legislators and your governor to sign on. And no matter where you're from, you can dispel the myths about the Electoral College and who it really helps, myths that still lead some people to support it despite its total lack of redeeming qualities.

More than 215 years after the Electoral College was last reformed with the 12th Amendment, we once again have the opportunity to protect our presidential-election process and reassert the people's will. Regardless of who wins the White House in 2020, it's a chance we should take.

Would you get rid of the Electoral College? Why or why not?

Also at:
Supremes Signal a Brave New World of Popular Presidential Elections
Supreme Court Rules State 'Faithless Elector' Laws Constitutional
U.S. Supreme Court curbs 'faithless electors' in presidential voting
Supreme Court rules states can remove 'faithless electors'


Original Submission

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the everything-is-fine-here dept.

USA Today reports Trump has Officially Begun to Withdraw the US From the World Health Organization as Pandemic Spikes:

The Trump administration has officially begun to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization, even as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to grip the globe and infections spike in many states across the U.S.

Congress received formal notification of the decision on Tuesday, more than a month after President Donald Trump announced his intention to end the U.S. relationship with the WHO and blasted the multilateral institution as a tool of China. The White House said the withdrawal would take effect on July 6, 2021.

[...] The formal withdrawal comes as the United States nears 3 million reported coronavirus cases and more than 130,000 deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University data. Globally, there have been 11.6 million cases and almost 540,000 deaths.

Additional Coverage:
Trump administration moves to formally withdraw US from WHO
Trump administration begins formal withdrawal from World Health Organization
Trump Begins Process Of U.S. Withdrawal From World Health Organization

Previously:
(2020-05-20) Trump Threatens to Take US Out of WHO Entirely and Stop All US Funding
(2020-04-15) Trump to Halt Funding to WHO


Original Submission

posted by martyb on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the dangerous-times dept.

Trump official: Unclear if RNC can be safely held in Florida:

A top Trump administration health official says it is not clear whether it will be safe to hold the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Jacksonville next month as Florida sees record numbers of coronavirus cases.

The comments on Sunday came a month after Republican officials moved the event from North Carolina over a dispute over health precautions.

Stephen Hahn, the Food and Drug Administration commissioner, also refused to confirm President Donald Trump's claim that 99 percent of coronavirus cases were harmless and called the situation a "serious problem".

With record numbers of people testing positive for the virus in Jacksonville and across Florida, Hahn was asked if it would be safe to hold the typically large RNC gathering in just seven weeks.

On Saturday, Florida reported a new record of nearly 11,500 new coronavirus cases, amid a surge in cases in western and southern states. To date, nearly 130,000 people have died in the US amid 2.83 million cases.

"I think it's too early to tell," Hahn said on CNN's State of the Union programme. "We will have to see how this unfolds in Florida and elsewhere around the country."

The Republican Party in June announced it was moving most of the convention activities to Jacksonville from Charlotte after a battle over coronavirus safety concerns with North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, a Democrat.

[...] Trump has been known to thrive on large crowds at his campaign rallies and has not embraced masks or social distancing measures at events since the country began reopening from the coronavirus shutdown.

The president has also repeatedly sought to minimise the jump in confirmed cases and claimed without evidence in a July Fourth speech that 99 percent of cases in the United States were "totally harmless".


Original Submission

posted by martyb on Tuesday July 07 2020, @12:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the could-just-ask-23-and-me dept.

DNA Databases in the U.S. and China Are Tools of Racial Oppression

Two major world powers, the United States and China, have both collected an enormous number of DNA samples from their citizens, the premise being that these samples will help solve crimes that might have otherwise gone unsolved. While DNA evidence can often be crucial when it comes to determining who committed a crime, researchers argue these DNA databases also pose a major threat to human rights.

In the U.S., the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has a DNA database called the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) that currently contains over 14 million DNA profiles. This database has a disproportionately high number of profiles of black men, because black Americans are arrested five times as much as white Americans. You don't even have to be convicted of a crime for law enforcement to take and store your DNA; you simply have to have been arrested as a suspect.

[...] As for China, a report that was published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in mid-June claims that China is operating the "world's largest police-run DNA database" as part of its powerful surveillance state. Chinese authorities have collected DNA samples from possibly as many as 70 million men since 2017, and the total database is believed to contain as many as 140 million profiles. The country hopes to collect DNA from all of its male citizens, as it argues men are most likely to commit crimes.

DNA is reportedly often collected during what are represented as free physicals, and it's also being collected from children at schools. There are reports of Chinese citizens being threatened with punishment by government officials if they refuse to give a DNA sample. Much of the DNA that's been collected has been from Uighur Muslims that have been oppressed by the Chinese government and infamously forced into concentration camps in the Xinjiang province.

Related:


Original Submission

posted by martyb on Wednesday July 01 2020, @08:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the security-for-whom? dept.

China Enacts Security Law, Asserting Control Over Hong Kong

Beijing's top legislative body has unanimously passed a sweeping national security law for Hong Kong, a controversial move that could effectively criminalize most dissent in the city and risks widening the rift between China and western countries who have criticized the law.

The news was first reported by local Hong Kong media: cable televsion station NOWNews; the city's public broadcaster; and a slew of newspapers, including Wei Wen Po and Ta Kung Pao, two pro-Beijing outlets which often signal official Chinese policy.

Hours later, the official Chinese news agency Xinhua reported President Xi Jinping had already signed the measure into law. Xinhua said it will be incorporated into Hong Kong's Basic Law, the city's mini-constitution, and become effective Wednesday, the anniversary of Hong Kong's 1997 handover from British to Chinese Rule.

Hong Kong security law: Anger as China's Xi signs legislation

One key pro-democracy group said it was now ceasing all operations. Demosisto announced the move on Facebook after Joshua Wong, one of Hong Kong's most prominent activists, said he was leaving the group, which he had spearheaded.

[...] Demosisto said several members had asked to be delisted and it had decided to "dissolve and stop all meetings". It said that the fight against "totalitarian oppression" would have to continue in a "more flexible manner". Joshua Wong said the law marked "the end of Hong Kong that the world knew before".

Also at NYT, Reuters, and Hong Kong Free Press.


Original Submission

posted by martyb on Tuesday June 30 2020, @04:46PM   Printer-friendly

Zuckerberg once wanted to sanction Trump. Then Facebook wrote rules that accommodated him.

Hours after President Trump’s incendiary post last month about sending the military to the Minnesota protests, Trump called Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg.

The post put the company in a difficult position, Zuckerberg told Trump, according to people familiar with the discussions. The same message was hidden by Twitter, the strongest action ever taken against a presidential post.

To Facebook’s executives in Washington, the post didn’t appear to violate its policies, which allows leaders to post about government use of force if the message is intended to warn the public — but it came right up to the line. The deputies had already contacted the White House earlier in the day with an urgent plea to tweak the language of the post or simply delete it, the people said.

Eventually, Trump posted again, saying his comments were supposed to be a warning after all. Zuckerberg then went online to explain his rationale for keeping the post up, noting that Trump’s subsequent explanation helped him make his decision.

[...] Zuckerberg talks frequently about making choices that stand the test of time, preserving the values of Facebook and subsidiaries WhatsApp and Instagram for all of its nearly 3 billion monthly users for many years into the future — even when those decisions are unpopular or controversial.

At one point, however, he wanted a different approach to Trump.

Before the 2016 election, the company largely saw its role in politics as courting political leaders to buy ads and broadcast their views, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking.

But that started to change in 2015, as Trump’s candidacy picked up speed. In December of that year, he posted a video in which he said he wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. The video went viral on Facebook and was an early indication of the tone of his candidacy.

Outrage over the video led to a companywide town hall, in which employees decried the video as hate speech, in violation of the company’s policies. And in meetings about the issue, senior leaders and policy experts overwhelmingly said they felt that the video was hate speech, according to three former employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. Zuckerberg expressed in meetings that he was personally disgusted by it and wanted it removed, the people said. Some of these details were previously reported.

At one of the meetings, Monika Bickert, Facebook’s vice president for policy, drafted a document to address the video and shared it with leaders including Zuckerberg’s top deputy COO Sheryl Sandberg and Vice President of Global Policy Joel Kaplan, the company’s most prominent Republican.

[...] Ultimately, Zuckerberg was talked out of his desire to remove the post in part by Kaplan, according to the people. Instead, the executives created an allowance that newsworthy political discourse would be taken into account when making decisions about whether posts violated community guidelines.

That allowance was not formally written into the policies, even though it informed ad hoc decision-making about political speech for the next several years, according to the people. When a formal newsworthiness policy was announced in October 2016, in a blog post by Kaplan, the company did not discuss Trump’s role in shaping it.


Original Submission

posted by martyb on Sunday June 28 2020, @10:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the white-house:-no-shits-given dept.

Outrage mounts over report Russia offered bounties to Afghanistan militants for killing US soldiers

Outrage has greeted media reports that say American intelligence officials believe a Russian military intelligence unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing foreign soldiers in Afghanistan, including targeting Americans.

The story first appeared in the New York Times, citing its sources as unnamed officials briefed on the matter, and followed up by the Washington Post. The reports said that the US had come to the conclusion about the operation several months ago and offered rewards for successful attacks last year.

The Times wrote: "The intelligence finding was briefed to Trump, and the White House's National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March." White House officials apparently drew up several possible options to retaliate against the Kremlin, ranging from a diplomatic reprimand right through to fresh sanctions. However, the White House has so far not taken any action.

It is not clear if bounties were ever paid out for successfully killing American soldiers.


Original Submission

posted by Fnord666 on Friday June 26 2020, @04:44PM   Printer-friendly

White House ordered NIH to cancel coronavirus research funding, Fauci says:

The National Institutes of Health abruptly cut off funding to a long-standing, well-regarded research project on bat coronaviruses only after the White House specifically told it to do so, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Fauci made the revelation Tuesday at a Congressional hearing on the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is caused by a coronavirus that is genetically linked to those found in bats. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) asked Fauci why the NIH abruptly canceled funding for the project, which specifically worked to understand the risk of bat coronaviruses jumping to humans and causing devastating disease.

Fauci responded to Veasey saying: "It was cancelled because the NIH was told to cancel it."

"And why were they told to cancel it?" Veasey pressed.

"I don't know the reason, but we were told to cancel it," Fauci said.

After the hearing, Fauci clarified to Politico that it was the White House that told the NIH to cancel the funding. An unnamed White House official told Politico that the White House did encourage the funding cut, but ultimately it was the Department of Health and Human Services—of which the NIH is a part—that made the final decision. An HHS spokesperson said only that the funding was cut because "the grantee was not in compliance with NIH's grant policy."

In an emailed statement to Ars Wednesday, the NIH did not respond to questions about the cancellation, saying only that "NIH does not discuss internal deliberations on grant terminations."


Original Submission